Is the Ideological Right cannibalistic?

Noticed a new story today that Rand Paul was running an advertisement on the internet criticizing Jeb Bush for running for the office of the Presidency.  Now, ignoring for the moment that Bush has NOT yet decided to run (although it IS likely), how do you feel about one member of the right side of the aisle attacking ( not disagreeing) with another from the same side?

 I don't like this stuff one little bit. Yeah...I am so conservative that I have come to consider myself an anarchist. But that is an ideological point of view, not a physical one...that is, I have no intention of going out an harming anyone or interfering with their lives.

Given that, people on the right side of the aisle have gotten into the bad habit of not being able to compromise with those on our side. We all want the same thing, I think: good fiscal responsible government kept as small as is possible. After that, we spin off into our little favorite niches. And that is fine, too. EXCEPT that we do it publicly. It is like immature brothers fighting in the front yard...out there for everyone to see and it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of Independents and even some of those in our own ideological family. Are we so stupid as to think that one side can totally annihilate the other? Or should? We should by now realize that we need to stop acting stupidly,,,at least in public. I am a member of a local Tea Party. But that doesn't mean that I automatically brand anyone who is fiscally conservative but less so on the social issues as an enemy. I NEED THE BUDGET BALANCED. I NEED THE DEFICIT TO START TO COME DOWN. If that is being worked on, no matter at what speed, I can live with that. I CANNOT live with another Progressive, Socialist, Liberal Democrat in the White House. The whole idological right needs to be made to take a time-out, made to sit in the corner and get their collective heads on straight...or you are going to find yourselves living in a European Socialist type country with absolutely no opportunity to change it. Wake up....Please!

When did "citizens" get downgraded to second class status?

Way more than a half century ago I studied the Constitution.  It didn't excite me, failing as so many of my homework assignments were want to do, and while I now appreciate the assignment, as it helps me find particular sections more quickly.  When in school, the Constitution seems quite simple and quite clear: three branches of government, each with their separate responsibilities, and a check and balances element to keep the government from becoming the threat to individual liberty that Thomas Jefferson so deeply feared.

And the purpose of the Federal Government was to defend the Citizens and the borders of the United States of America, providing for the common defense and common good.

I spent some time looking through my dog-eared copy of the Constitution the other night, looking for the Amendment that vacated that last purpose.  I couldn't find it.  That still puzzles me, because it surely must have been repealed, or somehow eliminated.  Why?  Well, because the Federal Government is now taking steps to protect non-citizens as a priority over protecting citizens.  Apparently my citizenship now grants me second class status.  I think this is wrong.  I never heard any discussion about a change.  I was never consulted...or given an opportunity to vote on such a change.  So...why is it so.

Do I hear some of you saying "You are wrong; there has been no such change, ... what are you talking about!"?  Well...Consider the following factual points:

First: our borders are "protected" inadequately and those assigned to protect the border actually help and provide aid to people "sneaking" across and into our country;

Second: our federal administrative courts and tribunals release in the general public most of those apprehended with no certainty or, apparently, expectation that they will appear at their next scheduled court appearance and with no way of knowing where they might start looking for these people who are in our country illegally;

Third: while our economy is barely holding steady and we have millions of citizens who cannot find work in their fields or with the sufficient hours that would enable them to support their families, the Federal Government now is going to allow  a minimum of 5 million people who have come into the country illegally to get Social Security accounts and work permits so that they can compete head to head with the law-abiding citizens of this country.  Our President actually is defying Congress in this step to provide greater difficulty for citizens to find work and jobs that they so badly need;

Fourth: the federal government, when presented with State activity to protect their borders, their businesses, their roads, their homes from people present in their states illegally, prohibits and takes to court those states and prevents those states from protecting its citizens.

Fifth: the federal government provides aid...paid for by money paid in taxes by the citizens of this country...to those here without legal permission.

Now, maybe I just don't understand the situation.  However, absent a Constitutional Amendment that makes citizenship a second class existence, I am waiting for anyone in what is presumably MY (and every other citizen's) government to explain why I have been told to stand still while the welfare of non-citizens has been made a priority over my, and my family's, welfare.

Exactly when, and WHY,  did the cart get put in front of the horse?

Fewer Americans WANT to work...at all

Speaking at a little-noted event at the University of  Southern California's Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Mr. Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O. (Congressional Budget Office), a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that produces some of the most objective, "fair", and non-politicized date that we receive from our government, stated that, in some cases, Americans will choose not to work, because their needs for healthcare will be provided by the enhanced Medicaid Funding that is provided for in the Obamacare Law.  This  assessment of Obamacare by Mr. Elmendorf coincides with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's remarks last May, when she insisted that Obamacare would allow "artists" to "quit their day job" and pursue their art, free from the constraints of having to  provide for one's self, because the government would now take care of artists' healthcare benefits.

Is this a problem?  Long-term, it will be disastrous.  Humanity takes the path of least resistance and makes decisions based on the pain-pleasure principle: on the pain side, we make the decision that reduces pain; on the pleasure side, we make the decision that increases our pleasure.  Of course this is complicated a bit by the fact that different people define those terms differently and that any one person on different days will define the terms a bit differently also, but...details...

It has been suggested that 15-30% of people will always do the "right" thing:  they will obey the laws as they exist, they will strive to work hard and be fair to others just because they have been raised to believe that "it is the right thing to do."  Likewise, it has been argued that there are 10-15% of the population that will do what they want to do without regard to laws, training or "rightness."  These are what we refer to as the criminal elements of our society that cannot be "rehabilitated" because punishment and reward outside their definition has no effect.

That leaves the vast majority (between 55% and 76%) of our population who's behavior IS responsive to our laws, our moral attitudes and our perception and response to the pain and pleasure in our lives.

What does this have to do with Obamacare?

This is one more unearned reward for people.  It is another entitlement.  It is one less reason for contributing to society.  And, for those who work hard to get ahead and achieve peace of mind, it is one more thing that unfairly is given to others who haven't worked for it.

No matter what your point of view may be with regard to the economics of Obamacare, the only way the costs can be made even remotely reasonable to each of us is if the greatest number work to contribute toward the costs.  If that number falls, the burden on those of us working becomes greater and greater, decreasing the benefit to us while giving a free benefit to others.

Human nature operating on that vast middle of our population is going to decrease the contributors to the costs.  At first the decrease will be quite small.  But, as the realization sets in that there is increased pain from having to pay for others and no decrease in coverage (pleasure) from NOT contributing, there will develop a tsunami of those no longer bothering to work and pay for this benefit, leading to a total collapse of the system.

This has always been the weakness of Socialist programs:  the inherent self-interest to work and earn is destroyed by providing benefits as entitlements.  This is a disincentive to produce, which means less worth is produced and removes the fund from which Progressive-Liberal-Socialists expect to redistribute in accordance with their elite points-of-view.

This legislation expects to avoid this disaster by passing a law mandating contribution to Healthcare costs.  But there are two problems, one legal and the other human nature.  Legally, the Supreme Court of the United States could well find that mandating that a citizen buy something for no other reason that being alive is unconstitutional.  On the human nature side,  the government cannot make you pay something if you earn nothing...if more and more people figure that welfare is sufficient when it also includes coverage for illness and accidents and decide not to work but to live off the government dole, it will ultimately bring down the government.  Either it will collapse monetarily, or be removed through another revolution.  Either way...it will fail.

What is amazing is that the smartest people in the world (Congress and the President) cannot see and/or understand this.