This is really quite a comprehensive and informative article, but I wanted to draw your attention to this part here:
By the time of the George W. Bush administration, Movement Conservatives controlled the Republican Party, and they abandoned reality in favor of their simple story line. A member of the Bush administration famously noted to journalist Ron Suskind that “the reality-based” view of the world was obsolete. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” this senior adviser to the president told Suskind. “When we act, we create our own reality.”
That is exactly what today’s Movement Conservatives are doing. After the last Republican debate, astonished observers noted that many of the candidates’ assertions were flat-out lies. The New York Times editorial board mused: “It felt at times as if the speakers were no longer living in a fact-based world.” But the lies are not random. They tell followers that America has fallen apart because enemies— minorities, women and liberals– have poisoned the government. Only a Movement Conservative leader can purge the nation of that poison and return America to its former greatness. Donald Trump, who currently commands a significant lead, is the salesman who puts it most clearly. He tells his followers that “the world is a mess.” He promises to work outside the old order and replace it with something new and wonderful. He tells them a story in which Christianity is under siege, President Obama is a foreigner, and that immigrants—who actually commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans– are criminals. He refused to contradict a follower who announced that Muslims are a problem that we must “get rid of.” And he promises to “Make America Great Again.”
But Trump is not an outlier. Jeb! says that black people vote for Democrats to get “free stuff.” Mike Huckabee insists that the United States is criminalizing Christianity. Bobby Jindal promises to “fire” Congress. Ted Cruz hints that President Obama is a Muslim and warns that no Muslim should be president. All of the candidates demonize undocumented immigrants.
And Carly Fiorina makes the outrageous claim, on national television, that political opponents murder babies to harvest and sell their brains. Think about that.
The fantasy world of Movement Conservatives is no longer fringe talk. The leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination embrace it. They are playing to a chorus of true believers, and they are preaching what that choir wants to hear. They are following the same pattern Eric Hoffer identified as the path to authoritarianism. Last week, 43 percent of Republicans polled said they could imagine a scenario in which they would back a military coup. This week, Movement Conservatives in Congress knocked off a conservative speaker because he refused to sacrifice the American government to their demands.
You know over the years I have often described the Republican party as an asylum overrun by the inmates, and I don't think that has ever been more true than it is today.
There is NOBODY in the party that has any hope of regaining control over what is now a runaway train filled with Right Wing zealots eagerly awaiting its eventual explosive crash into the mountainside.
These people were elected on the idea that government does not work, and arrived in Washington to prove that point.
Today there is no real bipartisanship, no compromise, and little getting accomplished that the President is not pushing through almost completely on his own.
Truly the only way to move beyond this paralysis is to either replace the saboteurs of the Tea Party with hopeful pro-government Democrats. Or to allow the Republicans to win the White House.
And if that latter choice does not send a cold chill right up your spine, then you my friend have simply not been paying attention.
I think this next election cycle is not only incredibly important for choosing who will lead this country for the next four years, but in setting the tone for politics in the years that follow.
Conventional wisdom dictates that after one party holds the White House for two terms that the other party almost always wins the next election. However for the sake of the country Democrats need to do everything in their power to buck that trend.
And not only that but to prove to the American people that government done right is not something to fear, but rather something that can have a real positive impact on their lives.
Now the only question is among the current Democratic presidential hopefuls, who has the best chance of accomplishing that feat? And why do I keep seeing the face of Elizabeth Warren?
Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Showing posts with label big government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big government. Show all posts
Monday, September 28, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Joni Ernst is all about cutting pork. Unless of course that pork puts bacon on her family's table.
So during Senator Ernst's GOP rebuttal to President Obama's SOTU speech, she talked about cutting government spending and her own terribly challenging childhood during which she was forced to wear bread bags on her feet. (I swear I almost teared up.)
However, and I know this will be shocking to some, it seems there may have been a touch of hypocrisy in that rebuttal speech. (I know, right?)
According to a story by The District Sentinel it appears that Ernst family pigs were not the only ones feeding at the trough:
The truth about her family’s farm roots and living within one’s means, however, is more complex. Relatives of Ernst (née: Culver), based in Red Oak, Iowa (population: 5,568) have received over $460,000 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009. Ernst’s father, Richard Culver, was given $14,705 in conservation payments and $23,690 in commodity subsidies by the federal government–with all but twelve dollars allocated for corn support. Richard’s brother, Dallas Culver, benefited from $367,141 in federal agricultural aid, with over $250,000 geared toward corn subsidies. And the brothers’ late grandfather Harold Culver received $57,479 from Washington—again, mostly corn subsidies—between 1995 and 2001. He passed away in January 2003.
The Sentinel cross-referenced the Environmental Working Group farm subsidy database with open source information to verify the Culvers’ interest in the Department of Agriculture’s crop support program.
Sen. Ernst’s family’s financial interest notably came up once during her campaign. In October, Salon reported that Richard’s construction company was awarded $215,665 in contracts from the Montgomery County government in 2009 and 2010, while Ernst was the body’s auditor. The bids won by Culver included Federal Emergency Management Agency projects worth $204,794.
While Ernst didn’t play a deliberative role in awarding the contracts, Salon reported that strict state ethics laws stipulate for “contracts to be voided if any county ‘officer or employee’ has an interest in the contractor.” County auditors are allowed to solicit contract proposals and publish bid notices, however, and in 2007, Ernst was appointed the county’s chief financial officer overseeing federal and state assistance in the wake of flooding. She held the role while serving as auditor simultaneously.
Shocked! That's what I am, shocked!
From Ernst's rebuttal speech:
"Our parents may not have had much, but they worked for what they did have."
Yeah, and the subsidies provided by the government sure made what they did have last a hell of a lot longer, didn't they?
However, and I know this will be shocking to some, it seems there may have been a touch of hypocrisy in that rebuttal speech. (I know, right?)
According to a story by The District Sentinel it appears that Ernst family pigs were not the only ones feeding at the trough:
The truth about her family’s farm roots and living within one’s means, however, is more complex. Relatives of Ernst (née: Culver), based in Red Oak, Iowa (population: 5,568) have received over $460,000 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009. Ernst’s father, Richard Culver, was given $14,705 in conservation payments and $23,690 in commodity subsidies by the federal government–with all but twelve dollars allocated for corn support. Richard’s brother, Dallas Culver, benefited from $367,141 in federal agricultural aid, with over $250,000 geared toward corn subsidies. And the brothers’ late grandfather Harold Culver received $57,479 from Washington—again, mostly corn subsidies—between 1995 and 2001. He passed away in January 2003.
The Sentinel cross-referenced the Environmental Working Group farm subsidy database with open source information to verify the Culvers’ interest in the Department of Agriculture’s crop support program.
Sen. Ernst’s family’s financial interest notably came up once during her campaign. In October, Salon reported that Richard’s construction company was awarded $215,665 in contracts from the Montgomery County government in 2009 and 2010, while Ernst was the body’s auditor. The bids won by Culver included Federal Emergency Management Agency projects worth $204,794.
While Ernst didn’t play a deliberative role in awarding the contracts, Salon reported that strict state ethics laws stipulate for “contracts to be voided if any county ‘officer or employee’ has an interest in the contractor.” County auditors are allowed to solicit contract proposals and publish bid notices, however, and in 2007, Ernst was appointed the county’s chief financial officer overseeing federal and state assistance in the wake of flooding. She held the role while serving as auditor simultaneously.
Shocked! That's what I am, shocked!
From Ernst's rebuttal speech:
"Our parents may not have had much, but they worked for what they did have."
Yeah, and the subsidies provided by the government sure made what they did have last a hell of a lot longer, didn't they?
Labels:
big government,
farm subsidies,
Joni Ernst,
pork,
Republicans,
State of the Union
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Despite what the Republicans say, bigger government actually increases happiness and life satisfaction. Is that Ronald Reagan I hear spinning in his grave?
Courtesy of Tamu Times:
Pundits who throw around the words “big government” usually point out the negatives of having too much government involvement in the economy, but a Texas A&M University researcher co-wrote a study that found government intervention – when done correctly – leads to more happiness and satisfaction in the lives of citizens.
In their study “Assessing the Impact of the Size and Scope of Government on Human Well-Being,” professors of political science Alexander Pacek at Texas A&M, Patrick Flavin of Baylor University and Benjamin Radcliff, University of Notre Dame, studied 21 developed nations – free market, capitalist democracies including the U.S. – from 1981-2007, examining data from nearly 50,000 respondents collected by the World Values Survey.
The researchers report that citizens of these countries find life more satisfying as the degree of government intervention in the economy increases. And the findings don’t change based on income, meaning that high- and low-income citizens find more “leftist” socioeconomic policies equally conducive to a more satisfying life.
“We frame an argument that for all the blessings of free market capitalism and democracy, there are negative side effects such as market downturns, inequality and poverty, and these can create insecurities in citizens,” explains Pacek, an expert in how political determinants affect life satisfaction and happiness. “Our argument suggests that government intervention, done correctly, can improve life satisfaction by smoothing out these kinds of negative effects and consequences.”
Oh man is this going to make those on the Right lose their shit.
However if you think about it, this is clearly accurate. And that is why today there are few Americans, despite their political affiliations, who would seriously suggest doing away with Medicare, Social Security, the FDA, the FAA, or any number of government agencies and programs that keep us safe or provide services that almost all of us will need eventually.
And that does not even include the military, possibly the biggest waste of tax dollars, which has now become as much a part of the image of America as the bald eagle and apple pie.
Pundits who throw around the words “big government” usually point out the negatives of having too much government involvement in the economy, but a Texas A&M University researcher co-wrote a study that found government intervention – when done correctly – leads to more happiness and satisfaction in the lives of citizens.
In their study “Assessing the Impact of the Size and Scope of Government on Human Well-Being,” professors of political science Alexander Pacek at Texas A&M, Patrick Flavin of Baylor University and Benjamin Radcliff, University of Notre Dame, studied 21 developed nations – free market, capitalist democracies including the U.S. – from 1981-2007, examining data from nearly 50,000 respondents collected by the World Values Survey.
The researchers report that citizens of these countries find life more satisfying as the degree of government intervention in the economy increases. And the findings don’t change based on income, meaning that high- and low-income citizens find more “leftist” socioeconomic policies equally conducive to a more satisfying life.
“We frame an argument that for all the blessings of free market capitalism and democracy, there are negative side effects such as market downturns, inequality and poverty, and these can create insecurities in citizens,” explains Pacek, an expert in how political determinants affect life satisfaction and happiness. “Our argument suggests that government intervention, done correctly, can improve life satisfaction by smoothing out these kinds of negative effects and consequences.”
Oh man is this going to make those on the Right lose their shit.
However if you think about it, this is clearly accurate. And that is why today there are few Americans, despite their political affiliations, who would seriously suggest doing away with Medicare, Social Security, the FDA, the FAA, or any number of government agencies and programs that keep us safe or provide services that almost all of us will need eventually.
And that does not even include the military, possibly the biggest waste of tax dollars, which has now become as much a part of the image of America as the bald eagle and apple pie.
Labels:
Americans,
big government,
Democrats,
politics,
Republicans,
research
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Teabagger offers $10,000 for idea to help him "take over" the Republican party. Wait, what?
![]() |
Richard A. Viguerie about to blow $10,000 on nothing. |
Today, I'm announcing “The Liberty Prize,” a contest for grassroots conservatives to submit a plan or ideas to take over the Republican Party, win the November 2016 elections, and govern America by 2017.
The most important political battle in America is not between Republicans and Democrats or between conservatives and liberals. It is the battle for control of the Republican Party between establishment big government Republicans and limited government, constitutional conservatives. It has become clear that establishment Republican and Democratic politicians have failed America because they have both accepted big government as the solution to every problem.
The urgency of this effort cannot be overstated.
With big government establishment Republicans, led by Karl Rove, launching a multi-million dollar PAC to control Republican Primary elections and the changes to the Republican Party rules rammed through the 2012 Republican Convention by Mitt Romney's inside-the-Beltway allies, conservatives must have a well-organized and well-thought-out plan to take control of the GOP from the grassroots up. Otherwise, the Republican Party will continue its slow creep away from the conservative principles that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980, the Contract With America Congress in 1994, and the Tea Party wave Congress in 2010.
In asking for ideas on how to help save our country, I named the $10,000 prize “The Liberty Prize” because I want to encourage the grassroots conservatives of the GOP to liberate the Party from the control of the Beltway insiders who are pushing the Party away from the conservative principles that win elections for Republicans. The entire $10,000 could go to one person who writes a great plan or it could be divided among persons who submit specific ideas to advance the project.
The winning plan/idea will be included in a book I'm writing to be published this spring, entitled, “TAKEOVER."
How did this guy know it was almost my birthday? Having the Teabaggers and the GOP at each others throat is the bestest gift ever!
And good news, apparently Mr. Viguerie has already received a few nibbles from the lunatic right wing fringe to his offer:
Today, we can announce the results and interest in the Liberty Prize are already starting to flow in – and the reason is clear – grassroots conservative Republican voters are tired of losing elections because their leaders regularly fail to run on the principles and values that they, and the majority of Americans, believe in.
You know I think my response to this kind of infighting between the Teabaggers and the Republican party is much like Stephen Colbert's.
I REALLY need to look into buying that stock in Orville Redenbacher.
Labels:
America,
big government,
infighting,
politics,
Republicans,
Right Wing,
teabaggers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)