I just watched a short segment on MSNBC about the Voter ID laws passed in certain states stemming from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These laws make me very angry because they have little to nothing to do with stopping voter fraud. This particular law is more effective at preventing real American voters from being able to vote than preventing the fraud.
In 2012 Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin have a strict requirement for a photo ID at the polling place. According to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, 11% of adult citizens lack a valid government photo ID and may be unable to get one as they do not have birth certificates. This translates to 21 million US citizens who may be unable to vote. This bodes badly for the older community because the older you get the less likely you have a photo ID. This also affects the poor as they may have not have transportation to get a photo ID precisely because they don't have an ID. Also, most offices to get IDs do not have extended or weekend hours. So, the people who can't afford to take a day off from work can't get an ID to vote.
Also, this law hits minorities hard, but Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic describes this issue far more eloquently than I ever could. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/ .
The type of voter fraud prevented by these measures actually happen very little. The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) churned out a report that documented all the cases that were prosecuted over the last ten years. They found only 311 cases over that ten year period. In the 2008 presidential election the total number of US citizens that voted was 122,394,724. That is only 1 year. If you take a tenth of the 311 total by the amount of votes in 2008 it accounts for 0.000254% of the votes.
It seems to me like they are trying to fix a paper-cut by amputating the hand. Thankfully, there has been withdrawn support for these voter ID laws by the contributors of ALEC but there are still the laws in place that will be near impossible to get rid of. If you want to help stop these laws and make sure every American citizen has their right to vote go to the ACLU website and see how you can help.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Stand Your Ground or Make My Day Law?
The "Stand Your Ground" law has been getting a lot of flack recently and for good reason. My new favorite name for that law is the "Make My Day" law (big Clint Eastwood fan), but anyway where did this law come from and how does it make sense?
Being a gun-owner myself I believe people have the right to own guns and defend themselves or others if the extreme circumstance presents itself. However, in my opinion these "Make My Day" laws take defense a step too far. These law allow not only the ability to fatally shoot someone if you think they may threaten you, but they also let someone provoke a fight and still claim self-defense and they also allow you to fatally shoot someone to defend property. So if a shootout happens between two gun owners, whoever "wins" gets to claim self-defense. This is like a return to old spaghetti western movies. While I love those movies I don't like the idea of them happening in real life.
So, where are all these "Make My Day" laws coming from? Well, they start out being sponsored by Walmart and gun manufacturers to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a Koch brother's (among others) sponsored conservative organization that creates boiler plate legislation to be pushed through state legislatures, in this case with the help of the National Rifle Association (NRA) [Source 1].
Why would Walmart want this legislation pushed through? Well, Walmart is one of the largest gun retailers in the United States and if guns that were sold in their stores are linked to non-justifiable homicide they are open to possible litigation and damages. How better to avoid this risk than expand what counts as justifiable homicide?
Conspiracy theories aside, the facts show that since the introduction of these instances of "justifiable" homicides have skyrocketed. In Florida alone the number of reported "Justifiable Homicides" jumped from 12 to 36 after the passing of their statute [Source 2]. That is a 300% increase! All of the other states with similar statutes have seen the same remarkable jumps in justifiable homicides. Whether these laws have actually lowered the instance of crime, will not be known until crime statistics get released for 2011.
So, there is a time and a place for defending yourself but our laws should not allow for people to shoot without thinking and have no repercussions. We live in a civilized modern society, please lets not revert back to the dusty streets of the cowboy westerns I so love watching.
Sources
1) ALEC info, ALEC Exposed, http://alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F
3) Justifiable Homicides, Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/09/460542/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicides/
Being a gun-owner myself I believe people have the right to own guns and defend themselves or others if the extreme circumstance presents itself. However, in my opinion these "Make My Day" laws take defense a step too far. These law allow not only the ability to fatally shoot someone if you think they may threaten you, but they also let someone provoke a fight and still claim self-defense and they also allow you to fatally shoot someone to defend property. So if a shootout happens between two gun owners, whoever "wins" gets to claim self-defense. This is like a return to old spaghetti western movies. While I love those movies I don't like the idea of them happening in real life.
