I often wonder, why are Republicans so mean?
Yesterday, Barack Obama signed the S-chip bill into law, extending health care to millions of children. Previous Congresses had passed the legislation, only to have it vetoed by George W. Bush.
Why are Republicans so mean? Don't they care about the health of our children? They talk a lot about family values - are not children having access to doctors and medical treatment an important family value?
Right now, Republicans are trying to slash Obama's stimulus package, removing programs that would both help Americans and put people back to work - cyber security, contraceptives, infrastructure, space exploration. Republicans want, what, unwanted pregnancies, our computers vulnerable to cyber attacks, our roadways and bridges to decay even further? How is the country, how is anyone, helped by that? (I'll grant that space exploration is less immediately essential - but, in the long haul, getting out into space will be essential to our survival, too.)
When was the United States ever hurt by too much spending? To the contrary, it was FDR's increases in Federal spending that helped us out of the Great Depression, which was made much worse at first by Herbert Hoover's tightening of the Federal budget.
Herbert Hoover ... the Republicans now in the Senate ... What, exactly, is their problem?
They say they don't like spending our money - but we elected Obama and the Democrats by a pretty healthy margin. So what are they trying to protect?
Why are so many Republicans on the wrong side of this and so many other issues?
23 comments:
As a former Republican, I can shed some light on this. They do not see it as their responsibility. They believe in the "self-made man". They see it as "Every dollar the government spends, they have to take from my pocket" They believe they made their own fortunes, so everyone else can/should too. As far as FDR is concerned, they see WWII as the only thing that brought us out of the depression. They do not see that the market had reached bottom under Hoover. They do not see at the 8% increase in GDP every year up to the war after FDR took office. They see the country recovered because of the war.
As far as the family values thing, it is not their family. The government took the money from them, thus hindering their ability to support their family.
I don't know if the word can be ascribed to them since they seem to be totally heedless of why their philosphy is so morally bankrupt. They seem to react things the way animals do, all reflex and no thought. Some over-developed territorial instinct, perhaps.
FDR prolonged the Depression. Do the research.
As for the "stimulus" package, speaking as a Republican, what in this package actually stimulates the economy? This should not be used as an excuse for more government spending (especially when we cannot afford it). It seems to me that many people are not ever looking at the bigger picture. We can't just spend, spend, spend. There also seems to be a misconception among many about the free-market cycles. We do not need government to socially engineer the market. The market will correct itself.
I agree with Jeremy E. Sarber on this one. I am not a republican, but a libertarian, but I guess you consider me mean if I don't support Obama's policies..
I am absolutely convinced that healthcare is most efficient operating under the free-market, where competition drives the prices down. Unfortunately, government's involvement in this field has caused extreme problems, and transitioning to even more intervention is worse. I suppose the concern is that even with the low-costs and efficiencies that a free market would bring to healthcare there would still be those who cannot afford it. Why though must we rely on coercive means to transfer wealth instead of private charity?
I also believe that a problem caused by excessive borrowing, printing, spending, and regulation will not be solved by more borrowing, printing, spending, and regulation. Instead, the massive increase in the money supply will lead to massive inflation and the demise of our currency.
I certainly support improved infrastructure, but this is best delivered in the private sector. You must remember, government cannot create jobs, only take resources from a productive sector of the economy to an unproductive one. I suggest Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lessons." Sure, we can see the people going to work on a new infrastructure project, but we cannot see the more efficient jobs that otherwise would have been created. I am reminded of Keyne's famous advice: "The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up." This type of thinking makes me sick to my stomach.
Our first priority should be balancing the budget. If I were president, I would immediately withdraw troops from foreign lands, slashing military spending by the hundreds of billions. Practically, we could put half of the money we save towards paying off the debt, and the other half towards infrastructure. We should not, however, spend money that we do not have.
I suppose it will be impossible to convince you that too much spending is a bad thing if you subscribe to the popular myth that FDR's spending saved us during the Great Depression. The economic intervention under Hoover brought about problems, and the expansion of these policies under FDR exacerbated the situation.
While I agree with the republicans that oppose this stimulus, I believe they are just putting on a show now that they are in the minority. Where were they opposing the massive deficits used to pay for the War in Iraq? Why didn't more of them stand against the other economic disaster known as the $800 billion bailout.
When will politicians realize that economic liberty and personal liberty should go hand-in-hand.
Jeremy and hj: FDR's policies prolonged the Great Depression?
In reality, as these Gross Domestic Product and other statistics in Charles McMillion's informative The "FDR Failed" Myth show, FDR's policies had returned the economy by 1936 to its position in 1929, before the Hoover-Republican crash.
Look for Republicans to keep beating the drum on this one, folks, in a desperate rear-guard action along the lines of saying freedom is slavery, and peace is war in George Orwell's 1984.
"First, although the GDP did rise sharply during the war, this did not correspond to true economic recovery for the people. At home, there was rationing of sugar, butter and fabrics; and entire industries, such as the automobile industry, stopped making domestic goods for the people and instead were devoted to making materiel for the war. The standard of living of average Americans decreased during FDR's last term, as so much of the economic activity, however superficially bigger, was directed toward the war effort instead of consumer goods."
Read the whole thing:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10248
I did read the whole article, and I'm afraid you, and the article, are a little confused:
We're not talking about happened during WWII here. The statistics in the McMillion article that I gave the link to (The "FDR Failed" Myth - did you read it?) show the GDP improving in the first years of FDR's administration. That would be 1933-1936. World War II started in Europe in 1936, and the US entered it in December 1941.
Isn't it just awful the way conservatives believe in individual responsibility? Isn't it terrible that some even take issue with 25 year olds being classified as children to get in on the SCHIP? Isn't it atrocious that we (conservatives) vocalize the common sense view that $400 million to study global warming, $350 million for STD prevention, cash for ACORN, etc. have nothing to do with stimulating the economy?
Mr. Levinson, why do you think Democrat politicians are better equipped to spend the money of the taxpayers than the taxpayers themselves? Is it just that you are seduced by their supposed caring, which is actually wealth redistribution and government growth in order to buy votes and create dependents?
If wealth could be created with a printing press, Zimbabwe's economy would be flourishing. And as for this obsession with "creating jobs," remember: everyone had a job in the USSR - they all worked for the government. Too bad they were all dirt poor.
Sam - what's awful are children not receiving medical care, and Republican G. W. Bush vetoing the S-chip. You're ok with that? That veto deprived little kids, not 25-year olds, of medical care. That sets well with you?
Anon: snap out of your fantasy - no one is talking about printing up more money.
What then, will fund this stimulus, if not an expansion of the money supply? It's certainly not coming from tax revenue.
Obama's been saying for 2 years now that he thinks taxes on everyone earning over $250,000 should be increased.
I actually would like to see no one earning under a million dollars pay any income tax, and everyone making more than a million have their taxes raised to make up the difference, and give the government more money to help rebuild the infrastructure, etc. See my I'm A Progressive Libertarian
But the point is government spending is vastly exceeding government revenue. The Federal Reserve just "prints" the difference, thus further devaluing our currency and, if this trend continues, putting us at risk of an inflationary depression.
So you're worried about the "risk" of an inflationary depression, when we're already in a serious deflationary recession?
As for government spending: as was seen during FDR's term, spending helps gets nations out of Depressions.
The government may indeed spend more money than it currently has - but as long as income continues to come in, and grow, the country does well. That's the basis Keynesian economics - and very different from saying the government is just printing up money it doesn't have.
I'll preface this comment by saying that I tend to vote Republican, but usually only because I agree with one or two more items they say they will support. I will also tell you that in noting comments on sites from both sides, no honest debate is really at hand. It is usually one side or the other spewing hate and vitriol, just as here on your site. One side says they just don't understand the other, but neither is really willing to listen & consider.
My perspective, as I'm sure for others, is based on my experiences. I didn't have your experience, you didn't have mine, so how can you judge? For example, I watched my best friend offer to pay for full medical expenses to two pregant teenagers- one was a heroin addict, but my friend so deperately wanted a baby that she offered anyway. Both girls chose to abort their children. Although I agree our social programs have to discourage teenage pregnancy, our birthrate is not even remotely out-of-hand as it is in sub-saharan Africa. Our economy will likely end up like Japan's as our birthrate continues to decline. So reducing teenage pregancy is only 1/2 the battle, and murdering WANTED children cannot be the answer. Before you get up in arms, consider that the best argument I've heard for not legalizing drugs is that we would be "promoting" their use amongst our children. So how is it not "promoting" abortion when we hand out condoms, legalize abortion, and teach that casual, emotionally detached sex is the norm? This is just one issue of many that I think deserves an honest debate, not name-calling and judgment. Many folks "in the middle" hate the confrontation & won't even join in the debate. Shame on us.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, anon (may I suggest that you at least use a pseudonym - otherwise, when I refer to "anon"'s comment, and there is more than one anon comment, it can get confusing)
About abortion, here is how I see this difficult issue: People, including sexually mature teenagers, enjoy sex. It feels good. It's human nature. Abstinence rarely works for long. But enjoying sex is not the same as wanting to be a parent. That's the reason why contraception should be widely available. And, since I believe that no one should be able to dictate what a human being does with her (or his) body, I believe a pregnant woman has the right to decide if she wants to become a mother. (I do not think abortion is murder, because although the fetus is clearly close to being a child, it is not yet.)
