Government

by

Immi-grants for college

There’s this silly meme going around now, comparing the cuts being given to the military for education with programs helping illegal immigrant children get an education.

The reason he is giving her that expression is because the statement she makes is absolutely wrong (and stupid: “only” way? No one else gets aid? Give me a break.)

This is a false comparison. The federal government funds the military and thanks to the sequester, money is being cut from the military budget. Blame the Republicans for forcing the sequester through (it was their idea) and then trying to convince all of us it’s Obama’s fault.

The other example is from states like Colorado, and has nothing to do with federal funding. In Colorado, children who were brought here illegally by their parents and thus had no choice in the matter and who graduated from Colorado high school, were never arrested, were applying for citizenship, and who kept good grades were allowed to go to Colorado public colleges at the same rate as a Colorado citizen. Not greater than, exactly the same as. No tuition given to them, just the same discount as all the kids they went to High School with.

Isn’t that what we want? Good kids with good grades becoming good citizens, paying taxes, and then staying in the US to help our economy? Don’t we want to encourage that?

Editorial cartoon of the day

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Bush versus Clinton? Again?

One of the reasons I supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton is because I have a real dislike of dynasties. We have over 300 million people in the US. Can’t we stop electing husbands and wives and sons and daughters of the same politicians?

This is nothing against Hillary. I think she’d be a fine President.

But now Jeb Bush may decide to run in 2016, and we could be presented with the third Bush getting a nomination and a race that looks awfully familiar: Clinton versus Bush.

In America, we don’t have royalty, but we apparently have something similar: A Ruling Class. We’ve had our Roosevelts and our Kennedys and our Bushes and our Clintons, going all the way back to John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Not that these people have necessarily been unqualified, but in a country this large, it would be nice to see who else is out there.

by

How the GOP can win the presidential race

To follow up on yesterday’s editorial cartoon:

The Republican party has won the popular vote only once in the last six presidential elections (when Bush won by a razor-thin margin). They have a huge uphill battle, and it’s not getting any better for them. The population is changing, and the old angry white man vote is dying.

Look at the electoral college voting patterns. You need 270 electoral votes to win. If we count every state that has voted Democratic in the last six elections, the Democrats start off with 242 votes, and the Republicans have 206. If you count only the last two, the Democrats have 332.

This is bad news for the Republicans, which leaves them with two options: (1) expand their base by appealing to younger voters, women, and minorities; or (2) cheat.

As we have seen, they have decided to go for option 2. Republicans have instituted voter purges and intimidation, creating hardships for those in Democratic-leaning districts and causing long lines to discourage voting. They’ve fought against early voting and other methods which will encourage people to exercise their rights. They’ve gerrymandered districts in ways that keep Democrats from winning.

They’ve created a propaganda machine to convince people that voter fraud is taking place (quite ironically). They’ve passed laws making it harder for people to register and vote. And they’ve challenged the Voting Rights Act in court.

Because, let’s face it, the only other solution would be to actually listen to the will of the people.

by

No, That’s Not the Point

“America has the best health care system in the world! That’s why people from countries with socialized medicine come here!”

I’ve seen this used as an argument against having any sort of “medicare for all” plan in America. It’s a silly argument which completely misses the point: It’s not whether we have the best care, it’s who gets the care. We also have the best hotels in the world, but most of us can’t afford those, either.

Paul Miller

Apparently, people who make this argument think that if we have socialized medicine here, then we will no longer have the best medical care in the world — that our doctors will forget all they know and hospitals will suddenly become backwater chop shops.

Well, no. No one has ever suggested that all doctors have to work for the government. A “medicare for all” plan keeps doctors independent, and they can decide whether to accept patients or not. Hey, just like it works now!

A national health care policy will not stop independent health care. Public schools did not stop private schools. Public defenders did not stop private attorneys. If you’ve got money, there will be nothing stopping you from affording that high-cost health care you want.

Anyone who tells you different is just plain wrong.

by

The Slippery Slope

Banning assault rifles obviously means that all guns will be banned eventually.

Just like how allowing gay marriage means we will have to allow people to marry penguins. And how legalizing marijuana means we have to also legalize heroin.

