People rally around chants of ‘less government’ and ‘lower taxes’ without having the slightest inkling of what those statements actually mean.
So let us start with the notion of ‘less government.’ Where do we make the cuts? Surely a few things could go, maybe cutting down on certain parts of government bureaucracy that, like all forms of bureaucracy, are just a little redundant. But who decides what should be cut? And from where? How could we guarantee that this accountant was free of ties to industry that could benefit from cutting a few ribbons of government? These are questions that a bunch of people shouting buzz words simply cannot answer with factual information. What about the people that actually lose their jobs from these cuts we are going to make? What do we tell those who have undoubtedly given incredible amounts of their time to average paying jobs? Do we tell them they just picked the wrong career, and wish them well and send them into a most likely hostile job market? More questions which happen to be impossible to answer. Most times the answers to these questions will be answered with hostility and the claim: “I am not in the government, I don’t do the budget. I just think there should be less government.” So even though these people have no idea how the government functions, they want to make cuts. There is no other way to put it: this way of thinking is not only embarrassingly idiotic, but dangerous.
Continuing down the road to nowhere is the idea of ‘lower taxes.’ Paying taxes does not put a smile on anyone’s face, but if a taxpayer actually stops to think about where the money goes, they tend to realize that the money is well spent. But since we are on the way to ‘lowering those high taxes,’ let us ask some more questions. First, for whom do we lower taxes? If we lower taxes, how will the government be able to pay its employees to work? What do we do about the massive budget shortfalls that will result from lower tax revenue? More questions that those rallying around buzz words cannot answer. Why is it so difficult to answer the core questions surrounding a position? Because both of these questions cancel each other out.
Shrinking the size of government would lower the tax revenue the government would be able to generate, since government employees also pay taxes. One would then argue that the government would be shrunk and then taxes would be lowered to make up for the surplus generated by a suddenly streamlined government. This is just asinine. Because the fact is that the higher the unemployment, the more strain there is on the government’s coffers. Therefore, shrinking the size of government is never a positive solution since the effect of a large swath of newly unemployed people would hurt the books of the government. And that is where the problem of cutting taxes hits the wall, because if we cut taxes we have to lay off government workers or workers contracted by the government, thus raising the unemployment rate.
It could be said that this train of thought could lead to everyone being employed by the government. Then again, those who make this claim are the same people who believe the ideologies denounced in the paragraphs above. While the government is a tool like any that should be used when things are broken, the government is not always the solution. The government is more of gauze for when the bleeding becomes too severe. Not understanding that the role of the government has always been to protect the people is a failure of common sense. This lack of understanding is disturbing because putting the blinders on and heading down the track never leads anywhere positive. These same people rallying against socialism and dictatorships fail to understand that is exactly what their ideologies promote.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Rationalizing the Cost of a National Health Care Plan
With the talk of a national public health care option heating up, the current conservative response to a looming national plan is decry that it is too costly to provide the nation with health care. When in reality, who cares? I ask this question because six years ago the Congress gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq, not requiring a price tag, let alone an estimate. The war on multiple fronts has cost our country trillions of dollars, money that could have been spent on a health care plan. Therefore, one could argue that anyone against health care because of cost values going to war with other countries in the name of ‘security’ instead of providing every American with affordable health care. Health care makes Americans far more secure than a war ever could.
Simply put, I am willing to be that more lives have been lost in this country because of our profit based health care system than the total deaths of 9/11, both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and every other act of terror against Americans combined. So what those who are afraid of spending money on something that will benefit many instead of a select few (like every war in history basically has) have to ask themselves is: How do you sleep at night?
Simply put, I am willing to be that more lives have been lost in this country because of our profit based health care system than the total deaths of 9/11, both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and every other act of terror against Americans combined. So what those who are afraid of spending money on something that will benefit many instead of a select few (like every war in history basically has) have to ask themselves is: How do you sleep at night?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Public Health Care Solutions
Unless one happens to have their head in a hole in the ground, the legislative fight over public health care has begun. And while the benefits of a public health care option should be obvious to anyone who has ever had to pay a medical bill, the arguments against a public option have taken center stage in the media. Obviously this has to do more with the boat load of medical advertisements and corresponding revenue generated than reasonable arguments against providing inexpensive health care to every American. Conglomerated media has identified the drop in revenue that would result with a nationwide health insurance plan mainly based off of preventative care and cost control. Once the government competes with private health providers, the astronomical price of medication will decrease, and many drug companies will have to cut their advertising budget. This is why many media outlets labeled ‘liberal media’ by conservative fundamentalists are actually more in line with free market ideologies than those same conservatives are willing to admit. Still, there are realistic compromises that must be made on the issue of a national health care system, and understanding those compromises will bring satisfaction to both the right and left.
Cost is not an issue. No matter what someone who claims to be a deficit hawk happens to believe. If there average cost of health insurance for a family of four is $12,000 a year, surely the government’s cost would be less. One would in turn then argue that the amount of people using a public option would drive the total cost of health care up. Wrong again, as the entire concept of insurance is that the pool of risk is spread out to cover the cost of actual care and while the starting costs would be great because people would actually be going to the doctor, the long term costs of a public option would be considerably less.
Making a public health care option is not socialism. In fact, having a public option will only make private business work harder to keep their customers. Obviously the government and its unlimited resources will win the battle over time, but a public option will not prevent people from having private insurance and will undoubtedly allow the private industry to become more specialized in the realm of supplemental insurance or even plastic surgery insurance.
The one argument that actually has traction is it is a bad idea to completely destroy the health insurance industry by offering a no deductable option against the private insurance industry. Even though a no-deductable insurance plan should be the eventual goal of a public option, offering it to the masses immediately instead of only to Americans with the lowest incomes would be detrimental to the American economy. Mainly because the amount of people that would shed their health insurance plan and jump over to the free plan would be massive, and would be answered by the private industry with layoffs. While it need not be said that there is no pity for an out of work executive, a layoff of the claims adjuster who makes $38,000 a year will affect the economy. And while many of those working in the private industry will go over to the public plan, it is not like our government is nationalizing the industry and retaining all of the workers. A public option will result in redundancies, but it is important that they happen gradually instead of all at once.
But this is not at all where the public option dies; it only hits a snag and becomes gradual instead of immediate change. Cost is not an issue; neither is race, or concepts of socialism. What is at issue is the risk of massive job loss with a significant change in the insuring of a majority of Americans. This is why it is important that the public option is weighted to provide health care to the poorest Americans at no cost, and to significantly reduce the cost of health care for average Americans. Because an immediate shift from cost based care to free care would only hurt our economy, whereas a planned transition to a national plan would allow the job losses to be staggered and absorbed. This would also allow the added pocket money middle class Americans to be directly injected into the economy instead of the saving that would result in another unemployment spike.
At the core of every anti public option argument it is difficult to comprehend why conservatives are against public care, as conservatives tend to believe that giving the people more money in their pockets is a good thing. If 70% of our economy is based off of consumer spending, giving middle class people more money will surely make up for the losses of massive gains the drug companies and health insurance companies manage to see every quarter. But it quickly becomes apparent that the reason for conservative backlash is simple: being for a public plan completely goes against the ideologies that have been the forefront of conservatism for the last 30 years, and a successful public plan would only invalidate conservative ideology and bring about a democratic swing in the government not seen since Roosevelt. But one thing is certain: a public plan would allow the private health care industry to do what it has been doing to Americans for decades: die a slow death.
Cost is not an issue. No matter what someone who claims to be a deficit hawk happens to believe. If there average cost of health insurance for a family of four is $12,000 a year, surely the government’s cost would be less. One would in turn then argue that the amount of people using a public option would drive the total cost of health care up. Wrong again, as the entire concept of insurance is that the pool of risk is spread out to cover the cost of actual care and while the starting costs would be great because people would actually be going to the doctor, the long term costs of a public option would be considerably less.
Making a public health care option is not socialism. In fact, having a public option will only make private business work harder to keep their customers. Obviously the government and its unlimited resources will win the battle over time, but a public option will not prevent people from having private insurance and will undoubtedly allow the private industry to become more specialized in the realm of supplemental insurance or even plastic surgery insurance.
The one argument that actually has traction is it is a bad idea to completely destroy the health insurance industry by offering a no deductable option against the private insurance industry. Even though a no-deductable insurance plan should be the eventual goal of a public option, offering it to the masses immediately instead of only to Americans with the lowest incomes would be detrimental to the American economy. Mainly because the amount of people that would shed their health insurance plan and jump over to the free plan would be massive, and would be answered by the private industry with layoffs. While it need not be said that there is no pity for an out of work executive, a layoff of the claims adjuster who makes $38,000 a year will affect the economy. And while many of those working in the private industry will go over to the public plan, it is not like our government is nationalizing the industry and retaining all of the workers. A public option will result in redundancies, but it is important that they happen gradually instead of all at once.
But this is not at all where the public option dies; it only hits a snag and becomes gradual instead of immediate change. Cost is not an issue; neither is race, or concepts of socialism. What is at issue is the risk of massive job loss with a significant change in the insuring of a majority of Americans. This is why it is important that the public option is weighted to provide health care to the poorest Americans at no cost, and to significantly reduce the cost of health care for average Americans. Because an immediate shift from cost based care to free care would only hurt our economy, whereas a planned transition to a national plan would allow the job losses to be staggered and absorbed. This would also allow the added pocket money middle class Americans to be directly injected into the economy instead of the saving that would result in another unemployment spike.
At the core of every anti public option argument it is difficult to comprehend why conservatives are against public care, as conservatives tend to believe that giving the people more money in their pockets is a good thing. If 70% of our economy is based off of consumer spending, giving middle class people more money will surely make up for the losses of massive gains the drug companies and health insurance companies manage to see every quarter. But it quickly becomes apparent that the reason for conservative backlash is simple: being for a public plan completely goes against the ideologies that have been the forefront of conservatism for the last 30 years, and a successful public plan would only invalidate conservative ideology and bring about a democratic swing in the government not seen since Roosevelt. But one thing is certain: a public plan would allow the private health care industry to do what it has been doing to Americans for decades: die a slow death.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Advancing American Society, Part 1
There comes a time when all services whose benefits outweigh those of free enterprise be absorbed by the government for the betterment of a society. While the idea of expanding government disrupts theories of free enterprise, what needs to be reevaluated is our understanding of ethical choices in regards to equal global prosperity. When a service is provided that becomes integral to everyday life, eventually it becomes necessary for that service to function as an entitlement. Two prime examples of this concept are banking and health services. Both of these industries have transcended and overwhelmed the value of free enterprise, thus endangering their ability to advance positively.
For a time it made perfect sense for banks to be public for profit institutions. The world was less connected, and the amount of small town banks made competition close to what could constitute a free market ideal. But over time the sense of capitalism eroded as all available markets were cornered and filled. Demand would always fluctuate, and like most businesses there would be highs and lows that would shape loans, interest rates, and other variables in the banking sector. But there was not any new product to dramatically raise demand, and with public banks the bottom line and short term gains became more important than long term investment. Essentially, the publicly owned banks had goals of profit which directly contradicted the aims of saving and lending. These new ‘products,’ however detrimental in the long run brought about short term gains that made even the most wary warm to increasingly large sums of money. Like all things speculative, the end was catastrophic and required government intervention. Unfortunately, the intervention was not nearly enough as these banks were basically allowed to shore up their losses by breaking the backs of faithful customers, and positioning themselves for another series of speculation and high profit margins. It is at this time apparent that it becomes the responsibility of the government to absorb these banks to protect citizens from the pitfalls of capitalism. In a modern society banking should not be for profit: banks should lend to fuel private enterprise, not be a private enterprise. Therefore it is important that our society addresses the importance of limiting the power of banks by decreasing their size, removing ownership from the public sector, and bringing clear regulation into every inch of savings and lending. Letting the guardians of free enterprise become devoured by out of control capitalism has led our society down the road to ruin. And as our countries ability to finance itself has become crippled, so has our ability to care for ordinary citizens.
If the beginning of the Hippocratic Oath is to ‘First do no harm,’ it is entirely contradictory in the practice of medicine that anyone is ever turned away from medical treatment. While this has been said repeatedly, it should be the aim of a good government to place the care of citizens within its priorities. Because if a government can guarantee military protection from war, surely it can provide care for the far more consistent and constant threat of illness. Some would argue in the case of medicine that government control would halt development of new treatments and cause scientific stagnancy. Yet the concept of medical invention for profit itself is unethical; people will always want to cure disease and prolong life. This is something proven throughout history, as some of our greatest medical achievements have come not under the guise of profit but under the desire to extinguish disease. Government intervention would actually have the opposite effect in medicine, as its ability to research can out pace any private business. Government non-profit medicine would not remove people from choice either; rather it would shift more of the responsibility onto the individual rather than for-profit corporations who seek profit alone. Government medicine is not about individuals getting rich. What needs to be understood by business as well as individuals is how important it is for our society to move away from individual achievement into the realm of societal advancement. While the individual must be honored and respected for contributing to society, what should be recognized is the importance of the contribution. Like banking, medicine has the ability to help individuals while enriching the lives of many. Where banking provides the loan that helps a business grow, medicine provides the treatment for the business owner’s family and the employees of the aforementioned business. With this a connection is made; anyone can see that if a government provides entitlements to citizens other sectors of free enterprise will emerge, thus allowing the concept of American capitalism to flourish. This same concept of interconnectivity can be tied into the government having a role in societal advancement.
When a service or field is emerging that could provide a country with prolonged internal stability, it is the responsibility of the government to help develop that field. Like healthcare and banking, our national security should be rooted in the concept that what is good for ordinary citizens is even better for the government. This is why it is in the best interests of our government to pursue clean and renewable energy with all of its capabilities. Petroleum, coal, and nuclear energy are all commodities that require more energy to defend than to produce. They are also limiting the possibilities of our long term survival as a species. Therefore it becomes the role of government to either take control of scientific development, or to nudge private business into the driver’s seat. In this situation it is obvious that using government resources is cheaper than those of private corporations, and that in the long run citizens will benefit rather than share holders in a publicly traded company. Let me provide an example. Say the government developed cost effective and free solar panels for every home in America. While not entirely relieving our dependence on inefficient commodities, this would allow a massive reduction in their consumption. This would also spur private sector development in other renewable energy sources, like wind and geothermal to fill in the rest of the gap. Furthermore, while the government would employ citizens to design and manufacture the panels, the private sector would be used to transport and install them. Thus the argument for government hurting the private sector is erased, as is the idea that private corporations would cease to exist if the government competed against them. Because while there will always be things the government can do better, the private sector is still essential because it brings balance to the field of play and vice versa.
