I would add to that list, Chris, from what I observe among the most fervent:
* One must believe that somehow, they are "exempt" from the results of the corruption of this administration.
It seems that the true Bush believers feel that because they have a "strong moral compass," they "will be rewarded" for their faith. And equally important to these fools is that "the domestic enemy" <gg> of those who find their blind faith preposterous, is that "they" (rather, we) SUFFER.
One without the other is not enough.
Some of the hardest core regressives here apparently think that their personal wealth -- or possibly the Horatio Alger fantasy of escaping the financial bonds of the middle class -- will buffer them from horrendous costs of all insurance, medical care and pharmaceuticals promised by the Bush administration right now; much less five to ten years from now.
Or thirty to forty years.
Medicare and Social Security are for "losers," you understand.
Whining "democraps."
Who want a free handout.
It's a very wierd disconnection from the reality of their own real lives, IMO.
How much wealth is enough? To keep people alive for 40 years, let's say, when the costs of living, including electricity and medical care are unlimited to infinity?
What will open heart surgery cost in 15 years? What will prescription drugs for high blood pressure or arthritis cost every month in 20 years?
I know seniors who are relatively healthy in their mid-70s who today are taking prescription drugs for high blood pressure or diabetes or cholesteral control for either prevention or maintenance of heart and other potentially more severe health problems that cost either Medicare or their former corporate employers who are still maintaining their pension plans $1500 per month.
Then there's the assault on the environment. Again, these regressives must imagine that they "live in the right areas." Where that will be in 20 years, I can't imagine. Certainly not metropolitan areas.
I think you get the picture.
lb |
