I had a conversation the other day with a neighbor who claims to be “middle-of-the-road” but who gets all of his information from the liberal media. He watches tv news on the networks and CNN, subscribes to the NY Times and the New Yorker, and thinks that Bill Maher is perceptive and funny.
We were discussing Obamacare and he used that worn-out line: “Don’t you think that in the wealthiest country in the world, we should be able to provide healthcare for all of our citizens?” When I responded that Obamacare would not come close to accomplishing that noble sentiment, he replied with another lib talking point, that the jury is still out and in the future, Obamacare might actually be viewed, like social security, as a wonderful program.
Well, this potentially wondeeful program has been gutted and delayed dozens of times by its sponsor, in an effort to keep the reality of its intrusive, expensive stupidity from the minds of voters. The jury will be in come November.
Isn’t social security running out of money to provide retirement benefits to retirees? So does your neighbor mean that some day ACA will be viewed to be as unsustainable as social security has been viewed for last 30 or so years, or at least viewed this way since congress raided the fund to use elsewhere.
Richest country in the world? 17 trill budget deficit . .now spending more than we take in? 100 trill or more in unfunded liabilities . . .rich?. . that’s being “rich”?!! THAT IS RICH!
Heed the wise advice offered in Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Advice not to argue with an idiot is sound advice. Only take the decision to argue with an idiot after accepting that someone watching will not be able to tell whom the idiot is.
More wise advice: Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Was your liberal "friend" aware of this?
Liberals think social security is a wonderful program because their idea of a thought process is, “Imagine what would happen if social security checks stopped going out, it would be catastrophic.” They are incapable of understanding that the proper question is, “What would things be like if social security had never been enacted?” I am not going to answer the question but my point is that the two questions are entirely different and no doubt have vastly different answers. Liberals think the two questions are the same thing.