New Roman Empire
In the Dark Ages — 1950s — our civics teacher told us that the government does not have the money; the taxpayers do. So when the government says it will subsidize health care for some people, that means the fellow down the block paying for his own coverage pays for others, too. He might make only $50,000 a year, but he will subsidize someone who makes $94,000.
Another side of this problem is that when government mandates all nature of things to the private sector, businesses will fight back to survive. Fewer companies now offer full-time jobs. That might work when there are two wage earners in a family, but what about the single person who has a mortgage and is trying to stay afloat?
Some doctors apparently will decline to take ObamaCare patients. Even if only 1 percent of the doctors nationwide refuse, that will leave a lot of people without a primary care physician.
Our country has lots of problems, so why do we continue to try to save everyone else in the world? Some scholars have likened the United States to the Roman Empire — overspending and giving handouts to people instead of encouraging them to help themselves. We all know what happened to the Roman Empire.
We need to cut foreign aid and get out of the United Nations. Government is killing the private sector with high taxes and all of the new mandates.
I also can't believe there is no outcry in Pittsburgh about the shake-up at Heinz. We're losing 350 jobs now. Just wait a few more years and the headquarters will be gone too.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Not man for job
- Corbett, not Wolf
- Working hard in fast food
- Justices behaving badly
- Boys, girls & toys
- Far-left continuation
- Not clean enough
- Failing to lead
- Lying time of year
- ‘Badges’ before Brooks