Thank god the teaparty came to power...
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9297) 11 years ago
before an abomination like this: http://opinionator.blogs....-the-poor/ came to pass.

Imagine, higher income growth rates for poor people instead of God's chosen the rich? Kids going to school instead of working in the fields? Why that's as anti-family as it gets.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6170) 11 years ago
This would never work in Utah. Giving women additional economic power? Not in a million years.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15075) 11 years ago
I have never understood the preoccupation with making sure everyone is equally miserable.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1590) 11 years ago
Bridgier, you socialist procreate.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9297) 11 years ago
I don't think you read the article Richard.

And yes, I was being sarcastic. This is a great idea, that will never be attempted in "The Greatest Nation In The World", because poor people are morally deficient and tee-bone steaks and welfare queens and blah blah blah.

Much like my handy tool for determining if I'm talking to a rube, here is how I determine if someone would rather be a Christian(in the hearth & home idolatry sense, not any particular biblical one) or a FYIGM Republican: If you could end social ill X (where X is abortion, or drug abuse, or whatever) by raising taxes, would you?

Here we have an example where giving women money in exchange for them ensuring that their kids stay in school (among other things) has an actual measurable positive effect upon their families. So what do you think Richard? Is this an outcome that's intrinsically good? Or FTYGY?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15075) 11 years ago
In fact, I did read the article before I posted my previous comment. Yes, the outcome appears to be intrinsically good. But as with all things like this, is it sustainable over the long run? Will the next generation come to expect this as a way of life? My objection is basically the notion that government exists primarily to make life fair or control behavior. If we go down that road very far it seems like we will all end up equally miserable.

If such a program can be shown to create future generations that will inspire entrepreneurialism, independence and economic growth over the long run then perhaps it should be considered.

If you could end social ill X (where X is abortion, or drug abuse, or whatever) by raising taxes, would you?


Theoretically, yes I would. But has taxation to control behavior ever really worked? If you are successful in ending that "ill" how do you deal with the certain reduction in revenue. If such programs could happen without government becoming dependent on the income, it might work. Unfortunately, we live in reality, not in some idealistic utopia.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9297) 11 years ago
You ARE a full on, 15-point TULIP loving calvanist aren't you

I mean, in the long run, NOTHING is sustainable - but that doesn't mean the only alternative is living in the crab bucket.

Also, I'm not suggesting we TAX abortion/drug abuse/etc into oblivion, I'm suggesting we spend tax monies (from wherever) on improving the safety net such that the pernicious effects of the above are ameliorated.

Care to reconsider your answer?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (1/5/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3718) 11 years ago
I think putting conditions on welfare is a great idea. The question is, if the conditions are not met, do you let em starve?
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11885) 11 years ago
Ebenezer Scrooge said it best. Better to let them die and decrease the surplus population.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1590) 11 years ago
Bridgier, ameliorated- great word. I agree with you above statements.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15075) 11 years ago
You ARE a full on, 15-point TULIP loving calvanist aren't you


Shh.... I don't want that secret to get out. I happen to like Jello salad with marshmellows.


I mean, in the long run, NOTHING is sustainable - but that doesn't mean the only alternative is living in the crab bucket.

Also, I'm not suggesting we TAX abortion/drug abuse/etc into oblivion, I'm suggesting we spend tax monies (from wherever) on improving the safety net such that the pernicious effects of the above are ameliorated.

Care to reconsider your answer?


Let me rephrase the answer. I honestly don't believe that it is governments responsibility to make life fair. It should not be the governments role to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, etc. Rather, such efforts should be the privilege and responsibility of the religious community and each of us as individuals. We all know people in need. If each of us individually took to truly caring for those around us, government social programs would be unnecessary. Government social programs steal the opportunity for each of us to demonstrate love and compassion for our neighbor and build relationships with them.

I believe that the prevailing mindset in the US that we should earn piles of cash and save for our retirement is in great error. Andrew Carngie said it best, "the man who dies rich didn't give enough". Unfortunately, there are far too many of us that are focused on our own material selfishness and saving so we can go die in the southern sunshine (think AZ, FL, etc.), rather than on caring for our neighbor.

Unfortunately, we in the US are stuck in a system where we render far too much unto Caesar with the promise the he will care for the poor. That never truly happens. Instead, that money is used for cronyism with union thugs, military interventionism, and collation building to retain the power of one party or another. Those who are poor in our society are used as pawns every 2-4 years so one party or the other can stay in power. Our rulers purposefully do what they can to keep the poor dependent on them, and add as many as possible to that demographic through tax policy, rather than truly helping the poor to become self sufficient, so that they in turn can help others. The war on poverty in the US apparently has no exit strategy.

If we have to have government social programs, maybe Brazil has swerved into a better method. In my mind the jury is still out. Hopefully, that explains my thinking a little better.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1590) 11 years ago
"union thugs"-never met any of them. I think they died with black and white movies.

Let me rephrase the answer. I honestly don't believe that it is governments responsibility to make life fair. It should not be the governments role to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, etc. Rather, such efforts should be the privilege and responsibility of the religious community and each of us as individuals. We all know people in need. If each of us individually took to truly caring for those around us, government social programs would be unnecessary. Government social programs steal the opportunity for each of us to demonstrate love and compassion for our neighbor and build relationships with them.


I agree with you on the above statement except their are no old time Christians anymore. Today they are more interested in giant mega churches with television coverage and a web site and big screen TV's than feeding the homeless.

Andrew Carngie said it best, "the man who dies rich didn't give enough".


Have you read about Carnegie? He was a slave master who squeezed ever last drop out of his workers. He crushed strikes with swift violence killing many people. It was only after selling his empire and realizing that he needed to buy his way into heaven after killing his own workers that he proceeded to give his money away. To amass billions of dollars through monopolistic principles while crushing your workers and killing them- there is nothing Christian about that son of a bitch. And by the way he did die rich. He could not give his money away fast enough the interest rate was good and he was out earning his philanthropic spending.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bill Freese (+473) 11 years ago
If each of us individually took to truly caring for those around us, government social programs would be unnecessary.

Exactly! As soon as the folks with the money start taking care of those without, government will wither away. Looking forward to that.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
There is a simple alternative to relying on people with money giving it to those without, and that is paying the human capital in any company or corporation their true value instead of over-rewarding management with outrageously high salaries and investors with ridiculously over-valued dividends.

In other words, rewards should be equitably divided from the get go. Financial capital is no more critical to success than human capital; management would be nothing without a workforce. When the folks at the top take home a hundred times or more what the people at the bottom earn, something is wrong. Folks used to argue with me about that. I've noticed the volume of their protests toned down considerably after Enron, AIG, etc.

The Greeks had a wonderful concept called the Golden Mean, which basically referred to a balanced state. Combine that with the Golden Rule and we'd have a great economic system.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15075) 11 years ago
The Greeks had a wonderful concept called the Golden Mean, which basically referred to a balanced state. Combine that with the Golden Rule and we'd have a great economic system.


Around here we have a concept called the Golden Deviation.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1590) 11 years ago
Steve are you suggesting a national living wage?
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
Actually, I'm suggesting that people of all levels of society practice personal and SOCIAL responsibility. Government's role shouldn't be to dictate what that is, but it can and must be capable and ready to hold accountable those who don't practice it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
Geez, I just read my last post with the eyes of a witness to the senseless but predictable violence against a Tea Party "target" that occured earlier today in Arizona.

I wonder what kind of responsible actions the Tea Party leaders in general and Sarah Palin in particular will take to minimize the chance of something like this happening again?

My bet is: Nadadamting.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15075) 11 years ago
Steve: are you such a partisan hack that you immediately have to start in with assigning political demographics? I think you are painting with a roller where a small brush is more appropriate. Until the gun quits smoking and we have some facts, we ought to be focused more on the tragic and senseless loss of human life. I find your comments reckless. I am disappointed.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
MY comments are reckless? Mine??? Given the whole nature of this issue, Richard, I hope you see the incredible irony in that statement.

Frankly, I don't really care if you're disappointed in me, Richard. Not on this point I don't.

I'm sick of hearing violence-tinged terms like "lock n' load" (Buchanan) and "take him out" (Angle) used in political discussion. And I'm disgusted that the person who has used the most incendiary language over the past two years is considered a serious contender for the presidency. The time to worry about being polite and cautious on this issue is long past.

The tragedy today was a train wreck that a lot of people saw coming - Rep. Giffords included. But when Palin et al. were asked to tone down their rhetoric - they laughed. Well, nobody's laughing today, are they? No, instead Palin tepidly offers her "sincere condolences" on a Facebook page. Wow, talk about a disappointing political hack...

And if you think I'm going to be worried about being polite, then think again. If polite worked, Palin etc. would have assented to the earlier requests. But they didn't, mainly because those requests came from people like me (hated liberals) and not their supporters (e.g., Tea Party members). Well, the Tea Party leaders and their supporters had their chance and they blew it. That's why I'm disappointed in them, Richard.

And just how would you like me to focus on "the tragic and senseless loss of human life" in Tucson, Richard? There isn't a damn thing you or I can do to help the people who were killed and injured in today's shootings, is there. But there just might be something we can do to help change things in the future - and that is to join the effort to hold public figures accountable for what they SAY. THAT would be a tribute to the people whose blood was shed today. THAT would mean that their loss and suffering resulted in something good. That's what I'm trying to do, Richard. Why do you find that disappointing?

If you don't want to join in that effort, Richard, that's too bad. The more people who demand civility in public debate, the better chance it will have of succeeding. But if you are more concerned with protecting certain political leaders' feelings than you are with demanding some type of real change in the way they conduct themselves, then I'm beyond disappointed in you. Way beyond.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (1/8/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
http://keystoneprogress.b...fords.html

Sarah almost got one thing right on her map: It is definitely time to take a stand.

But that "stand" is against the rash and inflammatory rhetoric and symbols that Sarah and the Tea Party are so fond of using (gunsights, Hitler moustaches on the President Obama's photo, etc). It isn't against public servants who love this Nation every bit as much as Sarah and her followers - and who have a much betting understanding what it stands for.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (1/9/2011)]
Top
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+289) 11 years ago
Don't know Steve personally, but would like to give him a big kiss and hug right now. There is no way that could have been said better. But Bill Oreilly will certainly try to turn it into a right versus left issue, with the left losing all possible face. Ratings are ratings, no matter how you get them. Watch his show on Monday, and then tell me I am wrong. Also, if you can stomach it, watch Hannity and see the same damn thing portrayed to Americans as if it were actually news. One way or another, the left in this country caused this to happen. If more people were allowed to carry guns, someone would have been willing and able to cut this bastard down, like any good gun carrying republican would have. Effing eh. Still early morning Sunday, and I have the Monday headlines for you already. Go figure.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
Geewhillickers --- For once, I'm speechless.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2734) 11 years ago
Another crock of fecal matter...

http://www.huffingtonpost...06375.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago
If you could end social ill X (where X is abortion, or drug abuse, or whatever) by raising taxes, would you?



You forgot 'or Lack of Unicorns' on your list, Bridgier.

If your question were grounded in reality, I think the vast majority of people would answer "Of Course!"

But there will always be an infinite supply of social ill laying around to justify raising taxes. At some point you've got to offer some pudding as proof.

What major social ill has 'raising taxes' ever really cured?

The funny part is that progressives actually went looking for new ammo for the war on poverty, and the first thing they asked themselves was "What would Mexico or Brazil do?"
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago
But that "stand" is against the rash and inflammatory rhetoric and symbols that Sarah and the Tea Party are so fond of using (gunsights, Hitler moustaches on the President Obama's photo, etc)






And if I'm not mistaken the Bush-itler thing was thrown out here on good ol' MC.com a time or two. Where was Steve?
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11885) 11 years ago
I don't care WHO is using violent imagery and implying that assassination is a solution, they are WRONG! The Bush stuff was before Steve Craddock joined us here so it would take a time machine for him to have posted his opposition but I'm betting that those images would appall him as much as they appall me.

Threatening violence is NOT political discourse!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago
I mostly agree with you Amorette. I'm only saying that anyone who pretends that political allusion to violence is a new development is blind. Probably intentionally so.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4454) 11 years ago
Somewhere, a bunch of douche is looking for its bag.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (1/9/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
Rick. To answer your question, I was still in Texas and hadn't even heard of MilesCity.com. So forgive me for not having the opportunity to state my disgust at the use of those images at the time.

In fact, I've never seen any of those images before. And yes, I find those appalling and crude and offensive. The question I have is this:

Were they displayed at Democratic rallies? If so, and the leaders of those rallies did nothing, then I am beyond disappointed in them.

If not, then it's simply a freedom of speech issue and I don't know what your point is because I've never advocated taking away individual liberties, no matter how stupid the individual involved is.

Once more - my issue is with the OFFICIAL use of violent speech and images (e.g., SarahPalinPAC's use of the crosshairs) and the OFFICIAL tolerance (and passive encouragement by those officials) of such images at OFFICIAL rallies and gatherings.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but apparently it's difficult to explain this concept in terms simple enough for you to understand.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
Rick said: "Probably intentionally so."

Rick, That was below the belt. I have only questioned your logic, reasoning and yes, your intelligence - but never your motivations. I suggest you should get a handle on your own mind before you start trying to read mine.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago
Come on Steve. Is it really your position that this:



is a call to violence? I guarantee you Democrats all over the country have used something similar in reference to vulnerable Republican seats.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3751) 11 years ago
Not so sure that the map is a call to violence in and of itself but those look like crosshairs to me. Couple that with the line "It's Time To Take A Stand" and I can see where someone could twist & construe that into what happened in Arizona.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4454) 11 years ago
Watch out for practice arrows
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
No Rick. One map by itself does not a case make. But a repeated and cumulative record of using violence-laden rhetoric and symbols builds a body of evidence that, when viewed in its entirety, is pretty convincing.

If you don't think there's a problem, fine. I'm sure Richard has a cold one waiting for you in Gillette and I hope you both have a wonderful time. As for me and other concerned persons, we'll do what we can to bring some civility back into the political process. And yes, we'll hold BOTH sides accountable.

(By the way, what's my inner motivation here? I know you know better than me.

Oh, I'm sure you'll discount this distinction as inconsequential, but the democrat's map you posted is targeting STATES - not individuals. That's a pretty significant difference that intelligent people should recognize without too much trouble.

AND - It's interesting that you didn't post the sidebar that SARAHPALINPAC published next to their map that had the NAMES of each representative listed in bold. If you're going to make comparisons, Rick, at least be honest about it.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (1/9/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago
Courtesy of the DCCC



Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
OK Rick. Thanks for bringing that to light. It isn't right and it needs to stop immediately. I'll write a letter to Chairman Tim Kaine challenging him to make sure this kind of stuff isn't used by the DNC or any candidate who receives DNC funds in the future. I'll even copy you on the letter.

It'd be great if you would do the same to Ms. Palin and the RNC.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+15075) 11 years ago
MY comments are reckless? Mine??? Given the whole nature of this issue, Richard, I hope you see the incredible irony in that statement.

Frankly, I don't really care if you're disappointed in me, Richard. Not on this point I don't.

I'm sick of hearing violence-tinged terms like "lock n' load" (Buchanan) and "take him out" (Angle) used in political discussion. And I'm disgusted that the person who has used the most incendiary language over the past two years is considered a serious contender for the presidency. The time to worry about being polite and cautious on this issue is long past.

The tragedy today was a train wreck that a lot of people saw coming - Rep. Giffords included. But when Palin et al. were asked to tone down their rhetoric - they laughed. Well, nobody's laughing today, are they? No, instead Palin tepidly offers her "sincere condolences" on a Facebook page. Wow, talk about a disappointing political hack...

And if you think I'm going to be worried about being polite, then think again. If polite worked, Palin etc. would have assented to the earlier requests. But they didn't, mainly because those requests came from people like me (hated liberals) and not their supporters (e.g., Tea Party members). Well, the Tea Party leaders and their supporters had their chance and they blew it. That's why I'm disappointed in them, Richard.

And just how would you like me to focus on "the tragic and senseless loss of human life" in Tucson, Richard? There isn't a damn thing you or I can do to help the people who were killed and injured in today's shootings, is there. But there just might be something we can do to help change things in the future - and that is to join the effort to hold public figures accountable for what they SAY. THAT would be a tribute to the people whose blood was shed today. THAT would mean that their loss and suffering resulted in something good. That's what I'm trying to do, Richard. Why do you find that disappointing?

If you don't want to join in that effort, Richard, that's too bad. The more people who demand civility in public debate, the better chance it will have of succeeding. But if you are more concerned with protecting certain political leaders' feelings than you are with demanding some type of real change in the way they conduct themselves, then I'm beyond disappointed in you. Way beyond.



Q: What do you call one of Sarah Palin's death panels?

A: Jared Lee Loughner


(I know it isn't funny. I didn't intend it to be.)


Nice Rant!

1. My post was an attempt to try and maintain civility here at MC.com. It seems hypocritical of you to demand civility of others, when you are not apparently willing to practice it yourself. You demand civility and then post a rank joke. It's hard to take you serious when your actions don't match your words. Hence the disappointment.

2. I agree with you that the rhetoric of Sarah Palin and others, (Hannity, Beck, Savage,etc) is harmful. I don't condone it in anyway. The incendiary language needs to stop. I have no interest in "protecting certain political leaders' feelings". I don't hold a high view of the tea-party. The sooner we collectively decide that Sarah Palin is irrelevant, the sooner she will go away. Frankly, I wish that she would simply withdraw from public discourse. Continuing to rail about the tea-party and Palins point of view keeps them in the mainstream of conversation. You are simply fueling a fire that you claim you want extinguished.

3. Before we hold public figures accountable for what they say, we ought to apply that same standard to ourselves. I have made a concerted effort to moderate my tone in what I post here over the last year. Perhaps you can join me in that effort. I am reminded of the old ecumenical song "Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me".

4. The connection between the shooter and the whole tea-party movement or Sarah Palin is pretty weak. Based on the statements of the shooter he sounds more like he is just plain crazy and actually has little in common with any position on the right. If he has a political demographic, he is to the left of the likes of Michael Moore (the lefts version of Sarah Palin). Your attempt to connect any dots between the shooter and a the tea-party / Sarah Palin is lacking creditability.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4457) 11 years ago
I'll write a letter to Chairman Tim Kaine challenging him to make sure this kind of stuff isn't used by the DNC or any candidate who receives DNC funds in the future. I'll even copy you on the letter.

It'd be great if you would do the same to Ms. Palin and the RNC.


No need, Steve. I'm not trying to paint anyone's hands bloody... other than the guy who actually pulled the trigger.

Becoming the Tipper Gore of political speech was never my goal.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
Rick - I'm sending you a Tipper Gore wig and I want you to wear it - and not just at Halloween. You'll look FABULOUS!
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
Richard: Good points one and all except this:

Continuing to rail about the tea-party and Palins point of view keeps them in the mainstream of conversation. You are simply fueling a fire that you claim you want extinguished.


I think that is a fallacy, mainly because I see so many similarities between Palin and Geo. W. Bush. She has money and media attention. And even if she doesn't run for president, she has the power to significantly alter the political landscape and be a kingmaker.

Regarding your other points, I'm chewing on them. They don't all taste good, but I'm chewing anyway. I'm sure a would help. Got one?

Oh, one more thing (and for the umpteenth time): I am NOT trying to connect the dots between the shooter and the Palin campaign, and it's maddening to continue to be accused of trying to do something that I'm not (hence the sometimes less-than-cordial tones I used today).

The tragedy raises the issue of the connnection between campaign rhetoric and this particular shooter, but I don't think there will ever be any conclusive evidence one way or the other on it - so why get bogged down in that debate.

I'm more concerned with FACTS, and the facts are that the tone of our political environment is turning people off left and right, it is keeping good people from seeking elected office, and it is going to result in higher levels of security that will impede the public's access to our representatives.

In short, it's killing democracy and it is THAT impact that is fueling my desire to do something to improve the tone of the discussion. If that effort needs to begin with me, so be it. But I hope it grows far beyond me because a lot is at stake.

Oops - I'm digging again, aren't I? Time to sit back and relax. G'night all.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (1/9/2011)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6170) 11 years ago
My biggest objection about the Thaddeus McCotter piece is that they spelled buses wrong. Busses are kisses and I don't think that's what they meant.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 11 years ago
I said:
Oh, one more thing (and for the umpteenth time): I am NOT trying to connect the dots between the shooter and the Palin campaign, and it's maddening to continue to be accused of trying to do something that I'm not (hence the sometimes less-than-cordial tones I used today).


Upon reflection, I see where posting the death panel "joke" created this confusion. So I admit I have only myself to blame for the seeming hypocrisy, and it would have probably been better to resist the urge to post it when it popped into my head.

But something good did come of that decision: It illustrated an inherent tension in the political scene that is also the key challenge we'll face in improving the quality of political debate.

This what I mean. My decision to post the joke was born of the frustration of having the health care debate derailed not just once but twice by Ms. Palin's imaginary bogey-man. Feelings are going to be ripe in political contests, and the desire for one-upmanship is a natural part of the game. In short, politics is never going to be a genteel sport.

But that doesn't mean we can't draw some fundamental rules to keep politics a "rough and tumble game" and NOT an "all out war." The most obvious of those rules is simply to keep the hyperbole below the threshold of calling for your opponent's head on a platter.

And yes, that rule needs to apply to all players: The Tea Party, Democrats, Republicans, and even little ol' Crapduck.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (1/10/2011)]
Top