freeptop: (Default)
One of the arguments I've frequently heard when it comes to things like paying for public education, or helping the poor, or, really, pretty much any social program, is frequently expressed as, "why should I pay for something that only helps someone else?" (And yes, I've heard it in almost those exact words). The answer is simple: because the whole point of "civilization" is that the stronger and wealthier help out the weaker and poorer. In return, we gain an overall stronger society, in that we can lift up those who are worse off.

Contrary to the claims of some, that isn't a "Communist" idea. Communism takes it to an extreme, but the basic idea of the strong supporting the weak is the whole foundation of any type of civilization. Otherwise, you end up with everyone fending for themselves alone. Which, incidentally, is the very definition of "Anarchy".
freeptop: (Default)
It's always interesting to see a columnist attempt to re-write history. It's pretty gutsy to try to do so during a time when people can still remember the portion of history attempting to be re-written.

Charles Krauthammer, a well-known highly conservative newspaper columnist, wrote a column today where he claims to have a better health care reform plan. He completely obliterated any credibility for the rest of his column with his very first paragraph:
"In 1986, Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley created a legislative miracle. They fashioned a tax reform that stripped loopholes, political favors, payoffs, patronage and other corruptions out of the tax system. With the resulting savings, they lowered tax rates across the board. Those reductions, combined with the elimination of the enormous inefficiencies and perverse incentives that go into tax sheltering, helped propel a 20-year economic boom."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

There was a 20-year economic boom from 1986 to 2006? Huh. I guess the Savings and Loan Crisis never happened. At least, not according to Krauthammer's version of history. Of course, it would be rather inconvenient to remember that part of history, considering one of the causes for said crisis was the 1986 Tax Reform that Krauthammer claims was a "legislative miracle."

Nope. No S&L Crisis in Krauthammer's history. I'm not sure how Bill Clinton got elected in 1992, for that matter. I guess those "It's the economy, stupid!" signs didn't exist. I guess Krauthammer wished so much that the Clinton years hadn't happened, that in his version of history, they didn't.
freeptop: (Default)
"Water-boarding is torture... It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way; you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders."
-- Former Governor Jesse Ventura, an ex-Seal who endured waterboarding as part of his training

(Quote seen on: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/ under "Say What?")
freeptop: (Default)
Okay Republicans, let me get this straight: If a woman wants the right to sue over getting lesser pay for the same work, but doesn't find out about it until more than six months after she started getting an unequal paycheck for the first time, then she wants to file a "frivolous lawsuit." But when a Republican candidate for Senator sues over losing an election, loses the suit, and loses the appeals, then that's not frivolous?

The election for the position of Minnesota US Senator was held in November. The elections board did a recount, due to the close margin of the race. Norm Coleman didn't like that he lost, so he sued. The court found that the elections board upheld the law. The appeals court found that they upheld the law. It's now May, and this lawsuit is still dragging through the courts. Now it's going to be June before the state Supreme Court delivers a ruling. And then it could drag out even longer, because Coleman and the GOP have already floated the idea of appealing to the United States Supreme Court if the Minnesota Supreme Court rules against him.

The real losers here are the people of Minnesota, who are going to be, at a minimum, six months with only half their representation in Senate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22071.html

(To think, I thought the 2000 Presidential election stretching into December was ridiculous...)

Profile

freeptop: (Default)
freeptop

July 2011

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios