Hypocrites? Naw...
Some might not find this poll surprising. From Religion News Service:
Religious freedom is a beautiful thing, insured by the Constitution in a burst of wisdom by the Founding Fathers. Everybody can practice their religion, or not practice any religion at all, the USA is a free country and the government will stay out of it. The First Amendment has been tested many times as people push the limits in all directions; the government cannot establish religion and it cannot prevent citizens from practicing their religion, and that is really an impossible dilemma but we have done pretty well at balancing it.
The wisdom of it lies in the understanding that people are different. You might think your god is the only real one, and I'm not saying you're wrong about that, but Joe over there worships a different god and he is sure he's got the only real one, too. That's how it works, the government doesn't choose. Everybody can worship in their own way and they can all be right in America.
As carefully as our country has cultivated this difficult freedom, there is one group who, at the end of the day, feels they have been cheated and persecuted. And oddly it is the least cheated and persecuted group in the country. The rest of us bend over backwards to humor them with their stupid creationism and their hatred of gay people and their obsession with sex and abortion, we pretend that these are serious ideas that deserve respect and should be accommodated in schools, the workplace, and in public. In this poll, ninety seven percent of evangelicals -- ninety seven percent! -- believe that "religious freedom has become more restricted in the U.S. because some groups have tried to move society away from traditional Christian values." That's pretty much all of them. Twenty-nine percent of skeptics agree, but with a smile on their faces.
And what would those "some groups" be? Seventy-nine percent of evangelicals think that "the gay and lesbian community is the most active group trying to remove Christian values from the country." I never would have guessed. The evangelicals blame the group that they have discriminated against most aggressively.
Evangelicals are the only group where a majority is "very concerned about religious freedoms becoming more restricted in the next five years in the United States." They are the only group where a majority does not agree that "No one set of values should dominate the country." They are also the only group where a majority agree that "Traditional Judeo-Christian values should be given preference in the U.S."
The guy used the word "hypocritical" to describe this pattern. Evangelicals say they are concerned about religious freedom, and also that one particular set of religious beliefs should "be given preference in the U.S." They define hypocrisy.
WASHINGTON (RNS) Half of Americans worry that religious freedom in the U.S. is at risk, and many say activist groups — particularly gays and lesbians — are trying to remove “traditional Christian values” from the public square.I am going to try to link to the graphic at their web site, text follows:
The findings of a poll published Wednesday (Jan. 23), reveal a “double standard” among a significant portion of evangelicals on the question of religious liberty, said David Kinnaman, president of Barna Group, a California think tank that studies American religion and culture.
While these Christians are particularly concerned that religious freedoms are being eroded in this country, “they also want Judeo-Christians to dominate the culture,” said Kinnamon.
“They cannot have it both ways,” he said. “This does not mean putting Judeo-Christian values aside, but it will require a renegotiation of those values in the public square as America increasingly becomes a multi-faith nation.” Poll shows a double standard on religious liberty
Religious freedom is a beautiful thing, insured by the Constitution in a burst of wisdom by the Founding Fathers. Everybody can practice their religion, or not practice any religion at all, the USA is a free country and the government will stay out of it. The First Amendment has been tested many times as people push the limits in all directions; the government cannot establish religion and it cannot prevent citizens from practicing their religion, and that is really an impossible dilemma but we have done pretty well at balancing it.
The wisdom of it lies in the understanding that people are different. You might think your god is the only real one, and I'm not saying you're wrong about that, but Joe over there worships a different god and he is sure he's got the only real one, too. That's how it works, the government doesn't choose. Everybody can worship in their own way and they can all be right in America.
As carefully as our country has cultivated this difficult freedom, there is one group who, at the end of the day, feels they have been cheated and persecuted. And oddly it is the least cheated and persecuted group in the country. The rest of us bend over backwards to humor them with their stupid creationism and their hatred of gay people and their obsession with sex and abortion, we pretend that these are serious ideas that deserve respect and should be accommodated in schools, the workplace, and in public. In this poll, ninety seven percent of evangelicals -- ninety seven percent! -- believe that "religious freedom has become more restricted in the U.S. because some groups have tried to move society away from traditional Christian values." That's pretty much all of them. Twenty-nine percent of skeptics agree, but with a smile on their faces.
And what would those "some groups" be? Seventy-nine percent of evangelicals think that "the gay and lesbian community is the most active group trying to remove Christian values from the country." I never would have guessed. The evangelicals blame the group that they have discriminated against most aggressively.
Evangelicals are the only group where a majority is "very concerned about religious freedoms becoming more restricted in the next five years in the United States." They are the only group where a majority does not agree that "No one set of values should dominate the country." They are also the only group where a majority agree that "Traditional Judeo-Christian values should be given preference in the U.S."
The guy used the word "hypocritical" to describe this pattern. Evangelicals say they are concerned about religious freedom, and also that one particular set of religious beliefs should "be given preference in the U.S." They define hypocrisy.
posted by JimK at 8:58 AM
88 Comments:
Is this where we hear again about "conservatives not telling other people how to live their lives?"
No doubt about that Robert. Conservatives don't tell other people how to live their lives as long as those people are christian conservative Republicans.
But, if you're gay or lesbian conservatives don't want you having a same sex relationship or, god forbid, entering a same sex marriage.
If you're female conservatives don't want you having an abortion or preventing pregnancy with birth control.
If you're a teenager conservatives don't want you dressing provocatively or having sex until you're married.
If you're anyone conservatives don't want you to have sex for pleasure, but only for procreation.
If you're an atheist conservatives don't want you to be a teacher, hold political office, or be in any position of authority, or to have freedom from religion.
If you're a person conservatives don't want you to have the right to control your own body and use drugs or sell your sexual services.
If you're a muslim or Hindu conservatives don't want you to practice your religion openly or have the same right conservatives do to try to convince others to join your religion.
If you're an employee conservatives don't want you to have the right to belong to a union and bargain collectively.
If you're nature conservatives don't want you to have the right to be conserved (how ironic).
Help! We're being oppressed.
Congrats to Gomer Pyle!! All of Mayberry salutes you!!
"Jim Nabors, best known as Gomer Pyle from “The Andy Griffith Show” and “Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.,” has just wed his partner of 38 years, Stan Cadwallader, in Seattle, according to Hawaii News Now.
"I'm 82 and he's in his 60s and so we've been together for 38 years and I'm not ashamed of people knowing, it's just that it was such a personal thing, I didn't tell anybody," Nabors said. "I'm very happy that I've had a partner of 38 years and I feel very blessed. And, what can I tell you, I'm just very happy."
So let's see, is anyone planning to get a divorce now that Jim and Stan have wed?
Truth Wins Out Announcement
A network TV producer is researching a report on the "ex-gay" industry and is trying to find people willing to talk.
In particular, she is hoping to track down individuals who have recently been exposed to reparative therapy as minors. Or parents who have made the decision to place children in therapy. What kind of treatment was offered (talk therapy, aversion therapy, drug therapy) and why? What was the impact on the family? Initial conversations would be confidential.
Please contact Liz at: ejcbrown@gmail.com or cell: 917-304-9171
In Shift, an Activist Enlists Same-Sex Couples in a Pro-Marriage Coalition
David Blankenhorn, a traditional-marriage advocate and star witness in the Proposition 8 trial in California in 2010, shocked his allies with an Op-Ed article in The New York Times last June announcing that he was quitting the fight against same-sex marriage. “Instead of fighting gay marriage,” Mr. Blankenhorn wrote, “I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same.”
"If you're female conservatives don't want you having an abortion or preventing pregnancy with birth control"
False Priya. We could care less if you use birth control or not. we just don't believe we should be forced to pay for it, and religious organizations shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance plans that cover it either.
this is an interesting one, because my law school daughter believes we should be providing free birth control... though not forcing religous institutions to pay for it... because "mom, the people that will end up getting pregnant because they can't afford birth control are the people you really don't want having kids they can't support". and "it's far cheaper to give them the birth control than support their kids" She also believes that if you can't support the children you already have, you should be sterilized or forced to take mandatory birth control every time you get your welfare check.
and she is not religious really, at all. but she is quite the capitalist, works very hard, and sees absolutely no reason that her hard work should go to support people that don't try to support themselves. or continue having children that they can't support. The idea has some merit, though it is radical even for me. If you say that's horrible, you can force people to take birth control ... suggest another solution to the out of control welfare spending in this country and folks that are quite happy to live off the work of others.
What law school is teaching her about "welfare checks?"
"Welfare as we knew it no longer exists.
The 61-year American tradition of guaranteeing cash assistance to the poor came to an end with the signing of legislation in August 1996."
Maybe she's talking about corporate welfare checks.
"Cato Institute's Tad DeHaven has published a new study, “Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget,” on business subsidies, which he figures to cost about $100 billion a year. Slashing corporate welfare/business subsidies would be a good start to balancing the budget. Moreover, going after corporate welfare is essential to create a budget package that the public will see as fair.
Corporate welfare reflects politics at its worst. Local businessmen are important constituents who seek aid in return for political support. Local and state officials press legislators to win federal subsidies for businesses within their jurisdictions. National companies and associations spend generously on campaign contributions and lobbying campaigns."
I said "If you're female conservatives don't want you having an abortion or preventing pregnancy with birth control"
Anonymous said "False Priya. We could care less if you use birth control or not. we just don't believe we should be forced to pay for it, and religious organizations shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance plans that cover it either".
No, it is true that conservatives don't want people preventing pregnancy with birth control. Throughout the United states conservatives push abstinance only sex education in high schools in which they either completely omit discussing birth control or talk about what a terrible and unreliable thing it is and how no one should use it to prevent pregnancy. In Africa American conservatives push AIDS prevention programs that once again discourage the use of condoms and even tell people condoms are sabotaged and have holes pricked in them or that condoms themselves cauase AIDS.
While Conservatives don't want the government to pay for birth control, their primary motive in this is not to save the government money, it is to lessen the availability of birth control so that women are in effect punished with pregnancy for having sex. We see the see the same thing with the HPV vaccinations. Conservatives oppose giving them to to teenage girls because they want the threat of disease to discourage them from having sex.
Conservatives are much more likely to have sexual hangups and associate sex with shame. One of their primary goals is to minimize or eliminate any sex that isn't aimed at procreation. Minimizing the access to birth control is one of their strategies to achieve this.
Not to mention all the conservative pharmacists and their supporters who want the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. They don't care if the users are paying for it or not, they just don't want anyone to have access to birth control.
first of all, here's the welfare I am talking about :
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/3-unbelievable-food-stamp-statistics-in-america/
and this :
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/07/the-welfare-spending-chart-you-wont-want-to-see/
and this :
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/18/welfare-spending-topped-1-trillion-in-2011-study-shows/
and this :
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias-mother-why-a-single-mom-is-better-off-on-welfare-than-taking-a-69000-a-year-job/
and Priya, you are simply wrong about contraception and conservatives.
Most parents are unhappy with, for instance, the silly little movie that they show kids in FIFTH grade (think 10 and 11) that explains all about sex and says to wait until you are in a committed relationship.
some parents believe that is pulling kids down to the lowest common demoninator.
for instance, you don't tell a kid to wait until they "kind of" know how to drive to drive a car - you tell them you wait until you have a drivers license, period.
for the same reason you tell kids to wait until they are married, and are happy if they wait until 17 or 18.
you don't keep lowering the bar. and of course you get them birth control and of course you them HPV shots... the only reason not to might be if the side effects of the HPV shot were worse than catching the disease.
You don't know many conservatives, do you ?
I could just as easily say "if a republican doesn't like guns, he won't buy one, but democrats want to take them away from everyone"
I am still waiting for your answer to how do you solve the welfare crisis ? how do you keep people who can't support the kids they have from having more... especially without a family structure to support them ?
and for the record, I have NO problem with getting rid of corporate subsidies, ALL of them.
let's start with GE's Jeff Emelt - Obama's buddy - that paid nothing on 4B of profit, shalll we ?
throw the tax code out, start over.
flat rate, NO special interests, and simply not a progressive tax code.
everyone has skin in the game.
but you will hate that idea, I am sure....
it's a rick perry idea, it should fit on a postcard, not be millions of pages.
In May of 1999, under intense pressure following the Columbine High School massacre, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre told Congress that the gun lobby supported instant background checks at gun shows. On Wednesday, back before the Senate Judiciary Committee following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, LaPierre uncomfortably withdrew his support for universal background checks.
"let's start with GE's Jeff Emelt - Obama's buddy - that paid nothing on 4B of profit, shalll we"
Oh sure, and don't forget:
David and Charles Koch
Harold Simmons
William Dore
Foster Friess
Sheldon Adelson
Harold Simmons
Peter Thiel
Bruce Kovner
Stephen Einhorn
to name a few.
Applebee's Waitress Fired For Sharing 'I Give God 10%' Tip Receipt
"Be careful what you post on Reddit. It may just get you canned.
Earlier this week, an Applebee’s waitress posted a photo on Reddit of a receipt from an alleged pastor who, instead of leaving the suggested 18 percent tip, wrote “I give God 10%, why should you get 18.” Now, after the bill went viral, Applebee's has fired the waitress, according to Consumerist.
“I thought the note was insulting, but it was also comical," the waitress, whose name is Chelsea, told Consumerist. "I posted it to Reddit because I thought other users would find it entertaining."
Apparently once the receipt hit the Internet, the supposed pastor forgot the Golden Rule of “love thy neighbor” and called the Applebee’s where Chelsea works to demand that she and all management involved be fired..."
PETITION:
Petition Background (Preamble):
Earlier this week, a receipt posted to Reddit went viral. The receipt showed a zero tip, along with an explanation from the customer, who identified himself as a pastor: "I give God 10%, why do you get 18."
The waitress who posted it, Chelsea, has since been fired from her employer, Applebee's, after the pastor complained.
We want Applebee's to do the right thing here and rehire Chelsea. This was clearly a good-natured joke at the expense of someone who showed incredibly poor regard for his fellow man/woman, especially for a pastor.
Moreover, we believe Applebee's wants to do the right thing. We don't fault them for erring on the side of an angry customer, but a closer look at the matter reveals that this particular angry customer was in the wrong. Applebee's should correct the error and show that it stands up for its employees who are doing their jobs.
So, if Applebee's rehires Chelsea, we at HuffPost Comedy, and the below signed, promise to eat at our local Applebee's restaurant at least once in 2013. Maybe we'll even order a Mucho Margarita™. We hear they're great.
Petition:
I promise to eat at my local Applebee's at least once in 2013 if they rehire Chelsea.
Sign the petition
Anonymous said "and Priya, you are simply wrong about contraception and conservatives".
No, I'm right on the money and you're just a typical conservative saying one thing and doing another.
Anonymous said "You don't know many conservatives, do you ?".
You Maam are a moron. Aproximately half of people are conservatives. I know as many conservatives as I do liberals. And one thing I know about them is that the lie a lot and deny having desires to control other people's lives but actions speak louder than words. Its no coincidence that in the 2010 conservative sweep to power they said they'd have a "relentless focus on creating jobs" but in the next two years didn't advance a single job creation proposal instead prefering to take 52 votes on anti-women policies. Its obvious conservatives want to prevent people from using birth control when:
They try to pass laws that give pharmacists the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions even though the user is paying for it.
They oppose teaching school children about birth control in sex education class, instead choosing to push abstinence only ciriculum that either doesn't mention it or lies about it being ineffective.
They oppose promoting the use of condoms in Africa instead prefering to promote incomplete abstinence only awareness and tell people condoms have been sabotaged by having been picked with pins, or even telling people condoms cause AIDS.
They claim to oppose abortion but then oppose the mandated availability of birth control that would lessen the numbers of abortions across the board.
Anonymous said "Most parents are unhappy with, for instance, the silly little movie that they show kids in FIFTH grade (think 10 and 11) that explains all about sex and says to wait until you are in a committed relationship.".
But its primarily conservative parents who say they'd prefer that movie to be shown over one that educates schoolchildren about birth control. All over the United States conservatives push laws and sex education ciriculums that either make no mention of birth control or if they do mention it it is to disparge the use of birth control and lie about its effectiveness.
Anonymous said "some parents believe that is pulling kids down to the lowest common demoninator. for instance, you don't tell a kid to wait until they "kind of" know how to drive to drive a car - you tell them you wait until you have a drivers license, period.".
See, there you are trying to turn marriage into a licensing program for sex and procreation. Decent people are horrified by the idea of the government regulating who can have sex and procreate, but not consrevatives like you, you go around left and right and scream marriage is the only acceptable place for sex and the creation and rearing of children. That'll be the f'in day I'll ever let my government tell people who can have sex and children and who can't.
Anonymous said "for the same reason you tell kids to wait until they are married, and are happy if they wait until 17 or 18.".
No, you're not happy if they only wait until 17 or 18. Conservatives rant all the time about how no one should have sex outside of marriage regardless of their age. Conservatives call young single women who want birth control sluts and conservative pharmacists demand that they be allowed to refuse birth control prescriptions for everyone but in particular for single women.
Anonymous said "you don't keep lowering the bar. and of course you get them birth control and of course you them HPV shots... the only reason not to might be if the side effects of the HPV shot were worse than catching the disease.".
See, you start out lying about wanting to get them birth control and the vaccine but then in the same sentence you can't suppress your true nature, you have to lie about the HPV vaccine being worse than the disease because the truth is you don't want teenage girls to get it, you want them to think of sex as something threatening they will be punished for.
Anonymous said "I could just as easily say "if a republican doesn't like guns, he won't buy one, but democrats want to take them away from everyone"".
You can't stop lying, can you? Democrats don't want to take guns away from everyone, they just want to see some reasonable regulation. The difference with Democrats is they have a legitimate concern for their safety the more guns people have. Its no coincidence that just as rates of gun ownership have dropped in the last several years gun crimes have dropped as well. With conservatives, they have no legitimate concerns for their own wellbeing when it comes to trying to stop others from having unregulated sex for pleasure, or using prostitutes or drugs, or being non-christian, or belonging to a union and bargaining collectively, or entering into a same sex marriage. Conservatives are all about forcing everyone to live as conservatives want them to even though it doesn't cost a conservative anything to let others live their lives as they choose.
dfsf
The Republican War on Contraception
Last year was not a great one for abortion rights. First, congressional Republicans attempted to deny statutory rape victims access to Medicaid-funded abortions (twice). Then GOP-dominated state legislatures pushed record numbers of laws limiting abortion rights, including proposals that could have treated killing abortion providers as "justifiable homicide."
Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.
The first sign of the new assault came when Mississippi activists and congressional Republicans pushed legislation on the state and federal level, respectively, that would have treated zygotes—a.k.a. fertilized human eggs—as legal "persons." If the definition of legal personhood is changed so that it begins when sperm meets an egg, hormonal birth control or barrier devices that prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterine wall could become illegal, making using an IUD tantamount to murder. Yet some 40 percent of House Republicans and a quarter of their allies in the Senate back bills that would do just that.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who was a very popular Republican presidential candidate suggested that any form of birth control is immoral. "Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in October. "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." As Salon's Irin Carmon has documented, Santorum thinks Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that said states can not deny married couples access to contraception, should be overturned.
The battlefield has definitely shifted. "First, everyone thought it was all about abortion access and abortion rights," she says. "But they decided to move the goalposts, and it's been kind of stunning how far to the right they've gone. These are people who have never, ever approved of birth control, and they saw an opportunity to take it one step further."
Priya.
You are just simply wrong, most conservatives could care less whether someone purchases contraception... it is forcing religious institutions to provide it that is this issue. Having been in a vehement facebook debate on this very issue which involved probably 50+ people, not a single conservative was arguing against contraception being widely available... if you paid for it !
you keep positioning this way because you would like to believe the falsehoods the democratic party spit out repeatedly before the election, but they just aren't true. even santorum was quoted as saying that this whole thing was ridiculous .."But that's not the issue -- the issue is whether the government can force you to do things that are against your conscience, and that's what we've been talking about on the road."
noone is out to deny people birth control. the issue is who pays for it. my daughter's birth control went from 51.00 for 3 packs to 5.00 for 3 packs after Obamacare rulings kicked in. that is patently ridiculous. why should you be paying for my law school daughter's birth control ?
It is just stupid. we were fine convering it for her....
and finally, I am still waiting for your solution to the welfare problem and what you think about MANDATING birth control in order to receive a welfare check.
Priya Lynn: “Conservatives ... their primary motive in this is not to save the government money, it is to lessen the availability of birth control so that women are in effect punished with pregnancy for having sex. ...same thing with the HPV vaccinations. ...they want the threat of disease to discourage them from having sex.”
Thanks for helping to complete those equations, Priya. Clearly this war on women is a craven coup designed to re-implement an outdated “traditionally valued” patriarchal society through misogynistic means.
Probably Theresa Rickman: “…and of course you get them birth control and of course you them HPV shots... the only reason not to might be if the side effects of the HPV shot were worse than catching the disease. ... You don't know many conservatives, do you ?”
Precious few of the kind that rise up in outrage against these maddeningly absurd anti-abortion/anti-contraception “heartbeat” and “personhood” laws, or the shutting down of comprehensive health care clinics JUST because they also perform abortions. Given that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs/pregnancies naturally abort themselves, it is apparent that these efforts are not “pro-life” agenda driven (among other reasons).
Either these lawmakers and their supporters are just as Priya described or are complete ignorami. Probably both.
I realize there are many reasonable and informed conservatives, as the recent squashing of the Mississippi “personhood-amendment” indicates, but they’re either being under represented or not being vocal enough, because measures like these are making their way through legislatures with wide, if not total, republican support, or being very narrowly defeated.
And for the record, I’m not “pro-abortion,” I’m anti-unwanted pregnancy. But the solution to ending abortion isn’t to ban it but through comprehensive sex education that includes all the responsibilities and potential consequences that come with having sex, physical and psychological. Your license to drive analogy is incomparable:
“you don't tell a kid to wait until they "kind of" know how to drive to drive a car - you tell them you wait until you have a drivers license, period. … for the same reason you tell kids to wait until they are married, and are happy if they wait until 17 or 18.”
By that logic, you may as well tell them to wait for puberty and it’s accompanying physical attractions to set in.
Sexual attraction is not a “privilege” to be “granted.” It’s an unavoidable part of physical maturation and happens well before Drivers Ed -- a simple, no matter how comprehensive, partial prep class. The same goes for sex ed. Even if someone is determined to “wait ‘till marriage,” like driving, no amount of education can prepare you for the real thing.