Granted, my opinion is swayed by my children- I can't fathom someone hurting a child, even if they can prove the child doesn't feel pain before 23 weeks. Another core belief of mine- which can be tied into almost every arguement you listed in your original blog, is that there must, as a rule, be responsibility & accountability for your choices & actions. In the case of unwanted pregnancy & abortion, we have a responsibility as parents & a society to tell our children, "Sex is good & fun, but beware the consequences! It's your choice, but thou shalt be responsible for thine own choices!" If a child gets pregnant & choses the easy way out (because it is morally acceptable within the society), aren't we just devaluing not only human life, but allowing this person to continue on a path of irresponsibility?
I am military as well (I joined because at the time, it is how i believed I could best "serve" my fellow man, not so sure anymore, but not for the reasons you might think), and I know a minimum of 12 fellow service families who hav gone overseas to adopt. I have researched this quite a bit for my friend & myself. Our adoption of children from some of these countries is actually promoting corruption in government in some cases & promoting a black-market baby trade. Even the liberal-leaning Newsweek admits that unwanted pregnancy rates and abortion is higher among the poor an uneducated/illiterate. They hone on an unsubstantiated claim that the abortion rate is higher because these families feel they cannot affort to have another child. If education programs were focused on offering alternatives instead of pushing abortion, I believe more of those women would chose to allow their babies to go up for adoption. Please note that I did not say I am for criminalizing abortion, but I do believe it is morally reprehensible, especially when alternatives exist. What are some liberals afraid of- that we will be overrun with with an inferior race?
I can't fathom ever hurting a child, either - and my children are now adults - but, as difficult as it is to make such distinctions, I don't think a fetus is yet a child.
About sex - I think it's more powerful and profound than just "good and fun". A movie or a swim or an ice cream cone can be good and fun. But they can be much more easily denied than sex.
Then we come down to several of the core arguments: are we "different" from animals- we can control our urges & consider consequences, even as children of 12, or no, just animals & cannot think of the future when the present is at hand; and as such, have no control of our thoughts or actions. I have known & heard of plenty of people who couldn't control their urges; they often end up in trouble with the law, eventually, after their parents & friends have bailed them out of or kept them from trouble for the 2000th time, beginning with the time the time they wouldn't let them play in the puddle because they might get dirty. So from my perspective, it is a little more about how you are raised- are you allowed to suffer the natural consequences of your actions, or are you repeatedly saved from yourself? I think those who have been" saved from themselves" too often tend to believe the way you do- we are helpless to control our actions, and should therefore be prevented from having to suffer the consequences for them. Why bother with the silly & futile law?
If you want to elevate it to the profound- great, good for you, I'm jealous! All too often, its coercive, drunk or pressured, and acceptably so by this society. Maybe if people elevated it to the sacred, it would be dealt with more carefully.
Even if sacred, is the experience worth messing with someone else's life without a thought? It's a mute point if you don't believe they are "someone else."
Two responses -
1. A bad example does refute a general principle, unless the principle is saying every instance of x is good. So, yes, sex can be abuses, just as eating, and just about all natural human activities - but that does not mean sex is not profound - any more than eating something that is not good for you would mean eating is no good.
2. We are indeed different from animals - we don't just have sex, we make love, fall in love, and a whole continuum of emotions, feelings, and thoughts. That's why neither a simple guideline that teenagers should wait to have sex, or a guideline that they should have sex, works very well. If a couple wants to elevate sex to something sacred, and that works for them, that's fine, too.
Well, I have failed in my attempt to demonstrate to you that most Republicans/conservatives (however you want to label them) are not mean, but they merely approach the question of "What is good" differently. I find it interesting (forgive the generalization), that democrats, liberals or "anti-conservatives," however you want to label them think they are being compassionate and good by handing people what they believe are the solutions to their problems as instead of letting people work it out themselves as a majority rule. This seems to me to be an especially condescending and counter-productive attitude for a group that professes to be the party of the people, from my perspective.
