Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston
~~~
General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."
Sunday, December 22, 2013
‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’
Timothy Eagan of The New York Times sums up, for me anyway, the heart of darkness that is the basis of conservatism in this country.
It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church's new pope is morally, entirely NOT in step with how these conservatives view the poor and needy. As we go forward in the coming year, it will be instructive to see how the pompous Princes of The Church and their conservative political supporters will reconcile the message from Christ's Vicar on Earth with their own morally bankrupt policies on treating poor and needy Americans.
Eagan:
As the year ends, this argument is playing out in two of the most meanspirited actions left on the table by the least-productive Congress in modern history. The House, refuge of the shrunken-heart caucus, has passed a measure to eliminate food aid for four million Americans, starting next year. Many who would remain on the old food stamp program may have to pass a drug test to get their groceries. At the same time, Congress has let unemployment benefits expire for 1.3 million people, beginning just a few days after Christmas.
These actions have nothing to do with bringing federal spending into line, and everything to do with a view that poor people are morally inferior.
Here’s a sample of this line of thought: 'The explosion of food stamps in this country is not just a fiscal issue for me,' said Representative Steve Southerland, Republican from Florida, chief crusader for cutting assistance to the poor.
'This is a defining moral issue of our time.' It would be a 'disservice' to further extend unemployment assistance to those who’ve been out of work for some time, said Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky. It encourages them to sit at home and do nothing.
'People who are perfectly capable of working are buying things like beer,' said Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, on those getting food assistance in his state.
No doubt, poor people drink beer, watch too much television and have bad morals. But so do rich people. If you drug-tested members of Congress as a condition of their getting federal paychecks, you would have most likely caught Representative Trey Radel, Republican of Florida, who recently pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. Would it be Grinch-like of me to point out that this same congressman voted for the bill that would force many hungry people to pee in a cup and pass a drug test before getting food?
Should I also mention that the median net worth for new members of the current Congress is exactly $1 million more than that of the typical American household — and that that may influence their view?
For the record, the baseline benefit for those getting help under the old food stamp program works out to $1.40 a meal. And the average check for those on emergency unemployment is $300 a week. If you cut them off cold, the argument goes, these desperate folks would soon find a job and put real food on the table. They are poor because they are weak."
These are the same folks who proclaim America is a "Christian" nation and then pass laws that punish the very people Christ ministered to in the N.T. and to whom Pope Francis urged all nations to give succor.
Talk is cheap, so the saying goes, and so are those politicians and their supporters who strut and fret their hours upon the stage, mouthing platitudes about the poor while taking away what little crumbs they've been given.
It's a phony Christianity those politicians and their supporters cling to. Christ never abandoned the poor nor did he ever preach that their lives be made more miserable and the rich more comfortable.
The spirit of the season? Yeah. Right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Here's what I keep hearing from conservatives... they want the freedom to give without being compelled to do so by the government...
However the call of Christ, indeed Christianity, doesn't care about that. In true faith, we are compelled to give by Christ, period.
And we are implored to give with a cheerful heart. It is not an action that we are to do "if we have a cheerful heart" as one conservative blog recently said.
We are not released from our call to be cheerful givers even if the government takes everything we have, because when one makes a decision to follow Jesus, theologically speaking, that person gives all of his life and his possessions up anyways...
It is that poverty that grants us our freedom.
I am continually amazed that those that claim a faith in Jesus, and many conservatives fall in this camp, cannot, or will not understand this simple theological truth.
Shaw... to you and yours... Feliz Navidad y Buon Natale!
Dave
As the poor and needy grow in numbers, and the wealthy shrink as a percentage of total population, and taxation increases on those earning enough to be taxed where will the tipping point be?
Until this country focuses on rebuilding the middle class thus shrinking the income gap between the wealthiest and the working poor the above may very well come to pass.
Demonizing conservatives is about as productive as demonizing liberals. The policies of both, over time has resulted in present realities.
If only reasonable people would be reasonable and willing to work together and COMPROMISE. Somehow pure ideology has become more important than reason.
RN, if you go back and re-read my post you'll see that I do not "demonize" all conservatives, just those who wish to make the poor and needy more miserable while at the same time pretending to be Xtians.
And it is my opinion that this is at the heart of conservative policies.
Thank you Dave, the same to you and your family.
And thank you for all the good work you do for those who need it the most.
Reading my comment I did not use the word all either. That was intentional. I guess when specifics are not used it is natural for people to make assumptions.
Of course you are entitled to ascribe whatever motive you wish to conservative policy. You may be correct, you may not be. Realistically, it is a mixed bag. As is liberal policy.
@RN --
As the poor and needy grow in numbers, and the wealthy shrink as a percentage of total population
------
But the percentage of total wealth controlled by the wealthy is manifestly increasing. Increasing by a very large amount.
Yet the right will resist any attempt to have the rich taxed in proportion to the wealth they control. No progressive taxation on the "job creators".
So what do they do with the excess capital? Create jobs? Bore me later.
No, they create equity bubbles and try to defeat any effort at redistribution.
If the parable of the loaves and fishes means anything I take it to mean there is enough to go around. Not to share and satisfy basic needs at Christmas leaves me wondering.
Yes Dave, freedom from attachment to the material world may free us but hunger does not.
hey, just a bit off topic...but it snowed bunches here and we are going to make a lotta snowballs and then have a war on Xmas.
youse invited.
beer afterwards.
just saying
b good.
okjimm, here in Beantown we're having a fog on Xmas.
RN, there is no question that the conservatives in Congress (with a tiny number of Democrats, shamefully), voted to cut off unemployment funds and as well as cut back on food stamps.
To do that to the neediest of the needy is unconscionable.
But that's how the cons operate. They tell everyone that Jesus is their King then blaspheme by turning what he preached on its head. Jesus preached that it was everyone's duty to help the helpless.
Absolutely not what the cons in Congress are about.
Dave said: "Here's what I keep hearing from conservatives... they want the freedom to give without being compelled to do so by the government..."
It would be a lot better if the money taken by the government went directly to the poor, instead of first lining the pockets of the taxpayer-funded millionaires and comfy public "servants" that run these programs.
Don't confuse rich people who take money at gunpoint with the needy.
And Dave? I've seen what you do. Giving to you (as an example) has a LOT more to do with the call of Christ than being compelled to "give" to, say HUD, with its Secretary Shaun Donovan, who has so far made about a million dollars off of this welfare department.
RN said: "Of course you are entitled to ascribe whatever motive you wish to conservative policy. You may be correct, you may not be. Realistically, it is a mixed bag. As is liberal policy."
It is a very mixed bag, as long as Job 1 is enriching rich bureaucrats and upper middle class public "servants". Taking from the rich to give to the other rich.
I posted this on my FB. A friend had told me that she got the following message when she clicked on the link (I didn't get it when I clicked on the link from my blog role) :
"Facebook thinks this site might be unsafe. If you are not familiar with it, please provide feedback by marking it as spam (you will be brought back to Facebook)."
I get that too, Leslie, it's just a warning fb puts up on an unknown site.
Happy Holidays.
This comment is about the headers on Robertson on your blog.
This is the guy the right is defending. This is what he said in 2010 about gays:
"In a 2010 speech, he [Robertson] thundered that gays are “full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”
So this practicing Christian said this about gays and the conservatives don't think a private business or anyone else has the right to react to the swill that came out of his mouth?
Imagine if he said that about Jews (people did, and still do, say vile things like that about Jews) or African-Americans or any other minority? Why do people like Roberson think it's okay to say crap like that about gays and not get slammed for it? Because their religion says its okay to be hateful as long as it's about gays?
He's a nasty pos and deseraves the sh*tstorm of criticism he got.
Flat tax. But since there is no possibility of finding a sensible and reasonable ground anymore who gives a "F".
Oops, last comment @ ducky.
More on the Scroogey GOP and the unemployed from HuffPost:
"Voters in the four districts surveyed said they were less likely to vote for the Republican incumbent in 2014 -- by at least a 9-point margin -- were he to vote to cut off extended unemployment benefits.
Though jobless benefits are set to expire on Dec. 28 for 1.3 million longterm unemployed Americans, members of the House and Senate have returned home for the holidays without a solution to preserve those benefits. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said it was an "immorality" that the benefits weren't secured in a recent budget deal, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised to bring the extension to a vote no later than Jan. 7, 2014.
Moderate Republicans urged Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to rescue jobless benefits for the longterm unemployed earlier in December, saying the issue was "important to many American families." But Boehner would only consider the proposal if cuts were made elsewhere and job growth guaranteed, and the measure ultimately did not make it into Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget deal.
"Speaker Boehner and fellow Washington Republicans are hopelessly out-of-touch, and their decision to Scrooge over a million unemployed Americans three days after Christmas is the latest and among the worst examples of it," Jeremy Funk, communications director of Americans United for Change, said. "All these struggling Americans got from the GOP for Christmas was a ‘Get Employed Soon’ card."