Like the “temptation” to speed, missing a stop sign (hooking up with the “wrong” guy), making a wrong turn without realizing it (ibid), the intimidation of a tailgater, honker, light flasher (being pressured), caught in the blindness high beams (“Lost in his eyes”).
The hazards of driving are external and tend to be unchanged (same roads, speeds, signs, driving habits of others) with the added benefit of reaching one’s destination at which point those hazards cease entirely. Thus, the learning curve tapers off making new challenges much more measured.
The influence of sexual attraction and desire for companionship come from within, are MUCH more complicated, are a lifetime trip and begin at puberty (years before drivers ed). Coupled with the added complicating confusion of finding and establishing one’s individual identity as a person, "educating" with religiously motivated, dishonest, manipulative programs like abstinence-only-until-marriage is unethical and abusive in the short and long term and on many levels.
____
Abstinence Only Education -PDF, 95 footnotes with links
Repeating for those who need it:
"Welfare as we knew it no longer exists.
The 61-year American tradition of guaranteeing cash assistance to the poor came to an end with the signing of legislation in August 1996.
And as for contraception, the rules have been changed.
"Faced with nearly 50 lawsuits by employers with religious objections, the Obama administration announced on Friday new details of the contraception coverage rule that clarify which employers will be exempt from having to cover contraception costs for their employees.
The new rules announced on Friday eliminate some confusion over which organizations qualify for the exemption by requiring employers with religious objections to self-certify that they are non-profits with religion as a core part of their mission. Religiously affiliated organizations that choose to insure themselves would instruct their "third-party administrator" to provide coverage through separate individual health insurance policies so that they do not have to pay for services to which they morally object.
“Today, the administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “We will continue to work with faith-based organizations, women’s organizations, insurers and others to achieve these goals.”
The so-called "contraception mandate," which went into effect on Aug. 1, 2012, requires most employers to cover birth control for their female employees at no additional cost. Houses of worship are exempt from the rule, and religiously affiliated organizations that are not churches, such as schools and hospitals, are allowed to opt out of directly paying for contraception coverage. The cost of coverage, in those cases, would be shifted to the insurer.
The accommodation for religious organizations did not satisfy all of them. As of Friday, there have been 48 lawsuits filed in federal court challenging the contraception mandate. Some for-profit companies that are not religiously affiliated, including the Christian-owned Hobby Lobby, sued the administration on the grounds that they are being denied their religious freedom by having to cover services to which they morally object. Judges have granted nine of those companies temporary relief from the rule as they pursue their claims in court.
Some non-profit religious organizations that self-insure, such as Catholic schools and dioceses, also filed lawsuits against the mandate, arguing that the accommodation does not apply to them because there is no third-party insurer to absorb the cost of coverage. The courts have largely dismissed those cases because non-profits with religious objections were given a one-year grace period to comply with the birth control coverage rule.
Reproductive rights advocates said on Friday that they are still pleased with the details of the contraception rule. "We look forward to examining and commenting on the proposed rule and helping ensure that, when it is implemented, the women who are affected will have simple and seamless access to contraceptive coverage without co-pays or added costs," said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. "It’s time for opponents of women’s reproductive choice to stop politicizing women’s health."
The U.S. Catholic Church, one of the primary foes of the contraception mandate, remained mum on the changes.
“We welcome the opportunity to study the proposed regulations closely. We look forward to issuing a more detailed statement later," said Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The New York archdiocese is one of many dioceses that have sued the administration over the changes."
Anonymous above:
"
I could just as easily say "if a republican doesn't like guns, he won't buy one, but democrats want to take them away from everyone"
You could as easily say, "if a liberal doesn't like gay marriage, he doesn't get one; but conservatives want to take them away from everyone.
I personally oppose the government forcing people into same-gender marriages. We should pass an amendment. or something.
rrjr
and finally, I am still waiting for your solution to the welfare problem and what you think about MANDATING birth control in order to receive a welfare check.”
Mandating it? Just let them know about it.
From the Abstinence Only PDF link above:
Title V of the Personal Responsibility & Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA): In 1996, Congress allocated $50 million per year in federal funds for abstinence education as part of “welfare reform” legislation.19
Title V funding targets low-income populations, so abstinence-only programs have a disproportionate impact on poor communities
A 2004 Congressional review of three widely used curricula found pervasive factual inaccuracies surrounding condom use,
As of 2011 … 41% of teens aged 18 to 19 have little or no knowledge about condoms and 75% have little or no knowledge of the contraceptive pill.62 A third of teens aged 15 to 17 have had no formal education on contraceptives (38% of males compared to 40% of females).63 In 2009, 30.5% of Latino and 29.8 % of African-American teens did not use condoms or birth control pills, compared to 6.4 percent of white teens.64
"what you think about MANDATING birth control "
MANDATING birth control is just like the Chinese government MANDATING abortions. It's despicable and immoral. Even your beloved Rick Santorum agrees.
Each woman should decide for herself if she wishes to practice birth control or not and to give birth to a child or not. She sure doesn't need either you, Rick Santorum, or the Chinese government making a single decision about what she does with her own body.
Anonymous said "You are just simply wrong, most conservatives could care less whether someone purchases contraception... it is forcing religious institutions to provide it that is this issue. Having been in a vehement facebook debate on this very issue which involved probably 50+ people, not a single conservative was arguing against contraception being widely available... if you paid for it !
you keep positioning this way because you would like to believe the falsehoods the democratic party spit out repeatedly before the election, but they just aren't true. even santorum was quoted as saying that this whole thing was ridiculous."
I am NOT repeating falsehoods, YOU are.
HERE is what Santorum said:
"Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in October. "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
As Salon's Irin Carmon has documented, Santorum thinks Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that said states can not deny married couples access to contraception, should be overturned.
Santorum was the darling of Republican Evangelicals getting the overwhelming majority of their support compared to any other candidate and he was their favourite because they share his views. What your cherry picked group of 50 people thought in a liberal local is in no way representative of what Republican conservatives think - they think exactly like Santorum, they want sexual activity to be something that requires a license, a marriage license, and they want to dicatate who gets to do what sexually and when. That's why most conservatives oppose birth control, the HPV vaccine and comprehensive sex education.
Wall Street Journal reports
Fresh off a blowout January, stocks started February with a bang.
The Dow industrials topped 14000 for the first time since 2007, capping their fifth-straight weekly gain, amid encouraging data on U.S. jobs and manufacturing.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 149.21 points, or 1.1%, to 14009.79 Friday, climbing above 14000 for the first time since Oct. 12, 2007...
Oh hey T, that reminds me. How's your website doing now that the "temporary" Bush tax cuts have been made permanent for your family's income? Are you and your lady friends still planning to quit working so you can stop paying taxes on your second incomes?
Anonymous said "and finally, I am still waiting for your solution to the welfare problem and what you think about MANDATING birth control in order to receive a welfare check.".
I am unconditionally opposed to MANDATING birth control to receive a welfare check. As I said before, that'll be the f'n day I sit back and let the government decide who gets to procreate and who doesn't. Once again, conservatives like yourself want to dictate how others live there lives, and predictably you want to put all the restrictions on poor people while saving all the benefits for the rich.
Just like a rich B such as yourself to complain about the poorest of people while you whine about having to pay a share of taxes commensurate with your income.
Its about time there was a progressive tax code, people who've benefited more from society can damn well pay a higher percentage of income in taxes. That would more than cover the cost of welfare for the poorest of people.
Not to mention the outrageous defense spending which conservatives insist on, another form of corporate welfare. The U.S. spends more on defense than the next 16 highest spending countries combined. I have absolutely no sympathy for rich B's demanding the government spend several times more on defense than what it spends on welfare. When the U.S. government cuts defense spending to 10% of its current level then and only then will I have any concern for what it spends on welfare.
I'm surprised that you have not commented on the new transgender bill introduced in the Md
Okay Priya, let's try to bring this to a level you might understand in order to get my analogy on welfare.
There is a old Aesops fable that you must not have ever read ... the little red hen. It goes like this (wikipedia) "In the tale, The Little Red Hen finds a grain of wheat, and asks for help from the other farmyard animals to plant it. However, no animal will volunteer to help her.
At each further stage (harvest, threshing, milling the wheat into flour, and baking the flour into bread), the hen again asks for help from the other animals, but again she gets no assistance.
Finally, the hen has completed her task, and asks who will help her eat the bread. This time, all the previous non-participants eagerly volunteer. However, she declines their help, stating that no one aided her in the preparation work, and eats it with her chicks, leaving none for anyone else.
The moral of this story is that those who show no willingness to contribute to an end product do not deserve to enjoy the end product: "if any man will not work, neither let him eat.""
Do you agree or disagree ? I guess it comes down to whether you believe that folks that don't work are entitled to the product of folks that do... I have seen this in my own family, and I WILL NOT bail my siblings that continue to refuse to work out. I will give them part-time jobs .. but I will not give them handouts.
Mean ? I don't think so. I think that is a FAIR SHARE.
Rich ? I don't think so.
Rich folks don't spend their Friday evenings wiping out their own refrigerators after spending the evening shopping at Costco, dear.
Or hauling stuff off to goodwill for the tax deduction, because they are trying hard to put their kids through college without having them graduate with an enormous debt load.
Rich folks hire folks to wipe down their fridge and they don't usually shop at Costco...
Okay, all, you don't like mandated birth control ... how do you fix the problem of single moms that continue to have kids, raise them poorly, and collect govt checks ? (we can debate about the percentage of the population that is... ) but how would you address this problem ? They can't support the kids they have, they are collecting a check to support them, they constantly require social services intervention, and we keep upping the amount of handouts they get because they have more kids (that they can't raise to be productive members of society). How do you fix this ? I don't think you encourage them to have more kids by giving them more money with each kid !
and clearly with the number of reports of abused kids in the foster care system, you can't hand them off ...
Patrick, I am going to have to read through your interesting post in the morning. I am still trying to follow your expansion of my analogy, sorry. Again, I don't think folks are that far apart - I really don't - I think it is the manner it which it is presented and the age at which it is presented. And with TEN year olds, it should always be wait until you are married, period. Puberty starts at 12-14, and I believe boys is bit later.
Priya, I haven't called you names and you should back off on the name calling, it is not nice.
oh and on the extension of the current rates we are just fine, we have never been over that number and I doubt we ever will be.
so no I am not quitting until I get my kids through college, which was the primary reason I continued to work when my kids were small. The only sibling of mine that voted for Obama chose to quit work when her children were born, and believes she is entitled to more of the money I earned through continuing to work though the progressive tax code, which is almost so progessive as to drive us silly crazy dual income working moms out of the work force already... www.dualincomedilemma.com
And no, I didn't even put a ticker at the site so I have no idea how it is doing. I was just so friggin furious at the lies Obama continued to spout about the rich not paying their fair share... (and actually I agree with him, the REALLY rich who don't earn earned income AREN't paying their fair share) while at the same time arguing that the EARNED income rates should be raised.
It just goes to show you what idiots most of the population are that they don't understand that there is different sorts of taxation for corporations, etc, than there is for personal income tax (earned income) wages.
they aren't touching the Romneys, if that was their objective with their 400K and above earned income tax hike. The Romneys don't declare earned income, as most of the multi-millionaires don't. So Obama's hike doesn't touch them.