As to morality, it will be hard to reason with anyone who does not believe in right, wrong, consequences and responsibility. I failed to make my point about sex; treating it as profound/sacred and repudiating "bad sex" is exactly the way it should be. If you eat bad food, get sick, get fat, get too thin, etc., you mostly have to suffer the consequences for your actions & may act to correct (if you chose). Bulemia may be an attempt at abortion of an overindulgence or past wrong, but I think most people view bulemia as a sickness & an aberation, not as the ideal way to find happiness. Bulemia, as abortion, leaves a scar on the individual's soul; unfortunately, the person is allowed to intentionally affect another in the case of pregnancy termination. If food's the same thing as sex, how can you not view abortion of a child as an aberation, not to be accepted as "good" simply because we cannot see the consequences with our own eyes in every case? If we condone and try to erase all acts for which there are natural consequences that would otherwise tend to lead to self-correction because we believe it shows compassion, we are judging, interfering & not allowing the person to work it out. We are proclaiming we know better than nature/God & have the power to "make things right."
Through many examples in my life, I feel very certain that the family's attitude toward sex absolutely affects the actions of the child. Parents who dictate "rule of law" to thier children are just as guilty of not letting them think & act for themselves, so before I am cited an example of preacher's pregnant daughter, remember it's consequences & personal responsibility I believe works, not rules. Parents act as guide when they explain potential consequences & leave the choice to the child; then require the child to face the consequences, good or bad. It may be simple, but it works, when you believe in the child & the child trusts you & society does not interfere by passing out condoms at school (as one example). And yes, the children are absolutely affected by their peers, so when sex is viewed as casual, perverse or insignificant in a society, the kids will tend to view it that way too, especially when the parenting is weak, warped or non-existent.
More to your point in the article- the SCHIP - since when is medical care a right, not an amazing privilege proferred to us by our free-market economy. If it hadn't been for the profit-making potential of drugs & healthcare, many of these opportunities would not even be present in the world. Governments can try to force people to produce goods they feel are good for the society, but history has proven time & again that is, by far, the inferior way to get the job done. People are moved by their experiences & will act to correct- hopefully not by imposing their narrow-minded beliefs on the whole society before their theories are tested. i.e., you are moved to provide funding or services to a drug-company working on anti-cancer treatments because your child died of cancer vs. lobbying & obtaining a bill in congress that will impose an untested method for solving the problem on the entire country - apply the same scenario to med-insurance programs. In the former case, if the company uses the wrong methods, they might try something new or go out of business, or they might succeed & compete with other companies to provide the highest quality drugs possible at the lowest possible cost; if the government screws it up, they just keep throwing more money at the problem & are never forced to be effecient or perfect their product. There are so many examples of this in government, its really not funny. And I work for the government- I promise you it's true.
If protection from criminals is a right that people reasonably expect from government, why isn't protection from and treatment of illness?
Let me recommend two superb books to you - both by William McNeil - Plagues and Peoples, and The Pursuit of Power. He makes the argument that human history can be described as a battle against micro-predators (bacteria, viruses) and macro-predators (mostly other humans).
My addition to his argument is that the proper role of government is to fight against both.
Interesting you should recommend those two books - A friend of my recommended them wrt Global warming a few weeks ago- they do sound good & will add to my stack. Did you read "State of Fear?"
On illness & government's role in protection from: It's not that I don't believe we shouldn't strive for maximum possible coverage, but not sure it it should be mandated by the government, especially not at a national level. Why not let it be dictated by private industry or the states first? Its not like we have less people with healthcare coverage than before- just the opposite. Children are provided an amazing array of healthcare opportunities such as those provided by private organizations like the Visiting Nurses Associaion. We are a truly blessed nation- I'm not sure why people want to socialize instead of looking for real solutions. If you want to focus attention on a health-cost lowering strategy- how about minimizing or abolishing the ability for jurys and judges to award absolutely rediculous "pain & suffering" awards. Those truly inflate the cost of health care with no benefit to the individual or society. No amount of money will bring your baby back.
As for government involvement- we have a federal system for a reason. The states come out with some really excellent ideas at times, which later the other states adopt once they have numbers to prove the solution is the best one -its great because we can actually comparison shop. NBER and other private organizations make it their business to study these things, making recommendations along the way. They have a free newsletter you can subscribe to at NBER.org. A good example is concealed carry laws. States that allow conceal carry permits to non-felons have experienced lowered crime rates & as a consequence of many studies, other states are adopting these more permissive conceal-carry laws & experiencing the same lower crime rates (old, but try "More Guns, Less Crime" for one). In a short period of time, almost all of the 50 states (were up to about 48) allow some concealed carry permits. Unfortunately, many people base their opinions on a few news stories or fictional movies instead of hard facts.
PS -Be curious to see a review from you on the movie "Equilibrium." Did you review it?
Post a Comment