In one of the more bizarre turns for a very bizarre man, Newt is now claiming that his affairs happened because he was more focussed on the country than his personal life. As someone at TPM noted, perhaps this was what Samuel Johnson was thinking when he said that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
-----
Couple other thoughts while driving home. One, I heard that Illinois has banned the death penalty. That is always nice to see, especially when there are so many documented issues with its implementation.
Second, as everyone probably knows, Representative King from New York is holding hearings on how dangerous Muslims are in our midst. I heard an interesting interview with an analyst who said that there were issues with radicals recruiting our youth, and those should be addressed. Just, I would add, as we should be concerned about white supremacists or other violent felons trying to recruit young people.
But his interesting comment was to note that Al Qaeda wants, as a part of their broader goal, for Americans to see all Muslims as terrorists. That helps them recruit, and ultimately gets Americans to make bad decisions about Muslims instead of reaching out to moderates.
Isn't that a kick in the pants? Conservatives doing the work of Al Qaeda by inflating their importance and building divides between non-Muslims and the Muslim community. Nice work there, GOP.
March 9, 2011
March 7, 2011
Americans and taxation
Having a conversation with a friend who believes that he is already paying too much in taxes. It started me thinking about the amount of money we pay in taxes v. the services that we get. As I keep arguing, conservatives seem to think that government spending only goes to undeserving people.
Help me out on the math here, as everyone knows that is not my strong suit. And for the purposes of this conversation, I am only talking about dividing the cost of these services evenly among the tax payers. I am not accounting for income differences, or even the different progressive tax brackets that ask Glenn Beck to pay a slightly higher tax rate on part of his income.
I won't mention the number he gave me as his federal tax rate, but it is pretty low. But let's recognize that he has defended both wars, and when talking about the federal budget talks mostly about those programs that help the poor.
So, if we look at the federal budget, there are ~300 million Americans, but, of course, once we remove the shiftless children and those who don't pay tax for other reason, we have substantially fewer to divide by. According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 130 million taxpayers in America, but that larger number needs to be acknowledged, since most of these programs indirectly help (at least theoretically) all of those 300 million.
So, for example, if we divide the 2010 budget for military, including both wars, (around 664 billion dollars), that comes out to nearly 4,800 dollars per person. And that is just military spending. If we factor in the cost of Veterans Affairs, that is another $376. Funding the Department of the Interior, which among other things, manages National Parks, costs each of us around 90 bucks a year.
So we are well over 5,000 dollars and have not even talked about federal funding for roads and highways, or even Homeland Security. We haven't mentioned block grants to states and local governments that allow upgrades to sewer and water treatment plants, nor assistance to improving city parks and schools. We haven't talked even about basic environmental or labor protections, nor protecting consumers from poisonous pharmaceuticals. We haven't touched college subsidies to students at state universities and community colleges (indirectly through assistance to the school and then through science grants that help the University), nor school loans nor Pell grants. We haven't talked about foreign aid, or even the cost of our State Department and diplomats and embassies and all the other stuff they do. Nor disaster relief, nor the cost of federal courts and judges, nor federal prisons.
That number doesn't account for Medicaid and Medicare, nor the service on the debt. (Medicare and Medicaid add up to about the same as Defense spending, so we are looking at another 4,800 there--if we paid for it, and if we paid for it all equally). It doesn't count NASA, the management of the US Treasury, Social Security, the Labor department or Commerce Department.
And we haven't even gotten to food stamps, Head Start, or WIC. And don't get me started on funding for the arts or Public Radio.
Are we over-taxed?
Help me out on the math here, as everyone knows that is not my strong suit. And for the purposes of this conversation, I am only talking about dividing the cost of these services evenly among the tax payers. I am not accounting for income differences, or even the different progressive tax brackets that ask Glenn Beck to pay a slightly higher tax rate on part of his income.
I won't mention the number he gave me as his federal tax rate, but it is pretty low. But let's recognize that he has defended both wars, and when talking about the federal budget talks mostly about those programs that help the poor.
So, if we look at the federal budget, there are ~300 million Americans, but, of course, once we remove the shiftless children and those who don't pay tax for other reason, we have substantially fewer to divide by. According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 130 million taxpayers in America, but that larger number needs to be acknowledged, since most of these programs indirectly help (at least theoretically) all of those 300 million.
So, for example, if we divide the 2010 budget for military, including both wars, (around 664 billion dollars), that comes out to nearly 4,800 dollars per person. And that is just military spending. If we factor in the cost of Veterans Affairs, that is another $376. Funding the Department of the Interior, which among other things, manages National Parks, costs each of us around 90 bucks a year.
So we are well over 5,000 dollars and have not even talked about federal funding for roads and highways, or even Homeland Security. We haven't mentioned block grants to states and local governments that allow upgrades to sewer and water treatment plants, nor assistance to improving city parks and schools. We haven't talked even about basic environmental or labor protections, nor protecting consumers from poisonous pharmaceuticals. We haven't touched college subsidies to students at state universities and community colleges (indirectly through assistance to the school and then through science grants that help the University), nor school loans nor Pell grants. We haven't talked about foreign aid, or even the cost of our State Department and diplomats and embassies and all the other stuff they do. Nor disaster relief, nor the cost of federal courts and judges, nor federal prisons.
That number doesn't account for Medicaid and Medicare, nor the service on the debt. (Medicare and Medicaid add up to about the same as Defense spending, so we are looking at another 4,800 there--if we paid for it, and if we paid for it all equally). It doesn't count NASA, the management of the US Treasury, Social Security, the Labor department or Commerce Department.
And we haven't even gotten to food stamps, Head Start, or WIC. And don't get me started on funding for the arts or Public Radio.
Are we over-taxed?
March 6, 2011
Live Music tonight--Audrey Auld
We went to see Audrey Auld at our local train station/performing arts studio. We have seen some really good shows there over the years. Slaid Cleaves, Mark Erelli, and Eliza Gilkyson have all given great shows. Tonights with Audrey ranks right up there for me.
We met Audrey last spring at another local venue, then got to see her at the Woody Guthrie Festival last summer. So I emailed her through Facebook and requested a few songs. Not only did she remember, but she gave me a little shout out when she introduced her great "Down in a Hole." It was a very nice and gracious moment. She then turned to her guitar player (who happens to be my buddy, and guitar mentor, Terry "Buffalo" Ware, and mentioned that I was one of his students.
He grinned and said, "he is one of my most troublesome students."
It was truly a great moment.
Anyway, enjoy Audrey (here playing with another great guitarist--Andrew Hardin). As I noted on my facebook wall, sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't. Tonight it worked.
We met Audrey last spring at another local venue, then got to see her at the Woody Guthrie Festival last summer. So I emailed her through Facebook and requested a few songs. Not only did she remember, but she gave me a little shout out when she introduced her great "Down in a Hole." It was a very nice and gracious moment. She then turned to her guitar player (who happens to be my buddy, and guitar mentor, Terry "Buffalo" Ware, and mentioned that I was one of his students.
He grinned and said, "he is one of my most troublesome students."
It was truly a great moment.
Anyway, enjoy Audrey (here playing with another great guitarist--Andrew Hardin). As I noted on my facebook wall, sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't. Tonight it worked.
This alone might explain conservative Christians and poverty
From this review of a book about the Bible, recognition that those who say it holds all the answers don't actually know it very well:
Add to that an ignorance about how tax money actually goes to help the poor in ways other than handouts, and you have a recipe for conservative polices that actually see the poor as responsible for their own poverty.
The book sounds interesting, however, beyond this particular issue. According to this review, it not only speaks to American ignorance about the text they claim to revere (same could be said about the Declaration and Constitution, btw), but it also speaks to something I have experienced first hand: struggling with being told that the Bible had all the answers when it often seemed confusing.
Anyway. Back to grading.
"he notes simultaneously that Americans are surprisingly ignorant of what is actually in it. “More than 80 percent of born-again or evangelical Christians believe that ‘God helps those who help themselves’ is a Bible verse,” he writes."
Add to that an ignorance about how tax money actually goes to help the poor in ways other than handouts, and you have a recipe for conservative polices that actually see the poor as responsible for their own poverty.
The book sounds interesting, however, beyond this particular issue. According to this review, it not only speaks to American ignorance about the text they claim to revere (same could be said about the Declaration and Constitution, btw), but it also speaks to something I have experienced first hand: struggling with being told that the Bible had all the answers when it often seemed confusing.
To Beal, the problem lies with the notion that the Bible is “a divine guidebook, a map for getting through the terra incognita of life.” For as soon as you open it and start reading, it becomes troublingly apparent that the Bible is no such thing. It does not offer answers to problems, especially not to twenty-first-century problems. Only in a few places does it even offer straightforward moral counsel. Depending on where you read in it, the Bible might give the impression that it is mainly composed of genealogies and agricultural regulations.All of this, according to the author, is an attempt to make the Bible do what it doesn't do well--speak with one clear voice. I have found that frustration when reading discussions about the Bible's take on everything from slavery to poverty and wealth.
The gulf between what readers expect to find in the Bible and what they are actually given produces a kind of paralysis, Beal explains. “For many Christians, this experience of feeling flummoxed by the Bible … [produces] not only frustration but also guilt for doubting the Bible’s integrity.” The Bible-publishing industry feeds on this anxiety, he argues, by endlessly repackaging the Biblical text in ever more watered-down and over-explained forms.
Anyway. Back to grading.
Obama homebrews, Republicans attack the needy
Ok. Those two threads are not related. But as a homebrewer, I found it quite fun that our President has purchased brewing equipment (out of his own pocket) and has his kitchen staff brewing beer. So, despite the snarky comments on the info sites, Obama isn't busy in the White House basement with a mash tun--though how cool would that be?
But back to the other thread, SOF and I did our normal Sunday coffee run and listening to NPR was like listening to a litany of attacks on the poor and working class. One of those interviews with Reps from both sides about the budget shortfall was very interesting. The Tea Party rep from NH voted to protect heating subsidies for his state, but was critical of all the other programs. The Democrat from California made a very good point--that Republicans had decided that cutting off Head Start funding was a way to respond to the financial downturn. As if those poor kids caused this mess.
Second was a discussion about seniority in teaching, and the normal practice of laying off the newly hired teachers first, regardless of their ability or the ability of the senior teachers. I get that discussion, and think there is merit to reforming how we deal with bad teachers, but was so frustrated that the basic underlying problem of laying off teachers was never really addressed. Why are we cutting taxes for the rich and laying off teachers? Will that provide anything approaching a long term solution? Of course not.
I keep saying that we should not "eat our seed corn" but clearly, Republicans have no understanding of that idea. Except, of course, they do. As businessmen, they would not stop investing in their company, or looking at ways to improve or expand--but for some reason as politicians they decide that making education worse will help us in the future.
This is class warfare, as we discussed yesterday, and the war is against the poor, elderly, and working class. The only thing that Republicans will not consider is raising taxes. But they will fire people (which will certainly help employment numbers, right?) and reduce the safety net for the poor. After all, the church will pick up the slack, right?
Wrong.
And speaking of that, there is this very troubling essay from 1995 about being a non-Christian in the Bible Belt. Turns out, this guy taught in Oklahoma, and he records how his family was treated by the local Baptist Christians when they found out he was an atheist. That treatment includes his kids being physically attacked by Baptist children--all because his father was an atheist.
Sigh.
But back to the other thread, SOF and I did our normal Sunday coffee run and listening to NPR was like listening to a litany of attacks on the poor and working class. One of those interviews with Reps from both sides about the budget shortfall was very interesting. The Tea Party rep from NH voted to protect heating subsidies for his state, but was critical of all the other programs. The Democrat from California made a very good point--that Republicans had decided that cutting off Head Start funding was a way to respond to the financial downturn. As if those poor kids caused this mess.
Second was a discussion about seniority in teaching, and the normal practice of laying off the newly hired teachers first, regardless of their ability or the ability of the senior teachers. I get that discussion, and think there is merit to reforming how we deal with bad teachers, but was so frustrated that the basic underlying problem of laying off teachers was never really addressed. Why are we cutting taxes for the rich and laying off teachers? Will that provide anything approaching a long term solution? Of course not.
I keep saying that we should not "eat our seed corn" but clearly, Republicans have no understanding of that idea. Except, of course, they do. As businessmen, they would not stop investing in their company, or looking at ways to improve or expand--but for some reason as politicians they decide that making education worse will help us in the future.
This is class warfare, as we discussed yesterday, and the war is against the poor, elderly, and working class. The only thing that Republicans will not consider is raising taxes. But they will fire people (which will certainly help employment numbers, right?) and reduce the safety net for the poor. After all, the church will pick up the slack, right?
Wrong.
And speaking of that, there is this very troubling essay from 1995 about being a non-Christian in the Bible Belt. Turns out, this guy taught in Oklahoma, and he records how his family was treated by the local Baptist Christians when they found out he was an atheist. That treatment includes his kids being physically attacked by Baptist children--all because his father was an atheist.
Sigh.
March 5, 2011
Jon Stewart brilliant yet again
Very well done. Connects some things I had not. The fact that conservatives defended people making over 250 K a year as not rich, and possibly even poor, but now accusing teachers making 50K of being lazy and greedy. Second, that when we attacked bonus money, conservatives claimed that contracts were contracts, and those bonuses had been promised for some time. Not, of course, like the benefits that the state of Wisconsin promised to their teachers and public workers. Those just came out of the blue.
And amazingly, that conservatives on Fox and other places, were appalled that some government entity might question the amount a CEO could make, but have no problem with Scott Walker deciding that teachers make too much.
But the final disconnect was the idea that we could not punish CEOs and demand they make less, because we needed to attract the best, and that was how you got the best. Teachers? Nope. They are already lazy--they get the summers off.
And amazingly, that conservatives on Fox and other places, were appalled that some government entity might question the amount a CEO could make, but have no problem with Scott Walker deciding that teachers make too much.
But the final disconnect was the idea that we could not punish CEOs and demand they make less, because we needed to attract the best, and that was how you got the best. Teachers? Nope. They are already lazy--they get the summers off.
What Would Jesus Cut?
Reading the news yesterday was like stepping through the looking glass into a place where the rich conservative males are the only ones that matter. Criminalizing miscarriages, for Christ's sake? And I don't mean that as a curse. I mean, literally, that those claiming to speak for Christ would push women to defend a miscarriage. Just about the most invasive government I can imagine, of course. But also one of the meanest and least Christian that I can possibly imagine.
SOF and I discussed this last night and she noted that this sounded like people who have lost perspective on their goals. They so love the unborn fetus that they have forgotten the context, and the people, and the pain, and the complicated nature of the world. Theirs is a world without compassion or even love. To see that, and then claim it as Christian is, frankly, horrific. Whatever Christ did, he did it with compassion and love. But I see none of that in his followers, and those who invoke his name the most.
And, of course, it isn't just their war on sexual women, but on everyone not in the wealthy class. Republicans are cutting budgets with a meat cleaver--refusing to consider tax increases to pay for necessary programs, and in fact, cutting taxes for the wealthy class. As I saw on FB this morning, Warren Buffett evidently said that there is, in fact, a class war going, but it is the "rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
Tax cuts for the rich, but spending cuts for the poor. In Arizona, two people awaiting an organ transplant died when Republicans cut funding. No worries for the rich, of course. They can swing the cost. In Wisconsin, Republicans are cutting medicaid for those needing kidney help. Again, the rich will be fine, but the poor will die. As Jesus, evidently, wanted it to be. Or not.
Our friend UBUB is there, fighting for some kind of sanity in the Badger state, and he noted this morning that the budget "tells the poor, those with disabilities, children, public workers, public libraries, anything with public in the name, ""too bad for you." I have meant to call my Republican congressman and ask why the only people not being asked to sacrifice are the ones who can easily do so?
If this is Christianity, then I am an NBA shooting guard.
SOF and I discussed this last night and she noted that this sounded like people who have lost perspective on their goals. They so love the unborn fetus that they have forgotten the context, and the people, and the pain, and the complicated nature of the world. Theirs is a world without compassion or even love. To see that, and then claim it as Christian is, frankly, horrific. Whatever Christ did, he did it with compassion and love. But I see none of that in his followers, and those who invoke his name the most.
And, of course, it isn't just their war on sexual women, but on everyone not in the wealthy class. Republicans are cutting budgets with a meat cleaver--refusing to consider tax increases to pay for necessary programs, and in fact, cutting taxes for the wealthy class. As I saw on FB this morning, Warren Buffett evidently said that there is, in fact, a class war going, but it is the "rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
Tax cuts for the rich, but spending cuts for the poor. In Arizona, two people awaiting an organ transplant died when Republicans cut funding. No worries for the rich, of course. They can swing the cost. In Wisconsin, Republicans are cutting medicaid for those needing kidney help. Again, the rich will be fine, but the poor will die. As Jesus, evidently, wanted it to be. Or not.
Our friend UBUB is there, fighting for some kind of sanity in the Badger state, and he noted this morning that the budget "tells the poor, those with disabilities, children, public workers, public libraries, anything with public in the name, ""too bad for you." I have meant to call my Republican congressman and ask why the only people not being asked to sacrifice are the ones who can easily do so?