Just like our history! We installed a minimum wage and the next thing you know, the government is setting all salaries for every single person. We gave women the right to vote and now all children get to vote, too. We registered cars and made provisions for their safety which immediately led to all cars being banned.

Because, of course, we have no possible way of doing anything reasonable as a population and can only do the most absurd outrageous outcome at the end of the slippery slope.

by

The Sequester is All Obama’s Fault

Obviously, right? I mean, come on, he’s the President. He’s the one in charge of the budget, right?

What’s that? The House of Representatives controls the budget under Article I?

Well. Um. Sure, but he’s the President. Surely he can do something.

“What more do you think I can do?” Obama asked at a Press Conference recently. “I’m the President, not a Dictator.”

In all seriousness, this is a problem for both sides and any attempt to make it look one-sided is completely partisan.

At the same time, it should be noted that when this whole thing started, Boener said he got “98% of what he wanted” in the deal. So maybe that’s why he’s not willing to compromise.

We’ll see who ultimately takes the blame for this.

by

The Purpose of Government

So many arguments have ensued over a very basic question. What is the purpose of government?

Some of us feel that government should be used to promote the common good; that together, we can accomplish more than we can as individuals. We believe that it’s a good thing to take care of each other, and provide education, health care, and other social services. Government oversight of business is encouraged to make sure our food and medicine is safe and to provide for a living wage and safe working conditions. Let’s call this the “socialist” view of government.

Others feel that government should not infringe upon our freedoms and our liberties in any way, and should not use tax dollars for things like health care or unemployment benefits or other types of welfare. Government should not put so many restrictions on businesses or guns or our own personal lives. We’ll call this the “libertarian” view of government.

Most people fit somewhere between the two, and are completely inconsistent.

Democrats, for instance, believe in government involvement to regulate business and provide social services but are strong supporters of freedom in other areas (gay rights, abortion, etc.)elephant donkey

Republicans hate government involvement in business and social services but love to have the government regulate private behavior (what they consider “moral” behavior, which is primarily religion based).

Both the socialist view and the libertarian view are legitimate views. Both are valid. You can believe in either one of these views and be an absolute patriot who is being true to what America stands for.

And there lies the problem: There are people at either extreme who think that if you hold a view opposite from them, you are not just wrong, you are evil. You are anti-American, a traitor, someone who wants to destroy this country.

And that’s why we can’t get things done.

by

Get your terms right, you totalitarian fascist!

Too many people confuse political terms, and think that if they don’t agree with a politician, then that politician’s views are communistic and therefore undemocratic and so on.  Let’s try to simplify things.

There are two sets of terms to know:  economic and political.  A government has both.

Economic

Capitalism.  This is where the market decides and government stays out of it.  No minimum wage, no health inspections, no laws against discrimination, no regulations on business at all.  This doesn’t work, because you end up with the powerful running everything, destroying the economy, and keeping people in poverty.

Communism.  This is where the government runs business.  The idea is that we should all live together in peace and harmony and share everything, and the President earns the same amount as the guy who sweeps the street.  This also doesn’t work, because it completely destroys initiative and any reason to try to improve yourself.

Socialism.  This is where most countries are, where the government regulates business to prevent the abuses capitalism can bring, and provides many services (libraries, hospitals, parks, fire departments, social security, unemployment, etc.)  This is the tough balance to meet.  You don’t want to go too far in either direction, and most of the debate in the US is over how far to go.

Political

Democracy.  This is where the people decide, usually through representative democracy or republicanism.

Totalitarianism.  This is a dictatorship, whether individually controlled (North Korea) or committee controlled (China).  Once more, there are degrees here as well as various types (monarchy, fascism, oligarchy).  But the key thing they all have in common is that the decision-making power is not with the people.

What usually happens is that people confuse the economic with the political.  The Soviet Union was a communist country but was also a totalitarian country, and people started associating the two.  This is wrong.  You could have a democratic communist country.

It’s even more confusing when countries lie about themselves.  Just because you call yourself “the Democratic Republic of Vietnam” doesn’t mean you are a democratic republic, any more than China is the “people’s republic.” The Soviet Union was indeed a communist country, but it was a corrupt one because you know perfectly well that not everyone shared equally in that society.

Disclaimer:  This is a really quick and simple explanation and is meant to be a guideline and a start for conversation.