Duck,
I have asked this question in the past with no response but, What would you suggest the wealthy pay?. I assume you feel that 39% is to little.
Would it net be more equatable to adopt a fair tax, eliminate all deductions and everyone pay their Fair share. Over Taxing the middle class and small business is not working so there has to be an answer. By eliminating deductions would punish the "rich" and accomplish what you want, is that acceptable?
What is the right thing to do?
Another opinion from Green Eagle:
"Are poor people morally inferior to rich people, or are they just unlucky. What drives me crazy is that we are not even allowed to consider the possibility that it might be the rich people who are the morally inferior ones.
And by the rich, I mean the born-rich vultures like the Koch Brothers who feel entitled to use their money to twist the world to benefit themselves, the corporate bankers and hedge fund managers that think it is perfectly acceptable for them to make vast sums of money, while contributing nothing to the economy, but who do generate disaster after disaster which they force us to pay for, the Mitt Romneys who are born into the American aristocracy, and use their positions to multiply their riches while destroying the lives of tens of thousands, never ever considering that this behavior might be objectionable.
It is time that we consider the third possibility, the one which has been edited out of our nation's moral conversation, because it is of course the truth. To become rich in this country today (other than being born rich) in the overwhelming number of cases, what you really need is a hunger for wealth that crushes every decent emotion you possess. It is not that the rest of us are lazy bums, it is that we don't care about money to the exclusion of everything else in life, that we won't sacrifice everything decent to become rich, and so we are shoved aside by this pack of greedy monsters.
It is the rich, not the poor, who are the morally defective ones, and it is time that we realize that. They have no right to remake the country in their own self-serving image, and we have every right to stop them, whatever it takes to do it."
I have a theory to propose regarding contemporary politics:
Whenever a politician refuses to support some bill or pending legislation, the ingrate starts to fixate on why such-an-such constituency is no longer deserving of aid. Orrin Hatch: Drug-test the unemployed. Rand Paul: Long-term unemployment compensation unfair to short-term employed (how or why, he doesn’t specify). School lunches: Make kids sweep the floor. Food stamps: All moochers eat at the Red Lobster.
All bullshit, of course! Nonetheless, the scorn serves as a smoke signal as to how the ingrate intends to vote. First, the derision, followed the legislative middle finger.
ScroogeRunning,
The middle class was not built on a flat tax, which is inherently regressive and will achieve the opposite effect. What we need to do is retrace the conditions immediately after World War II, i.e. the benefits and tax structures that built the post-war middle class, and put some or all of those back in place.
Octo... here's what I am wondering regarding your return to the post WWII era...
At that time, Americans needed stuff. We were short on housing, short on durable goods, short on cars, etc. As such, our manufacturing base, which was pretty amped up following the war, was ready and able to provide jobs in the production of these items.
At that time, there was no match for our quality or cost efficiency either.
Now however, robots and cheap foreign labor have all but wiped out our manufacturing base. in spite of what some politicians claim in their campaigns, those jobs are never coming back to our shores.
There is no reason to expect a company like GM to suddenly abandon robots that make nothing and are brutally efficient to employ an army of people that call in sick and expect to be paid.
In addition, Americans just don't need the manufacturing capacity now that we had back then.
The larger question is what jobs we will ever have again for people that will pay them to move up the economic ladder.
How much stuff can we hope to make with human hands? The world is moving towards fewer and fewer workers.
Even with policies aimed at raising taxes even higher, doesn't there come a point when we hit the wall?
I am not suggesting we are there now, as I don't know. I'm just wondering. it does seem as if we have a declining percentage of people supporting more and more people everyday.
I'm not looking to assign blame, just to try and figure this out. People decry the jobs lost in this recession and want more jobs, but what jobs will those be?
Looks to me to be primarily in the service industries and we all know those jobs aren't going to, and were never meant to pay all the bills.
Voters overwhelmingly opposed to cuts in long-term unemployment.
@skud -- Duck,
I have asked this question in the past with no response but, What would you suggest the wealthy pay?
------
I have been quite clear in proposing progressive taxation and taxing classes in proportion to the wealth they control.
I find it asinine that the right can be convinced that the likes of Mitt Romney can be taxed at a lower rate (carried interest especially) because you suckers believe he is a "job creator".
Absolutely stunning naivete.
