RomneyObamaCare will be defeated in the Supreme Court. That's an easy one today.
George Zimmerman (who killed Trayvon Martin in Florida) will walk without any offical guilt.
Mitt Romney will be President of the USofA.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Abortion, RomneyObamaCare, The Church and War
"Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country."U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html
"Never before in our US History has the Federal Government forced citizens to directly purchase what violates our beliefs. At issue here as our President of the Conference stated it this past Friday, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for conscience and religious liberty,”Cardinal Daniel DiNardo
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=3d619541-9d05-4335-a3d9-460cf2a84bf9
"What the Church and the state need is not another war, but a shared language — a language for Catholics and non-Catholics alike; a universal reference point for rights and laws. What the Church in the United States needs to remember is nature."HH Ambrose, National Catholic Register
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/recipe-for-a-rights-war/
This is a tough one to dance around, but the Cardinal is overstating his case. When President Obama and Congress negotiated and passed the Health Care overhaul early in his Administration, the touchy decision about birth control (such as abortion) insurance coverage was dodged until now. Secretary Sebelius was left with the dirty job of announcing the only decision she could. The leadership of the American Catholic Church responded in the only way it could: with highly charged rhetoric.
Of course The Church must comply with the law. It is an institution subject to the laws of the State. Unless there is a radical change in the leadership of both branches of government brought about by a dramatic shift in popular sentiment in the Fall election, this rule will go into effect next year and The Church will comply.
Personally, I am committed to full freedom for women to receive all contraceptive procedures and services that medical science deems safe. My opinion is an unmovable product of experience, conscience and spirituality. No amount of argument or propaganda will sway me. I believe abortion should be available 'on demand' for little or no cost to anyone who is pregnant. I do not accept any restrictions at all. Restrictions on this freedom are a threat to the health and lives of women and men who find themselves facing a pregnancy. That's my view, and I'm sticking to it.
There is a need for some sort of "shared language" to take the edges off this rancorous debate. Words that dull the edges of discussion would be a great help. Given the fact that I just flatly expressed my view in what is probably an offensive way to some people, I don't think "shared language" is possible. I doubt Cardinal DiNardo does either. So maybe we can agree on something.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
God speaks about President Obama
Thursday, October 06, 2011
My new Socialism
Socialism philosophy was a byproduct of early industrialization. In the middle to late 19th century conditions for workers were horrible, capitalists grabbed power and killed people in the process. Marx, Engels and others had an understandably extreme reaction to this situation. They saw that the social system arising from the new technologies and class structure as unsustainable. To their eyes the new world of industrial capitalism was an unending, unbending trend in world history that could only be altered by revolution. They were right and they were wrong.
Industrial capitalism is still in place a century and a half later. The class structure is still exploiting workers and enriching the exploiters. But this is not a universal condition as it was in their time. Technological and social changes have slowly mitigated the horrible excesses of capitalism that these men reacted to. These changes have mostly killed the labor movement.
Now socialism primarily exists in the struggle between government and private power. We do not have a class structure as the fathers of socialism saw it. There are no loosely organized masses of unskilled and semi-skilled workers needing informed leaders to consolidate their common goals into a revolutionary movement against capitalist economic structures. Society is more complex than these critics saw it, and it always was. But there is a power struggle going on now. It is a jockeying between public and private interests, between selfishness and collectivism. This neatly fall into modern partisan lines of left and right leaning arguments.
Industrial capitalism is still in place a century and a half later. The class structure is still exploiting workers and enriching the exploiters. But this is not a universal condition as it was in their time. Technological and social changes have slowly mitigated the horrible excesses of capitalism that these men reacted to. These changes have mostly killed the labor movement.
Now socialism primarily exists in the struggle between government and private power. We do not have a class structure as the fathers of socialism saw it. There are no loosely organized masses of unskilled and semi-skilled workers needing informed leaders to consolidate their common goals into a revolutionary movement against capitalist economic structures. Society is more complex than these critics saw it, and it always was. But there is a power struggle going on now. It is a jockeying between public and private interests, between selfishness and collectivism. This neatly fall into modern partisan lines of left and right leaning arguments.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Class Warfare is not nice
A few days ago I ate a bunch of fiber rich foods too close to bed time. My wife was not happy with the results, but I was happy that she didn't resort to calling it ass warfare. I had no intention of taking the ground she occupied or killing her. Calling this situation a war could only lead to a hardening of positions. My determination to eat what I want and her rights to a peaceful night's sleep would both be compromised by raising the stakes in the discussion. Neither of us wants to lose a war. War implies national pride, life and death. We should really be discussing farts, which typically do not involve patriotism, life and death.
President Obama has again proposed raising taxes on rich people. In Republican circles, this amounts to class warfare. Can't they come up with a better sound bite than that? What would they call it if poor and working class people took up arms and killed rich people with swords and axes? If you have already defined class warfare as raising taxes on the rich, where can you go with your rhetoric?
I humbly suggest that Republicans tone down the rhetoric a bit. The Freedom Tax, Class Argument, BadDemGoodRepub and Shartonomics come to mind. Come on Conservatives you can come up with something better than Class Warfare. This is the party that coined "no new taxes", "government is the problem" and "tax and spend". I have faith in you knuckleheads.
President Obama has again proposed raising taxes on rich people. In Republican circles, this amounts to class warfare. Can't they come up with a better sound bite than that? What would they call it if poor and working class people took up arms and killed rich people with swords and axes? If you have already defined class warfare as raising taxes on the rich, where can you go with your rhetoric?
I humbly suggest that Republicans tone down the rhetoric a bit. The Freedom Tax, Class Argument, BadDemGoodRepub and Shartonomics come to mind. Come on Conservatives you can come up with something better than Class Warfare. This is the party that coined "no new taxes", "government is the problem" and "tax and spend". I have faith in you knuckleheads.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Economic malaise and blame to go around
The US economy is dead in the water. Today's bleak job's report cinches it. The entire thing will remain stalled until the election is over and the newly elected (or re-elected) federal office holders are in office. This will happen in early 2013. Even then, improvement is only possible if voters make a clear choice.
There is no psychological momentum for spending on anything. Consumers are afraid of losing their jobs, don't have jobs, are underemployed or otherwise watching their investments produce zero or negative earnings. They won't spend. Governments can't hire people because elected officials are too scared to spend. Companies are likewise afraid of hiring because earnings are so spotty.
The voting public of the USofA is almost entirely to blame for this condition. We elected Obama and put a conservative House in place to resist any liberal leanings he had when he was a Senator. We have put a paralyzed Federal government into place and now they are powerless to agree to any solutions to our problems.
President Obama will propose some very conservative job creation measures next week, including an extension of the gasoline tax to pay for road improvements and a continuation of the payroll tax 'holiday'. Republicans have already shot these ideas down. Nothing will get done and our economy will continue to sputter, our leaders blame each other and we citizens toss bullshit rhetorical devices at each other to cheer on our respective chosen team of politicians (party).
We suck, but at least we have football season coming.
There is no psychological momentum for spending on anything. Consumers are afraid of losing their jobs, don't have jobs, are underemployed or otherwise watching their investments produce zero or negative earnings. They won't spend. Governments can't hire people because elected officials are too scared to spend. Companies are likewise afraid of hiring because earnings are so spotty.
The voting public of the USofA is almost entirely to blame for this condition. We elected Obama and put a conservative House in place to resist any liberal leanings he had when he was a Senator. We have put a paralyzed Federal government into place and now they are powerless to agree to any solutions to our problems.
President Obama will propose some very conservative job creation measures next week, including an extension of the gasoline tax to pay for road improvements and a continuation of the payroll tax 'holiday'. Republicans have already shot these ideas down. Nothing will get done and our economy will continue to sputter, our leaders blame each other and we citizens toss bullshit rhetorical devices at each other to cheer on our respective chosen team of politicians (party).
We suck, but at least we have football season coming.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Debt Rage
From this morning's Boston Globe:
Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said he cannot support Boehner’s bill. "I simply cannot raise the debt ceiling if we are not going to fundamentally change the way we do business."
"It’s extremely disappointing that the House of Representatives was unable to work together in a bipartisan way to avoid default," Republican Senator Scott Brown said in a statement. "Frankly, this is pathetic. The American people deserve better. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above partisanship. The time to act is now."
The first quote is an attempt to make harming the global economy seem like a principled act. The second quote is an attempt to share blame with Democrats for the failure of the Republican controlled House to agree on anything. This is really pissing me off. Really.
As of this moment, no bill has been presented to the President for his signature. And yet Republicans will blame him for not signing a bill that he does not have. I think Obama deserves a great deal of blame. He is failing to do his job right now.
A few days ago, Speaker Boner compared the US Government to a household to make the point that cutbacks in spending are needed. Aside from the fact that the analogy is stupid because a government is nothing like a household, I would like to continue with it. Let's say a husband buys something on credit, something so big that it shifts the power structure of the household to the wife. The wife signs a pledge saying she won't pay the creditor a dime because she is against frivolous spending. The husband is not man enough to stand up to the self-righteous spendthrift. Where does that leave the creditor? I would say the creditor is pretty pissed at this principled couple.
The government of the United States of America is not a television sitcom couple. It is a financial entity of incomparable power and size. The government (and all Americans by extension) spent the money, we should pay our creditors. The time to argue about principles is when the money is being spent, not when the bills come due.
We should pay our creditors. We should pay them even if they are old folks, poor folks, illegal aliens, defense contractors, abortionists, oil companies, drug dealers, homosexuals, devil worshipers, the Chinese government, or Satan himself. It shouldn't matter what made us spend the money that we owe. It shouldn't matter who we owe the money to. Just cut the fucking checks and argue about spending in the next campaign cycle.
Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said he cannot support Boehner’s bill. "I simply cannot raise the debt ceiling if we are not going to fundamentally change the way we do business."
"It’s extremely disappointing that the House of Representatives was unable to work together in a bipartisan way to avoid default," Republican Senator Scott Brown said in a statement. "Frankly, this is pathetic. The American people deserve better. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise above partisanship. The time to act is now."
The first quote is an attempt to make harming the global economy seem like a principled act. The second quote is an attempt to share blame with Democrats for the failure of the Republican controlled House to agree on anything. This is really pissing me off. Really.
As of this moment, no bill has been presented to the President for his signature. And yet Republicans will blame him for not signing a bill that he does not have. I think Obama deserves a great deal of blame. He is failing to do his job right now.
A few days ago, Speaker Boner compared the US Government to a household to make the point that cutbacks in spending are needed. Aside from the fact that the analogy is stupid because a government is nothing like a household, I would like to continue with it. Let's say a husband buys something on credit, something so big that it shifts the power structure of the household to the wife. The wife signs a pledge saying she won't pay the creditor a dime because she is against frivolous spending. The husband is not man enough to stand up to the self-righteous spendthrift. Where does that leave the creditor? I would say the creditor is pretty pissed at this principled couple.
The government of the United States of America is not a television sitcom couple. It is a financial entity of incomparable power and size. The government (and all Americans by extension) spent the money, we should pay our creditors. The time to argue about principles is when the money is being spent, not when the bills come due.
We should pay our creditors. We should pay them even if they are old folks, poor folks, illegal aliens, defense contractors, abortionists, oil companies, drug dealers, homosexuals, devil worshipers, the Chinese government, or Satan himself. It shouldn't matter what made us spend the money that we owe. It shouldn't matter who we owe the money to. Just cut the fucking checks and argue about spending in the next campaign cycle.
Friday, June 03, 2011
How Conservative Will We Be?
The feeble US (and world) economy limps along flat lines. Jobs are still in short supply. Manufacturers are now laying the people off they hired in a moment optimism earlier this year. Home prices continue to slump as no one has the cash to buy.
America's political leadership is beating each over the head with talk of debt and default on Treasury Notes and Bonds. In short...we're fucked. The policy discussion holds absolutely no hope of job creation. The Republican idea that cutting spending and taxes will create jobs is fantasy. Obama and the Democrats are largely in agreement that federal spending must be cut, they are only fighting about how much and where government spending should be decreased.
Jobs are created because cash moves. Someone spends and someone gets hired. Government spending = cash circulation = jobs. The stimulus and bailouts of 2009 worked, that's why the economy didn't fall off the cliff into depression.
Conservative ideology holds that government is bad, therefore government spending is bad. The Democratic Party is conservative as are the majority of vocal, voting American citizens. Ergo, we are economically fucked.
The best American citizens can hope for is that Congress reaches an agreement with the White House to avoid default and we stay in our malaise for until early 2013 when a new government gets it's power. Worst case: The Tea Party wins the debate within the Republican Party and shuts the federal government down, defaults on US debt dragging the world economy into a depression. We can choose between conservative (and have a flat economy) or more conservative (and sinking into depression). Where is the left wing?
I can't answer my last rhetorical flash. The left wing has no power.
America's political leadership is beating each over the head with talk of debt and default on Treasury Notes and Bonds. In short...we're fucked. The policy discussion holds absolutely no hope of job creation. The Republican idea that cutting spending and taxes will create jobs is fantasy. Obama and the Democrats are largely in agreement that federal spending must be cut, they are only fighting about how much and where government spending should be decreased.
Jobs are created because cash moves. Someone spends and someone gets hired. Government spending = cash circulation = jobs. The stimulus and bailouts of 2009 worked, that's why the economy didn't fall off the cliff into depression.
Conservative ideology holds that government is bad, therefore government spending is bad. The Democratic Party is conservative as are the majority of vocal, voting American citizens. Ergo, we are economically fucked.
The best American citizens can hope for is that Congress reaches an agreement with the White House to avoid default and we stay in our malaise for until early 2013 when a new government gets it's power. Worst case: The Tea Party wins the debate within the Republican Party and shuts the federal government down, defaults on US debt dragging the world economy into a depression. We can choose between conservative (and have a flat economy) or more conservative (and sinking into depression). Where is the left wing?
I can't answer my last rhetorical flash. The left wing has no power.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Scott Brown vs Buck. Jobs ideas.
I'm lifting Scott's side of the argument from http://news.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20110201brown_outlines_proposalsto_grow_jobs_in_bay_state/srvc=home&position=recent
Scott: The Hire a Hero Act would extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to businesses that put veterans back to work. Small businesses with up to 100 employees would qualify.
Buck: Politically appealling idea with very small return for the overall jobs picture. We all like vets and small business. Vets are good. Small businesses are run by people we like. But unemployed vets do not account for many of the overall jobless problem and small businesses are small. The impact here on the economy is microscopic.
Scott: The Medical Device Tax Relief Act would repeal a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device makers that takes effect on product sales after Dec. 31, 2012.
Buck: Republicans like lower taxes. We all like people who need medical devices. They are nice. This has absolutely nothing to do with job creation.
Scott: The Tax Withholding Relief Act would repeal the 3 percent tax on any company with federal, state or local government contracts.
Buck: Again, Republicans don't like taxes but this has nothing to do with job creation.
Scott: The Innovate America Act co-sponsored with U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that would cut spending and red tape and help businesses use research and development for new products, boost education programs and promote U.S. exports in new markets to strengthen American economic leadership.
Buck: Promotes R&D, gives tax subsidies for businesses which is nice but it DOES NOT CREATE JOBS in any real, immediate way. This seems to be following the President's "Win The Future" (WTF) speech that does not create any jobs or remove anyone from the work force.
Scott: The Expediting Lifesaving Medicines Act would require the Food and Drug Administration to speed approvals of life-saving drugs.
Buck: Would promote earnings and job creation in the ailing pharmaceutical industry (wink wink). What The Fuck does this have to do with jobs?
Scott: A measure that would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Commerce Department to acknowledge that their catch-share regulations are strangling the Bay State fishing industry.
Buck: Fishermen are nice, hard working businessmen. Cuts some regulations, which Republicans don't like. That's nice too. This might put a hadful fishermen (who we like) back to work in the short-term but will have a negligible impact on overall unemployment.
Scott is preparing to run for re-election and he wants some cash from the Massachusetts pharmaceutical bio-research people. He's also making a few points with old folks and working people that he can carry around in his truck on the next campaign. This is not because "People all across the commonwealth have made it clear that the issue that weighs most on their minds is jobs.” This is because Scott wants another term and people want to feel like Scott is working for them personally, not for the unemployed person who needs a job.
Scott: The Hire a Hero Act would extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to businesses that put veterans back to work. Small businesses with up to 100 employees would qualify.
Buck: Politically appealling idea with very small return for the overall jobs picture. We all like vets and small business. Vets are good. Small businesses are run by people we like. But unemployed vets do not account for many of the overall jobless problem and small businesses are small. The impact here on the economy is microscopic.
Scott: The Medical Device Tax Relief Act would repeal a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device makers that takes effect on product sales after Dec. 31, 2012.
Buck: Republicans like lower taxes. We all like people who need medical devices. They are nice. This has absolutely nothing to do with job creation.
Scott: The Tax Withholding Relief Act would repeal the 3 percent tax on any company with federal, state or local government contracts.
Buck: Again, Republicans don't like taxes but this has nothing to do with job creation.
Scott: The Innovate America Act co-sponsored with U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that would cut spending and red tape and help businesses use research and development for new products, boost education programs and promote U.S. exports in new markets to strengthen American economic leadership.
Buck: Promotes R&D, gives tax subsidies for businesses which is nice but it DOES NOT CREATE JOBS in any real, immediate way. This seems to be following the President's "Win The Future" (WTF) speech that does not create any jobs or remove anyone from the work force.
Scott: The Expediting Lifesaving Medicines Act would require the Food and Drug Administration to speed approvals of life-saving drugs.
Buck: Would promote earnings and job creation in the ailing pharmaceutical industry (wink wink). What The Fuck does this have to do with jobs?
Scott: A measure that would require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Commerce Department to acknowledge that their catch-share regulations are strangling the Bay State fishing industry.
Buck: Fishermen are nice, hard working businessmen. Cuts some regulations, which Republicans don't like. That's nice too. This might put a hadful fishermen (who we like) back to work in the short-term but will have a negligible impact on overall unemployment.
Scott is preparing to run for re-election and he wants some cash from the Massachusetts pharmaceutical bio-research people. He's also making a few points with old folks and working people that he can carry around in his truck on the next campaign. This is not because "People all across the commonwealth have made it clear that the issue that weighs most on their minds is jobs.” This is because Scott wants another term and people want to feel like Scott is working for them personally, not for the unemployed person who needs a job.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Obama and jobs. not.
Our newly conservative President Obama has laid out his vision for "winning the future" and it is largely conservative, Reaganesque bullshit. His SoTU speech was the moderate version of Reagan's old flag waving garbage about how much better the US is than the rest of the nations of the world. We are not in a big tournament against other nations, though the voting public seems to think we are.
It is right that this Democratic President become more conservative in response to the huge conservative win in the fall election. He's dropped any ideas about creating jobs, helping the unemployed and is barely pushing higher taxes on rich people. That's a drag.
As an antedote, I offer some suggestions for getting the US economy chugging in the right direction again. Highlights from http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.1/galbraith below. I think these ideas are brilliant analytical suggestions that are politically impossible.
Create an "infrastructure bank" that would be called "big gubment" by Republicans. It would plan, fund and oversee upgrades to national systems that need a boost.
Neighborhood Preservation Corps - more "big gubment" federally funded bureacracy to demolish condemned buildings and projects to replace them.
Further federal support for other local services (police, schools, parks, libraries) that are suffering because of loss of tax revenue and laws against deficit spending at the local level.
Increased Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a temporary lowering of the retirement age to 62.
All perfectly sensible stuff to me, but I lost.
It is right that this Democratic President become more conservative in response to the huge conservative win in the fall election. He's dropped any ideas about creating jobs, helping the unemployed and is barely pushing higher taxes on rich people. That's a drag.
As an antedote, I offer some suggestions for getting the US economy chugging in the right direction again. Highlights from http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.1/galbraith below. I think these ideas are brilliant analytical suggestions that are politically impossible.
Create an "infrastructure bank" that would be called "big gubment" by Republicans. It would plan, fund and oversee upgrades to national systems that need a boost.
Neighborhood Preservation Corps - more "big gubment" federally funded bureacracy to demolish condemned buildings and projects to replace them.
Further federal support for other local services (police, schools, parks, libraries) that are suffering because of loss of tax revenue and laws against deficit spending at the local level.
Increased Social Security and Medicare benefits, and a temporary lowering of the retirement age to 62.
All perfectly sensible stuff to me, but I lost.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Tucson and small gubment
A crazy guy shot people at a political event after a powerful Republican Pac targeted the politician.
Republicans tell us that this is just what happens in a 'free' society, that nothing can stop it and that we should just string the shooter up and move on. All set. The shooter is solely responsible.
Government can't tighten gun laws.
Government can't expand mental health services.
Republicans certainly can't be asked to be a little bit careful about what they say and how they say it.
I believe all these positions are in the Reagan tradition of 'small gubment' and ultimately harmful to the USofA.
Next week the newly elected Republican House leadership will make a noise in a grandstanding effort to slam "Obamacare". They have no chance to repeal it because they don't have enough power, but they will take up Congressional time to make noise.
President Bush (the junior) signed mental health care parity into law, requiring insurance companies to provide mental health services to their customers. I cheer him for that because as Tuscon points up, mental health is not just a source of suffering for the afflicted it can kick any of us at any time. It is clear to me, even in "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" where we have universal care, that mental health services are difficult to come by even when you actively and aggressively seek them out. I wish that situation were different.
Now, if we can just hold on and let "Obamacare" or TeddyCare take effect we might see currently uninsured people have access to mental health care. Would this have stopped Loughner? Stupid rhetorical question, but it is clear to any thinking person (on the left and center) that this nut could have used some help even if it meant government intervention.
Republicans tell us that this is just what happens in a 'free' society, that nothing can stop it and that we should just string the shooter up and move on. All set. The shooter is solely responsible.
Government can't tighten gun laws.
Government can't expand mental health services.
Republicans certainly can't be asked to be a little bit careful about what they say and how they say it.
I believe all these positions are in the Reagan tradition of 'small gubment' and ultimately harmful to the USofA.
Next week the newly elected Republican House leadership will make a noise in a grandstanding effort to slam "Obamacare". They have no chance to repeal it because they don't have enough power, but they will take up Congressional time to make noise.
President Bush (the junior) signed mental health care parity into law, requiring insurance companies to provide mental health services to their customers. I cheer him for that because as Tuscon points up, mental health is not just a source of suffering for the afflicted it can kick any of us at any time. It is clear to me, even in "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" where we have universal care, that mental health services are difficult to come by even when you actively and aggressively seek them out. I wish that situation were different.
Now, if we can just hold on and let "Obamacare" or TeddyCare take effect we might see currently uninsured people have access to mental health care. Would this have stopped Loughner? Stupid rhetorical question, but it is clear to any thinking person (on the left and center) that this nut could have used some help even if it meant government intervention.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Sarah and Me
Sarah: "There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal."
Buck: Partly true. I do claim the first but only kinda. It is partially to blame. On the claim that this act was apolitical I claim bullshit. When a Congresswoman is shot in the head point blank range at a political event it seems only fair to think the act a bit political.
Sarah: "And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently."
Buck: Complete bullshit that she goes on to attack a fictional argument by an unseen "they"and claim some crazy stupidity based on her personal familiarity with the holy founding fathers. I would say that the debate is not more heated just recently, and that she ought to be responsible and tone her bombastic bullshit down.
Buck: Partly true. I do claim the first but only kinda. It is partially to blame. On the claim that this act was apolitical I claim bullshit. When a Congresswoman is shot in the head point blank range at a political event it seems only fair to think the act a bit political.
Sarah: "And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently."
Buck: Complete bullshit that she goes on to attack a fictional argument by an unseen "they"and claim some crazy stupidity based on her personal familiarity with the holy founding fathers. I would say that the debate is not more heated just recently, and that she ought to be responsible and tone her bombastic bullshit down.
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Moderate President
President Obama is already becoming more moderate. He has to, because the voters spoke and gave him a more conservative legislature. He's already cut a few deals with them and I expect this to continue. These compromises will mean poor policy, but not horrible policy.
The tax deal is a case in point. He gave the Repubs their tax break for rich people (including estates) in exchange for...hmmm....I'm drawing a blank. Oh yeah, in exchange for passing something.
Unfortunately, the country is conservative. Conservative sour grapes at the defeat of McCain/Palin and the victory of the Black Muslim Socialist will not abate as long as Americans keep watching Fox News and listening to knucklehead radio. Every move Obama makes will be wrong and there will be more exasperated cries of "I can't believe we elected this guy" at EVERYTHING he does or doesn't do. Our brief flirtation with wise and effective policies for the last two years is coming to a slow halt. More foolish tax breaks and attempts to de-fund health care reform should be on the short term docket for 2011.
Happy fucking New Year.
The tax deal is a case in point. He gave the Repubs their tax break for rich people (including estates) in exchange for...hmmm....I'm drawing a blank. Oh yeah, in exchange for passing something.
Unfortunately, the country is conservative. Conservative sour grapes at the defeat of McCain/Palin and the victory of the Black Muslim Socialist will not abate as long as Americans keep watching Fox News and listening to knucklehead radio. Every move Obama makes will be wrong and there will be more exasperated cries of "I can't believe we elected this guy" at EVERYTHING he does or doesn't do. Our brief flirtation with wise and effective policies for the last two years is coming to a slow halt. More foolish tax breaks and attempts to de-fund health care reform should be on the short term docket for 2011.
Happy fucking New Year.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Tax Day Philosophy
Last April 15 was the date that the new right was launched in the US. The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) movement, led by grass roots everymen Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck, gathered for the cameras and each other. I felt the earth shift under my feet (no, really) when the reactionary, Reagan worshiping, small-gubment philosophy reappeared as a populist movement. Their main arguments are that government is bad, taxes are bad and that nearly any federal domestic action by the elected and sponsored ruling party is anti-freedom, anti-constitutional, anti-American and communist.
For an educated, thinking person like me these views appear to be too crazy and shallow to even consider. It is now apparent that they have some very strong legs. It seems to be the main organized resistance to the moderately progressive policy ideas and actions of Obama and the Democratic leadership of the federal legislature. Therefore, it is worthy of consideration and response.
The simplest version of the argument I can muster is that Reagan was wrong. He had been spinning reactionary rhetoric all his long political life. In 1979, President Carter presided over a disastrous foreign policy. He took the heat for the high interest rates engineered by Paul Volcker to wring inflation out of the economy. Even worse for Carter, he took heat from within his own party in the form of Ted Kennedy's run for the nomination. Reagan capitalized on these weaknesses with some very simple rhetoric about the evils of government and the greatness of the American flag. That effective rhetoric is still with us at the core of the bullshit believed by the TEA people. It was cute then, but the shallowness of these ideas are now harmful to the country.
Government is not bad - It simply is. The 'government is bad' argument is very difficult to deal with because it is shallow, emotional and illogical. It is often supported by anecdotes about debt, inefficiencies and a distaste for bureaucracy. In other words, the argument that 'government is bad' is just fucking stupid. My simple counter argument, that it simply exists outside of any sort of moral judgment of it goodness, is not something your normal Reagan Republican can grasp.
Taxes are not bad - they are necessary. The main reason for taxes is to generate money to fund government activities. Taxes are not levied as penalties for bad behavior, they are calculations on transactions that can be tracked by accountants. An estate tax is not a tax on death, it is a tax on cash transactions between the holdings of deceased people and their heirs. Income taxes are not sanctions against hard work and good fortune, they are calculations on transactions. Money changes hands, it is tracked by accountants and a calculation is made of a social cut. The cut goes to fund government activities.
Once the cash goes into government coffers, it ceases to be the property of the individual. It becomes the property of the society as represented by elected officials. This is a disconnection the TEA people don't buy. They argue that government money is their money and should not be spent on things they (as individuals) don't want. Federal abortion funding is the latest cry in this category, but the anger over 'handouts' is the loudest and most persistent argument from the right. It is a bullshit argument. Once taxes are levied and individual monies move to societal coffers, the individual can only have power over it via their elected officials. If these individuals yell loud enough, or spend heavy enough, they can have some say in how government funds are spent.
The striking foolishness of the TEA position becomes crystal clear to me when every single person I have heard speak as a TEA enthusiast uses the word "we" when they are speaking out of their individual mouth or typing with their own pair of hands. How is it that one person can talk about "we the people" or "taking our country back from them"? It sounds crazy to speak for "the people" when I disagree with you so deeply. You don't speak for me, so you certainly can't speak for "the people". The entire movement shakes down to Reagan populist bullshit.
For an educated, thinking person like me these views appear to be too crazy and shallow to even consider. It is now apparent that they have some very strong legs. It seems to be the main organized resistance to the moderately progressive policy ideas and actions of Obama and the Democratic leadership of the federal legislature. Therefore, it is worthy of consideration and response.
The simplest version of the argument I can muster is that Reagan was wrong. He had been spinning reactionary rhetoric all his long political life. In 1979, President Carter presided over a disastrous foreign policy. He took the heat for the high interest rates engineered by Paul Volcker to wring inflation out of the economy. Even worse for Carter, he took heat from within his own party in the form of Ted Kennedy's run for the nomination. Reagan capitalized on these weaknesses with some very simple rhetoric about the evils of government and the greatness of the American flag. That effective rhetoric is still with us at the core of the bullshit believed by the TEA people. It was cute then, but the shallowness of these ideas are now harmful to the country.
Government is not bad - It simply is. The 'government is bad' argument is very difficult to deal with because it is shallow, emotional and illogical. It is often supported by anecdotes about debt, inefficiencies and a distaste for bureaucracy. In other words, the argument that 'government is bad' is just fucking stupid. My simple counter argument, that it simply exists outside of any sort of moral judgment of it goodness, is not something your normal Reagan Republican can grasp.
Taxes are not bad - they are necessary. The main reason for taxes is to generate money to fund government activities. Taxes are not levied as penalties for bad behavior, they are calculations on transactions that can be tracked by accountants. An estate tax is not a tax on death, it is a tax on cash transactions between the holdings of deceased people and their heirs. Income taxes are not sanctions against hard work and good fortune, they are calculations on transactions. Money changes hands, it is tracked by accountants and a calculation is made of a social cut. The cut goes to fund government activities.
Once the cash goes into government coffers, it ceases to be the property of the individual. It becomes the property of the society as represented by elected officials. This is a disconnection the TEA people don't buy. They argue that government money is their money and should not be spent on things they (as individuals) don't want. Federal abortion funding is the latest cry in this category, but the anger over 'handouts' is the loudest and most persistent argument from the right. It is a bullshit argument. Once taxes are levied and individual monies move to societal coffers, the individual can only have power over it via their elected officials. If these individuals yell loud enough, or spend heavy enough, they can have some say in how government funds are spent.
The striking foolishness of the TEA position becomes crystal clear to me when every single person I have heard speak as a TEA enthusiast uses the word "we" when they are speaking out of their individual mouth or typing with their own pair of hands. How is it that one person can talk about "we the people" or "taking our country back from them"? It sounds crazy to speak for "the people" when I disagree with you so deeply. You don't speak for me, so you certainly can't speak for "the people". The entire movement shakes down to Reagan populist bullshit.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Frank Rich - quote of the day
"The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health care reform passes
President Obama is rightly basking in the glory of the passage of health care reform. This is a big victory for the sensible, compassionate portion of the electorate known as "fascist communist socialists" to the Republican Party.
As a former liberal and current "communist" I think this is as good an overhaul as we could get. I would prefer that abortion be available on demand. I would prefer either government price controls on procedures or a single-payer socialized model, but that's just too radical for the vast majority of Americans. Still, this is a good plan. More people will be insured, the insurance companies will be subject to more rules of fair play which is all for the better.
It is a very moderate, sensible approach that Obama pounded in his campaign. A campaign that WON, despite Republican and Tea Bagger assertions that fighting for health care reform goes against the wishes of 'the people'. I don't know what 'the people' they are referring to, but it seems pretty fucking obvious that the majority that voted for Obama had every chance to understand that they were voting in favor of comprehensive health care reform just like the bill that passed the House last night.
I challenge anyone bitching about this to state a specific part of the bill/law that they dislike. "Big gubment" is not specific. Its about as general as you can get.
And one more gripe. I would prefer more energy put into reforming financial markets. The mid-term election is nearly upon us, and the bad guys will certainly win big. The banks and insurance companies that nearly fell apart just prior to the Obama's election have still not been re-regulated. Time is wasting.
As a former liberal and current "communist" I think this is as good an overhaul as we could get. I would prefer that abortion be available on demand. I would prefer either government price controls on procedures or a single-payer socialized model, but that's just too radical for the vast majority of Americans. Still, this is a good plan. More people will be insured, the insurance companies will be subject to more rules of fair play which is all for the better.
It is a very moderate, sensible approach that Obama pounded in his campaign. A campaign that WON, despite Republican and Tea Bagger assertions that fighting for health care reform goes against the wishes of 'the people'. I don't know what 'the people' they are referring to, but it seems pretty fucking obvious that the majority that voted for Obama had every chance to understand that they were voting in favor of comprehensive health care reform just like the bill that passed the House last night.
I challenge anyone bitching about this to state a specific part of the bill/law that they dislike. "Big gubment" is not specific. Its about as general as you can get.
And one more gripe. I would prefer more energy put into reforming financial markets. The mid-term election is nearly upon us, and the bad guys will certainly win big. The banks and insurance companies that nearly fell apart just prior to the Obama's election have still not been re-regulated. Time is wasting.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Disturbing
I had a little run-in with a true believer in the right wing fear and blame ideology today. It scared me, but not for the reasons the TB would want. Mr. TB warned me that interest rates are headed into middle double digits, that real estate values would plummet much further than they are now, led straight down the drain by Barney Frank, Tim Geithner and all liberals.
His theory goes something like this: Barney Frank and his liberal buddies forced banks to make bad loans to undesirables in the name of helping deadbeats. The deadbeats (being animals) naturally did not pay the loans back. This left lots of bad debt in the hands of the banks, which was then dumped on the government. The government (especially that tax cheat Geithner) is now borrowing more money than can ever be repaid to cover the bad loans and that international credit markets will soon refuse to buy US Treasury debt. As a matter of fact, Geithner is already having problems selling Treasury Notes so his house of cards will fall soon. This will send interest rates through the roof and further damage the credit markets, real estate prices and the flow of money.
I can't make this as scary as it appeared, when I was faced with the wide-eyed, self-assured terror in this man's eyes. He seemed very much like a rational, hard-working man. Still, it is scary to realize that many Americans are walking around with this kind of fear in their heads and their hearts. Scary to think what they might do with this fear.
I'm not afraid that his predictions could turn out to be right, because the logic and facts he believed are just wrong. Almost entirely wrong. A mass of angry, fear-ridden voters can do horrible things to their country and their own interests. That disturbs me.
His theory goes something like this: Barney Frank and his liberal buddies forced banks to make bad loans to undesirables in the name of helping deadbeats. The deadbeats (being animals) naturally did not pay the loans back. This left lots of bad debt in the hands of the banks, which was then dumped on the government. The government (especially that tax cheat Geithner) is now borrowing more money than can ever be repaid to cover the bad loans and that international credit markets will soon refuse to buy US Treasury debt. As a matter of fact, Geithner is already having problems selling Treasury Notes so his house of cards will fall soon. This will send interest rates through the roof and further damage the credit markets, real estate prices and the flow of money.
I can't make this as scary as it appeared, when I was faced with the wide-eyed, self-assured terror in this man's eyes. He seemed very much like a rational, hard-working man. Still, it is scary to realize that many Americans are walking around with this kind of fear in their heads and their hearts. Scary to think what they might do with this fear.
I'm not afraid that his predictions could turn out to be right, because the logic and facts he believed are just wrong. Almost entirely wrong. A mass of angry, fear-ridden voters can do horrible things to their country and their own interests. That disturbs me.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Light at the end of a tunnel of doom
I'm still reeling from Tuesday's Scott Brown win. Today I'm feeling better.
The Boston Globe has an article today where they go to the three main epicenters of Massachusetts liberalism: Amherst, Cambridge and Provincetown. It felt good to get a reminder of the strength of my State's liberalism. The recent election made me feel a bit ashamed to be here. Then I thought about it.
I put myself in the shoes of a suburban middle class voter. Which is not too difficult because that's what I am. Except I went a little further and meditated on things I have heard my fellow suburbanites say in the last week or so. Anger, frustration, fear and more fear. Mainly economic fear for their own futures. Martha Coakley (and President Obama) have been focused on health care reform. Massachusetts has already reformed, and has nearly universal insurance coverage. Scott Brown could have said nothing and just smiled pretty for the cameras and he would have gotten a lot of votes from Massachusetts suburbanites. As it was, he got more than a lot, he got a whole big lot of suburban votes. Health care reform for the rest of the United States is nice, but it ain't at the top of our priority list. It certainly isn't at the top of mine.
Scott Brown was greeted with great fanfare in Washington, yesterday. At the same time, President Obama was laying out his newly minted priorities in the face of the Republican victory in Massachusetts. He pounded his fist as he admonished the banking industry for contributing to the woes 'on main street'. He railed against the institutionalized corporate money in our political system that was approved by the Supreme Court. He also signaled that he would be willing to consider breaking the healthcare overhaul bill into smaller pieces.
Re-regulating banks and overriding the Supreme Court's decision to grant unlimited political spending to corporations and unions are two ideas that would have a tremendously positive effect on our American financial and political systems. These fantastic practical applications of law to help the working class are a difficult sell in the marketplace of American ideas that the voters hear. The Fox Party (aka Republicans) will stomp their feet, suck their thumbs, and in the deep voice of Limbaugh and the pleading whine of Beck will cry "SOCIALISM!" This will be their cry heading into the mid-term elections. It may win them a few seats or it may win them a lot of seats. I wouldn't place a bet either way.
But good can win here. My country could gain some needed financial and political protections in the very short run that would serve it in the long run. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when the senior Senator from my State hangs out with the new junior Senator. I hope the junior Senator can be manipulated...I mean negotiated with to do the right thing and support these reforms. Now is the time.
The Boston Globe has an article today where they go to the three main epicenters of Massachusetts liberalism: Amherst, Cambridge and Provincetown. It felt good to get a reminder of the strength of my State's liberalism. The recent election made me feel a bit ashamed to be here. Then I thought about it.
I put myself in the shoes of a suburban middle class voter. Which is not too difficult because that's what I am. Except I went a little further and meditated on things I have heard my fellow suburbanites say in the last week or so. Anger, frustration, fear and more fear. Mainly economic fear for their own futures. Martha Coakley (and President Obama) have been focused on health care reform. Massachusetts has already reformed, and has nearly universal insurance coverage. Scott Brown could have said nothing and just smiled pretty for the cameras and he would have gotten a lot of votes from Massachusetts suburbanites. As it was, he got more than a lot, he got a whole big lot of suburban votes. Health care reform for the rest of the United States is nice, but it ain't at the top of our priority list. It certainly isn't at the top of mine.
Scott Brown was greeted with great fanfare in Washington, yesterday. At the same time, President Obama was laying out his newly minted priorities in the face of the Republican victory in Massachusetts. He pounded his fist as he admonished the banking industry for contributing to the woes 'on main street'. He railed against the institutionalized corporate money in our political system that was approved by the Supreme Court. He also signaled that he would be willing to consider breaking the healthcare overhaul bill into smaller pieces.
Re-regulating banks and overriding the Supreme Court's decision to grant unlimited political spending to corporations and unions are two ideas that would have a tremendously positive effect on our American financial and political systems. These fantastic practical applications of law to help the working class are a difficult sell in the marketplace of American ideas that the voters hear. The Fox Party (aka Republicans) will stomp their feet, suck their thumbs, and in the deep voice of Limbaugh and the pleading whine of Beck will cry "SOCIALISM!" This will be their cry heading into the mid-term elections. It may win them a few seats or it may win them a lot of seats. I wouldn't place a bet either way.
But good can win here. My country could gain some needed financial and political protections in the very short run that would serve it in the long run. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when the senior Senator from my State hangs out with the new junior Senator. I hope the junior Senator can be manipulated...I mean negotiated with to do the right thing and support these reforms. Now is the time.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
How did this happen?
I'm writing this to kill some anxiety as the Brown vs. Coakley results are coming in. It looks like a loss for the good guys. How can this happen in a state with 3-1 Dem-Repub registration? Good question.
Here's my take. The Dem Party walked slowly into this very short race. There was virtually no turnout in the primary and a pretty high turnout in the general. This tells me that the uninformed, normally apathetic middle ground 'independent' voter decided this election. Coakley was the only name candidate in this race, which is how she won the primary and she coasted into the general election as the national Republican machine was pumping huge piles of cash into advertising in the state. Meanwhile, the Dems just coasted.
Brown is a pretty boy who's main campaigners were Mitt Romney, Bill Weld, Doug Flutie and Curt Schilling. He walked through the primary and was a great vessel for the Repub machine to sell, while the TEA Party PAC and their ilk pumped cash into the local advertising market.
The 'independent' voter, the ignorant middle (as I like to call them), buys the shit that is sold to them in advertising. The don't think, they don't remember the recent results of Republican power in the GW Bush era. They buy what is sold, and they bought the Brown candidacy with all the thought and consideration that they would spend in selecting a fatty sandwich for their drive-thru pleasure.
Thanks to the ignorant 'independent' voter and the cash pumped into the state from PACs, the Republicans have pulled off something miraculous. They snagged a Senate seat in the formerly great State of Massachusetts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