So, where are all these "Make My Day" laws coming from? Well, they start out being sponsored by Walmart and gun manufacturers to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a Koch brother's (among others) sponsored conservative organization that creates boiler plate legislation to be pushed through state legislatures, in this case with the help of the National Rifle Association (NRA) [Source 1].
Why would Walmart want this legislation pushed through? Well, Walmart is one of the largest gun retailers in the United States and if guns that were sold in their stores are linked to non-justifiable homicide they are open to possible litigation and damages. How better to avoid this risk than expand what counts as justifiable homicide?
Conspiracy theories aside, the facts show that since the introduction of these instances of "justifiable" homicides have skyrocketed. In Florida alone the number of reported "Justifiable Homicides" jumped from 12 to 36 after the passing of their statute [Source 2]. That is a 300% increase! All of the other states with similar statutes have seen the same remarkable jumps in justifiable homicides. Whether these laws have actually lowered the instance of crime, will not be known until crime statistics get released for 2011.
So, there is a time and a place for defending yourself but our laws should not allow for people to shoot without thinking and have no repercussions. We live in a civilized modern society, please lets not revert back to the dusty streets of the cowboy westerns I so love watching.
Sources
1) ALEC info, ALEC Exposed, http://alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F
3) Justifiable Homicides, Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/09/460542/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicides/
Ann Romney as a Representation of Women
The news is abuzz with the "fight" between Hilary Rosen and Ann Romney. For those of you that for some reason have no idea what I am talking about, what happened was Hillary Rosen, a Democratic strategist, responded to a question by Anderson Cooper by saying that Ann Romney is unqualified to speak about issues affecting women because she "never worked a day in her life". This obviously sounds bad. Ann Romney quickly fired back that people should respect a mother's choice of if they wish to work or not and she along with many people from both sides of the isle quickly condemned Rosen.
Hillary Rosen had an amazing point but she articulated it in the exact wrong way. What you have to understand is that Rosen was not attacking the choice to stay at home or that mothers are somehow lesser creatures, in fact she is a mom herself. What she was pointing out is that Ann Romney is not a representation of American women.
I am not attacking Ann Romney as a person, she is probably a great mother and wife and she has struggled with Multiple Sclerosis. She is a strong woman but she can't be compared to rest of the women in the United States. Many women in America make the sacrifice to stay home and care for their children and their home instead of pursuing a career. They struggle and worry about making sure there is food on the table and that there is enough money to pay the bills. I respect that some women make that sacrifice. Ann Romney never had to worry about not being able to feed her children, if they have enough money to pay bills or if they have enough health coverage just in case someone got hurt or sick.
Ann Romney is a different case. She was born to an affluent family (her father owns Jared Industries), then she married Mitt Romney a business man whose father was the president of American Motors Company and Governor of Michigan. The sheer amount of money she has backing her opens up many more opportunities for her that the average American woman could never have. There was no sacrifice in her becoming a stay at home mom; she had the luxury of not having worry about things enough to stay at home. That is what Hillary Rosen was trying to point out.
When you own "a couple" of Cadillacs and your husband has enough disposable income to install a car elevator into your multi-level car garage, you are not worrying about putting food in your children's mouth. How many stay-at-home moms do you know that has what Ann Romney does?
Hillary Rosen had an amazing point but she articulated it in the exact wrong way. What you have to understand is that Rosen was not attacking the choice to stay at home or that mothers are somehow lesser creatures, in fact she is a mom herself. What she was pointing out is that Ann Romney is not a representation of American women.
I am not attacking Ann Romney as a person, she is probably a great mother and wife and she has struggled with Multiple Sclerosis. She is a strong woman but she can't be compared to rest of the women in the United States. Many women in America make the sacrifice to stay home and care for their children and their home instead of pursuing a career. They struggle and worry about making sure there is food on the table and that there is enough money to pay the bills. I respect that some women make that sacrifice. Ann Romney never had to worry about not being able to feed her children, if they have enough money to pay bills or if they have enough health coverage just in case someone got hurt or sick.
Ann Romney is a different case. She was born to an affluent family (her father owns Jared Industries), then she married Mitt Romney a business man whose father was the president of American Motors Company and Governor of Michigan. The sheer amount of money she has backing her opens up many more opportunities for her that the average American woman could never have. There was no sacrifice in her becoming a stay at home mom; she had the luxury of not having worry about things enough to stay at home. That is what Hillary Rosen was trying to point out.
When you own "a couple" of Cadillacs and your husband has enough disposable income to install a car elevator into your multi-level car garage, you are not worrying about putting food in your children's mouth. How many stay-at-home moms do you know that has what Ann Romney does?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Right 101 Lesson 2: The Two Santa Rule
There is a little secret tactic that the Republicans have been using since the late 70's that is both genius and insidious. It has the innocent moniker of "The Two Santa Claus Theory" thought up by the little known Jude Wanniski in 1976. When I first heard about this my mind was blown about how effective it was. TO be able to stop this malicious tactic you must understand it
To give you a little history lesson to set the stage, in the mid '30s the U.S. Congress under the Roosevelt administration passed a series of social programs called the "New Deal". The "New Deal" created Social Security, the FDIC, raised top tax rates, etc.. These programs are what brought us out of the Great Depression and made Democrats look like "Santas" promoting the welfare of the populace.Every time the Republicans ran for office condemning these programs, they lost.
In comes Jude Wanniski who was tired of the Republicans always looking like the bad guys. He set the stage for Republican tactics for decades to come with his "Two Santa Claus Theory". The game-plan became, make the Republicans look like the good guys by reducing tax rates and increasing government spending on things to expand the economy like big business and infrastructure. This would allow them to shrink public programs like social security by limiting the amount of revenue available to be allocated. Also, the reduced tax revenue and the increased spending would drive up the national debt to astronomical levels.
This tactic puts Democrats up against a wall. If they raise taxes, they look like the "anti-santa". If they cut spending on business, and infrastructure they look like "anti-santa". If they don't do anything the Republicans can cry that the national debt is too high and the Democrats are not doing anything about it. However, the only other way to lower the national debt is to cut social programs which would make the Democrats again look lie the "anti-santa" and the Republicans would finally get rid of the social programs.
If you need some proof of the implementation of this plan here you go. During the Carter administration (Democratic, 1977 to 1980) the tax rate stayed at 70% and the national debt grew only 42%. Then Ronald Reagan was elected, the first Republican after the implementation of the "Two Santa Rule". Under the Reagan administration (1981 to 1988) the tax rate dropped from 70% to 28% in 1988, the national debt exploded by 189%, more than any president previous combined. Then, the next president (also a republican) was Bush Senior from 1989 to1992. He actually raised taxes up to 31% during his administration but the national debt grew by another 56% under his watch. The came the Democrat Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2000. Under the Clinton Administration the tax rate went up to 39.6% and the national debt growth rate was slowed to 36%. After Clinton was the Republican Bush Junior from 2001 to 2008. Under Bush Junior the tax rate was again dropped, this time to 35% and the national debt grew by 89%. Now we have a Democrat, Obama, in office. So far under Obama the tax rate has not changed (but it may if current pending legislation goes through) and the debt growth rate is slowed to 41%. Sources [1, 2]
If that evidence does not sway you to thinking this tactic is being used I am not sure what will. The only way for this not to succeed is for people to be informed and not fall for the underhanded tactics of the Republicans!
Sources:
1) Top Tax Rates, Tax Policy Center, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
2) National Debt, Sky Machines, http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
To give you a little history lesson to set the stage, in the mid '30s the U.S. Congress under the Roosevelt administration passed a series of social programs called the "New Deal". The "New Deal" created Social Security, the FDIC, raised top tax rates, etc.. These programs are what brought us out of the Great Depression and made Democrats look like "Santas" promoting the welfare of the populace.Every time the Republicans ran for office condemning these programs, they lost.
In comes Jude Wanniski who was tired of the Republicans always looking like the bad guys. He set the stage for Republican tactics for decades to come with his "Two Santa Claus Theory". The game-plan became, make the Republicans look like the good guys by reducing tax rates and increasing government spending on things to expand the economy like big business and infrastructure. This would allow them to shrink public programs like social security by limiting the amount of revenue available to be allocated. Also, the reduced tax revenue and the increased spending would drive up the national debt to astronomical levels.
This tactic puts Democrats up against a wall. If they raise taxes, they look like the "anti-santa". If they cut spending on business, and infrastructure they look like "anti-santa". If they don't do anything the Republicans can cry that the national debt is too high and the Democrats are not doing anything about it. However, the only other way to lower the national debt is to cut social programs which would make the Democrats again look lie the "anti-santa" and the Republicans would finally get rid of the social programs.
If you need some proof of the implementation of this plan here you go. During the Carter administration (Democratic, 1977 to 1980) the tax rate stayed at 70% and the national debt grew only 42%. Then Ronald Reagan was elected, the first Republican after the implementation of the "Two Santa Rule". Under the Reagan administration (1981 to 1988) the tax rate dropped from 70% to 28% in 1988, the national debt exploded by 189%, more than any president previous combined. Then, the next president (also a republican) was Bush Senior from 1989 to1992. He actually raised taxes up to 31% during his administration but the national debt grew by another 56% under his watch. The came the Democrat Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2000. Under the Clinton Administration the tax rate went up to 39.6% and the national debt growth rate was slowed to 36%. After Clinton was the Republican Bush Junior from 2001 to 2008. Under Bush Junior the tax rate was again dropped, this time to 35% and the national debt grew by 89%. Now we have a Democrat, Obama, in office. So far under Obama the tax rate has not changed (but it may if current pending legislation goes through) and the debt growth rate is slowed to 41%. Sources [1, 2]
If that evidence does not sway you to thinking this tactic is being used I am not sure what will. The only way for this not to succeed is for people to be informed and not fall for the underhanded tactics of the Republicans!
Sources:
1) Top Tax Rates, Tax Policy Center, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
2) National Debt, Sky Machines, http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Fixing Misinformation Episode 1: Taxes
This is the first in my series of Fixing Misinformation, clearing up some of the lies put out there by the right wing media. In this first issue I will tackle is taxes because I keep hearing people moan about the "Buffet Rule". For those of you who don't know what the "Buffet Rule" is, it is the idea that a executive should pay the same percentage of tax as the people in lower tax bracket. This came from the announcement by Warren Buffet (one of the richest guys around) that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary (he said he paid somewhere about 13% or so). The president has taken this "Buffet Rule" up as a major topic issue against Mitt Romney, a solid political strategy in my opinion but I diverge.
The Republicans are crying out that increasing the taxes or taking out tax loopholes will destroy the economy by taking the money out of the hands of the people who make it. They also say raising taxes will ruin the middle class and that the rich are paying too much in taxes already! Finally they say that Ronald Reagan would never, ever raise taxes. To channel Dwight Schrute from the American version of The Office, "False".
First, the 2 strongest growth rates of GDP (GDP being the measure of growth of the general wealth of a country in good and services) in American History (17-18%) were recorded in the early 1950s and the mid to late '70s when the highest tax rate was 91% and 70% respectively. The GDP has never gone above 10% not even during the dot-com boom of the 90's. In fact during the two years in which Ronald Reagan dropped the top tax rate down to 28% in '88 and '89 the GDP growth rate was at a -4%. After it was raised to 31% the GDP growth rate went positive again. Also, when Bush Junior dropped the top tax rate from 38.6% to 25% the GDP growth rate dropped into the negative again and never reached the levels of positive growth that were during the 39% time. [Sources 1, 2]. So the assertion that increasing taxes will ruin the US economy is utterly false. This is because having low tax rates creates a system where less tax is paid by the company if it gives it in the form of equity compensation to executives. A change in this would cause stocks to be worth less over all but it would give companies to give more money to employees to seek other forms of financing.
Second, looking at the growth of family incomes from 1950 to today (adjusted for inflation). The years prior to the tax rate being dropped by Reagan, the growth rate of income between the income brackets was the same across the board. Whereas, once the rate was dropped, the income growth rate of the top 5% had their income growth rate skyrocket, while those in the lower brackets saw their growth rates flatten out. [Source 3]. So their second assertion that increasing top tax rates will damage the middle class is false as well. This is because higher tax rates cause a more distributed wealth, meaning middle and lower income brackets will get more money.
Third, it is true that the top 10% of the US earned 43% of total income in 2009 and paid 70% of the total tax revenue [Source 4]. With that information you could say that the rich pay more than their fair share but what that measure does not take into account is that fact that a greater portion of the income of the people in the lower income brackets has to go toward expenses necessary to live. Expenses like mortgages, gas, food, rent, etc.. This can be shown by the percentage of total wealth held in the US by income bracket because it shows the ability of different income brackets to save money and/or assets. In 2009 the top 10% held 75.1% of the total wealth in America [Source 5]. That means that 90% of America in 2009 had less than 25% of all wealth in America but paid about 30% of total taxes. So the assertion that the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes is true if you only look at income, but if you look at disposable income the opposite is true.
Finally, the statement that Ronald Reagan would never support tax increases is wrong. It is true that Reagan lowered taxes, but that could be for another reason that I will get into in another blog. The fact is that Ronald Reagan made 2 public speeches in which he gave support to the "Buffet Rule" that the Republicans are so afraid of [Source 6 and 7]. At the very least Reagan thinks that the rich should not pay a lesser tax rate than everyone else. He actually went after those making 6 figures, so in a way, Obama is being generous.
So, I hope that clears up a lot of the misinformation that the Republicans have put out about taxes especially in the wake of Paul Ryan's Budget. Understanding the fallacies of their arguments shows in what ways they need to be stopped.
Sources:
1) US GDP Growth Rates, Trading Economics: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
2) Top US Tax Rate, Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
3) Increase in Income, Consider the Facts: http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/
4) Income to Tax: The Tax Foundation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
5) Wealth Distribution: RESULTS: http://www.results.org/take_action/us_poverty_actions_and_news/november_2011_u.s._poverty_action/
6) Reagan Video 1: Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460853/new-video-president-reagan-backs-the-buffett-rule/
7) Reagan Video 2: Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/the-reagan-speech-todays-gop-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
The Republicans are crying out that increasing the taxes or taking out tax loopholes will destroy the economy by taking the money out of the hands of the people who make it. They also say raising taxes will ruin the middle class and that the rich are paying too much in taxes already! Finally they say that Ronald Reagan would never, ever raise taxes. To channel Dwight Schrute from the American version of The Office, "False".
First, the 2 strongest growth rates of GDP (GDP being the measure of growth of the general wealth of a country in good and services) in American History (17-18%) were recorded in the early 1950s and the mid to late '70s when the highest tax rate was 91% and 70% respectively. The GDP has never gone above 10% not even during the dot-com boom of the 90's. In fact during the two years in which Ronald Reagan dropped the top tax rate down to 28% in '88 and '89 the GDP growth rate was at a -4%. After it was raised to 31% the GDP growth rate went positive again. Also, when Bush Junior dropped the top tax rate from 38.6% to 25% the GDP growth rate dropped into the negative again and never reached the levels of positive growth that were during the 39% time. [Sources 1, 2]. So the assertion that increasing taxes will ruin the US economy is utterly false. This is because having low tax rates creates a system where less tax is paid by the company if it gives it in the form of equity compensation to executives. A change in this would cause stocks to be worth less over all but it would give companies to give more money to employees to seek other forms of financing.
Second, looking at the growth of family incomes from 1950 to today (adjusted for inflation). The years prior to the tax rate being dropped by Reagan, the growth rate of income between the income brackets was the same across the board. Whereas, once the rate was dropped, the income growth rate of the top 5% had their income growth rate skyrocket, while those in the lower brackets saw their growth rates flatten out. [Source 3]. So their second assertion that increasing top tax rates will damage the middle class is false as well. This is because higher tax rates cause a more distributed wealth, meaning middle and lower income brackets will get more money.
Third, it is true that the top 10% of the US earned 43% of total income in 2009 and paid 70% of the total tax revenue [Source 4]. With that information you could say that the rich pay more than their fair share but what that measure does not take into account is that fact that a greater portion of the income of the people in the lower income brackets has to go toward expenses necessary to live. Expenses like mortgages, gas, food, rent, etc.. This can be shown by the percentage of total wealth held in the US by income bracket because it shows the ability of different income brackets to save money and/or assets. In 2009 the top 10% held 75.1% of the total wealth in America [Source 5]. That means that 90% of America in 2009 had less than 25% of all wealth in America but paid about 30% of total taxes. So the assertion that the wealthy pay more than their fair share of taxes is true if you only look at income, but if you look at disposable income the opposite is true.
Finally, the statement that Ronald Reagan would never support tax increases is wrong. It is true that Reagan lowered taxes, but that could be for another reason that I will get into in another blog. The fact is that Ronald Reagan made 2 public speeches in which he gave support to the "Buffet Rule" that the Republicans are so afraid of [Source 6 and 7]. At the very least Reagan thinks that the rich should not pay a lesser tax rate than everyone else. He actually went after those making 6 figures, so in a way, Obama is being generous.
So, I hope that clears up a lot of the misinformation that the Republicans have put out about taxes especially in the wake of Paul Ryan's Budget. Understanding the fallacies of their arguments shows in what ways they need to be stopped.
Sources:
1) US GDP Growth Rates, Trading Economics: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
2) Top US Tax Rate, Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
3) Increase in Income, Consider the Facts: http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/
4) Income to Tax: The Tax Foundation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
5) Wealth Distribution: RESULTS: http://www.results.org/take_action/us_poverty_actions_and_news/november_2011_u.s._poverty_action/
6) Reagan Video 1: Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460853/new-video-president-reagan-backs-the-buffett-rule/
7) Reagan Video 2: Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/the-reagan-speech-todays-gop-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Rick Santorum
Well, 3 posts on my first day, I never imagined I would be doing this but here we go! It was just announced that Rick Santorum has dropped out of the race of the Republican nomination after the hospitalization of his daughter suffering from a chromosomal defect. If you notice, Rick Santorum did not drop out of the race, but like Herman Cain he suspended his campaign. There is a fine line here and what you need to understand is that by suspending instead of dropping out he is still able to accept and keep donations to his campaign.
I am honestly surprised that he dropped out, but family reasons are probably the best reasons. The reason I am so surprised is that the trend in Republican nomination process is that the second place in the primaries usually ends up as the next front runner for the primary. Look at your history books now. Who was second after John McCain in 2008? Mitt Romney. Who got second after Bush Junior in 2000? John McCain. Jump back to '88 against Bush Senior? It was Bob Dole who went on to win the primary after Bush Senior was done in '96. In 1980 who ran against Ronald Reagan? It was Bush Senior. The list goes on.
So, does the suspension mean that we will see Newt as the front runner in 2016? Time will tell.
Agree? Disagree? Don't Care? Tell me why!
I am honestly surprised that he dropped out, but family reasons are probably the best reasons. The reason I am so surprised is that the trend in Republican nomination process is that the second place in the primaries usually ends up as the next front runner for the primary. Look at your history books now. Who was second after John McCain in 2008? Mitt Romney. Who got second after Bush Junior in 2000? John McCain. Jump back to '88 against Bush Senior? It was Bob Dole who went on to win the primary after Bush Senior was done in '96. In 1980 who ran against Ronald Reagan? It was Bush Senior. The list goes on.
So, does the suspension mean that we will see Newt as the front runner in 2016? Time will tell.
Agree? Disagree? Don't Care? Tell me why!
The Right 101 Lesson 1: What They Mean by "Small Government"
I never considered myself a conservative but I knew plenty of them growing up. I did however at least think the Republican side had the better ideas especially in regards to the economy. Now however, I have changed my leaning. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats don't always get it right either. The best way to establish your own beliefs and develop your own arguments is to understand what the other side thinks and what they stand for. So for those of you who want to get a basis of an understanding of Republicans, here is a short lesson on one part of their talking-points.
the definition for "small government" is a government which minimizes its activities and influence over its constituency (the citizens). This seems to be an important issue republicans (especially the Tea Party libertarians) as they talk about it all the time. However, when they are referring to "small government" they are not using the textbook definition.
The Republicans keep pushing for less regulations over financial aspects (i.e. less government enforcement) but in the same hand they push for refusing the marriage between same sex individuals and trans-vaginal ultrasounds before abortions in various states. These actions make is sound like they are advocating for larger government. This hypocrisy confuses most people. What you have to understand is that they (the Republicans) are not calling for a generally smaller government. What they want is a laissez-faire economy paired with a return to "old American values".
Lassez-faire, for those of you who don't know, is a economic system that allows for transactions between parties to be free from any government regulation, taxes or intervention. It stems from a phrase given by a French Businessman, Le Gendre, who when asked how the government of France could be of use to business he replied "laissez-mous faire" or "Let us be". The term was later popularized by the French intendant of commerce Vincent de Gournay. This is commonly referred to as "Free Market Capitalism". So, in English, the Republicans want the government to stay out of economics.
The return to "old American values" means they want the values of the golden days to return, where a man and woman marry and the man works, in a good Christian family style. I do not mean this in an insulting way, if you look at the trend of comments and legislation from the Republican side, you see a trend in that direction. Examples are the continued opposition to gay marriage, the de-funding of programs that benefit women (Like Planned Parenthood in Paul Ryan's budget) and the trans-vaginal ultrasound I mentioned before that is required before a woman can get an abortion.
To sum it up, when they say small government, they do not mean the whole thing. They want smaller government in respect to business but a stronger presence to enforce what they believe America should be. Again, if you have any comments, questions or disagreements post them below and I will do my best to respond to them.
the definition for "small government" is a government which minimizes its activities and influence over its constituency (the citizens). This seems to be an important issue republicans (especially the Tea Party libertarians) as they talk about it all the time. However, when they are referring to "small government" they are not using the textbook definition.
The Republicans keep pushing for less regulations over financial aspects (i.e. less government enforcement) but in the same hand they push for refusing the marriage between same sex individuals and trans-vaginal ultrasounds before abortions in various states. These actions make is sound like they are advocating for larger government. This hypocrisy confuses most people. What you have to understand is that they (the Republicans) are not calling for a generally smaller government. What they want is a laissez-faire economy paired with a return to "old American values".
Lassez-faire, for those of you who don't know, is a economic system that allows for transactions between parties to be free from any government regulation, taxes or intervention. It stems from a phrase given by a French Businessman, Le Gendre, who when asked how the government of France could be of use to business he replied "laissez-mous faire" or "Let us be". The term was later popularized by the French intendant of commerce Vincent de Gournay. This is commonly referred to as "Free Market Capitalism". So, in English, the Republicans want the government to stay out of economics.
The return to "old American values" means they want the values of the golden days to return, where a man and woman marry and the man works, in a good Christian family style. I do not mean this in an insulting way, if you look at the trend of comments and legislation from the Republican side, you see a trend in that direction. Examples are the continued opposition to gay marriage, the de-funding of programs that benefit women (Like Planned Parenthood in Paul Ryan's budget) and the trans-vaginal ultrasound I mentioned before that is required before a woman can get an abortion.
To sum it up, when they say small government, they do not mean the whole thing. They want smaller government in respect to business but a stronger presence to enforce what they believe America should be. Again, if you have any comments, questions or disagreements post them below and I will do my best to respond to them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)