I listened to #Tom Coburn’s farewell on #Morning Joe (MSNBC).
He has announced he is going to retire for medical reasons after 10 years in
Congress. I wish him well and hope he has a full recovery. However, from the point
of view of the workings of the Republican mind, the interview was interesting. Coburn
say that he recognizes that people will act in their own interest. That is a
point that I have been harping on for a long time; Republicans are innately different
from Democrats in this regard. The Republican orientation is to themselves, to
the individual, while a democrat has a group or altruistic orientation. Thus,
his first statement in the interview was right on for a republican and of course,
Joe Scarborough nodded in agreement.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
Then he went on to we know the problem in the United States and
know how to solve it. As a republican, he sees the problem as too much spending
for entitlements. The solution is to cut spending even if it makes people suffer,
that is OK as long as the budget is balanced. To Democrat the problem is that
there is not enough welfare spending and we need more so people in the wealthy
country in the world can live like they live in the wealthiest country in the world
and not live in semi poverty or even starve like they live in some third world
state. The solution for a Democrat is to pay for this by raising taxes on the
rich. Of course, the government could easily balance our nation’s budget if we
did that. The truth is that Republicans have created the problem by refusing to
raise taxes and the people support them in there effort to cut taxes and make
matters worse. Republicans have cashed in on our universe innate senses of
greed. Refer back to his first statement, “people will act in their own
interest” and our common inborn sense of greed that we all have to some degree,
rears its ugly head even in the altruistic.
He railed against Obamacare in a clever way. He said we need
universal health care but if people don’t want private health insurance they
should not have to pay for it, which means he does not understand the problem.
Young people do not think they need health care therefore they will not willing
pay for insurance and the lack of their participation results in the cost of insurance
sky rocketing beyond the reach of the average working person. Of course, the uninsured are covered for emergencies
because, by law hospital emergency rooms have to take care of them, which they
do with reimbursement with taxpayer money, which republicans (and some
democrats) do not want to pay: thus driving up the national debt. Of course, Republicans like Tom Coburn are the
first to complain about the about debt.
Tom Coburn says that Washington can solve all our countries problems
with good ideas. The point of this blog post is to point out that his Republican
ideas are not good ideas. They are even good for Republicans. They are exactly the ideas that have caused the money
to be all at the top and if they had their way, we would be without Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and the health care. I wonder if he and Joe
ever set around and discuss how they are “compassionate conservatives”. Neither
he nor Joe ever gives an indication that they even understands the consequences
of what they believes.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
You wrote, "To Democrats the problem is that there is not enough welfare spending and we need more so people in the wealthiest country in the world can live like they live in the wealthiest country in the world and not live in semi poverty or even starve like they live in some third world state. The solution for a Democrat is to pay for this by raising taxes on the rich."
ReplyDeleteI have mixed emotion on this comment. Myself, I would much rather be gainfully employed in labor that provides me a reasonable compensation than to have the Government hand me a check. Neither a D nor R, just my position based on the fact that I'm healthy and have marketable skills. I am very suspect of the notion that our nation's wealth can be redistributed by the Government via Welfare by increasing taxes. It tends to place our Government into a Nanny role.
My sense is that a solution based on "tax and give" is just too simple a proposal, however well intended. The deeper issue of poverty is not tax based and doesn't require welfare to address it. These days we have a corporate controlled economic system that offers little incentive and less compensation to American workers. The ever sharper sword dangling over our heads is the cheap foreign labor that is gobbling up our jobs and keeping our incomes flat. Rather than using the tax law to redistribute wealth, it would make more sense to me that our Government attack the source of our economic peril by placing duties on all imports from countries that enjoy a huge imbalance on manufacturing cost by their lack of regulations on child labor, work place safety, environmental impacts, etc. Sure, the cost of goods sold would go up, but then the goods manufactured in the U.S. would be more competitive. It is possible that a healthier economic situation might emerge that could provide more and better employment opportunities for our people. In addition, that sword would loose some of its edge and workers would be better able to negotiate fair compensation with the corporate powers.
Now I could be all wrong. Maybe handing someone a nice fat check each month by adding to the taxes on the shrinking middle class is a better answer.
What your comment implies really bother me; “Myself, I, would much rather be gainfully employed in labor that provides me a reasonable compensation than to have the Government hand me a check.” I know that it is made in all sincerity; however, it is part of the Republican mantra, the blanket of inclusion they throw over everything a liberal says. They take our concern for the less fortunate to be something we want for everyone and for our selves. No, I do not want “the government to hand me a government check. I would be ashamed to do that. I know of no liberal that wants everyone to have a government check but also I know of no liberal that does accept the fact that there are people who are not capable of working or cannot work for a number of reasons, including old age. For example, “you” pay into social security and when you retire, “you” should be able to collect on that investment with pride and not shame. It is not a government handout or government dole as Republicans keep claiming. So stop bashing social security as a “government handout”.
DeleteIf a person has an IQ of 75 and needs assistance, he or she cannot get up off the grates they sleep on and go to Harvard and get a good job and live like you and me as Republicans seem to think they can. If a person is on welfare that does not mean he or she is cheating, or is on drugs as Scott Walker is saying, or is a “welfare queen” as Reagan implied. If you find one person on welfare that is cheating, that is not evidence that everyone on welfare is cheating; therefore, justifies destruction of the entire system of welfare programs. We are a rich country and can afford to take care of our poor and unfortunate—the real message of my post, so why don’t we?
Read the news on the food stamp debate; the people who are doing the most egregious cheating on the farm program are the corporate farms. The big cheaters are not the little teenage mother with two kids that cannot find a job even at $7.25 an hour and then is chastised for not putting something away for college, pay health insurance, save for college for her children, and put money away for retirement.
One moment.. I'm detecting some topic shift taking place. I responded to your statement that "To Democrats the problem is that there is not enough welfare spending..." and I pointed out that we could try to help our citizens more by offering them employment opportunities... of course there are people who can't be doctors and lawyers... there are always people who will need our help. My response has nothing to do with who gets welfare, who cheats on welfare, or who eschews welfare.
ReplyDeleteLets get back on topic. My economic view on this issue can be likened to the rotting oak tree that just fell into my yard. The strength of our nation's economic structure is being weakened, eroded, rotted by an outpouring of manufacturing jobs and an equally imbalanced inpouring of foreign made goods. Caught up in the nation's economic rot are those citizens who are currently unemployed or simply off the rolls because they've given up and are living in their cars at the back of the WalMart parking lot. The rot is increasing and the consequence of it is increasing as well. I don't disagree that those caught up in the mess need help from those of us who can help, but my point is that a "SOLUTION" is not more welfare. It doesn't seem to me that increasing the welfare addresses the issue of the rot but rather the fallen trees. What is killing the oak trees? Attack THAT to get a "SOLUTION" in place. My point was to focus not on "tax and give" but rather defend our economy from the trade wars that we are sorely loosing.
Sorry, I got carried away when I saw nothing but Republican Party rhetoric in the following statements taken from your comment:
Delete—have the Government hand me a check.
—redistributed by the Government via Welfare by increasing taxes.
—place our government in a Nanny role.
—using the tax law to redistribute wealth.
We just disagree on the source of our economic down turn Bush instituted by allowing wholesale corruption in the Government Insured mortgage market—I posit that it was a consequence of not following the laws regulating banks and saving and loan companies. What party says they want to deregulate everything?
As for your proposal that “. . a duty be placed on all imports from countries that enjoy . . .” seems overly simple. I have to admit that you probably know more about economic than I ever will but it seems to me that if we put on import duties that means our prices go up which means no one else in the world can buy our products. Our goods may be more competitive in the U.S. but less so in the China, India, Europe, etc. If foreign manufacturers cannot sell what they make in the U.S., their prices would fall even farther. The “duty idea” is how you start a downward spiral but how do you stop one once you have started it? I would suggest that corporations cut their profits, stop writing golden parachutes, and giving excessive dividends on share. Pay executives a reasonable sum as opposed to cutting workers wages and shifting tax burden to the backs of the working class. The consequences of what they have done is force workers into poverty where they need food stamps to survive—sorry, the Republican house just cut that budget 8 billion rather than pass at least one job bill in 5 years.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
DeleteYes, I buy into some of the R positions ('rhetoric' seems a bit "carried away" :-). I don't want to live in a nanny state. I don't want to help people by increasing taxes on the shrinking middle class. I would love to have a strong government that actually represents the needs of its entire nation and not just the few special interests. I think that we need to look at ways to implement a "SOLUTION" to these problems. More than soothing the pain with a balm of 'taxed' money (we both know there is no such thing as a free lunch).
I absolutely agree with you that the ever growing wealth transfer to a small segment of our nation is sucking hard on the nation's economic health. The money hoarded by the uber-rich should be more fairly distributed and allowed to re-enter circulation to stimulate rather than the Fed buying back bonds from the very same uber-rich cash hoarders. Since this is the result of Government Policy then lets discuss how to fix those policies rather than adding taxes that you know won't be paid by the uber-rich.
About our trade deficit, refer to http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html and browse the TOTAL for each successive year. In 2013 there was a 4 to 1 trade imbalance... favor China. I'm not sure that the world's trade would spiral down because we follow the lead of the many other nations who trade with us, in particular China, if we try to level the playing field. Some intentional manipulation by our government has taken us down this road. Our representatives flung open access to our markets while our trading partners carefully retained their protections. The imbalance between production costs can be linked to the fundamental differences between the nations governmental regulations as I cites in my previous response. If we want clean air and employment then we should stop trading it off to make the uber-rich richer.
“I don't want to live in a nanny state. I don't want to help people by increasing taxes on the shrinking middle class. I would love to have a strong government that actually represents the needs of its entire nation and not just the few special interests.”
DeleteWhen you say these things, they sound very liberal to me; at least, I as a bleeding heart liberal agree with you. Maybe we can agree that if the rich paid their fair share there would be less of an income disparity and a smaller national debt. Yes, I want the tax rate on corporations to increase markedly so. I want to redistribute wealth by wages and taxes and hate Republicans for being blind to the needs of the poor such as refusing to increase the minimum wage or raise taxes on the rich.