One could argue that these ideas are overly idealistic and utopian. One could also argue that in a society like this bureaucracy would takeover, and cronyism could run rampant. This is surely a real possibility. But what must be understood is that by removing certain essential fields from the category of being ‘for profit institutions’ and moving them into the sector of societal entitlements, we allow other forms of growth and innovation to rise in their place. What has occurred over the course of my life is the opposite; our society has become infected with a poisonous brand of capitalism that violates the rights of citizens under the guise of shareholder satisfaction. This is not free enterprise, this is unethical greed centered individualism that has destroyed our ideals and threatens to tear the fabric of our nation apart. It is time for solutions that benefit the many instead of the few.
For a time it made perfect sense for banks to be public for profit institutions. The world was less connected, and the amount of small town banks made competition close to what could constitute a free market ideal. But over time the sense of capitalism eroded as all available markets were cornered and filled. Demand would always fluctuate, and like most businesses there would be highs and lows that would shape loans, interest rates, and other variables in the banking sector. But there was not any new product to dramatically raise demand, and with public banks the bottom line and short term gains became more important than long term investment. Essentially, the publicly owned banks had goals of profit which directly contradicted the aims of saving and lending. These new ‘products,’ however detrimental in the long run brought about short term gains that made even the most wary warm to increasingly large sums of money. Like all things speculative, the end was catastrophic and required government intervention. Unfortunately, the intervention was not nearly enough as these banks were basically allowed to shore up their losses by breaking the backs of faithful customers, and positioning themselves for another series of speculation and high profit margins. It is at this time apparent that it becomes the responsibility of the government to absorb these banks to protect citizens from the pitfalls of capitalism. In a modern society banking should not be for profit: banks should lend to fuel private enterprise, not be a private enterprise. Therefore it is important that our society addresses the importance of limiting the power of banks by decreasing their size, removing ownership from the public sector, and bringing clear regulation into every inch of savings and lending. Letting the guardians of free enterprise become devoured by out of control capitalism has led our society down the road to ruin. And as our countries ability to finance itself has become crippled, so has our ability to care for ordinary citizens.
If the beginning of the Hippocratic Oath is to ‘First do no harm,’ it is entirely contradictory in the practice of medicine that anyone is ever turned away from medical treatment. While this has been said repeatedly, it should be the aim of a good government to place the care of citizens within its priorities. Because if a government can guarantee military protection from war, surely it can provide care for the far more consistent and constant threat of illness. Some would argue in the case of medicine that government control would halt development of new treatments and cause scientific stagnancy. Yet the concept of medical invention for profit itself is unethical; people will always want to cure disease and prolong life. This is something proven throughout history, as some of our greatest medical achievements have come not under the guise of profit but under the desire to extinguish disease. Government intervention would actually have the opposite effect in medicine, as its ability to research can out pace any private business. Government non-profit medicine would not remove people from choice either; rather it would shift more of the responsibility onto the individual rather than for-profit corporations who seek profit alone. Government medicine is not about individuals getting rich. What needs to be understood by business as well as individuals is how important it is for our society to move away from individual achievement into the realm of societal advancement. While the individual must be honored and respected for contributing to society, what should be recognized is the importance of the contribution. Like banking, medicine has the ability to help individuals while enriching the lives of many. Where banking provides the loan that helps a business grow, medicine provides the treatment for the business owner’s family and the employees of the aforementioned business. With this a connection is made; anyone can see that if a government provides entitlements to citizens other sectors of free enterprise will emerge, thus allowing the concept of American capitalism to flourish. This same concept of interconnectivity can be tied into the government having a role in societal advancement.
When a service or field is emerging that could provide a country with prolonged internal stability, it is the responsibility of the government to help develop that field. Like healthcare and banking, our national security should be rooted in the concept that what is good for ordinary citizens is even better for the government. This is why it is in the best interests of our government to pursue clean and renewable energy with all of its capabilities. Petroleum, coal, and nuclear energy are all commodities that require more energy to defend than to produce. They are also limiting the possibilities of our long term survival as a species. Therefore it becomes the role of government to either take control of scientific development, or to nudge private business into the driver’s seat. In this situation it is obvious that using government resources is cheaper than those of private corporations, and that in the long run citizens will benefit rather than share holders in a publicly traded company. Let me provide an example. Say the government developed cost effective and free solar panels for every home in America. While not entirely relieving our dependence on inefficient commodities, this would allow a massive reduction in their consumption. This would also spur private sector development in other renewable energy sources, like wind and geothermal to fill in the rest of the gap. Furthermore, while the government would employ citizens to design and manufacture the panels, the private sector would be used to transport and install them. Thus the argument for government hurting the private sector is erased, as is the idea that private corporations would cease to exist if the government competed against them. Because while there will always be things the government can do better, the private sector is still essential because it brings balance to the field of play and vice versa.
One could argue that these ideas are overly idealistic and utopian. One could also argue that in a society like this bureaucracy would takeover, and cronyism could run rampant. This is surely a real possibility. But what must be understood is that by removing certain essential fields from the category of being ‘for profit institutions’ and moving them into the sector of societal entitlements, we allow other forms of growth and innovation to rise in their place. What has occurred over the course of my life is the opposite; our society has become infected with a poisonous brand of capitalism that violates the rights of citizens under the guise of shareholder satisfaction. This is not free enterprise, this is unethical greed centered individualism that has destroyed our ideals and threatens to tear the fabric of our nation apart. It is time for solutions that benefit the many instead of the few.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
I can fix America in 3 paragraphs
No matter where side is spinning, America is in a free fall. Most of out banks are solvent, true unemployment is in double digits, our planet is being killed by our apathy towards scientific progress, and the deck is stacked against the average American. One could argue that the solution to these problems requires common ground, but all of the compromises that we as a people have made are no longer the bedrock of America they are shifting sand. The time for compromise is over. Honest people have been told for too long that compromise is moral high ground of idealism. That should end now.
To fix our broken financial system we need air tight regulation, a simplified and strict tax code that punishes people who cheat it, and trade policies that are beneficial to importers and exporters alike. A cap of all interest rates at 10%, and the elimination of for profit banking institutions would not only make it easier for people to borrow, but limit the probability of future banking meltdowns. As a society, the idea of ownership without work needs to end. All immigrants within our borders should be given amnesty so businesses are forced to pay them fair wages, and racist whites stop blaming them for taking jobs. Unemployment can be solved two ways: by increasing the minimum wage so that it is a living wage and by creating a robust Works Progress Administration to rebuild the parts of our country we have let deteriorate.
To restore our manufacturing base and embrace our future energy needs we need to create a national solar panel company that provides solar panels for every home and business in America. To lower the costs of operating a business and to promote equality, we must provide a public health care option to compete with private insurance. Doing this will cover every American and lay the ground work for universal Medicare. Keeping our society healthy is a goal we can make progress on by regulating our food industry to guarantee that the animals we slaughter are healthy and treated humanely, and that the produce we eat does not harm the earth it grows on. In furthering the opportunities of citizens, education should be realistically affordable to those who seek it. Most importantly, stop believing that change is a utopian impossibility.
To fix our broken financial system we need air tight regulation, a simplified and strict tax code that punishes people who cheat it, and trade policies that are beneficial to importers and exporters alike. A cap of all interest rates at 10%, and the elimination of for profit banking institutions would not only make it easier for people to borrow, but limit the probability of future banking meltdowns. As a society, the idea of ownership without work needs to end. All immigrants within our borders should be given amnesty so businesses are forced to pay them fair wages, and racist whites stop blaming them for taking jobs. Unemployment can be solved two ways: by increasing the minimum wage so that it is a living wage and by creating a robust Works Progress Administration to rebuild the parts of our country we have let deteriorate.
To restore our manufacturing base and embrace our future energy needs we need to create a national solar panel company that provides solar panels for every home and business in America. To lower the costs of operating a business and to promote equality, we must provide a public health care option to compete with private insurance. Doing this will cover every American and lay the ground work for universal Medicare. Keeping our society healthy is a goal we can make progress on by regulating our food industry to guarantee that the animals we slaughter are healthy and treated humanely, and that the produce we eat does not harm the earth it grows on. In furthering the opportunities of citizens, education should be realistically affordable to those who seek it. Most importantly, stop believing that change is a utopian impossibility.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Welcome to the Tea Party!
Yesterday was tax day, a day that for some reason Americans dread. I have never really understood why people have always hated paying taxes on April 15th when they pay taxes on most goods and services all year round. Maybe it is because the most I have ever paid into the federal government is around 15 dollars, but I do not take out any deductions when I get paid and because of this the government usually gives me a check to what I have overpaid. But many Americans are not as fortunate as I, many have children and mountains of debt, so they have to take deductions and actually pay in for what they withheld from the government over the course of the years. Seems fair enough, right? Apparently not.
An estimated 250,000 people came out for ‘tea parties’ across the nation yesterday, and I will admit I am frightened by what I saw. The level of ignorance displayed was frightening. Protestors held signs that covered the spectrum of racism to fascism, often times not understanding what they were actually protesting about. One of my favorite signs was: Obama=Hitler. A CNN journalist approached a sign holder and asked him to explain why the president was a fascist and the guy actually said “He just is. He is just like Hitler.” For anyone who does not understand what fascism is I will lay it out in one sentence: Fascism is a nationalist form of government where citizens have few, if any civil rights while the government suppresses other nations with fear for its own corporate and authoritative interests. After the last eight years it is understandable for people to fear fascism, but the people at these protests did not seem to mind that the last eight years was full of citizens of our nation and the world being denied rights and shocked into fear for the interests of the United States.
When these protestors were not shouting about the president being one in the same as Hitler, they were spouting off the importance of hanging liberal senators, a new violent revolution, and putting the president on trial for treason. Once again, I am wondering where these protestors have been for the past eight years. Then again I have been to anti war rallies, and I have never seen a sign advocating for the death of conservative congress members or violent uprisings. Because even though people hated President Bush, they respected the fact that he was president of the United States. The news media has been working hard painting these protestors as an extreme minority, but I disagree. I have written extensively on conservatives not understanding what socialism really is, and these tea parties are no different. I do not believe in conservatives or liberals, I believe there are 4 very distinct groups of political belief: progressive, liberal, moderate, and conservative. Of these 4, 70% of Americans are progressive, moderate, or liberal. The 30% that are conservative are usually uniformed and irrational. They call for deaths of presidents, say that God hates Fags, blow up abortion clinics, believe America would be better as a theocracy, and go on the radio to tell people to buy guns because the president is going to take their guns away. This 30% of Americans believes that the system is set up for them to fail, and that they are having a tough time in life for a laundry list of sensational theories that often incorporate racism and partial truths. These are the sort of people like the governor of Texas that actually called for Texas to secede from the union because of Tax policies that help almost everyone who lives in Texas, and actually denied 550 million dollars in unemployment aid.
These people make the argument that my generation is going to be paying government debt back for our entire lives without understanding that the United States has only been deficit free for maybe 6 years in its entire history. What it comes down to is what one chooses to believe. People that do not question anything they hear on television or that comes from the mouth of Sean Hannity are conservatives. But someone who voted for McCain and while upset he lost, understands and accepts that Obama is the president for at least the next four years is a moderate. Everyone else is liberal or progressive, and they voted independent or for Obama. Conservatives often support things without knowing what they are actually supporting and having a ‘tea party’ to shout about unfair taxation to 5% of the richest Americans that will not even begin until the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 is the pinnacle of why conservatism in America is a delusional way of thinking.
People ask me why I concern myself so much with what other people’s political beliefs are, and I always respond with a simple answer: whenever someone believes in something, they should be able to defend it with facts. Do not shout something from the rooftops that cannot actually be backed up with real information. The people at these rallies are so frightening to me because they did not come to protest armed with facts and a unified message, they came armed with anger and vitriol. Those are the type of people like Timothy McVeigh, who was so convinced the government was near a civil war that he took the war to the people of Oklahoma City. Protests have made our nation stronger, but until these ‘conservatives’ actually know what they are fighting for, they should stay home.
An estimated 250,000 people came out for ‘tea parties’ across the nation yesterday, and I will admit I am frightened by what I saw. The level of ignorance displayed was frightening. Protestors held signs that covered the spectrum of racism to fascism, often times not understanding what they were actually protesting about. One of my favorite signs was: Obama=Hitler. A CNN journalist approached a sign holder and asked him to explain why the president was a fascist and the guy actually said “He just is. He is just like Hitler.” For anyone who does not understand what fascism is I will lay it out in one sentence: Fascism is a nationalist form of government where citizens have few, if any civil rights while the government suppresses other nations with fear for its own corporate and authoritative interests. After the last eight years it is understandable for people to fear fascism, but the people at these protests did not seem to mind that the last eight years was full of citizens of our nation and the world being denied rights and shocked into fear for the interests of the United States.
When these protestors were not shouting about the president being one in the same as Hitler, they were spouting off the importance of hanging liberal senators, a new violent revolution, and putting the president on trial for treason. Once again, I am wondering where these protestors have been for the past eight years. Then again I have been to anti war rallies, and I have never seen a sign advocating for the death of conservative congress members or violent uprisings. Because even though people hated President Bush, they respected the fact that he was president of the United States. The news media has been working hard painting these protestors as an extreme minority, but I disagree. I have written extensively on conservatives not understanding what socialism really is, and these tea parties are no different. I do not believe in conservatives or liberals, I believe there are 4 very distinct groups of political belief: progressive, liberal, moderate, and conservative. Of these 4, 70% of Americans are progressive, moderate, or liberal. The 30% that are conservative are usually uniformed and irrational. They call for deaths of presidents, say that God hates Fags, blow up abortion clinics, believe America would be better as a theocracy, and go on the radio to tell people to buy guns because the president is going to take their guns away. This 30% of Americans believes that the system is set up for them to fail, and that they are having a tough time in life for a laundry list of sensational theories that often incorporate racism and partial truths. These are the sort of people like the governor of Texas that actually called for Texas to secede from the union because of Tax policies that help almost everyone who lives in Texas, and actually denied 550 million dollars in unemployment aid.
These people make the argument that my generation is going to be paying government debt back for our entire lives without understanding that the United States has only been deficit free for maybe 6 years in its entire history. What it comes down to is what one chooses to believe. People that do not question anything they hear on television or that comes from the mouth of Sean Hannity are conservatives. But someone who voted for McCain and while upset he lost, understands and accepts that Obama is the president for at least the next four years is a moderate. Everyone else is liberal or progressive, and they voted independent or for Obama. Conservatives often support things without knowing what they are actually supporting and having a ‘tea party’ to shout about unfair taxation to 5% of the richest Americans that will not even begin until the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 is the pinnacle of why conservatism in America is a delusional way of thinking.
People ask me why I concern myself so much with what other people’s political beliefs are, and I always respond with a simple answer: whenever someone believes in something, they should be able to defend it with facts. Do not shout something from the rooftops that cannot actually be backed up with real information. The people at these rallies are so frightening to me because they did not come to protest armed with facts and a unified message, they came armed with anger and vitriol. Those are the type of people like Timothy McVeigh, who was so convinced the government was near a civil war that he took the war to the people of Oklahoma City. Protests have made our nation stronger, but until these ‘conservatives’ actually know what they are fighting for, they should stay home.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Stop it with the 'Socialism is bad' nonsense
Since it has been a week of firsts, like the largest middle class tax cut our nation’s history, I figured I would go and tackle something that is a tried and true topic: socialism. For anyone unclear as to what socialism actually is, here is a quick definition from Dictionary.com:
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Unfortunately, socialism is often confused with communism. Communism is:
A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
While these two ‘isms’ are somewhat similar, there is a clear difference; socialism does not go hand in hand with oppressive governments. So what in the hell is going on in our media and their strange fascination with the word socialism? Well it is a bit complicated, and needs a little explanation. I have come to the conclusion that all mainstream cable news media is a reaction based form of reporting that does not actually report news but shapes information resembling what news would be if it were a product. If you have the time, go and watch all three major news outlets and watch how they repeat themselves every 35 minutes or so. There is no in depth reporting, no corrections, and seemingly little to no investigation prior to a live feed. Look at how networks react to a drop in the Dow. Most people do not understand how the stock market works and that is fine. But know this, it rarely effects the average citizens everyday lives. In the current economic climate it can play a small part, but there is an outside force that is affecting the market.
Most people forget that each of the 3 main cable news outlets happen to be owned by publically traded companies that have stake in the stock market. Not only does this eliminate their journalistic impartiality, but a drop in the market makes reporters fear for their jobs. Now it is not at all new to pick on the mainstream media, but over the course of the last few months I have grown tired not only of blatant partisanship (conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC), but the disturbing national phenomena with panels (CNN literally had about 20 people in the same room on election night). From one side partisans scream at each other, and then their respective panel of ‘experts’ debate on what the viewer should think.
We have seen these panels of ‘experts’ before. Except last time they were retired generals working secretly with the Pentagon to sell the War in Iraq to the American people. Even though these panels are no longer selling wars, they are clearing dealing in ideas. Networks use these panels to abuse the trust of their viewers, because people trust those with experience. And each cable news network uses these panels to craft the message of their broadcasts. Which is where the socialism fear scapegoat rears it’s ugly head. Calling anyone a pinko or a commie has been pretty much verboten since the McCarthy era, but with these panels in full force, mentioning socialism diverts everyone’s attention from real topics and moves the focus to fear. Instead of speculating on what may happen and what people should think, the panels leave message and champion the perils of socialism which even they seem to confuse with communism. This is a fear tactic usually addressed by a member of the panel that is so to the right they make the Nixon conservative blush. And as everyone knows, fear is the weapon of choice of the Republican Party. And socialism has always been their favorite cannon to load.
So why is there such a strange fascination with socialism? Well, we have reactionary news with interest in the financial markets using people to shape their message that are often openly partisan, and a political party that is damaged to the point at which they are shooting at a Panzer tank like Tom Hanks in ‘Saving Private Ryan.’ Like Tom Hanks, this party fears death and a rebuttal of the policies they have been pushing for the last generation. This is a lethal combination that is hard to get away from unless we think of the good that socialism brings to our society. Police departments, Fire departments, and schools are 3 socialist enterprises. They are funded and governed by the state. Each of those things people take for granted. You do not see people pointing that out when they rally against socialism. Nor do they acknowledge that we have a socialist military. A classic rebuff of people to socialism is that advancement stops when things become socialized, this is a classic anti universal health care argument. Well the stun gun was not around in the twenties, neither were modern fire trucks and complex oxygen relay systems. Take a look at the last 100 years of military technology and how it has advanced at the hands of private enterprise. The private sector developed them for the government sector and moved things forward. This is what would happen under a single payer health care system.
Socialism should not be applied to every part of our country. There needs to be private business. But there are some realities all of us need to face: socialism is not a bad word, but a way to classify things that benefit all of American society as a whole. We need socialist health care, and socialist fire departments, and a socialist military to protect us. What socialism should really mean to all of us as Americans is that socialist sectors of our government are basic human rights that should be cherished and protected. Not used to divide people. Remember that the last 30 years of this country has contained very powerful individuals claiming that anything that is beneficial to the masses is costly socialism. And over the last 30 years we have witnessed the meteoric rise of the upper class, 3 wars, 5 recessions, and no real help for middle class Americans. So the question all of us should be asking ourselves is whether or not socialist practices are the problem or the solution to societal advancement.
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Unfortunately, socialism is often confused with communism. Communism is:
A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
While these two ‘isms’ are somewhat similar, there is a clear difference; socialism does not go hand in hand with oppressive governments. So what in the hell is going on in our media and their strange fascination with the word socialism? Well it is a bit complicated, and needs a little explanation. I have come to the conclusion that all mainstream cable news media is a reaction based form of reporting that does not actually report news but shapes information resembling what news would be if it were a product. If you have the time, go and watch all three major news outlets and watch how they repeat themselves every 35 minutes or so. There is no in depth reporting, no corrections, and seemingly little to no investigation prior to a live feed. Look at how networks react to a drop in the Dow. Most people do not understand how the stock market works and that is fine. But know this, it rarely effects the average citizens everyday lives. In the current economic climate it can play a small part, but there is an outside force that is affecting the market.
Most people forget that each of the 3 main cable news outlets happen to be owned by publically traded companies that have stake in the stock market. Not only does this eliminate their journalistic impartiality, but a drop in the market makes reporters fear for their jobs. Now it is not at all new to pick on the mainstream media, but over the course of the last few months I have grown tired not only of blatant partisanship (conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC), but the disturbing national phenomena with panels (CNN literally had about 20 people in the same room on election night). From one side partisans scream at each other, and then their respective panel of ‘experts’ debate on what the viewer should think.
We have seen these panels of ‘experts’ before. Except last time they were retired generals working secretly with the Pentagon to sell the War in Iraq to the American people. Even though these panels are no longer selling wars, they are clearing dealing in ideas. Networks use these panels to abuse the trust of their viewers, because people trust those with experience. And each cable news network uses these panels to craft the message of their broadcasts. Which is where the socialism fear scapegoat rears it’s ugly head. Calling anyone a pinko or a commie has been pretty much verboten since the McCarthy era, but with these panels in full force, mentioning socialism diverts everyone’s attention from real topics and moves the focus to fear. Instead of speculating on what may happen and what people should think, the panels leave message and champion the perils of socialism which even they seem to confuse with communism. This is a fear tactic usually addressed by a member of the panel that is so to the right they make the Nixon conservative blush. And as everyone knows, fear is the weapon of choice of the Republican Party. And socialism has always been their favorite cannon to load.
So why is there such a strange fascination with socialism? Well, we have reactionary news with interest in the financial markets using people to shape their message that are often openly partisan, and a political party that is damaged to the point at which they are shooting at a Panzer tank like Tom Hanks in ‘Saving Private Ryan.’ Like Tom Hanks, this party fears death and a rebuttal of the policies they have been pushing for the last generation. This is a lethal combination that is hard to get away from unless we think of the good that socialism brings to our society. Police departments, Fire departments, and schools are 3 socialist enterprises. They are funded and governed by the state. Each of those things people take for granted. You do not see people pointing that out when they rally against socialism. Nor do they acknowledge that we have a socialist military. A classic rebuff of people to socialism is that advancement stops when things become socialized, this is a classic anti universal health care argument. Well the stun gun was not around in the twenties, neither were modern fire trucks and complex oxygen relay systems. Take a look at the last 100 years of military technology and how it has advanced at the hands of private enterprise. The private sector developed them for the government sector and moved things forward. This is what would happen under a single payer health care system.
Socialism should not be applied to every part of our country. There needs to be private business. But there are some realities all of us need to face: socialism is not a bad word, but a way to classify things that benefit all of American society as a whole. We need socialist health care, and socialist fire departments, and a socialist military to protect us. What socialism should really mean to all of us as Americans is that socialist sectors of our government are basic human rights that should be cherished and protected. Not used to divide people. Remember that the last 30 years of this country has contained very powerful individuals claiming that anything that is beneficial to the masses is costly socialism. And over the last 30 years we have witnessed the meteoric rise of the upper class, 3 wars, 5 recessions, and no real help for middle class Americans. So the question all of us should be asking ourselves is whether or not socialist practices are the problem or the solution to societal advancement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