If this is Christianity, then I am an NBA shooting guard.
March 4, 2011
Hmm...Perhaps Republicans really hate it when women have sex?
The Fix - Why is Mike Huckabee criticizing Natalie Portman? (Poll)
Huckabee, fresh off saying that the President was raised in Kenya (but meant to say Indonesia) and was so influenced by the Mau Mau Revolt that he hates America instinctively. That is why he wanted to be President. Don't think about it, or then you might see the lack of logic.
But now, he is taking aim at Natalie Portman who is (gasp) pregnant and wasn't married at the time of her (gasp) pregnancy. Oh Noes! Of course, as even the Huck has to acknowledge, Portman is marrying her fiance. But the damage occurred when Portman actually had sex outside marriage. Because that is unforgivable. And an easy sell to the religious right base who is easily distracted by women having sex or gays having sex, or people thinking about having sex (see a trend here?).
David Brooks said tonight that he didn't think Huckabee would run this time. I think he is hoping, because as a semi-thinking Republican, he recognizes that Huckabee is no better than Palin or Gingrich. None of them should be allowed to govern a PTA, much less a country.
Huckabee, fresh off saying that the President was raised in Kenya (but meant to say Indonesia) and was so influenced by the Mau Mau Revolt that he hates America instinctively. That is why he wanted to be President. Don't think about it, or then you might see the lack of logic.
But now, he is taking aim at Natalie Portman who is (gasp) pregnant and wasn't married at the time of her (gasp) pregnancy. Oh Noes! Of course, as even the Huck has to acknowledge, Portman is marrying her fiance. But the damage occurred when Portman actually had sex outside marriage. Because that is unforgivable. And an easy sell to the religious right base who is easily distracted by women having sex or gays having sex, or people thinking about having sex (see a trend here?).
David Brooks said tonight that he didn't think Huckabee would run this time. I think he is hoping, because as a semi-thinking Republican, he recognizes that Huckabee is no better than Palin or Gingrich. None of them should be allowed to govern a PTA, much less a country.
Hey, we have more Republicans who think women are idiots
Texas Abortion Bill That Would Require Sonogram Before Procedure Poised To Become Law.
Because women simply can't be trusted. Republicans understand this, intuitively, I guess.
Because women simply can't be trusted. Republicans understand this, intuitively, I guess.
March 3, 2011
My share of federal programs
I am looking for a good site that might tell me where my tax dollars go. How much does the military cost me each year? Medicaid? Etc.
Any ideas?
Any ideas?
Tea Partier says no immigration fine for hiring illegal "help"
This, evidently, is what Tea Party idiots mean by getting back to the constitution. In keeping with Mike Huckabee's racism, perhaps it is fitting. But please don't tell me that the Tea Party has thought anything out.
Their approach to the law appears to be to simply make it take care of their own biases. Religious freedom for people they like. Government programs when it helps them. And now, immigration "amnesty" when it suits white racist Texans who need someone to work in the house.
Their approach to the law appears to be to simply make it take care of their own biases. Religious freedom for people they like. Government programs when it helps them. And now, immigration "amnesty" when it suits white racist Texans who need someone to work in the house.
March 2, 2011
Being racist and stupid never hurts you in the GOP
Which is why Huckabee will be just fine with the base for suggesting that he genuinely thought that Obama grew up in Kenya. As this post notes, he just essentially endorsed Birtherism, which he had rejected earlier.
What an ass. And shame on the GOP for creating an environment where this kind of shit doesn't make you look like an idiot. Hell, being an idiot is a good thing in the current GOP.
Sheesh.
What an ass. And shame on the GOP for creating an environment where this kind of shit doesn't make you look like an idiot. Hell, being an idiot is a good thing in the current GOP.
Sheesh.
March 1, 2011
Do we need a middle class?
That seems to me to be the central question before us. I have to say that I always considered it an assumed good that we had a vibrant and wide middle class. That middle provided a stable base of consumers and people who could send their kids to college. That meant a pretty reliable supply of well-educated workers and an equally reliable supply of consumers. This middle could afford homes, cars, and vacations. It is, after all, the place that most people self-identify as their location on the scale.
But Republican policies seem purposefully intended to destroy that same middle class, and I am increasingly unsure that people care. Or perhaps, this is more of the self-identification issue. Is it just that they believe they are immune to these changes because they believe their effort is all that is needed? I suspect that is part of the situation.
My community college student continues to bother me. He is respectful and willing to listen--to a point. But what bothers me is the sense that he genuinely doesn't care about what happens to other people. That comes through with many of our trolls as well. Most disturbing are the Christians who seem to act the same way.
For them, I think, the issue is a truncated thought process, and one that I see in a lot of other areas. The death penalty is deemed moral if it is really executing a killer, and that ends the thought process. Racial or class biases are simply not considered. Reminds me of a colleague in grad school who refused to read past the last page in an essay's assigned length. If that meant he stopped reading before the conclusion or work's cited, then those things didn't exist in the paper and the grade would so reflect.
So, many Christians work their way through the torture issue and decide that if they are torturing KSM, then it is unfortunate, but necessary, and so the thought process stops before they can consider the innocents, or the lack of credible information from such a process. It just doesn't exist for them.
Back to our issue of social justice (which my student said he didn't support at all--sounds like and Ayn Rand reader to me) and taxation and responsibility, the Christian conservative poses to me that there is nothing in the Bible that mandates that government be responsible for the poor. So the thought process ends--well before the Biblical injunctions to tend to the poor, and the shocking amount of resources to actually do so. Or the process stops with dependency and the lazy, and never works through the logical conclusion.
I would suggest that these Christian conservatives would be completely overwhelmed if they found out how much Medicaid, and Social Security, and other Government agencies contribute to helping the poor, the disabled, the sick, the elderly, and those who combine all those groupings. I am tempted to call their bluff, and say, "if you are willing, as a church body, to make sure that no one dies in some alms-house, or that every disabled person will have the care they need, no matter how expensive and, as a church body, you will tend to those--even the ones who don't like your church, or who do drugs, or have abortions, or are gay--if you are willing to commit to that, then we can get rid of Medicaid right now. I am game. I suspect, however, that most don't realize all the things that Medicaid does for the poor, and for nursing homes, and other areas.
We can do the same thing with job training for the poor. You don't get to exclude someone based on race or creed, and you can't make them convert. But if you are willing to do that, and guarantee that you will do it for all of the poor, then let's talk about reducing our "entitlement" programs. You know, those programs that you say with a sneer are going broke.
So let's see it. Pony up, and we can go to Congress and cut our deficit tremendously.
But Republican policies seem purposefully intended to destroy that same middle class, and I am increasingly unsure that people care. Or perhaps, this is more of the self-identification issue. Is it just that they believe they are immune to these changes because they believe their effort is all that is needed? I suspect that is part of the situation.
My community college student continues to bother me. He is respectful and willing to listen--to a point. But what bothers me is the sense that he genuinely doesn't care about what happens to other people. That comes through with many of our trolls as well. Most disturbing are the Christians who seem to act the same way.
For them, I think, the issue is a truncated thought process, and one that I see in a lot of other areas. The death penalty is deemed moral if it is really executing a killer, and that ends the thought process. Racial or class biases are simply not considered. Reminds me of a colleague in grad school who refused to read past the last page in an essay's assigned length. If that meant he stopped reading before the conclusion or work's cited, then those things didn't exist in the paper and the grade would so reflect.
So, many Christians work their way through the torture issue and decide that if they are torturing KSM, then it is unfortunate, but necessary, and so the thought process stops before they can consider the innocents, or the lack of credible information from such a process. It just doesn't exist for them.
Back to our issue of social justice (which my student said he didn't support at all--sounds like and Ayn Rand reader to me) and taxation and responsibility, the Christian conservative poses to me that there is nothing in the Bible that mandates that government be responsible for the poor. So the thought process ends--well before the Biblical injunctions to tend to the poor, and the shocking amount of resources to actually do so. Or the process stops with dependency and the lazy, and never works through the logical conclusion.
I would suggest that these Christian conservatives would be completely overwhelmed if they found out how much Medicaid, and Social Security, and other Government agencies contribute to helping the poor, the disabled, the sick, the elderly, and those who combine all those groupings. I am tempted to call their bluff, and say, "if you are willing, as a church body, to make sure that no one dies in some alms-house, or that every disabled person will have the care they need, no matter how expensive and, as a church body, you will tend to those--even the ones who don't like your church, or who do drugs, or have abortions, or are gay--if you are willing to commit to that, then we can get rid of Medicaid right now. I am game. I suspect, however, that most don't realize all the things that Medicaid does for the poor, and for nursing homes, and other areas.
We can do the same thing with job training for the poor. You don't get to exclude someone based on race or creed, and you can't make them convert. But if you are willing to do that, and guarantee that you will do it for all of the poor, then let's talk about reducing our "entitlement" programs. You know, those programs that you say with a sneer are going broke.
So let's see it. Pony up, and we can go to Congress and cut our deficit tremendously.
February 27, 2011
Those evil unions
I posted this on twitter, but had to cut it down. Like the question posted yesterday concerning why a small tax increase on the rich is socialism, but asking the middle class to give up 14% of their pay or benefits is considered "doing your part," this:
This is an age old question, of course. The elite and powerful have always played workers against slaves, or against Indians, or against other workers. Bacon's Rebellion comes to mind, as does the white power structure's response to black populism in the 1880s. Here we have the extremely and obscenely wealthy (Koch brothers) dividing workers against each other. Non-union workers are being told that unions are cheating them and taking their jobs. Plus those union guys are costing you more. Private sector workers are told that government workers are all lazy and cheating us. Private workers are all hard working entrepreneurs instead of parasites on society.
Meanwhile, of course, while that misdirect goes on, the Koch brothers and other obscenely wealthy corporate owners avoid paying taxes, and work like hell to cut the wages of anyone they can--of workers, that is, not of the elite.
As I mused to SOF the other day, this is a declared war on the Middle class. But unlike other wars, in this one, the victim of the attack includes a huge section that is cheering the war on.
A unionized public employee, a Tea Partier and a CEO are at a table with
a dozen cookies in the middle; the CEO swiftly grabs 11 cookies while saying to the Tea Partier, "Watch that Union guy, he wants part of your cookie!"
This is an age old question, of course. The elite and powerful have always played workers against slaves, or against Indians, or against other workers. Bacon's Rebellion comes to mind, as does the white power structure's response to black populism in the 1880s. Here we have the extremely and obscenely wealthy (Koch brothers) dividing workers against each other. Non-union workers are being told that unions are cheating them and taking their jobs. Plus those union guys are costing you more. Private sector workers are told that government workers are all lazy and cheating us. Private workers are all hard working entrepreneurs instead of parasites on society.
Meanwhile, of course, while that misdirect goes on, the Koch brothers and other obscenely wealthy corporate owners avoid paying taxes, and work like hell to cut the wages of anyone they can--of workers, that is, not of the elite.
As I mused to SOF the other day, this is a declared war on the Middle class. But unlike other wars, in this one, the victim of the attack includes a huge section that is cheering the war on.
Sunday notes--Evolution and the idea that facts matter
Saw on Sully's blog this interview on teaching evolution in America with a nice explanation of why it matters, even to people who will not go on in science:
A good example, just this week, is how Gingrich responded to Obama's DOMA decision. Obama told his justice department not to fight the law in court--he didn't say they won't enforce the law. This has happened before. But when Gingrich talks about it, he frames it as Obama putting his own beliefs above the law and refusing to enforce the law.
Facts matter. And we live in an age of Fox where facts are fungible and malleable--and ultimately only useful in how they can be manipulated and used.
"They should not blindly accept scientific findings, whether they come from academia, government or industry. But neither should they believe that scientific debates are simply clashes of opinion and values. A healthy appreciation of the nature of science, the persuasiveness of replication, and respect for the necessary expertise is also essential. When teachers tell their students that they can have their own opinions about the validity of evolutionary biology, they are sending a dangerous message to our future citizens."Facts matter, and the most unfortunate part of this has been the sense that my conservative friends can choose to "believe" or "not believe" factual evidence. From one angle, it matters not whether they believe it or not, but from another angle, it has a huge ripple effect in our approach to difficult problems. And we see this all the time. Conservatives who simply will assert something about Obama or Reagan and will not actually look at the factual record.
A good example, just this week, is how Gingrich responded to Obama's DOMA decision. Obama told his justice department not to fight the law in court--he didn't say they won't enforce the law. This has happened before. But when Gingrich talks about it, he frames it as Obama putting his own beliefs above the law and refusing to enforce the law.
Facts matter. And we live in an age of Fox where facts are fungible and malleable--and ultimately only useful in how they can be manipulated and used.
February 26, 2011
Socialism v. "doing your part"
From someone on my twitter feed, this excellent question:
Why is a 3% tax increase on the richest considered "socialism" but a 14% pay cut on the middle class is "doing your part?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)