Which just goes to show you what idiots the general population are.... the question is, did Obama know that his hike wouldn't really get the true multi-millionaires, or did he not know ? I think he did know, and is just playing you all for fools and placating his under-educated voters while laughing all the way to the bank with his liberal Hollywood friends.
Did Aesop happen to mention if the little red hen sought the owner of the grain of wheat she found and planted or did she just assume it was hers for the taking ala "finders keepers, losers weepers?" Where did she obtain her planting, harvesting, threshing, and milling apparatus -- did she pay for them or did she "find" and appropriate those as her own as well as the grain of wheat? Did she pay the owner of the oven in which she baked her bread, or the animal who made the pan she baked it in, or or the animal who provided the yeast needed to make bread rise or did she just take the contributions of the lowly manufacturing and farming non-union workers as if she deserved them? Did she employ her chicks or other animals in her bread-making business and did she pay them a living wage?
NEWSFLASH: Federal Criminal James O'Keefe Is a Liar
VA law enforcement drops investigation of Congressman's son after the rightwing propagandist refused to release unedited video...
You'll be shocked --- shocked --- to learn (once again) that rightwing political propagandist and operative James O'Keefe, a federal criminal, is also a professional liar.
From O'Keefe's Project Veritas Investigates: Voter Fraud" racket on January 11, 2012...
(Unlike the establishment media, Project Veritas works to release full, unedited versions of it investigations and stores. To see the unedited videos ....Click here.)
That was the lie. Here's the truth. From TPM's report on the dropped criminal investigation of a Congressman's son today:
Police in Arlington County, Va. have dropped an investigation into Patrick Moran, the son of Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), stemming from an election-season "voter fraud" hidden-camera video released by conservative activist James O'Keefe.
Police told a local Patch reporter that both Morans had cooperated with the investigation, but that O'Keefe had not complied with several requests for the full, unedited video in his possession, along with the identity of the videographer.
...
"We want the full version. That's our job, to do a thorough investigation. And that's a huge piece of the process right there," [police spokesman Dustin Sternbeck told Patch.]
Of course, we've highlighted O'Keefe's lies about releasing full, unedited videos, from which he creates his doctored and deceptively edited video propaganda, many times.
For example, despite his fundraising pleas to the contrary, it took a deal for criminal immunity from the California Attorney General in 2010 before O'Keefe finally agreed to turn over the raw, unedited videos from his phony 2009 ACORN "Pimp" Hoax to law enforcement. (The AG's investigation determined that the only violations of criminal law seen on the tapes were O'Keefe's.)
The screenshot from his dishonest fundraising plea at the top of this article was published after he and his co-conspirators trumped up secretly video taped "voter fraud" incidents during last year's New Hampshire Primary.
As we reported in great detail at the time, even while attempting to raise money on his fake "voter fraud investigation" --- which led to the Republican Mayor of Manchester calling for O'Keefe and his gang to be "arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" --- O'Keefe lied about the release of what he claimed were the full, unedited tapes from that particular scam. They weren't. James O'Keefe had lied then, just as he did about the ACORN tapes, just as he has done, according to law enforcement, in the Virginia case.
James O'Keefe is a professional liar. That's how he makes a living. Alert the media.
Anonymous said ""if any man will not work, neither let him eat."" Do you agree or disagree ?".
Depends entirely on why that person will not work. I really have no sympathy for rich people scapegoating the poor because they've only have two cars.
Anonymous said "Rich ? I don't think so. Rich folks don't spend their Friday evenings wiping out their own refrigerators after spending the evening shopping at Costco, dear. Or hauling stuff off to goodwill for the tax deduction, because they are trying hard to put their kids through college without having them graduate with an enormous debt load. Rich folks hire folks to wipe down their fridge and they don't usually shop at Costco...".
You and I differ greatly on what constitutes rich. If you can pay to put your kids through college without having them graduate with an enourmous debt load you're filthy rich. I spent ten years on welfare, I know what it is to be poor and let me tell you sister, it ain't the picnic liars like you make it out to be. Do you know what it is to not be able to afford new clothes for ten years? Do you know what it is to have to eat spagetti for a week in a row at the end of most months? Do you know what it is to have to go outside at -30 with a stiff breeze and lean against a tree to take a crap because you can't afford to fix your septic system? Do you know what it is to spend ten days during the christmas holliday with nothing to eat but peanut butter and milk? Do you know what its like to have no power and no water for 8 days when its below freezing outside? Do you know what it is to constantly fight a losing battle to keep the mice at bay that eat what little food you have and keep you awake at night with their scurryings throughout your home?
Oh, I've got no sympathy for a rich B like you who's got the luxury of paying for her kids to go to college and who doesn't want for any of the basics of life.
Anonymous said "Okay, all, you don't like mandated birth control ... how do you fix the problem of single moms that continue to have kids, raise them poorly, and collect govt checks ? (we can debate about the percentage of the population that is... ) but how would you address this problem ?".
I already told you, I wouldn't. As long as the United States is wealthy enough to spend more on defense than what the next 16 highest spending nations do its more than welathy enough to pay for the people on welfare.
Anonymous said "They can't support the kids they have, they are collecting a check to support them, they constantly require social services intervention, and we keep upping the amount of handouts they get because they have more kids (that they can't raise to be productive members of society). How do you fix this ? I don't think you encourage them to have more kids by giving them more money with each kid !?".
I told you, I don't fix that, I don't give a damn. Rich people like you are just looking for scapegoats to blame for the fact that you can't take as many vacations as you'd like. Our family income is currently about 32,000 a year after taxes and I want for nothing now, I live in a 600 square foot house built in 1950, I have everything I have ever dreamed of, I live like a queen as far as I'm concerned. Don't whine to me about how you're upset about people on welfare depriving you of anything.
well Priya.
I would suggest you take steps to fix your situation then.
Go back to school. the govt will loan you money to do it if you have none (here in the US they will anyway).
I am sorry, but you are educated enough to be able to change your destiny. My nanny of 10 years came here with nothing in her pocket at 23 and she immediately started working. and she kept working in her twenties - two jobs constantly all the time, saved up to go to med school and went to physicians assistant school WHILE she was also watching my kids (and I cosigned for her). she worked as a massage therapist on the weekends and occasionally as a night nurse. she just didn't sleep during her twenties, as far as I could see. and she never complained, not once, and she was never jealous or angry like you are... she is very christian. she is african, black, from zimbawee, and her parents died of AIDS when she was 14... she raised her siblings. Now she is a doctor. She has graduated, has just one job and a house pretty close to the same size as mine. she is also rich by your standards, now having graduated as a doctor. Is she also a rich B ?
I have not inherited any money, or borrowed any from my parents. I did have college loans, but not a crushing amount. I chose to get a double major in computer science and mechanical engineering. I chose to move into sales when I realized the sales people were making more. One of my siblings also chose engineering and worked hard. She is also successful. Two of my siblings did not choose to study in college, and never choose to work hard. Those two siblings that partied in college are nowhere close to as well off as the two siblings that worked hard.
My law school daughter who worked her butt off to get into law school, who sleeps probably 4 hours a night during the week, pulled straight A's her first semester in law school. She is taking on an enormous amount of debt to get that degree. Her boyfriend, who didn't work nearly has hard, got B's and C's. She will gradated with a 150k+ income at barely 25, because SHE WORKED FOR IT.
Until you start accepting responsibility for your own destiny, you will always be poor. If you don't like you situation, change it. It is up to you.
It's called WE BUILT IT.
Do you know how Reagan elaborated on the little hen fable?
"Revisions of the story include a current political version, based on a Ronald Reagan monologue from 1976.[2] The farmer claims that the hen is being unfair if she does not share her bread with the other animals, and forces her to share her bread with those who would not work for it. This in turn removes the hen's incentive to work, resulting in poverty for the entire barnyard.[3]"
And I have to go back to work, my lunch break is over. Have a nice day, look in the mirror and decide if you would like a nicer life and then take steps to create one.
Anonymous, do you even read my comments before responding?
I have no intention whatsoever of "fixing" my situation. I am thrilled beyond belief with my situation, I have never been happier, I want for NOTHING.
That you consider me poor just shows how incredibly out of touch you are with reality.
You spoiled rotten rich B.
Anonymous, you probably have twenty times the material assets that I do but my husband and I are far wealthier then you will ever dream of being.
If the farmer had a gun, he would have shot the chicken for stealing his grain.
Priya.
and that would be fine as long as you are not insisting that folks that work very hard for their money pay more in taxes so that you can pay less.
A even percentage across the board is what is fair.
otherwise you are confiscating from those who decide to work hard to be successful to give to those who don't want to work as hard (for whatever reason).
because the bread and the chicken's efforts really actually belong to the farmer, just like all our work and efforts and wealth really belong to the government, it was never actually the chickens to start with, correct Anon ?
All money is really the government, that's your point ?
You and Mao and Stalin would get along great.
Those who've benefited more from society owe it to society to pay back more.
I can't get over your stunning ingratitude. You have so much and yet you spend your days begrudging the poorest in society their barely above starvation incomes. You think you're badly treated because you don't have a multi-million dollar house so you seek to squeeze the 47% ever harder so you can have not just 20 times what they have, but 25 times what they have.
Its fair to have a sliding income tax rate with the higher your income the higher your overall income tax rate. Billionaires like the Koch brothers should be paying a 90% tax rate. My husband pays 30% and you my dear woman deserve to pay a higher percentage of your income to taxes than he does. I guarantee my husband works a hell of a lot harder for his money than you do so don't give me this B.S. about you working hard to be successful. Your success is due just as much to luck and the position your were born into in life as it is to anything else. You can pay a 10% higher tax rate than my husband and still have far more of the material possessions you covet than we do. You are overrewarded for what you give to society, don't give me this B.S. about people "confiscating" anything from you.
You will never have enough, you will always be disatisifed with your lofty lot in life, always bitter at people barely getting by because you mistakenly think you deserve far more than what most people have and you think you're justified in taking from the poorest to give to the wealthy such as yourself.
Before you bitch any more about people on welfare why don't you spend a few years ranting about all the extra taxes you pay to support the unbelievably bloated U.S. defense budget. Welfare saves lives, defense spending is just a grotesque waste but you have no problem with that. You hypocrite.
Without stealing the farmer's grain, there would be no bread for the chicken to feed her chicks and keep from the other animals. If the farmer told her to share the bread she produced from his stolen grain and she didn't, he should press charges for theft and throw her in jail.
Lookout, "spoiled rotten rich B." Here it comes again!
Exactly a century ago, on February 3, 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, authorizing a federal income tax. Congress turned it into a graduated tax, based on “capacity to pay.”
It was among the signal victories of the progressive movement — the first constitutional amendment in 40 years (the first 10 had been included in the Bill of Rights, the 11th and 12th in 1789 and 1804, and three others in consequence of the Civil War), reflecting a great political transformation in America.
The 1880s and 1890s had been the Gilded Age, the time of robber barons, when a small number controlled almost all the nation’s wealth as well as our democracy, when poverty had risen to record levels, and when it looked as though the country was destined to become a moneyed aristocracy.
But almost without warning, progressives reversed the tide. Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901, pledging to break up the giant trusts and end the reign of the “malefactors of great wealth.” Laws were enacted protecting the public from impure foods and drugs, and from corrupt legislators.
By 1909 Democrats and progressive Republicans had swept many state elections, subsequently establishing the 40-hour work week and other reforms that would later be the foundation stones for the New Deal. Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 presidential election.
A progressive backlash against concentrated wealth and power occurred a century ago in America. In the 1880s and 1890s such a movement seemed improbable if not impossible. Only idealists and dreamers thought the nation had the political will to reform itself, let alone enact a constitutional amendment of such importance — analogous, today, to an amendment reversing “Citizens United v. FEC” and limiting the flow of big money into politics.
But it did happen. And it will happen again.
You should learn to be proud of your "capacity to pay."
you all are forgetting the complexities of the tax code and how the super rich really don't pay anything hardly at all... we can certainly point at the Romneys (who pay less than you or I - Priya) for an example of that. Investment/business income is taxed at a fair less rate than earned income, with far more available deductions ....
you don't get rich working for someone else in this society.
that is because of the way our tax code is structured, and that is wrong. they take far more on earned income and you don't hear liberals screaming for the tax code to be redone and thrown out... and until it is thrown out the accountants will make more money and the emelts will pay far less the working stiffs.
I believe we can agree there.
on earned income, however, you have to realize that people make choices. overall I am paying close to 40% (so I am paying the 10% more than your partner, Priya) and if they keep raising the rates such that you lose your college loans for your kids, lose your deductions people will simply choose in this society to have one person stop working ....not worth it for the extra penalty on the second income, just not worth it.
it is not spoiled or selfish, it is just simple economics, most people don't work for charity, they work for an income because they need it to care for their families - or, yes, pay for higher education for their kids - and if they aren't allowed to keep enough of it to justify the work, they will stop working...
on the other side - if people get more by staying on welfare then they do working they will stay on welfare ! why stress yourself out and go to a job if the govt is going to hand you a check ... did you see that article about the mom being better off on welfare than an 69K a year job because of the disappearing benefits by working ? do you think that is okay ? (and back to our mom, you indicated that you think we should cut defense to pay for more single moms to stay home and have more kids, and continue to keep giving them more money as they have more kids... you do realize that as that number of folks on welfare expands it simply becomes unsustainable right ?) and defense does contribute to incomes and livelihood, the difference being people are working as opposed to just asking for a check..
our median income here in the US is less than you get with combined welfare programs... and that is not okay. did you read the article before ?
two quotes come to mind ...
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” Thomas Sowell
and ...
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
Benjamin Franklin
and we are headed for that scenario, unfortunately. hold onto your hats the depression has just started and it is going to be a really rough 4 years. but hopefully should knock some sense into the rest of the population.
I have a proposal that I have to get in by midnight, Priya. So I am signing off, have a nice evening.
Theresa
almost done with my proposal.
found another good quote ...
"An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits”
you really think Buffet should be paying 90% tax rates on his investments ? then why would he ever invest his money ? why would anyone invest their money when they could lose it ? why would anyone bother working ... because folks in those brackets generally have enough assets that they don't HAVE to work, they CHOOSE to work....
just some more food for thought, Priya....
oh that was John F. Kennedy, BTW.
"you all are forgetting the complexities of the tax code and how the super rich really don't pay anything hardly at all."
And who lobbied who to pass those two unfunded Bush tax cuts that made sure "the super rich really don't pay anything hardly at all? (Think - "Who's buried in Grant's tomb!") It sure wasn't poor folks asking for those tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes and income inequality grew in the US over Bush's term in office.
"you don't get rich working for someone else in this society."
In the days when employers were more like Henry Ford, who paid a wage high enough so his workers could afford to buy the cars they were making, maybe you didn't get rich working for someone else, but you could at least make a living wage.
Instead of making sure their workers make a living wage, today's CEO's take bigger and bigger pay packages for themselves and leave their workers to fend for themselves. We have Walmart employees with no insurance and military families who need food stamps to feed their families and too many more.
The last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2007 when we had a Democratically controlled House. But now, "action to raise the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is completely stalled at the federal level. It’s been stuck for over three years and it still isn’t indexed to inflation. That wage adds up to a pitiful $14,500 a year, not enough to make rent in any state. It’s over $3,000 below the poverty line for a parent with two kids. Its purchasing power is 13 percent lower than in 1979. "
And who is it that spends millions of dollars on lobbyists to make sure the federal minimum wage does not get raised? Yes, that's right T, the fat cats who keep getting fatter.
I hope you are starting to catch on here, and hold out hope for you yet, girl.
"“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
Benjamin Franklin"
That's exactly right. Even Dick Cheney said so, sort of.
We all know Bush's policies cost us $5.1 trillion over his term in office, about which his VP Cheney told us, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due. The largest expense in Bush's budget was the Bush tax cuts, most of which went to the rich, very rich, and super rich among us.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
Uh huh
Cheney called it "our due."
"An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits...oh that was John F. Kennedy, BTW.”
JFK worked on a bill to lower the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%. After he was assassinated, LBJ managed to get a bill enacted that lowered the top income tax rate 70%.
Seventy percent top income tax rate!
"The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it – and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country."
--John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address
Those were the days, huh T?
Theresa, don't give me this B.S. about liberals not wanting investment income taxed. It was your guy, Paul Ryan who wanted to eliminate taxes altogether on interest income so that someone like Romney would have paid less than a 1% tax rate. I am all for interest income being taxed at the same rate as earned income.
Theresa said "overall I am paying close to 40% (so I am paying the 10% more than your partner, Priya)".
I don't believe for one minute that you are paying close to 40%, no one in the states pays that level of income tax.
Theresa said and if they keep raising the rates such that you lose your college loans for your kids, lose your deductions people will simply choose in this society to have one person stop working ....not worth it for the extra penalty on the second income, just not worth it.".
Oh, yes, you're the BS'er that tried to mislead everyone by falsely claiming something like 80% of a second income goes to paying income taxes. In fact a second income is taxed at exactly the same rate as a first income. If its worth it to have that first income despite the tax rate its just as worth it to have the second income despite the tax rate. Nearly half of Americans can't afford to pay for their kids to go to college, but that doesn't discourage them from working. Frankly I don't give a damn whether you work or not. You make way more than the average american and still would if you were paying a 40% tax rate - you're nothing but a spoiled brat.
Theresa said "it is not spoiled or selfish, it is just simple economics, most people don't work for charity, they work for an income because they need it to care for their families - or, yes, pay for higher education for their kids - and if they aren't allowed to keep enough of it to justify the work, they will stop working...".
No one needs more than 30,000 a year in take home pay. You most certainly don't need the over 100,000 a year you have in family take home pay. Lots of Americans are amongst the working poor, many working two minimum wage jobs to get by. Even if you paid 50% in income tax you'd still have way more take home pay then them with half the work - you are spoiled and selfish to be constantly complaining it isn't enough and the government should give less to people on welfare so you can buy yet another new car.
Theresa said "on the other side - if people get more by staying on welfare then they do working they will stay on welfare ! why stress yourself out and go to a job if the govt is going to hand you a check ... did you see that article about the mom being better off on welfare than an 69K a year job because of the disappearing benefits by working ? do you think that is okay ?".
Stop the outrageous lies!. People DO NOT bet more staying on welfare than they do working! No one on welfare is better off than having a 69K a year job! You're spreading outrageous stories to encourage people to vote to squeeze people already on starvation level incomes ever more. I made $7000 a year on welfare, it is a VERY austere life and for you to be trying to convince voters those on welfare have it better than people working is not only unethical, its downright evil - STOP LYING!
Theresa said "(and back to our mom, you indicated that you think we should cut defense to pay for more single moms to stay home and have more kids, and continue to keep giving them more money as they have more kids... you do realize that as that number of folks on welfare expands it simply becomes unsustainable right ?)".
You do realize that as the number of folks working on war machinery expands it simply becomes unsustainable right? You can't eat a tank. You can't drive your car on an attack helicopter to get across a river where the bridge has fallen.
54% of the U.S. budget is spent on defense. The percentage of the budget spent on supporting non-working single moms is small in comparison ( and that does NOT include Medicare, social security, and most of Medicade). The U.S. government spends 12% of its budget on welfare
Theresa said "and defense does contribute to incomes and livelihood, the difference being people are working as opposed to just asking for a check.".
Defense spending is just corporate welfare. Welfare for single moms contributes to incomes and livelihoods in the exact same way, just with a fraction of the paycheque. The work people do for their defense welfare cheque is no different than having that single mom on welfare working to get her cheque by moving a pile of rocks from her backyard to her front yard one week and then the moving the same pile of rocks from her front yard to her back yard the next week. Defense spending does not produce ANY useful products, in fact the United States is worse off paying people to do defense work than it would be if it simply gave those people cheques and had them sit at home doing nothing. Producing war machinery creates pollution and depletes resources while driving up respource cost for useful endeavors. The U.S. gets nothing in return for the vast majority of its defense spending - it does not need to spend more than the next 16 highest spending countries combined. U.S. society would be far, far better off if it took the 54% of the budget it spends on defense and paid people to rebuild roads, bridges and other infrastructure. At least then it would be getting useful products for its money that benefits all americans instead of just those getting defense welfare cheques. That's the kind of spending Obama wanted to do to stimulate the economy and which Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent so they could throw away an additional 5 trillion on useless war goods and services
Theresa said "our median income here in the US is less than you get with combined welfare programs... and that is not okay. did you read the article before ?".
That is an outrageous lie fabricated by republicans to scapegoat the poorest of people. The median U.S. income is about $50,000 per year and the average family of three on welfare receives $7,041 per year in benefits. You republicans are an evil lot, begruding people that can barely survive on what little they have, lying and claiming they make more than $50,000 a year so you can squeeze them ever harder so you can buy a new car every two years instead of every three years. You greedy, evil, liars.
.
Thresa said “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”.
Its greed to think you owe nothing to the society that furnished you with everything you needed to make that money - you didn't do it all by yourself. Its profoundly greedy to have 20 times the possessions of your neighbour and to think, that's not enough, I want my neighbour to have less so I can have 30 times what she has. Oh, you're greedy alright, sickeningly greedy.
Theresa said “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”.
History has shown that as the gap between the rich and poor gets ever wider it leads to revolution and the destruction of that society. The gap between the top 20% in the U.S and the rest has been widening at a sickening pace. If you don't do something about it, your country will collapse.
Theresa said ""An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits”".
That's a myth. Republicans commonly repeat the lie that cutting taxes will result in sufficient economic growth to bring in more revenue than was lost by the tax cuts. This has NEVER been true. In every case where taxes were cut government revenues were lower in subsequent years than what they were prior to the tax cuts.
Theresa said "you really think Buffet should be paying 90% tax rates on his investments ? then why would he ever invest his money ? why would anyone invest their money when they could lose it ?".
You're damn right I do. He'd invest his money because he'd still be making 100 million a year on his 1 billion a year income. He'd much rather have 100 million than nothing.
Theresa said "why would anyone bother working ... because folks in those brackets generally have enough assets that they don't HAVE to work, they CHOOSE to work....". Exactly, so the idea that if they don't get enough money they won't work is bunk. They already have more than enough money and they choose to work anyway, the amount of money they get in return is not their motivation to work.
Priya.
the two links you posted contradict each other as to the amount spent on defense, one says 54% and the other says 25%.
You really have to go to the CBO budget source to work it out...that tax policy center also breaks all the numbers down... I like that site. Depends on how you add things up, ie I consider "welfare" to include Medicaid and housing assistance.... there are about 72 different organizations that provide public assistance to include food stamps, child health insurance (CHIPS) ... etc, if you narrowly just take what is called welfare you don't include all of the other public assistance programs, and yes, when you add those up it is as much as defense. at one point I had located where the detailed numbers were broken down... I will see if I can find that site again.
Here's the source for the 69K number for mom make more on welfare than working, not a lie...
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias-mother-why-a-single-mom-is-better-off-on-welfare-than-taking-a-69000-a-year-job/
haven't read all your post, will get back to you on the rest this evening....
"You're damn right I do. He'd invest his money because he'd still be making 100 million a year on his 1 billion a year income. He'd much rather have 100 million than nothing."
Not necessarily.
The stock market has been known to lose 1/2 it's value. He might decide to keep it on the sidelines and not invest it... it is a risk reward calculation and he could decide the reward wasn't worth the risk and not invest at all...
for the record, Priya, we don't own a single car with less than 100K miles on it, and the only time we have ever purchased a new car was when my son was born 17 years ago. which we did on credit without shopping around and it was an incredibly stupid move ...which I will never repeat. we spent more on that stupid minivan then every other car we own now... combined. and we have 4 old beaters and 5 drivers.
"the two links you posted contradict each other as to the amount spent on defense, one says 54% and the other says 25%"
No, they do not contradict each other. The government figure of 25% does not include costs from past military actions and underestimates the cost of the "war on terror" by 162 billion. Further, the government breakdown includes costs for trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. The 54% figure is the correct one.
I have seen your B.S. for "the 69K number for mom make more on welfare than working" and it is a lie. There is no such person, its Republican propaganda taking an incredibly far fetched worse case scenario, padding the numbers and then adding welfare benefits that do not exist. And even then, this alleged person IS working.
I am absolutely disgusted with you and and the Republican propaganda machine fabricating scenarios of theoretical welfare abuse and then trying to con the public into thinking a typical welfare reciptient is getting the equivalent of a $50,000 to $69,000 a year salary without working when that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the reality of the typical welfare recipient.
The typical welfare recipient is a family of three getting $7,041 per year in benefits from food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Yes it is true that there are other welfare programs that can add to this, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of AFDC and food stamps, or, if larger, they are collected by only a small percentage of all welfare recipients. For example, housing assistance trails a distant third on the total welfare budget, but only one-fourth of all AFDC recipients collect housing assistance, and even then their food stamp benefits are reduced if they do. Studies show that combined AFDC, food stamps and housing assistance lift fewer than one welfare family in five above the poverty line. And you feel okay about yourself giving me this Republican bullsh*t about the average person on welfare receiving $50,000/year
You come up with these absurd and almost certainly fabricated stories of people on welfare using foodstamps to buy lobster and caviar and feed t-bone steaks to their dogs. If there was any truth to such a story I guarantee you for every welfare recipient eating lobster and caviar there are hundreds of thousands of others living on sphagetti and peanut butter day after day after day like I did.
You've got the ability to save hundreds of thousands of dollars to send your kids to college and then you've got the unmittigated gaul to whine about having that ability and complain its not enough. Tell us honestly Theresa, what is your family's take home income? 100,000/year? 150,000/year? You live like a queen and then you've got the unbelievable nerve to say "Its not enough, I have to make up outrageous stories about how well off people are on welfare, and then try to con the voters into reducing their $7k a year subsistance income even more so I can have a few thousand extra I wouldn't miss if I blew my nose with it."
I am so disgusted with you I could just scream. I wish I was face to face with you at this moment.
"for the record, Priya, we don't own a single car with less than 100K miles on it, and the only time we have ever purchased a new car was when my son was born 17 years ago.".
Bully for you. Neither I nor my husband have ever owned a new car and its highly unlikely we ever will. I live like a queen on his 32,000 year take home pay, I have NO complaints about my lifestyle and yet all you do here is whine about how bad you have it and how good people on welfare have it.
Tell us Theresa, what is your family's take home pay? Triple mine? Five times mine?
And yet you're so phenomenally ungrateful for all you have.
look Priya.
I took the salaries of two people in MD and ran take home pay. I published that information on the website dualincomedilemma.com; which took me all of 4 hours and 10 bucks a month to put up.... one evening when I was pretty darn furious about the whole tax code. that information was derived from running the tax information though TTAX years before. basically it shows a diminishing return the more you work, so much so that one questions whether you should bother.
and yes, if you run the amount you take home on one income versus the amount you take home on two incomes you only keep something like 40% only of the second income with the increased taxes...(it is assuming you have two incomes to play with and can choose whether or not one person works)....
the marriage penalty is staggering. every accountant in the world agrees with me... they have been telling my husband to quit for years...
the numbers are all posted, go look at them.
the issue is NOT the rates, but the friggin tax code itself.
we can agree - I think - that EVERYTHING should be taxed at the same rate, EVERYTHING. at least the other anon (who seems to be far more calm and reasonable than you...) Capital gains, interest income, dividends, whatever. that STILL doesn't deal with the problem of corporate income tax returns being able to declare NO actual profit and pay NO taxes. I believe all of that has to do with the outrageous amount of deduction declared by corporations. I heard somewhere (don't have a source and I am not googling it) that it used to be that corporation payed most of the overall US tax bill and individual incomes didn't pay much, and that recently (past 50 years) it has been reversed. I believe that is because AMT for individuals does not apply to corporations. But I am not positive ... I don't have an accounting degree. But it does seem like folks who run corporations pay for lots of personal expenses using their tax free corporate dollars ALL the time, and that folks who are truly multi-millionaires never got there working for someone else....
think about it ....
you can deduct a car, housing expenses, utilities, maid, whatever if you can truly claim your place of residence is your sole source of income, but all of those deductions are completely eliminated if you are on W2.
anyway, the whole code should be thrown out and even if you want a graduated system, can we agree that EVERY deduction should be eliminated for both corporations and businesses ?
Theresa said "and yes, if you run the amount you take home on one income versus the amount you take home on two incomes you only keep something like 40% only of the second income with the increased taxes...(it is assuming you have two incomes to play with and can choose whether or not one person works)....".
No, that's not true. What you did was along the lines of taking two people making 100,000 each, each paying 30,000 in income taxes and then said the total takehome pay is 140,000 and therefore that family only gets to keep 40,000 of the second income, claiming the second person only makes 40 cents on the dollar. The truth is the first person makes 70 cents on the dollar and the second person makes 70 cents on the dollar. The truth is you keep 70% of what you make on the second income, not 40%. The truth is that if you have that second person working you have an additional 70,000 in income, NOT just an additional 40,000. You lied with numbers.
Theresa said "the marriage penalty is staggering. every accountant in the world agrees with me... they have been telling my husband to quit for years...".
For some it is a marriage advantage. I would support allowing married couples to file jointly or seperately as they choose.
Theresa said "we can agree - I think - that EVERYTHING should be taxed at the same rate, EVERYTHING. at least the other anon (who seems to be far more calm and reasonable than you...) Capital gains, interest income, dividends, whatever.".
We can agree that all that should be taxed at the same rate, but the rate should increase with income.
Theresa said "that STILL doesn't deal with the problem of corporate income tax returns being able to declare NO actual profit and pay NO taxes.".
That's your Republicans that have insisted that situation remains as it is - know who your friends are.
Theresa said "can we agree that EVERY deduction should be eliminated for both corporations and businesses ?".
I don't have sufficient familiarity with tax rules for businesses to make such a judgment. Off the top of my head I find it hard to imagine that at least some deductions aren't a good idea.
Don't go trying to scapegoat people on welfare for your income tax woes. Don't go absurdly claiming the average welfare recipient gets 50,000-69,000 per year when what they actually get is $7041 per year. You want to scapegoat someone for your complaints then blame it on the defense war machine welfare system.
I live like a queen on my husband's 32,000 take home pay - no one needs more than that to live comfortably. You've got far far more than I do. Judging from your unwillingness to respond, you've got 3 to 5 times our income and its outrageous that you are complaining its not enough and that you want to take from people living in great hardship so you can have more.
Theresa said "at least the other anon (who seems to be far more calm and reasonable than you...)".
I challenge you to show me anywhere I've been unreasonable.
Theresa said " every accountant in the world agrees with me... they have been telling my husband to quit for years...".
That you would consider such a thing is proof that you are not as hard done by with two incomes as you claim. If your husband quits you'll have even less take home pay than you do now thus its disingenous for you to be claiming you don't have enough money with both of you working.
Priya. there is a big difference between how much it takes to support a couple and how much it takes to support a family.
I will agree, with a house that is paid for and supporting two people you can surely do that on 30K and be fine, that's 2500 a month, 750 for food, 500 for utilities and cell phones, say property tax is 4000 a year or 340 a month, approximately... 250 for gas, 250 for car repairs.
that's 2040 with 450 left over.
that's not a family. do you know that teenage boy can drink 3 gallons of milk A WEEK ?
take your grocery budget and double it.. expect it to be 1200-1500.
you are going to need more cars.
you are going to need a bigger house.
oh, and college, well UMD is 10K instate for tuition alone, if you live on campus double that number. that wipes out your 30K immediately, doesn't it ?
now say you have 3 children you are trying to help put through college.
sure you can say two people can live just fine - not go hungry - stay warm - on 30K a year take home
it gets harder if you live in Montgomery county and have children you are trying to educate.
Priya. you keep acting like I am taking money from the poor - I am not. I just want to keep more of the money I have earned.
and I am not suggesting that we don't help people who have not been able to find a job. I am just suggesting that we should be mandating work (and providing a job) for folks who have consistently been on welfare - for years ! think about it, you could you have these folks run daycare centers, send the rest of them to clean govt buildings. And then they are working for their check. and their housing, etc.
that's what I would do.
other than cutting defense to the bone, and continuing to fund welfare instead, I haven't seen you suggest a solution. again, not working is demoralizing for folks and you are better off if folks are working !
Did you catch Eric Cantor's speech yesterday, T?
He's catching on and I am still holding out hope for you too.
"...Our goal is to ensure that every American has a fair shot to earn success and achieve their dreams.
It’s my hope that I can stand before you two years from now and report to you that our side as well as the President’s found within us the ability to set differences aside in order to provide relief to so many millions of Americans who just want their life to work again.
...You know, lately, it’s become all too common for us to hear parents really fear that their kids are not going to have it better than they, and for all of us parents that is a scary thought. I mean, let’s face it: It’s gotten a lot tougher to raise a family in America.
It’s not easy. That’s why we worry so much.
Where can you afford a home in the best neighborhood so your kids will have the right school? Which health care plan can you afford so you can see your doctors? Will your children actually make it through all those nights of homework and graduate from school and, if so, get into a college? And then, are you going to be able to afford it? What about a career – is that going to be available to them?
These are all real-life concerns. This is what keeps parents awake at night, fearful that life is not going to work out the way they hoped.
During the last several years with the stagnant economy, too many mothers and fathers have had to come home, walk into the kitchen, and tell their family they didn’t have a job anymore. Now, how’s a family like that supposed to save for a rainy day when it just got tough to even make it through the next month? These are the families that should be our focus. They’re desperate to have the nightmare over...."
You don't have any trouble making it through the next month T, yet all you can do is bitch that you want to quit your job while millions of your fellow Americans have spent years barely getting by without one.
Theresa said "I will agree, with a house that is paid for and supporting two people you can surely do that on 30K and be fine, that's 2500 a month, 750 for food, 500 for utilities and cell phones, say property tax is 4000 a year or 340 a month, approximately... 250 for gas, 250 for car repairs. that's 2040 with 450 left over.".
Our house is not paid for - you forgot the $600 month morgage payment. I gather you have been so wealthy as to own your huge house outright.
Theresa said "that's not a family. do you know that teenage boy can drink 3 gallons of milk A WEEK ?".
I'm calling B.S. on that one. Sure a boy "can" do that but I find it very hard to believe he does it regularly.
Theresa said "oh, and college, well UMD is 10K instate for tuition alone, if you live on campus double that number. that wipes out your 30K immediately, doesn't it ?"
I have no sympathy for you there whatsoever. Paying for your kids to go to college is a luxury, not a necessity. It is not a right to be able to send your kids to college. You pay for the little ungratefulls to go to college, they get that high paying job because they've gotten to start the race halfway down the track by being given an advantage the majority of americans never have and then they'll sneer at the poor like you do and falsely claim they did it on their own and they have no sympathy for anyone not in the same position as they.
Theresa said "Priya. you keep acting like I am taking money from the poor - I am not. I just want to keep more of the money I have earned.".
Come on Theresa, You've been ranting for days on this thread alone about how the people on welfare have it too good and you want to find ways to stop them from getting welfare. You may not be taking money from the poor, but you certainly want to and would do it in a heartbeat if you could. No one succeeds on their own, there's an entire society that helped facilitate your success and the success of your employer, you owe it to give something back and those that make more owe it to give more. You're very well off, you have far more than you need. You act like you paying less taxes requires forcing people off of welfare - it doesn't.
Theresa said "and I am not suggesting that we don't help people who have not been able to find a job. I am just suggesting that we should be mandating work (and providing a job) for folks who have consistently been on welfare - for years ! think about it, you could you have these folks run daycare centers, send the rest of them to clean govt buildings. And then they are working for their check. and their housing, etc.".
A lot of these people are unable to work. And in most of these cases it would cost even more to mandate work for people on welfare than it does to let them stay at home. Look at your B.S. example of the hypothetical person who was better off "on welfare" than taking a 69,000 a year job. That hypothetical person WAS working like you demand at a 29,000 year job and the difference was primarily in the extra (I think) 45,000/year daycare subsidies. You want to take a family of three with no job getting $7041 a year to stay at home and instead pay $37,000 a year to cover daycare so they can clean an office building for free just to satisfy your sense of "sticking it to them". Might make you feel smug, but it wouldn't be good economy. And the ironic part of this is situations like mine. I'm a male to female transexual married to a man. You oppose that. You would have prevented that marriage in the name of "what's good for society" and I'd be still collecting welfare instead of having a husband to take care of me. Your concern for the expense of people on welfare is overridden by your bigotry.
Theresa said "other than cutting defense to the bone, and continuing to fund welfare instead, I haven't seen you suggest a solution. again, not working is demoralizing for folks and you are better off if folks are working !".
No other solution is needed so there is no point in me suggesting one. Defense spending is a huge waste of cash, it'd actually cut taxes if you just gave all those people employed in defense industries their pay cheques and told them to sit at home instead of producing worthless goods and services.
Unless you've been on welfare you're in no position to talk about what is demoralizing and what isn't or whether or not folks are better off working. For me work was far more demoralizing than welfare. I could survive on welfare, but I couldn't survive working. If it weren't for welfare I'd be dead right now.
Now that Theresa's looked at my budget, let's look at hers.
Based on her constant complaints about dual income family with each having a $100,000 year salary we can safely assume she and her husband make $200,000 combined with a takehome pay of aproximately $140,000 year or about $11,650 per month. I'll take her at her word, 1500 for food, 500 for utilities and cell phones, say property tax is 4000 a year or 340 a month, approximately... 250 for gas, 250 for car repairs and she apparently has her house paid off given that she assumes I do. That's $2840 per month with $8,810 left over - quite a bit more than the -$150 she calculates my husband and I have left over. And yet here she is whining bitterly that over $100,000 per year in discretionary income is not enough and the average person on welfare with $587 month has it too good.
I should say, average family of three on welfare with $587 month
"I am just suggesting that we should be mandating work (and providing a job) for folks who have consistently been on welfare - for years ! think about it, you could you have these folks run daycare centers, send the rest of them to clean govt buildings.
Look who's touting stimulus spending! WTG, T! Now tell your party to get smart and get on with what this nation needs instead of acting like fools, like they have been recently:
Filibustering the American Jobs Act.
Last October, Senate Republicans killed a jobs bill proposed by President Obama that would have pumped $447 billion into the economy. Multiple economic analysts predicted the bill would add around two million jobs and hailed it as defense against a double-dip recession. The Congressional Budget Office also scored it as a net deficit reducer over ten years, and the American public supported the bill.
Stonewalling monetary stimulus.
The Federal Reserve can do enormous good for a depressed economy through more aggressive monetary stimulus, and by tolerating a temporarily higher level of inflation. But with everything from Ron Paul’s anti-inflationary crusade to Rick Perry threatening to lynch Chairman Ben Bernanke, Republicans have browbeaten the Fed into not going down this path. Most damagingly, the GOP repeatedly held up President Obama’s nominations to the Federal Reserve Board during the critical months of the recession, leaving the board without the institutional clout it needed to help the economy.
Threatening a debt default.
Even though the country didn’t actually hit its debt ceiling last summer, the Republican threat to default on the United States’ outstanding obligations was sufficient to spook financial markets and do real damage to the economy.
Cutting discretionary spending in the debt ceiling deal.
The deal the GOP extracted as the price for avoiding default imposed around $900 billion in cuts over ten years. It included $30.5 billion in discretionary cuts in 2012 alone, costing the country 0.3 percent in economic growth and 323,000 jobs, according to estimates from the Economic Policy Institute. Starting in 2013, the deal will trigger another $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years.
Cutting discretionary spending in the budget deal.
While not as cataclysmic as the debt ceiling brinksmanship, Republicans also threatened a shutdown of the government in early 2011 if cuts were not made to that year’s budget. The deal they struck with the White House cut $38 billion from food stamps, health, education, law enforcement, and low-income programs among others, while sparing defense almost entirely.
There have also been a few near-misses, in which the GOP almost prevented help from coming to the economy. The Republicans in the House delayed a transportation bill that saved as many as 1.9 million jobs. House Committees run by the GOP have passed proposals aimed at cutting billions from food stamps, and the party has repeatedly threatened to kill extensions of unemployment insurance and cuts to the payroll tax.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, those policies — the payroll tax cut, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and discretionary spending for low-income Americans — have the highest multipliers, meaning more job boosting potential per dollar.
"Unless you've been on welfare you're in no position to talk about what is demoralizing and what isn't or whether or not folks are better off working. For me work was far more demoralizing than welfare. I could survive on welfare, but I couldn't survive working"
Which Priya means that you are not willing to support yourself yet you demand in shrill tones that others pay more taxes to support you.
And you don't seem to understand why that is just not right.
And with that, I think I am done with this conversation.
Have a nice evening.
I was not able to work rich B. Once again you have to scapegoat the poorest in society because too much is never enough for you.
You didn't get rich by yourself, you had a society to help support you and you owe a bit back to that society. How profoundly greedy of you to have $140,000 in take home pay and yet whine incessantly that its not enough and you want to take more from the family that lives on $7000 a year.
And let's not forget I'm a male to female transexual married to a man. Theresa would have prevented that marriage in the name of "what's good for society" and I'd be still collecting welfare instead of having a husband to take care of me.
The only thing that matters more to Theresa than squeezing the poorest people for money she'd never notice she had is oppressing people she hates regardless of the cost.
You just realized stimulus spending is a good thing and now you don't want to talk about it anymore?
Come on, T.
I thought you had the gumption to pursue truth, but if you'd rather turn tail and run, well....
Here's some truth for you to ponder.
What happens to state budgets in a state with a Democratic super majority compared to what happens to state budgets in a state that had a Republican super majority through the 2012 election, until the Democrats ended it:
"Remember Rick Perry and his inability to name the three federal government agencies he would eliminate if, God forbid, he won the White House? Yeah, that guy. Oh yeah, and he is still the governor of Texas, a red state with a growing Hispanic population that has Democrats dreaming blue.
Perry’s latest late-night punchline is a $26,000 radio buy in California markets aimed at luring Golden State businesses to the Lone Star State. In the ad, Perry says “building a business is tough. But I hear building a business in California is next to impossible. This is Texas governor Rick Perry, and I have a message for California businesses: Come check out Texas.”
California governor Jerry Brown fired back, calling Perry’s ad “barely a fart.” In a scathing editorial, the Sacramento Bee went even further, writing that “we think it’s more than a fart. It’s a cry for help. Perry can’t create jobs, he can only steal them from other states. His campaign for the Republican presidential nomination was a joke. His beloved Dallas Cowboys haven’t been in the Super Bowl since 1996.”
Perhaps Perry should spend less time trying to poach businesses from California, and more time learning from how Brown and the majority Democratic state legislature finally balanced the budget after years of shortfalls. And listen closely, Governor Perry: California is poised to end its next fiscal year with an $851 million surplus, the first in more than a decade, Governor Jerry Brown said as he unveiled a budget that includes revenue from voter-approved tax increases. And how did Brown do it? By doing what President Obama has repeatedly called for on a national level: a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. A recovering economy has helped too.
Meanwhile, Texas is facing a $5 billion budget shortfall because the state intentionally underfunded Medicaid last year. Texas also slashed $5.4 billion from public schools. In 2011, Texas faced a similar $27 billion budget gap to California. But their approach, with only spending cuts and no new tax revenues, has resulted in the $5 billion budget deficit. Compare that to a $2.4 billion budget surplus this fiscal year in California, as the result of a mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy."
From good anonymous's link (it needed emphasizing):
"Direct government spending -- through unemployment benefits, food stamps, work sharing or infrastructure spending -- top the list, giving you more than a dollar's worth of stimulus for a dollar's worth of spending, while cuts to taxes affecting businesses and upper-income individuals -- such as the corporate, dividend, capital gains and alternative minimum taxes -- give you less.
The reason there is clear: A tax cut that ends up with upper-income folks gets saved rather than spent, and a dollar saved doesn't stimulate the economy. That's why some tax breaks, such as the job tax credit and payroll tax holiday, are fairly effective, though still less so than direct spending. The problem, of course, is that the politics of tax breaks are easier than the politics of spending, even though the tax breaks are actually more expensive. But if the government wants the maximum stimulus at the minimum deficit cost, direct spending is the way to go."
"Unless you've been on welfare you're in no position to talk about what is demoralizing and what isn't or whether or not folks are better off working. For me work was far more demoralizing than welfare. I could survive on welfare, but I couldn't survive working"
Priya.
what don't you believe you are capable of working ...
it seems to me that you have a computer and know how to type...
seems like you should be able to get a job and support yourself, as opposed to spending your days ranting about why others (who by the way ARE working) should pay more taxes to pay your food and shelter.
I'm not on welfare any more Theresa, none of you rich B's contribute towards my food or shelter, its none of your business what I do with my days.
You can thank my husband for saving the taxpayers money by way of the marriage you stand adamantly against in the name of "what's good for society".
If it weren't for welfare I'd be dead right now but I'm sure for you if that would save you a few pennies on your taxes that would be a well worthwhile trade-off.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yes folks, you heard Theresa correctly, $140,000 a year after taxes isn't enough for her family of four to get by on, she desperately needs that fraction of a cent back that she contributes to someone like me on welfare.
Let's take up a collection for poor Theresa, we all know she lives a harsh life of desperation struggling to get by.
the difference it Priya I earned it and you did not.
I am still waiting for why you don't believe you are capable of working while you ask those that are to contribute their paychecks to support you ?
And by the way Theresa, its YOU who brought up the topic of people on welfare and taxes to rant about, not me.
Other than cutting welfare to the bone, and continuing to fund the military corporate welfare war machine instead, I haven't seen you suggest a solution to the problem of out of control and unsustainable military spending.
"the difference it Priya I earned it and you did not.".
Its my husband's choice to support me, it is no concern of yours. He and I think my life has value, we don't care if you disagree.
"I am still waiting for why you don't believe you are capable of working while you ask those that are to contribute their paychecks to support you ?."
None of your business, rich B. Neither you nor any other rich B contributes one fraction of one cent to support me.
I've been more than forthcoming about my life, how about you in the spirit of fairplay tell us more about you?
How much do you and your husband make?
How many children do you have?
How big is your house and is it paid for?
Priya.
No of course my house isn't paid for...
I am still reeling from the fact that someone who has been so very vocal for so many years about taxing people more, hasn't supported themselves for the past 10 years. I seem to remember that you live up in Canada, so you would be correct my tax dollars don't support you, but other Canadians tax dollars do....
I am really not sure I can get over that to continue this conversation, sorry. I guess I feel that folks who are not paying taxes and haven't paid taxes (like in 10 years) really shouldn't have too much to say about how much those of us who have always worked pay....
Especially when they spend their days and evenings complaining about how others aren't contributing enough when they haven't contributed anything for years and years...
Sorry, but now I am done. I have a million other things to accomplish today.
Like I told you several times, no one's tax dollars are supporting me. Its my husband that does through our LGBT marriage, the one you oppose in the name of "what's good for society". Obviously you begrudge me my relationship, you hate poor people but you hate LGBTs even more.
I myself have paid more in taxes than I got back in benefits but even if I hadn't that doesn't make it wrong for society to ask those who've had great success to help those who have not. Everyone has some of their taxes go to things they'd rather not support, you're not unique in that.
Some of us believe in a society where we're all in this together instead of "you're on your own". Those who've been very successful didn't do it entirely on their own, they had support from society that helped produce their great success and as such they owe something back to the society that allowed them to succeed. Many of us don't want a dog eat dog society where the rich get ever richer and the poor die in the streets.
Words can never express how grateful I am to my husband to afford me with the incredibly high level of comfort I now have, and yet for you who has four or five times what we do it isn't enough, you'd rather see people in the situation I was in die so you can have ever more.
I'm extremely grateful as well to the government that suppored me in a time when I couldn't support myself and for giving me what I needed to survive. I'm very grateful that our society has compassion and community and isn't made up solely of people like you who hate those that haven't had the great fortune that you do.
the government didn't support you Priya. the increased progressive taxes I pay, while you decided that "it was just too demoralizing to work" did.
the evenings and days I sacrificed away from my children when they were young, supported your welfare check while you blogged 24/7.
you can say
THANK YOU theresa.
I will say " you are welcome Priya" .
now get off your butt and get a job, or stop complaining about those of us who are working.
okay.
I am done
I am JUST DONE.
I am done with supporeting the Priyas oif the world, and my friggins sister while we are at it
I am done
I am done FRINNGIN DARN DONE privindng for you.
Priya ... do you think I LIKED ting up at 8 with no sleep to go to with a kid ? do yo think I enjoyed that ? do you think that I enjoyed missing my kids grow up ?
screw you and every friggin lib like you that thinks I enjoyed leaving my children while I slaved away at work to porived for them .
go to frigging hell bitch. I don't work to provide for you. I work to provide for them.
not you.
you don't choose to work, and in my world, the world of no sleep and lots of work, yes, you would starve.
or you would fiture out how to plant, how to grow, nad how to survice.
where the pilgrims rich b's ?
no, they worked hard.
and if thay choose not to work but to suck off the hard work of others, they STARVED.
there was NOTHING wrong with tha attitude. work, and eat. or DON"T work and starve.
don't work, okay maybe we will cut you a break for 6 montha, but for TEN FRGGIN YEARS ! who was the suckler in the lord of the rings who drained the king of his energy ?
you are HIM.,
how DARE YOU INSULT ME WHO WOKRED a full time job wiht 3 sMALL CHILDREN AND PROVIDED FOR ALL OF THEM ?
crAWL BACK IN YOUR HOLE AND STAY THERE.
HOW dare you insult hardworking americans or continue to spout your shit ? how dare you ?
you don't provide for yourself.
you suck off the energy of others.
crawl back in your hole and die.,
Holy toledo, T. Get a grip! Your sleep deprived rants are too much as to be nonsensical.
You haven't paid a red cent in taxes to Canada to support Priya.
Take your meds and get to bed girl or better yet, go rant on your own unread website.
"They say that religion is the opiate of the masses, but it seems that the opiates of the religious are antidepressants.
A study released yesterday confirmed that Mississippi remains the most religious state in the Union, followed by a handful of its southern belt brothers: Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, as well as the Mormon stronghold of Utah. The Gallup poll showed that 58 percent of all Mississippians identify as “very religious.” The least religious states in the U.S. are the former stomping grounds of the very,very religious Puritans: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire.
But life in these highly faithful states doesn’t seem to be all its cracked up to be. The most religious states in the U.S. share another trait: the highest use of anti-depressants.
Utah has long been the nation’s capital of happy pill popping, with its citizens twice as likely to be on anti-depressants than the general U.S. population. But the rest of the observant states aren’t far behind. Of the top-ten most religious states, nine have higher than average use of anti-depressants.
Some states have startlingly medicated populations.
In Utah, Louisiana and Arkansas–the 2nd, 4th and 5th most religious states in the Union– nearly 20 percent of the population is on some form of anti-depressants, according to a 2006 study by one of the largest prescription companies."
A bit of tonic from one of my "friggin lib" friends who can't walk.
"Hi dear ones,
I wanted to share an experience I just had on this day of Love.
I'm teaching at [a college] this semester and have only ten minutes to get from my first class to my second. The only way to get where I need to go is to drive down the main street of the campus, and it is full of other cars, students stepping off the sidewalk backwards talking on cell phones, and tons of people just crossing from one place to another. Although it is only three or four blocks long, it can take me the entire ten minutes to traverse and I have been doing so with steaming ears and impatience going full bore.
I have a tendency to become what I call "professionally irritated" anyway. When I am in this mood, an angel of God could stand in front of me flapping its wings and I'd complain of the breeze.
So I'm going down the street in my car stewing the other day, and I suddenly realize something. I've never seen any car run into another car or run into a student, either this year or last year, and while I'm sweating like crazy trying to dodge all the obstacles, so is everyone else. They are watching out for me just like I'm watching out for them. We're all in it together, and we're all taking care of one another. It's our community loving one another.
So now, even though it's the same slow shuffle, I'm going down the main drag feeling like I'm in a warm, safe bubble of nurturance and consideration. I'm relishing every moment, watching everyone be careful of everyone else and show them respect and caring.
It's a miracle. I love it!
Happy Valentine's Day."
Theresa, its time to wake up from the delusion you're in. As I've said over and over and over, I'm not on welfare anymore, no one pays taxes to help support me.
But to a pampered hatefilled nut like yourself reality doesn't matter, you fabricate your own reality and pretend that because I was once on welfare that means I still am - I AM NOT YOU LYING B.
If you were really so concerned about people paying taxes to support someone like me you'd be falling all over yourself to thank my husband for taking me off the welfare rolls by marrying me. But no, you oppose that marriage in the name of "what's good for society". You'd rather have me still on welfare being supported by taxpayers than allow my husband to marry me.
In the end this isn't about money for you. At $140,000 per year you have far more than you need to be comfortable. This is about hating the people you scapegoat, the poor and LGBTs. If this were about money and your taxes you'd be screaming about cutting the grotesquely bloated defense spending which takes a far bigger percentage of your taxes than those on welfare do. No, its not about money, its about you blaming others for the unhappiness in your life that no amount of money will ever change. You're miserable despite all your blessings and you want to attack innocent people to make up for your own failings.
My husband is happy to have me be a homemaker. That's NONE of your business, I'll do whatever we damn well decide I should do and there's no way any spoiled B like you will ever have a say in it.
Despite your disingenous denials you've proven as a conservative you're all about controlling the lives of others. You're not content to live your life as you chose, in an unbelievable display of selfishness you insanely think you've got a right to tell me what to do. You most certainly DO NOT.
You need psychiatric help. Go get it and deal with the hate and unhappiness that consumes you.
Theresa, the only person you can control is yourself. The sooner you accept that the sooner you'll get on the path towards mental healthiness.
Priya Lynn: “I'm extremely grateful as well to the government that suppored me in a time when I couldn't support myself and for giving me what I needed to survive. I'm very grateful that our society has compassion and community and isn't made up solely of people like you who hate those that haven't had the great fortune that you do.”
Here, here.
--
Theresa: “you can say THANK YOU theresa.
I will say " you are welcome Priya" .
--
But our gratitude is not welcome by people like you, Theresa.
My dad has a talent for making money, but in my 44 yrs, twice now I’ve seen his greed ruin his productivity, and in the times he was unable to support me when I couldn’t work, I thanked God for welfare, food stamps and medical provisions.
But when he was making money, he’d bitch and piss and whine and moan about all the taxes the “evil” government was taking from him. It never occurred to him that he’d been indirectly supporting me and others like me all along. But especially me, his son, whom he loved.
I felt bad for him in those dark times not being able to support our family the way he wanted -- just eeking by instead of thriving.
Our system is broken in many ways, I’ve seen it first hand with the care I’ve received. Too much here, too little there, and yes, some milk it just for the sake of it, but the egalitarian principle of it is an essential part of any healthy society. And as an aside, I think it’s important to remember that the concepts of “social” and “society” are ideations of socialism. Democracy itself is socialist in nature.
You can’t judge people by your own totem pole. To put it simply, some people are more functional than others. We are all different, have had different life experiences, and thus, respond to those circumstances and turn out differently.
If you’re going to judge those in need as not being in need, then of course, you are right and we are wrong. But I submit to you an understanding that need is a real thing in this world, and though some may take advantage of your labors, the consequences of not recognizing that need is REAL is far greater.
How many children are unnecessarily abused because their parent(s) are so frustrated because they can’t find a job, or one that pays enough, or one they don’t despise going to everyday? Look at how angry you are because of the tax-sacrifices you’ve had/have to make and then multiply that beyond imagination and then apply it globally.
Think of the life-maiming cost of suicide on a family, or a *snap* homicide that could have been prevented with just a few dollars more. How much more does that cost a society? And in what ways? Fear, greed, anger, vengeance, illness - physical and mental, etc., and let’s not forget, more guns, guns, guns for “protection.”
There is a place for the blame you seek, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unless you truly are an anarchist, well spent money (taxes) should seen as investments, not theft or waste.
Post a Comment
<< Home