Jump to content
Your compassion is admirable. Your understanding of basic economics and appreciation for the benefits of freedom are not so admirable. Most of the countries you mention in your comment, like the U.S. Federal government, are bankrupt. They are not yet insolvent for they temporarily retain the ability to borrow the interest, which they will continue to do right up to the point when the music stops. The music will stop. Spending more than you earn has its limitations. Your suggestion that the free market system is not working is correct. This is because the government inserted itself into the health care system many generations ago which by definition is the opposite of a free market. The problem isn’t the failure of the free market. The problem is the government control of health care. The ever metastasizing federal government has indebted we citizens, against our will, to the tune of $90 Trillion and growing, or more than $200 Trillion in contingent liabilities that can never be paid. How is it that a hopelessly corrupt and bloated government that is the cause of unaffordable and unavailable health care can be trusted to provide the solution to the problem?
Let’s also hope that the additional revenue from the higher lift pass cost for seniors is plowed back into capital improvements and not more stock buy backs.
“Almost all other civilized countries have one form or another of this kind of system.”
Your statement is correct. What is also correct is that almost all other civilized countries that have government controlled socialized health care systems are bankrupt.
“The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.”... Margaret Thatcher
With the exception of the government court historians no serious student of history claims that the North waged war on the South to free slaves. As a consequence of Lincoln’s illegal war the slaves were freed but he enslaved a nation.
There is the old saying; the mind is like a parachute. If it isn’t open it doesn’t work. If I supply you with a list of references validating the points in my comments will you read them?
Thank you. Researching real history, including the “Civil War”, or the War of Northern Aggression from the Southern view, has been of interest to me since coming to know a well informed drill sergeant from Alabama in 1969 while stationed at Fort Ord. A clarification, “Civil War” implies that separate factions were battling over who controls the government. There was nothing Civil about the illegal invasion by the North. This was an aggressive imperial war waged by the North against the South. The South was fighting a defensive war of independence. The Southern states were being invaded by Northern protectionists who were not the slightest bit concerned about the limitations they were bound to by the Constitution.
If I am to be quoted to your children one day, let me clean up and elaborate on my prior comment a bit. The import dependent South was paying an estimated 80% of the important tariffs prior to 1860. These taxes were the major source of revenue to fund the federal government. The passing of the Morill Tariff Act by the federal government just prior to Lincoln’s election more than doubled the tariff. In his first inaugural address Lincoln promised a military invasion if these taxes were not collected. South Carolina had been one of the strongest opponents to being fleeced by the Northern protectionists which is the primary reason SC was the fist to secede. The Southern agricultural states had been turned into tax slaves for the benefit of the Northern industrial interests that Lincoln owed his loyalty to.
There are multiply causes for Lincoln’s (and the Northern Industrial Interests he served) Imperial and very illegal war waged on the South. The victor writes history. What we were taught in the government’s schools is the PC version intended to portray the North’s (federal government) invasion of the South as a noble cause to preserve the union and to free the slaves. The part about freeing the slaves is a fantasy. The part about preserving the Union is accurate for the South was being plundered by the North which had captured control of Congress. The Southern States were paying 90% of the import Tariffs (protectionism for the North) which both funded most of the federal government with a substantial portion being redistributed as subsidies to the Northern Industrial Interests that put Lincoln in power. Lincoln’s only reason for wanting to preserve the Union was to ensure that the stream of taxes imposed on the South would not be interrupted. Some Southern politicians did support slavery and said that their society was based on white supremacy but so did Lincoln along with the majority of Northern politicians.
Our country was founded in secession. The founder’s put nothing in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution preventing a state from leaving the Union. States have (or had) this right. The Union was a voluntary arrangement. The Southern States seceded for a number of reasons with Lincoln’s promise of doubling the Tariffs on the South if elected being the primary cause. The South was being bankrupted by the federal government and they thought they had no choice but to secede, which they tried to do peacefully.
Lincoln waged total war on the South including civilians. He is responsible for the slaughter of more than 750,000 Americans by latest estimates, 50,000 of which were women and slaves. The Confederacy was crushed, occupied by the North and further plundered for a decade. State’s Rights are an integral part of the founder’s vision of federalism and these were crushed, or regulated out of existence, along with individual freedom at the point of a bayonet when the Confederacy lost our second War of Independence.
Dan, you always have to follow the money.
Given the tone and misinformation in the author’s article I am certain the omission was not accidental. Yes, I may protest too much when chastising Mr. Zansberg’s failure to address Donald Trump as President. It was a distraction from the point of my original comment which was to expose the inaccuracy and/or hypocrisy of many of the author’s comments.
Granted, I almost choked on the words during conversation when accidentally referring to Obama preceded by the title President. However, Mr. Zansberg is presented as a guest editorialist in both the Pilot and the Grand Junction Sentinel. As such an author is assumed to have status that is apart from the author of a general letter to the editor or online commentator rant. It is obvious from Mr. Zansberg’s article that he is anything but an unbiased journalist. He is a political animal with an agenda. The establishment, which includes both political parties, most of the media and the massive bureaucracies that have metastasized over the decades, are doing everything possible to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency for he is trying to dismantle the corrupt system put in place the past 70 + years. Not referring to Donald Trump as President is a not so subtle tactic to diminish his legitimacy. Mr. Zansberg may despise the man but when writing a column he should demonstrate respect the office. Given the forum, it is bad form to do otherwise.
p.s. Out of all the people that ran for president Donald Trump was the worst possible choice, with the exception of all the rest.
Fake News? This article is fake news. It is a biased political hit job long on opinion and short on facts.
“…Trump’s press secretary excluded respected (sic) members of the mainstream press — The New York Times, CNN, Los Angeles Times, Politico, the Hill and Buzzfeed…” Respected?? These are members of the establishment media that did everything possible to promote Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. Some were caught colluding with the DNC and the Hillary campaign.
Let’s see what the CIA has to say about Mr. Zansberg’s “respected” media:
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -- William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy
For more on fake news the author should research the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird.
The author makes multiply references to “…our democracy, i.e., “In these men’s (the framers) blueprint for our democracy…”, “Responsible and democracy-loving public officials…” and “Such Goebbels-inspired tactics have no place in our democracy.” Mr. Zansberg, the founders never created a blueprint for our democracy for they despised this form of government. The founders established a blueprint for our Constitutional Republic. Didn’t your professors mention this while you were attending your Ivy League schools?
Mr. Zansberg barely made it half way through his essay before resorting to Godwin’s Law, which he does on multiple occasions, in an attempt to support his unsupportable claims.
By the way, it is not Trump. It is President Trump.
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |