An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Enough’s Enough America

There comes a time in history when an adult enters the fray of uncivil discourse, shakes America by her broad shoulders, and admonishes everyone that enough is enough. I’m uncertain whether former President Jimmy Carter is that heroic adult.

Carter in an interview Tuesday and later in an address to his own forum said Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act “based on racism” and rooted in fears a black man is incapable of being president.

I’m up to my neck with disgust every time an argument degenerates when the race, gender, religious, nationality or sexual preference card is played. Carter, who arguably was the worst president since Warren Harding, has some street creds, however, for a white man, on race. What I wonder is whether that credibility adds credence to the racial overtones already invoked in this rhubarb.

The Plains, Georgia, native whose best childhood friends were black, has an exemplary record of governor of a southern state and president as a champion and empathetic defender of black people in America.

“Racism … still exists and I think it has bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the south but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance and grieves me and concerns me very deeply,” Carter told NBC News.

Wilson, a South Carolina Republican congressman, was scolded in a House resolution Tuesday 240 to 179. The House held that by shouting “You lie” during the president’s speech, Wilson committed a “breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House.”

The rebuke was demanded by the Democratic black caucus because Wilson refused to apologize on the House floor although he did, upon instructions from Republican house leaders, relay his forgiveness to the White House which Obama accepted.

No one knows whether racism harbors in Wilson’s mind. Some pundits on the cable networks speculated he had too much to drink before attending the joint congressional speech. Maureen Dowd in her New York Times column Sunday thought but was uncertain whether Wilson’s outburst was “You, lie, boy!” Wilson’s wife asked him who was the nut who yelled at the president.

“There is not a racist bone in my dad’s body,” said Alan Wilson, an Iraq veteran who is running for state attorney general. “He doesn’t even laugh at distasteful jokes. I won’t comment on former President Carter, because I don’t know President Carter. But I know my dad, and it’s just not in him.”

Dick Harpootlian, a former South Carolina Democratic Party chairman, said he has known Wilson for years and doubts the remarks were motivated by racism. “I think Joe’s conduct was asinine, but I think it would be asinine no matter what the color of the president,” he said. “I don’t think Joe’s outburst was caused by President Obama being African-American. I think it was caused by no filter being between his brain and his mouth.”

And, wouldn’t you know that both Wilson and his Democratic challenger in next year’s midterms have raised about $1 million each, they say, as a result of Wilson’s outburst.

Michael Steele, the black Republican Party chairman, said:

President Carter is flat out wrong. This isn’t about race. It is about policy. This is a pathetic distraction by Democrats to shift attention away from the president’s wildly unpopular government-run health care plan that the American people simply oppose.

Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation.

I find this argument to seriously address the health care reform debate by Republicans astonishing. Not a single Republican has voted in favor of any of the bills offered by the Democrats. They contend the Democrats won’t accept their ideas despite the fact hundreds of Republican amendments to the proposed legislation have been included in the process leading to the mark ups or floor votes. It’s their problem, not the Democrats, they are the minority party.

The race card may or may not be red herring. What is real is the uncivil discourse we see from town hall meetings and marches on Washington, writes Robin Abcarian in the Los Angeles Times. The writer quotes a University of Washington sociologist the bad discourse began in the 1960s when America’s youth challenged the Vietnam War.

Cultural critic and writer Joseph Epstein thinks civility was purely a facade to begin with, Abcarian writes:

The public figures who crossed the line have careers that generally require them to create “false PR personalities,” Epstein said. “These were eruptions of true, loathsome feelings after all these years of suppression and having to pretend to be such sweet characters when they are not. What they all were before is as phony as can be. They all just said, ‘I can’t take it anymore,’ and they all fell apart.”

Abcarian then interviews Drew Westen, an Emory University psychologist who has studied the effects of unconscious racism in political contests. He said it was no accident that most of these incidents involved blacks and whites.

“I think racial tensions on both sides are pretty high right now,” Westen said. “It’s on a new level now because it’s not conscious or overt. It’s bubbling underneath. What might have led to a small reaction or a thought to yourself that something is unfair is now popping out of people’s mouths.”

And then Westen, a Democratic consultant, takes a swipe at Obama for not taking advantage of Wilson’s outburst.

“The president had just said in his speech that he is happy to work with people who want solutions, but ‘I will call you out’ to those who are getting in the way and being uncivil. And then Joe Wilson calls him a liar to his face in front of the whole nation. He should have said, ‘Excuse me, I believe someone just called me a liar. Would you like to stand up?’ ”

That Obama did not do that, said Westen, “was an object lesson in why the right continues to escalate their incivility.”

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Three cheers to the Republican attack squads who have framed the national debate to their terms. It is derisive, negative, pocked with lies and distortions and will do Americans little benefit. It is their way of restoring America to its founding freedoms of rising health costs, failing banking institutions, filthy air and wars that have no redeeming outcomes.

A pox on the Democrats for allowing this to happen. Nor will I buy their sanctimonious whining they never called President Bush a liar during his addresses to a joint congress. They did that and more out of chambers coaxed and fanned by a vicious left wing media blitz.

Come on, America. Demonizing leads no where.

  • Leonidas
    Jimmy Carter is an idiot.

    'Nuff said
  • Anna
    "The rebuke was demanded by the Democratic black caucus because Wilson refused to apologize on the House floor although he did, upon instructions from Republican house leaders, relay his forgiveness to the White House which Obama accepted."

    Jerry, just an FYI...in this paragraph it doesn't seem like "forgiveness" was the correct word to word since it's Obama doing the forgiving. :)
  • I don't know if it was racist or not. Nor do I care. He broke he rules of the body in which he serves. But that's alright. The voices of the GOP are closing ranks around Wilson and calling him a hero. Good. 87% of Americans disagree according to the CNN poll. Keep picking those losing positions, guys.
  • Carter was spot on with respect to the future of America. He put on a sweater, put up solar panels and advised us that dependency on Middle East oil was a national security threat. He implemented fuel efficiency standards that, had Reagan not dismantled them, would have spared us forEVER from dependence on ME oil. Now look at the cost we have paid and continue to pay for not following through on what that "idiot" started.
  • DLL83
    I wonder, do Jimmy Carter and others who insist on bringing up race all time expect that racist people around the country are suddenly going to say, "you know what, he's right, we should change!"? Or are the millions of non-racist people expected to nod and agree as they are openly insulted and accused of this evil? I don't see what good comes of this. It just divides people even further.
  • DaGoat
    Now look at the cost we have paid and continue to pay for not following through on what that "idiot" started.


    Yep if only we still had those 18% mortgage rates and 11% inflation we had under Jimmy. My house would be worth a bazillion dollars by now!
  • DLL83,
    I suppose the idea is to shame the racist folks for being racists. Show them that society doesn't accept their flawed world-view and small-mindedness. We don't want to go as far as making racism a thought crime, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't put some cost on evil stupidity.
  • DLL83
    I can understand that. We definitely don't want to be a society that condones racism or even just fails to address it when it shows itself. I just think that to generalize opposition to Obama as stemming from racist attitudes among conservatives is a bit like saying we should just bomb the hell out of Afghanistan and Pakistan because that's where Al-Qaeda is, and we'll eventually get Osama bin Laden and his cronies. You create more enemies than you destroy. Racist people are fully aware that racism is not accepted by the general population, and telling them publicly isn't going to make an ounce of difference.

    As far as attaching a cost to racism, I also agree that it should be done, but let's attach penalties for real acts of racism (as our legal system does). When there is no proof that racism exists and you don't have anything to go on except a hunch, you should usually just keep your mouth shut.
  • DaGoat, if only we had no need for oil from Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, China or Russia. If only we were energy independent right now. If only we had a thriving renewable energy industry. If only we had a manufacturing sector. If only we had only $1 trillion in national debt instead of the $11.8 trillion handed to us by Republicans. If only we had the twin towers back, 3,000 dead innocents and 4,500 dead American soldiers. If only. As for mortgage rates and inflation, under Carter middle class incomes rose. They haven't kept up with inflation since.

    BTW, I'm not saying Carter was a great president. I'm saying (and it's exactly what I said) that with respect to energy and the future, he was exactly right.

    We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

    I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day. To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun. I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford. I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    Yea I think that had a good deal to do with going off the gold standard and paying for Vietnam. Don't get me wrong price controls on gas and taking Israel's side in the ME also had a good amount to do with the oil crises that brought it all down around our ears but those decisions were made by Nixon, Carter just paid for them. The difference between Carter and Reagen is that Carter was balancing the budget and Reagen ballooned the national debt. Our economy ran wonderfully on that money from the future to build an ever larger military and ever larger war on drugs and prison system, but now we have to pay for it and I still see no one talking about how to get rid of the debt shy of killing social programs that did not actually cause the problem in the first place. They will in the future but that of course is because we have been raiding their funding to buy more pretty airplanes from companies that manufacture in Republican voting districts.
  • ordinarysparrow
    Who among us can look at the evident injuries in recent days and not see that it is filled with the pus of an old wound? Those raised in the racist rural South and left it behind are going to see, feel, smell, and hear all the similarities of the tragic shame filled years and come up with racism. . .Whether President Carter is correct or not i do not know, but i sense the same and can understand why and how he expressed based on the place and times he's lived through.

    Denial or Demonize?

    Both are used to not solve problems, but to prolong them indefinitely.
  • DLS
    More fuel for the scummy "racist" lies. (Will that explain failure of the Dems to get the votes to pass health care legislation, too, or failure to get the public option included in it?) Carter didn't also call Wilson or the public opposition to Dem overreach "apartheid" as well, apparently reserving that still for just the Israelis.
  • DLS
    "Or are the millions of non-racist people expected to nod and agree as they are openly insulted and accused of this evil?"

    We didn't when Obama made his stupid remark about Gates and encouraged extremist dreck like Tim Wise to emerge out of the woodwork. Instead, as should have been expected, it cost Obama standing among the public. That, to the extremists, should have been, but wasn't, a (truly) "teachable moment."


    http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratin...
  • DLS
    The hype about Wilson (including the "racism" dishonesty) is disgusting. At least the text of the actual House resolution was not.

    * * *

    Re. "Enough's Enough, America" and energy policy:

    Conservation helps, but cannot solve the problem of meeting our growing energy needs. Right now we have no real substitute for petroleum as fuel for transportation (and natural gas for space heating is widespread). Wind and solar won't supply our (growing) electrical generation needs. Coal is useful, dirty but cheap, and we could be more self-sufficient and cleaner if we made synthetic, highly purified transportation fuels from coal as a medium-term strategy. Environmentalists want to de-industrialize the West and especially the USA (they say "de-carbonize," but the real goal is radical reductionism and a command and control, planned economy and society, and environmental political laws that will cripple industry). Certainly we don't "need" to be redirected into smaller, less powerful vehicles or onto public collective transport if we prefer automobility, etc., either.

    Carter inherited a lot that was created during the 1960s and 1970s, but made things worse, too.

    The only thing you can say is that everything is relative, and: his energy policy may not have been as bad as the lib Dems' policy currently.

    What we need and what we can expect are reasonably known.

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/04...

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
  • DaGoat
    BTW, I'm not saying Carter was a great president. I'm saying (and it's exactly what I said) that with respect to energy and the future, he was exactly right.

    I'll agree with you that he was prescient in his views on energy, but otherwise it was a fairly bleak four years. I actually think a lot of the blame for that fell on Volcker, who probably handled things correctly but it was painful at the time.

    Still it is customary for presidents to take the credit or blame for what happens during their term. Liberals will try to argue it one way and conservatives another, but Carter's term was what it was.
  • Brittanicus
    As usual the opponents of any kind of restriction on the illegal immigration, is playing the race card? It's a forgone conclusion that the benefactors of promoting a mass invasion of our shores, such as religious groups, unions, ACLU, radical ethnic caucuses and even our own US Chamber of Commerce, will mouth epithets that doesn't benefit big business, that doesn't advocate a continuous force of illegal cheap labor. Now they are really livid because their objection to E-Verify was thrown out of court. Now all federal contractors and subcontractors must adhere to the law. They have conspired against the American worker and people for too long, and now we are fighting back ourselves against corrupt politicians and other elected officials nationwide,

    Rep.Joe Wilson was actually telling the truth at the time, and now Democrats have placed restrictive language in the Health care reform package as a reluctant afterthought by public demand. This was nothing to do about bigotry or racism, but the American workers and family survival. None of the business community who hire them wants their labor, but forces the taxpayer to carry the financial load. The US labor force should not have to be in competition, with people from other countries. Businesses have already offshore American jobs, because it's cheaper? So every illegal foreign national and family member should be exempt from government run health care, jobs and all the billions of taxpayer dollars secretly allocated to pay for their support. Twenty million plus illegal people compromised themselves, when they entered a sovereign nation without permission. Find out the truth at NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH and contact your politician at 202-224-3121 demanding no weakening conditions to E-Verify or any other law authored by Congress.
  • DLS
    Re: "Certainly we don't 'need' to be redirected into smaller, less powerful vehicles"

    Vehicles have increased in size and power, limiting economy. But people should be free to choose...


    http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/825...

    http://www.bentlybiofuels.com/pdfs/EPA_FuelEcon...

    http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/automobil...

    http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/docs/cafe_hist...

    http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail....
  • Don Quijote
    Re: "Certainly we don't 'need' to be redirected into smaller, less powerful vehicles"

    Vehicles have increased in size and power, limiting economy. But people should be free to choose...


    All we need to do is price gas accurately... Since at least half of our military forces exist for no other reason than to keep the flow of OIL open, we should at least pay half of our military out of gas taxes which would probably double the price of a gallon at the pump.
  • DLS
    "All we need to do is price gas accurately... "

    Having our military is not an excuse to vastly over-price our petroleum and its products, and there's no good reason to force us to drive less or use less fuel, but reasonable pricing of all fuels that includes true military costs plus externality recovery such as for the costs of pollution (real pollution, not "greenhouse gas" stuff) and waste disposal (including solid waste, in the case of coal) makes sense.

    In this light, a fuel tax makes not only better sense than a "cap and trade" government-meddling scam, but also more sense than a fuel consumption tax on vehicles, or a tax on engine displacement, or output (horsepower or torque), etc. (A separate tax on vehicle weight -- gross vehicle weight rating -- and miles traveled, using odometer readings, might be also suitable, in order to recover costs of road construction and maintenance, though a reasonable substitute for this is the fuel tax.)
  • DLS
    "a fuel consumption tax on vehicles"

    Based on the vehicle's fuel economy, that is. (The basis of a "fee-bate" scheme, too -- subsidizing and encouraging purchases or use of more-economical vehicles and penalizing and deterring purchases and uses of less-economical vehicles -- an MPG subsidy or tax penalty, in other words, depending on MPG)
  • Don Quijote
    Based on the vehicle's fuel economy, that is.


    Nice pointless gimmick...

    If you want people to stop driving or to drive smaller cars, just tax gasoline...

    With the right tax rate, you can reduce pollution, congestion, the trade deficit and the budget deficit.(You could make Environmentalist, the Defense Conservatives and the Fiscal Conservatives happy at the same time.)

    A $5.00 to $6.00 gallon of gas would resolve quite a few problems. If such a tax was implemented over a few years in a predictable fashion, people could adjust and it would not be to painful...
  • JeffersonDavis
    Well stated, MagicalSky. Wrong on a view points, but well said.
    If you look at the Boeing Corp. in Seattle, I'm quite certain that isn't a "republican voting district".

    I agree with the "taking Israel's side" issue, however; as well as with the deficit spending issue.

    As far as the "racism" issue, I'm enought is truly enough. I'm fed up with democrats yelling "racist" every time someone disagrees with the President and openly voices an opinion contrary to his.

    If you are full of crap, then I EXPECT someone to tell you that your are full of crap whether you are of African decent, Asian decent, European decent, or Martian decent.
  • DLS
    "Nice pointless gimmick..."

    The fee-bate idea (based on vehicle mileage) is popular with activists, and don't forget the mileage element of the Cash for Clunkers program. It was far from pointless when ObamaCo engineered that, wasn't it?

    "A $5.00 to $6.00 gallon of gas would resolve quite a few problems."

    It would create a lot of problems, too. But it would probably reduce discretionary travel.
  • Dr J
    I'm fed up with democrats yelling "racist" every time someone disagrees with the President and openly voices an opinion contrary to his.

    Well said. But after an incendiary summer, we've run out of Hitler mustaches.
  • Leonidas
    Well said. But after an incendiary summer, we've run out of Hitler mustaches


    Those were largely LaRouche people, Lyndon LaRouhe was a Labor/Democrat fringenut.
    http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/politic...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
  • alphonsegaston
    Carter is spot on. Wearing guns to his appearances, crying and whining because he has stolen away our America--get real. These people cannot accept a black president. Period. Many of the protestors at public meetings do not even know what "policies" they are protesting. Just because you are "tired" of hearing about racism does not mean it has magically gone away.
  • Don Quijote
    The fee-bate idea (based on vehicle mileage) is popular with activists, and don't forget the mileage element of the Cash for Clunkers program. It was far from pointless when ObamaCo engineered that, wasn't it?


    Congress Mulls Research Into a Vehicle Mileage Tax

    An exceedingly stupid way of taxing travel without taxing gas from politicians who lack the intestinal fortitude required to tell the Citizens the truth.

    Cash for clunkers was not a bad idea, the only problem with it is that politicians are not willing to take the basic idea to it's logical conclusion, if you want people to consume less gas make it more expensive and the way to do that is to tax it...

    This is a lot like "Cap and Trade", if you believe that carbon emissions should be reduced ( and I do ), the simplest way of reducing them is to tax them, not to invent some ridiculous cap and trade scheme that is going to make Wall Street a few hundred million dollars every year from now till the end of time while raising minimal amounts of money for the Government.

    Once more what we have is politicians who will cook up the most convoluted scheme imaginable not to use the word "TAX".
  • DLS
    "An exceedingly stupid way of taxing travel without taxing gas from politicians who lack the intestinal fortitude required to tell the Citizens the truth."

    A vehicle mileage tax is easy to implement (it would be paid at vehicle registration or reg. renewal time and only need the same kind of odometer readings or statements made anyway during used vehicle purchases or title transfers). In addition to the mileage, the vehicle's weight could be used as a factor for tax, using Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). (Note that this would delight the anti-SUV crowd, especially those who hate larger vehicles on "principle" most of all.) (The Gross Combined Weight Rating would not apply, because trailers would be taxed separately using their own GVWRs.)

    Now, the unnecessarily-complexity techno-toy totalitarian crowd would want GPS tracking, reputedly to be able to charge different levies on different roads, of different costs, or to do time-related congestion pricing, etc., but this is completely unnecessary and downright creepy when anyone reasonable thinks about it for even a moment. This is especially not what you want little green fascists like those who are hovering around ObamaCo to have the power to do.

    The case can be made for the (simple!) mileage (and weight) tax in addition to a fuel tax, though a fuel tax is more than sufficient and is superior if it is done alone -- it taxes pollution as well as road use and is impersonal, not intrusive (what normal people loathe most about anyone pushing a runaway GPS- or other close-monitoring vehicle use tax scheme).
  • DLS
    Yes, the GPS tracking scheme like the one you were writing about (the kind that arouses the ire of normal people),

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/us-hr...

    is just what we don't want the techno-toy totalitarians to have the power to implement on us, but of course is just the kind of scheme such people want. Vehicle weights and odometer readings aren't intrusive enough.
  • JeffersonDavis
    You must remember. One of those "gun toters" was a black man. Well.....he's white if you only show him from the neck down on the mainstream media.

    People wear guns to meetings to reinforce their support for the 2nd Amendment. It's a sort of "here's my gun, liberal. Try to take it from me" gesture. They are not implying that they would use a weapon at a public meeting. Just remember. 95% of all common criminals are liberals - they don't like the prospect of a death sentence or actual hard time.

    And racism does exist. I never said it did not (even though you implied it).
    Racism exists in the minds of the ignorant, and sadly to say, many Americans.
    Racism is rampant within the black community itself, as well as within the white and asian communities.
    It is also prevalent within liberal politics - If you draw distinctions between people based upon race, it's easier to get them to vote for you.

    Of course, if you'd turn your TV from NBC once in a while, to get varied news sources, you may have already known that.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    Sorry dude your not a dem though you say that, why do I say such a thing? Number one your above comment is straight Rush, 95% of criminals are liberals? Um no most criminals are unaffiliated since they are mostly young and by demographics people do not normally get involved in politics till their 30's. The other point is the race thing, if you think racism is so rampant then we should deal with it and also a good amount of the anti-Obama ferver must be race based by your description of our country.
    I dont agree though, I think racism is dying and becoming more rare all the time, biases still exist but on a much smaller scale then full fledged racism. Nice that you got that Rush shot in though of "only the left is race obsessed/racist." Its not true, its actually propaganda that says, racism is everywhere so me being racist is not a problem. Its the same thing that happened to politics, everything has a bias and a point of view(this was the rights argument in the 70's-90's) and looky if we dont live in that country now. So if you want to live in bigot nation keep pushing that info but it is not true nor well thought out but it makes sense if you do not put a good deal of thought into it which is exactly what propaganda is supposed to do, especially the bumper sticker variety.
  • JeffersonDavis
    MagicalSkyFather.....
    You may have misunderstood me on that, or I wrote it incorrectly.
    What I meant by that comment was that the liberal mentality is rampant throughout the criminals in America (i.e., I can take what's not mine without an ounce of work). Conservatives typically (and this is a gerneralization) enjoy a good work ethic and want others to earn for themselves. Yes, many of my politically liberal friends also have a great work ethic, but I am merely pointing out what politicans put out: liberal politicians (like criminals) want to take from the wealthy to give to those who don't want to work for it.

    Now the politically liberal wish to say that "it is not that person's fault that he/she is poor, and they should be helped". I agree. However, I believe (as do the majority of Americans) that any government boost should be just that - a temporary boost to help them get on their feet - not a way of life. That's what makes me conservative.

    What makes me a Democrat (and I AM a democrat) - is that I life in a state where elections end at the primary - 85% democrat. If I were a Republican, I'd have no say in my election process. Democrats here are conservative, not like the ones in Washington.
  • TheMagicalSkyFather
    I disagree with the take without earning liberal mindset, if that has ever been the case I am not nor never have been part of that school. But in a system with finite money you have to find a way to either constantly funnel from the top to the bottom or keep re-printing more money or no money is left for those that work because it sits in *trusts* and multi-generational wealthy families bank accounts. In fact that is the effect we have felt over the last few years. They printed more money but it did not make it to the working class but instead stayed with the investor class while inflation still went up and when shipping manufacturing to other countries could no longer hide the inflation more and more people began to fall behind while working.
    I have zero pity for those that will not work or try, I have tons of pity for those that just want a chance to get in the game which again is why I am on the left, I want access not handouts. Conversely this is also why I am a libertarian, if you get rid of corporations which are inventions of gov financial competition in many areas would return to sane levels. In the current system I have watched parents work two jobs just to feed their families that live in vans or cars. This was new to me and to be honest it is what turned me from a "moderate" to a lefty(shy of actual libertarianism if ever offered) and I did not see it until after 2001. I watched my nation slide from blaming the lazy and those on welfare that did no work to creating welfare to work programs that meant that most that were able to did work and watched as we began to blame the working poor for their plight. I will not throw mud at those that work for a living for those that play the stock market and rely on trust funds. I respect work, I do not respect sloth or laziness and how much money you have in the bank does not change my feeling about you. How do you "help"? Educate them and keep the populace healthy and any thing else they want let them work for it. I believe in zero to little taxation and 100% inheritance tax but no one will really jump on board that train as those are the people that generally run both parties. If you did not earn it you do not deserve it no matter who your mommy and daddy were.
    I actually planned on re-writing to you when I got home on this topic as I realized you may be a Clinton dem, which could get confusing since he acted like a Repub(the best since Eisenhower in my opinion with HW Bush a close second). I also thought you may have mis-stated and meant 95% of criminal LAWYERS were dems which I would back but criminals are not really political. Funny thing what a filter can do because your description of the criminal mindset I used 3-4 years ago to describe Repub's like criminals since they say one thing do another and take your money for the thing they promised but then spend it on their business friends.
  • JeffersonDavis
    I agreed with you 100% (ok, maybe 99%) until you mentioned the inheritance tax. I disagree with that one along Constitutional lines. Yes it would be nice to have little corporate CEO junior pay a tax on his dad's inheritance money. But to pay a tax on money that was already taxed as income, is unconstitutional. Pay taxes on interest, sure. Pay taxes on dividends, ok. But the "little guy who we both love has to pay 60% of his grandma's estate? Not right.

    You also struck something of a chord when you mentioned folks working 2 jobs and living in cars.
    I kicked this idea around a while back.
    If we "regressed" to one-job households, our economy would actually improve.
    (and I'm not sexistly saying that women should stay home - ONE parent should stay home - male or female.
    Reasons for this:
    * 2 jobs causes more money to be spent per family member.
    * 2 jobs causes doubling up of expenses (2 cars (or tickets for trains/buses), 2 sets of business attire, etc).
    * More eating out to cover the fact that no one cooks at home.
    * Childcare expenses (the big factor) required.
    * And finally.... imagine what would happen to the labor market if half of the labor pool stayed home? Wages would increase and benefits would increase.
    * Not to mention, children would actually have a PARENT raise them instead of a daycare worker, which would eliminate many of the social ills now plaguing us

    I know this was off the original subject, but I though I'd get your take on it?
    What say you, brother?













blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC