Conservatives and Empathy

[Bfgrn]

I see no need for rebuttal to any of bill5's argument except this one:

No, Empathy is the ability to imagine and sympathize with the plight of another.

Here I gently disagree. I may empathize with the person's temptation to steal or smack somebody, physically or verbally, without feeling the least bit of sympathy for the person who acts on their temptation. In fact, knowing that the other person and I shared a feeling, desire, hope, temptation etc., does not necessarily keep me from disliking or disapproving of that person in a particular situation.

Empathy is emotionally sharing a feeling, desire, situation without necessarily condoning it or even understanding it.

Sympathy is a form of understanding the condition or behavior of another, but still does not automatically translate into excuse for that person's response or conduct or provoke a response.

Neither empathy nor sympathy may be a valid reason to respond in a particular way, however, and both can be misplaced. Misguided response based on empathy or sympathy may be far less productive and/or more destructive than might a response based on hard, cold objectivity devoid of either empathy or sympathy.

Being one who cries at supermarket openings, and also one who describes herself as a Modern American Conservative, aka classical liberal, I categorically deny that conservatives are incapable or unlikely to have empathy. I do think conservatives are more likely to be able to distinguish between empathy and sympathy and the different reality of the situation which liberals are far less likely to be able to do do. But that could reflect my own ideological bias and perception more than being grounded in any verifiable fact.

You state:
"And it is NOT empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the left any more than it is lack of empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the right."

How can you say what drives liberals? You can only speak for you.

Every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats.

And conservatives have mostly been in opposition. Their concerns are for the opulent and elite. It is nothing new, but it is getting worse, much, MUCH worse. Barry Goldwater was extremely concerned about the far right direction conservatism was heading at the end of his life. He had numerous conversations with John Dean. It was the genesis of his book 'Conservatives Without Conscience'. Goldwater had planned to collaborate on this book before his death.

Synopses & Reviews
Publisher Comments:

John Dean takes a sobering look at how radical elements are destroying the Republican Party along with the very foundations of American democracy.

John Dean's last New York Times bestseller, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, offered the former White House insider's unique and telling perspective on George W. Bush's presidency. Once again, Dean employs his distinctive knowledge and understanding of Washington politics and process to examine the conservative movement's current inner circle of radical Republican leaders — from Capitol Hill to Pennsylvania Avenue to K Street and beyond. In Conservatives Without Conscience, Dean not only highlights specific right-wing-driven GOP policies but also probes the conservative mind-set, identifying recurring qualities such as the unbridled viciousness toward those daring to disagree with them, as well as the big business favoritism that costs taxpayers billions. Dean identifies specific examples of how court packing is seeking to form a judiciary that is activist by its very nature, how religious piety is producing politics run amok, and how concealed indifference to the founding principles of liberty and equality is pushing America further and further from its constitutional foundations.

By the end, Dean paints a vivid picture of what's happening at the top levels of the Republican Party, a noble political party corrupted by its current leaders who cloak their actions in moral superiority while packaging their programs as blatant propaganda. Dean, certainly no alarmist, finds disturbing signs that current right-wing authoritarian thinking, when conflated with the dominating personalities of the conservative leadership could take the United States toward its own version of fascism.


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

 

[Foxfyre]

I see no need for rebuttal to any of bill5's argument except this one:

No, Empathy is the ability to imagine and sympathize with the plight of another.

Here I gently disagree. I may empathize with the person's temptation to steal or smack somebody, physically or verbally, without feeling the least bit of sympathy for the person who acts on their temptation. In fact, knowing that the other person and I shared a feeling, desire, hope, temptation etc., does not necessarily keep me from disliking or disapproving of that person in a particular situation.

Empathy is emotionally sharing a feeling, desire, situation without necessarily condoning it or even understanding it.

Sympathy is a form of understanding the condition or behavior of another, but still does not automatically translate into excuse for that person's response or conduct or provoke a response.

Neither empathy nor sympathy may be a valid reason to respond in a particular way, however, and both can be misplaced. Misguided response based on empathy or sympathy may be far less productive and/or more destructive than might a response based on hard, cold objectivity devoid of either empathy or sympathy.

Being one who cries at supermarket openings, and also one who describes herself as a Modern American Conservative, aka classical liberal, I categorically deny that conservatives are incapable or unlikely to have empathy. I do think conservatives are more likely to be able to distinguish between empathy and sympathy and the different reality of the situation which liberals are far less likely to be able to do do. But that could reflect my own ideological bias and perception more than being grounded in any verifiable fact.

You state:
"And it is NOT empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the left any more than it is lack of empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the right."

How can you say what drives liberals? You can only speak for you.

Every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats.

And conservatives have mostly been in opposition. Their concerns are for the opulent and elite. It is nothing new, but it is getting worse, much, MUCH worse. Barry Goldwater was extremely concerned about the far right direction conservatism was heading at the end of his life. He had numerous conversations with John Dean. It was the genesis of his book 'Conservatives Without Conscience'. Goldwater had planned to collaborate on this book before his death.

In all due respect, if I cannot state my opinion about what drives liberals and conservatives, your appeal to authority via John Dean and Goldwater doesn't carry any weight either. So let's just deal with your two statements.

You haven't been participating in this, the redistribution of wealth thread, the separation of church and state thread, and other currently active threads on this subject have you. In those threads I and others have already refuted your opinion that 'every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats'. Right out of the box you demonstrate an ignorance of history and who has pushed what. I can 'sympathize' with the problem of being subjected to a liberal school system that poorly educates so many on these subjects; and I can 'empathize' with how much you want it to be true.

My opinion was not based on empathy or sympathy, however, but rather on decades of observing and working hands on in various programs intended to help the poor and middle class. I have observed up front and personal how so many of these have produced unintended negative moral, emotional, ethical, physical, and/or material consequences. No amount of empathy or sympathy can fix a system that is riddled with so many negatives.

But I would think those truly concerned with the poor and middle class would have more empathy and sympathy for the effect misguided or poorly thought out government programs have had on them.

You may take comfort in blaming the eeeeeeevul conservatives and eeeeeeevul Republicans. I prefer to try to teach reality apart from empathy or sympathy. Concern for the poor born of empathy and sympathy resulting in bad policy may make us feel righteous and/or noble that we cared, but it doesn't do diddly squat to fix any problems.

I think conservatives are likely to understand that truth much more than are liberals.

 

[Bern80]

I see that most of you right wing cranks are still confusing empathy with sympathy.

It really doesn't really surprise me that you cannot even imagine what the difference really is.

In fact that that's exactly my point about the blindness that I think many of our RW cranks have.

Talking about empathy to some of you is like trying to describe COLOR to a colorblind person.

Some people are harder to empathize with the others ed. Liberals happen to be one of those groups. It really is quite hard to wrap one's ahead around the irrational, illogical thought process of the avg. liberal.

 

[Bfgrn]

I see no need for rebuttal to any of bill5's argument except this one:



Here I gently disagree. I may empathize with the person's temptation to steal or smack somebody, physically or verbally, without feeling the least bit of sympathy for the person who acts on their temptation. In fact, knowing that the other person and I shared a feeling, desire, hope, temptation etc., does not necessarily keep me from disliking or disapproving of that person in a particular situation.

Empathy is emotionally sharing a feeling, desire, situation without necessarily condoning it or even understanding it.

Sympathy is a form of understanding the condition or behavior of another, but still does not automatically translate into excuse for that person's response or conduct or provoke a response.

Neither empathy nor sympathy may be a valid reason to respond in a particular way, however, and both can be misplaced. Misguided response based on empathy or sympathy may be far less productive and/or more destructive than might a response based on hard, cold objectivity devoid of either empathy or sympathy.

Being one who cries at supermarket openings, and also one who describes herself as a Modern American Conservative, aka classical liberal, I categorically deny that conservatives are incapable or unlikely to have empathy. I do think conservatives are more likely to be able to distinguish between empathy and sympathy and the different reality of the situation which liberals are far less likely to be able to do do. But that could reflect my own ideological bias and perception more than being grounded in any verifiable fact.

You state:
"And it is NOT empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the left any more than it is lack of empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the right."

How can you say what drives liberals? You can only speak for you.

Every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats.

And conservatives have mostly been in opposition. Their concerns are for the opulent and elite. It is nothing new, but it is getting worse, much, MUCH worse. Barry Goldwater was extremely concerned about the far right direction conservatism was heading at the end of his life. He had numerous conversations with John Dean. It was the genesis of his book 'Conservatives Without Conscience'. Goldwater had planned to collaborate on this book before his death.

In all due respect, if I cannot state my opinion about what drives liberals and conservatives, your appeal to authority via John Dean and Goldwater doesn't carry any weight either. So let's just deal with your two statements.

You haven't been participating in this, the redistribution of wealth thread, the separation of church and state thread, and other currently active threads on this subject have you. In those threads I and others have already refuted your opinion that 'every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats'. Right out of the box you demonstrate an ignorance of history and who has pushed what. I can 'sympathize' with the problem of being subjected to a liberal school system that poorly educates so many on these subjects; and I can 'empathize' with how much you want it to be true.

My opinion was not based on empathy or sympathy, however, but rather on decades of observing and working hands on in various programs intended to help the poor and middle class. I have observed up front and personal how so many of these have produced unintended negative moral, emotional, ethical, physical, and/or material consequences. No amount of empathy or sympathy can fix a system that is riddled with so many negatives.

But I would think those truly concerned with the poor and middle class would have more empathy and sympathy for the effect misguided or poorly thought out government programs have had on them.

You may take comfort in blaming the eeeeeeevul conservatives and eeeeeeevul Republicans. I prefer to try to teach reality apart from empathy or sympathy. Concern for the poor born of empathy and sympathy resulting in bad policy may make us feel righteous and/or noble that we cared, but it doesn't do diddly squat to fix any problems.

I think conservatives are likely to understand that truth much more than are liberals.

NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

 

[midcan5]

Modern American republicans and libertarians have fought every piece of legislation that helps working class and the working poor since FDR. Probably even before but my history knowledge of those times is sparse. Even our revolutionary war period had internal revolts between the haves and the have nots. Only from the thirties (till eighties?) did a sense of 'we are all in this together' work for most Americans. But even then, Blacks were discriminated upon and corporations worked hard to make fair wages and unions the bad guys. Any reading of history demonstrates this fact, that it is still argued just amazes me. Consider the republican fight against minimum wage as just one example.


"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

 

[Unkotare]

NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

democrats just love to repeat this disingenuous bullshit. It is bullshit because the only acceptable answer to a democrat is essentially democrat legislation. You jackasses are really jackasses.

 

[Bfgrn]

NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

democrats just love to repeat this disingenuous bullshit. It is bullshit because the only acceptable answer to a democrat is essentially democrat legislation. You jackasses are really jackasses.

PROVE it is disingenuous...NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

 

[Bfgrn]

Modern American republicans and libertarians have fought every piece of legislation that helps working class and the working poor since FDR. Probably even before but my history knowledge of those times is sparse. Even our revolutionary war period had internal revolts between the haves and the have nots. Only from the thirties (till eighties?) did a sense of 'we are all in this together' work for most Americans. But even then, Blacks were discriminated upon and corporations worked hard to make fair wages and unions the bad guys. Any reading of history demonstrates this fact, that it is still argued just amazes me.
Consider the republican fight against minimum wage as an excellent example.


"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not a vice to oppose legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a virtue to support legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a vice to appreciate that the best hope for all people, rich and poor alike, is within their own opportunities, choices, innovation, drive, ambition, and hopes and this happens mostly in the private sector free market.

It is not a virtue to promote government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems and thereby make people dependent upon government.

It is not a vice to see the purpose of government as to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

It is not a virtue to see people as incapable of solving their own problems and needing a 'king' to rule over them.

 

[editec]

The Republican USED to be a party whose primary interest was on behalf of this nation AS A WHOLE.


That is NOT to say that they haven't been the party of the rich my entire lifetime, but there was a time, kiddies, when EVEN THE RICH loved this nation and its people.

Those days are past.

Now neither party, it seems to me, works for anyone but BIG CAPITAL.

The dems play the good cop role (if you're working class, I mean) while the GOP plays the bad cops (unless you're of the manor born, then they're your good cops).

WE are, I think, a really on the cusp of the decline of the USA as a world power.

Naturally big cvapital is hightailing their money offshore so when the USA goes down, they won't.

Can't really blame those of the investment classes who see the handwriting on the wall and act in their own best interests, of course.

But to those who are actually responsible for this?

They should die.

 

[Big Fitz]

Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.

Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.

You guys keep posting this crap like a badge of courage or something. Speaking as someone who's actually given to charity..and worked for charity..making sure all our citizens share in the wealth of the nation should be a given.

There is absolutely no reason, none, nadda..that any American citizen should starve, be denied health care or live in squalor.

You need to try a real private sector job and learn what it's like to have to do both, make the money for charity to exist AND pay into it.

 

[Immanuel]

You state:
"And it is NOT empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the left any more than it is lack of empathy that drives most of the politics and actions of the right."

How can you say what drives liberals? You can only speak for you.

Every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats.

And conservatives have mostly been in opposition. Their concerns are for the opulent and elite. It is nothing new, but it is getting worse, much, MUCH worse. Barry Goldwater was extremely concerned about the far right direction conservatism was heading at the end of his life. He had numerous conversations with John Dean. It was the genesis of his book 'Conservatives Without Conscience'. Goldwater had planned to collaborate on this book before his death.

In all due respect, if I cannot state my opinion about what drives liberals and conservatives, your appeal to authority via John Dean and Goldwater doesn't carry any weight either. So let's just deal with your two statements.

You haven't been participating in this, the redistribution of wealth thread, the separation of church and state thread, and other currently active threads on this subject have you. In those threads I and others have already refuted your opinion that 'every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats'. Right out of the box you demonstrate an ignorance of history and who has pushed what. I can 'sympathize' with the problem of being subjected to a liberal school system that poorly educates so many on these subjects; and I can 'empathize' with how much you want it to be true.

My opinion was not based on empathy or sympathy, however, but rather on decades of observing and working hands on in various programs intended to help the poor and middle class. I have observed up front and personal how so many of these have produced unintended negative moral, emotional, ethical, physical, and/or material consequences. No amount of empathy or sympathy can fix a system that is riddled with so many negatives.

But I would think those truly concerned with the poor and middle class would have more empathy and sympathy for the effect misguided or poorly thought out government programs have had on them.

You may take comfort in blaming the eeeeeeevul conservatives and eeeeeeevul Republicans. I prefer to try to teach reality apart from empathy or sympathy. Concern for the poor born of empathy and sympathy resulting in bad policy may make us feel righteous and/or noble that we cared, but it doesn't do diddly squat to fix any problems.

I think conservatives are likely to understand that truth much more than are liberals.

NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

Fighting against poor legislation is as helpful to the poor and middle class as authoring legislation if not more important.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

It is not a vice to oppose legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a virtue to support legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a vice to appreciate that the best hope for all people, rich and poor alike, is within their own opportunities, choices, innovation, drive, ambition, and hopes and this happens mostly in the private sector free market.

It is not a virtue to promote government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems and thereby make people dependent upon government.

It is not a vice to see the purpose of government as to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

It is not a virtue to see people as incapable of solving their own problems and needing a 'king' to rule over them.

WHY is the right wing argument always a polarized one and radical one? Tell me Foxfyre, can a person promote and support government programs that REALLY help fellow Americans, and at the same time NOT believe government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems, or needing a 'king' to rule over them?

You couldn't come up with ONE piece of legislation authored by Republicans that helped poor or middle class Americans. And now you want to pontificate about 'unintended consequences'

What programs, and what 'unintended consequences'? Be specific and provide proof.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Bfgrn]

In all due respect, if I cannot state my opinion about what drives liberals and conservatives, your appeal to authority via John Dean and Goldwater doesn't carry any weight either. So let's just deal with your two statements.

You haven't been participating in this, the redistribution of wealth thread, the separation of church and state thread, and other currently active threads on this subject have you. In those threads I and others have already refuted your opinion that 'every meaningful piece of legislation crafted in this nation that has benefited the poor and middle class has been authored by and passed by liberals and Democrats'. Right out of the box you demonstrate an ignorance of history and who has pushed what. I can 'sympathize' with the problem of being subjected to a liberal school system that poorly educates so many on these subjects; and I can 'empathize' with how much you want it to be true.

My opinion was not based on empathy or sympathy, however, but rather on decades of observing and working hands on in various programs intended to help the poor and middle class. I have observed up front and personal how so many of these have produced unintended negative moral, emotional, ethical, physical, and/or material consequences. No amount of empathy or sympathy can fix a system that is riddled with so many negatives.

But I would think those truly concerned with the poor and middle class would have more empathy and sympathy for the effect misguided or poorly thought out government programs have had on them.

You may take comfort in blaming the eeeeeeevul conservatives and eeeeeeevul Republicans. I prefer to try to teach reality apart from empathy or sympathy. Concern for the poor born of empathy and sympathy resulting in bad policy may make us feel righteous and/or noble that we cared, but it doesn't do diddly squat to fix any problems.

I think conservatives are likely to understand that truth much more than are liberals.

NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

Fighting against poor legislation is as helpful to the poor and middle class as authoring legislation if not more important.

Immie

What those people need is not help, they just need punishment. How else are they going to learn...right Immie??? You were so indignant when I posted the 'strict father' model of child rearing conservatives use. But just READ the replies in this thread from your conservative cohorts...it verifies my claims.

 

[Immanuel]

NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

Fighting against poor legislation is as helpful to the poor and middle class as authoring legislation if not more important.

Immie

What those people need is not help, they just need punishment. How else are they going to learn...right Immie??? You were so indignant when I posted the 'strict father' model of child rearing conservatives use. But just READ the replies in this thread from your conservative cohorts...it verifies my claims.

Good lord, I had forgotten about that! You do hold grudges. What was that two years ago? More?

I have not read this thread as I got into it way to late.

My comment was what it was. Fighting bad legislation can be as important as authoring good legislation.

I don't believe that the Republicans have any better idea with what to do than the Democrats do. There are some parts of ACA that I agree with and some that I think SUCK! One of those is that it is bad for business (unless your business is Health Insurance) and being unemployed, that is a major thought in my mind these days.

Quite frankly, I wish we didn't have "parties". I wish our politicians would sit down and work together to solve the problems facing this country. I think the parties are a detriment to that goal. There are definitely good people on both sides of the aisle whom could come up with some good ideas if the system did not corrupt them.

And in regards to your comment about the conservative replies to this thread, I hope you will excuse me from that request. I will take your word for it that many are partisan and inappropriate.

Immie

 

[Unkotare]

NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

democrats just love to repeat this disingenuous bullshit. It is bullshit because the only acceptable answer to a democrat is essentially democrat legislation. You jackasses are really jackasses.

PROVE it is disingenuous...NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

And....like a typical liberal, you didn't even read what I wrote.

 

[Greenbeard]

There are some parts of ACA that I agree with and some that I think SUCK! One of those is that it is bad for business (unless your business is Health Insurance) and being unemployed, that is a major thought in my mind these days.

The Commonwealth Fund released an issue brief just a few days ago that might be of interest to you.

 

[Immanuel]

There are some parts of ACA that I agree with and some that I think SUCK! One of those is that it is bad for business (unless your business is Health Insurance) and being unemployed, that is a major thought in my mind these days.

The Commonwealth Fund released an issue brief just a few days ago that might be of interest to you.

Thank you for the link.

This deals with the unemployed and health coverage. My concern is more getting re-employed and I believe that the ACA is inhibiting that along with other factors.

The issue that I have in this regard is what the ACA is doing to the unemployment figures. One reason employers aren't hiring is because they still don't know what the hell this bill means and how it is going to affect them in the future.

And what happens in 2014 if I am still unemployed? Our dear President and the morons in Congress of both parties are going to force me to either pay for my own insurance or become indebted to their "generosity" and beg for it. I am not exactly pleased with those options.

Immie

 

[boedicca]

I'd like the OP to explain the type of Empathy which consists of the Federal Government colluding with its Cronies to dupe people to take on mortgages which they cannot afford and student loans for nonmarketable degrees (which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy - how convenient) which they will spend the rest of their lives repaying.

 

[freedombecki]

NAME the legislation authored and passed by Republicans that have helped the poor and middle class.

The Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists.

The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln​ approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The 14th Amendment

Text of the 14th Amendment

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

The 15th Amendment

The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1870 during Reconstruction. Along with the 13th amendment and the 14th amendment, it is one of the three Reconstruction amendments.
Text of the 15th Amendment

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Admission of Wyoming to the Union gave Wyoming women the right to vote.
Date Admitted to the Union:

July 10, 1890 - Wyoming was the 44th state.


The 19th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on August 18, 1920. This amendment gave women the right to vote.

Text of the 19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957

Text is here.

After it was proposed to Congress by Republican President Eisenhower, Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond set the longest 1-man filibuster in history of 24 hours and 18 minutes. The bill passed the House with a vote of 270 to 97 and the Senate 60 to 15. President Eisenhower​ signed it on 9 September 1957. Senator John F Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

The Democrats in power have removed this online document from the national archives about Republican President Eisenhower's role in desegregating the Little Rock Schools in 1954. All you get is a blank page. They have also excised all information on Republican activities from Wikipedia due to their extremism which is thoroughly Disgusting:

Civil Rights: The Little Rock School Integration Crisis. On May 17, 1954 ... A Moderate Among Extremists: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the School Desegregation Crisis by James C ...
www.eisenhower.archives.gov/Research/Digital_Documents/​LittleRock/​littlerockdocuments.html


​

Reublican opponents have systematically removed all references to Republican accomplishments. They did more, I've been on this for several hours it seems, because headers leading into pages about Eisenhower omit Eisenhower's and Republicans entirely disappear when you get there on the first several pages of internet findings. The Democrats have excised Republican activities from the internet except where Republicans control the content. That is most evil in my humble opinion. They want to take credit for everything my party did, so they're doing it in extremely underhanded and diabolical, lying ways oft referred to as "errors of omission".

Sandy Berger was the first Democrat to get caught messing with the National Archives.. for those who are new to the net and don't know. He was convicted and fined $50,000 among other things.