Legs,
No response as to what the "rich" should pay? How about we go to all policies in place after WWll. We were an industrial nation then which we are not currently. I can't blame the current administration for keeping unemployment high but one problem is McDonalds is now considered skilled labor. Too many people have no skills to offer and continuing to provide a lifetime of unemployment pay does nothing to enhance their knowledge.
You seem to have a misguided understanding what conservatives believe about food stamps. Take food from children, starve the poor, you know both of those statements are false.
Most are for helping people in need but can any intelligent person believe that the current social programs are adequate. It would be much better to pattern food stamps after the WIC program where the money has to go for certain nutritious foods instead of McDonalds and potato chips.
Thank you Dave for speaking the truth and saying it so well.
McDonalds is considered skilled labor? Who knew?
We are near the point where 8-9% unemployment will be considered acceptable and normal. Hence the growing willingness to extend unemployment ad infinitum.
Skud, one of the problems is this... while the GOP is quick to look for and find areas where we need to cut back on government aid for poor people, they are unable to consider any cutbacks for corporate subsidies.
Worse, the GOP and conservatives like yourself brand Dems ad liberals as socialists or Marxists because we support policies that provide aid to people living in poverty.
Odd though, I've never heard a single conservative call government aid to corporations and businesses, which the GOP supports, socialism or Marxism.
Maybe is the GOP dropped the rhetoric that some of us are not real Americans and admitted that they too believe in government aid, we could have an adult conversation.
Until conservatives do that, it is hard to take you guys seriously.
Duck,
We are somewhat on the same page. The biggest issue is not the taxes someone pays but the deductions they can take.
If we took away deductions the true rich would pay more as a percentage of their income. For the middle class out current tax system is not equitable because they do not have the same advantages as the wealthy.
A flat tax would level this advantage and can provide provisions to protect the poor.
Every administration is going to reform taxes but our elected elite will not support major tax reform because to them, the ability to tax is power and influence and they are not giving that up.
While Buffet was saying he pays to little taxes his accountants were working on how he could pay less. The same goes for Kerry, Romney and the rest of the ultra rich.
Skud, now you're peeling back the onion. Well said. Flat tax, end exemtions and deductions, stop corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and special tax breaks. Result, total revenues go up. Protect the working poor and trim the DOD budget by freezing at current level or, reduce DOD spending by 2-3% in REAL dollars and we'd be in much better shape.
This for starters.
The great Charlie Pierce of Esquire:
"At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back. 'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."-- A Christmas Carol
"The Congress of the United States left town this week very proud of itself, and it left town with one serious matter left undone. They refused to vote to extend unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans whose benefits will expire at the end of this week. There were some promises about getting something done in January, but these were idly tossed out the windows of the town cars making tracks for the airport. But January is not the season. This is the season. All across America, Christmas dinners will be threadbare, if they happen at all. Hundreds of thousands of children will watch the commercials, the shiny and happy people at the shiny and happy malls, the horse-drawn homecomings from the beer companies, and wonder what place it is in which these things happen, and how it could be that they one day could get there, while their parents watch from the stairway and wonder how their lives had drifted so far from that same place.
This decision was consciously taken by a Congress soaked in electorally convenient religiosity. This decision was consciously taken by a Congress so soaked in electorally convenient religiosity that its members believe that people -- other people, naturally, and their children -- will be strengthened in their moral character by completely avoidable deprivation. That the mothers and fathers out there, avoiding the gazes of their children because of the simple expectations there that they cannot meet, will be better, stronger, and moral people for the pain that causes them to look away as the lights on the tree begin to blur with their tears. That, in 2014, these people will thank the Congress of the United States for forging this completely unnecessary crucible in which their souls can be forged into sterner stuff. This is what this Congress believes, as it goes home proud of itself and its members dress themselves to sing the midnight carols with no conscience sounding in counterpoint, and this is Christmas in America, and it is the year of our Lord, 2013."
All right then we are two nations.
-- John Dos Passos
"According to Palin's reasoning, she didn't have to read the interview to defend Robertson in the first place because the substance of his comments didn't matter." -- The entire 'bagger lifestyle reduced to a single sentence.
Let's talk about giving. By many different independent measures, conservatives are quite generous in their personal giving to charities.
It is not stingy or un-Christian to oppose straining their giving through a bureaucratic sponge that wastes most of the money.
Anon, while I may agree your comment is of the same level of nothingness. In other words who gives a "F"?
Post a Comment