I’ll be honest, I judged him before he spoke, and his words blew me away… Don’t you think it takes a bigger, stronger man to be comfortable with himself in such a way as this? Well put good sir, well put.
Having grown up in a state where Unions seem virtually invisible I never really thought much about them in my youth. Even though I have tried to learn about them, and find that I have mixed feelings about them, I don’t find that I understand them now or their former roles all that well. I realized that a lot of people find unions to be bullish, and they think that they slow down and threaten business in general. However, while there do seem to be some drawbacks there is plenty to celebrate about workers uniting and harnessing a singular voice – this has helped shape our great nation.
Click on this image to see a post about why it might not be such a bad idea to allow gay parents to marry.
With the rulings of both Proposition 8 and DOMA in front of the Supreme Court going in favor of gay marriage equality I have found myself reflecting on the debate as I’ve remembered it over the last few months and years. I personally wish that my home state of Oklahoma would come out of left field and ‘stick it to the federal government’ by legalizing same sex marriage, as a way to say that the government needs to stay out of people’s business and allow them as much freedom as possible, and as a channel to capitalize on the economic benefits that would surely come from being the only state in the area to take such an action. I mean, it is a very pro business state…
On March 26, 2013 during an Oral Argument in Hollingsworth vs. Perry (the supreme court case about the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California) Justice Antonin Scalia made a statement that I have heard repeated multiple times by conservative pundits as the big ‘zinger’ in this hearing season on this issue. They seem to repeatedly forget to mention the response that immediately followed Justice Scalia’s comment. The exchange went like this:
JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? Sometimes after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When did the law become this?
MR. OLSON: When – may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?
What Mr. Olson was referring to in the case of interracial marriage was the case of Loving vs Virginia, which there has been much news and media about since ever since it happened in 1967. I would imagine that the stories that we will be hearing over the next few days, weeks, and years might look something like this to our children and grandchildren. Ultimately whether it feels like it or not this seems to be the civil rights/liberties issue of our time, so think long and hard about what it means to you to desire a discriminatory government.
Originally posted on September 26, 2010, Revised June 2, 2013:
I haven’t posted about religion very much, and I don’t entirely know why as I love talking about faith. I just haven’t wanted to quite as much as I’ve wanted to post about other topics that are more universal in some ways.
I think that this talk provides a very strong case social justice from a Christian perspective. I know that some people don’t like to hear that, but if you claim to be a Christian I challenge you to listen to this. This is being written and posted for anyone who finds them self curious about what this might have to say, but in particular this is being posted to proclaimed Christians of the middle and upper classes of society (I’m sorry if this hurts anybody’s feelings, but I’m not sorry that I’m saying it).
Proverbs 14: 20-21
20 The poor are shunned even by their neighbors,
but the rich have many friends.21 He who despises his neighbor sins,
but blessed is he who is kind to the needy.
Having grown up in a society that is undoubtably wealthy, and having also been taught to practice a religious lifestyle/belief in a spiritual decree which says the words “blessed are the poor” it is often very funny to watch some people scramble to reconcile the difference between being financially poor, and being spiritually poor (or humbled). I think that for many people (including myself) to distinguish these definitions of poor makes it much more comfortable to live the lifestyles that we do, and to continue to make separations between ourselves and those who are “broke”. Being able to realize others missfortunes so that we might be more willing to bless their lives, and allowing our pride to subside so that we might also see ourselves as the same (in need of salvation) then not only will their lives be more blessed but so will ours.
If you are intellectual curious about the Christian faith, as a Christian or not, I recommend listening to pretty much any talk by Tim Keller. I think that this talk is absolutely perfect for explaining how I feel about wealth, as someone who finds himself seeking the great mover. This doesn’t mean that I think that everything that he says is flawless, but I find his words very compelling, and I can empathize with them. If you’d like to listen to or download the sermon I’m talking about just Click Here 🙂
OR Just Click Play Here:
“Every gun that is made, every war ship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from
those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican President, United States General.
FRONTLINE | “The Choice 2012” (full episode) | PBS.
Here it is… On October 9, 2012 Frontline put out this election cycle’s film about the Presidential race, and I love it… If there is one thing that you are going to pay attention to this campaign season I recommend this special. I have been open with the fact that I plan to vote for President Obama, but even though I have problems with Romney I actually respect him a lot… That might seem weird, considering that I’ve posted about him being dishonest, but I think that the reasons for him being somewhat dodgy are complex. So, I just say that to insist that this special really is as non-partisan as you are going to find… Really… Gov. Romney’s Wife Ann Romney and brother Scott Romney are both willingly interviewed, and they are very candid, and it seems like they’re having fun.
I’m sure that there are some great jokes about PBS and Big Bird to make here, but I’m not going to do that, because I very seriously want to reiterate that I think you should watch this… I love Frontline, and I love Presidential politics, because it stirs the people’s melting pot. Presidential politics can sometimes be the best way to quantify where this great and diverse nation sees it’s self now, and in the future. I hope that you enjoy it, and if you do please share it with people who you think might be struggling with the bickering, these are 2 great men…
If you enjoy the video or are interested in learning more go to the FRONTLINE website, there is a lot more information outside of this film. And if you really like it, like me, you might want to buy it on itunes to support great work like this (remember, the way you spend your money is a form of voting, and that’s why Honey Boo Boo is on TV…). So feel free to buy it for $2.99 (that’s not very much money…) on iTunes, you can just click below:
Frontline – The Choice 2012 (iTunes)
There were a lot of great pictures in this special, and I took a lot of snap shots, so I’m including them… Hopefully they’ll help tell part of the story.
Presidential Debate 2012 (Complete) Romney vs.Obama – 10/3/2012 – Elections 2012.
Here is the full debate, and I’m going to put my quick thoughts below (so that I don’t spoil anything if you want to make up your own mind), but I’ll post some more thorough thoughts later.
Full Debate
OK, so far all of the analysis that I’ve heard tonight is that people feel that Mitt Romney got the best of this debate. On a personal note I don’t necessarily agree, but I understand how that might be true when speaking about the electorate. I think that this is going to be surprising to many because of the views that people have about these 2 people and their person-ability (and on that note I think that Obama looked much more comfortable but that Mitt looked more engaged, as he looked the President in the face almost the entire time that he wasn’t speaking). However, this isn’t all that surprising as this debate was about domestic issues (aka: The Economy), and considering the fact that this debate was almost entirely about President Obama’s record (because the voters know at least something about it), and the roles will likely flip in the coming debate (particularly in the foreign policy debate).
I think that the topics that we will likely hear more about over the coming days will be much of the same:
I would love to hear more specifics about each of these things however. I want to hear about Romney’s plans to close loopholes, but I’m in suport of that. And I want to hear Obama defend the Affordable Care Act, as it still seems mysterious in a lot of ways (although I support so much of it), and I want to hear them both define their approach their plans for foreign policy from this point forward (even though I feel like I understand the President’s approach so far). I would also appreciate a more cooperative conversation about regulation, but I think that’s pretty wishful thinking.
I took some notes, and I’m going to watch this video again, and consolidate my notes so I can make a few more observations about what took place tonight. Please feel free to let me know what you thought about this debate if you have an opinion, I would love to hear from you.
-Grady
When political debates about economics arise there are often many things that could be said, but they all seem to allude whether or not things are fair. The Left is likely to say something about unfair economic disparity (which is rather vague), while the right will likely discuss the detrimental effects of a welfare state (which misses a major part of the point about the vague “leftist” argument). This country needs to have a discussion about wages, as that is really the latter that allows for a society to have social mobility, and the United States is currently ranked quite low in the civilized world in regards to social mobility. In fact, according to a Forbe’s article I ran across the United States is ranked 10th in the category that many would believe is the absolute definition of “The American Dream”. I don’t mean to hate America, or to be gloomy, but I think that this is a fair question to ask – what effects is the falling wage rate having on the United States’ social mobility?
To my many friends out their who are unsure of why I ask questions about our economic makeup I ask that you look at this chart. Should we consider this a problem, and if so why? If not, please tell me why?
Also, If stagnant wages really are a threat to the core of our nation (as I think that they might be) what could or should we do about it?
When Right Thinking is just plain wrong.
I didn’t understand for a long time why cutting spending too quickly is a threat to the economy (and even in saying that I can feel eyes being rolled at their computer/phone screen), but I had always been told that it would put the money back into the people’s hands and in to the market, and thus spur the economy to cut taxes. And while this might not be the main purpose of this article I think that it is a very good lesson in economics for Joe six pack. Saying that cutting cutting government spending will help the economy draws a picture that can be deceiving (not to say that the people shouldn’t have control of their money), but what actually happens when there are tax cuts is that people pay off debts or invest in savings (and both of which are great things for citizens). But what does this mean for the economy as a whole you ask – well this means that all of that money that the government is spending (whether rightfully or not) will not be spent at as quickly of a rate if it were put in the hands of the people, which would in the immediate slow economic growth more likely than not. I’m not arguing that the government should always maintain control of the people’s wealth, but as you’ll read below Mr. Rattner makes an analogy about stopping a car too quickly, and that is how this conversation needs to be changed. For any science buffs out there, government spending levels should be talked about more like the rate of acceleration and deceleration in order to gauge immediate economic impacts, but of course this is relevant if the conversation is about the immediate economy. Enjoy the article, I always love what Steve has to say.
-Grady
*An Addendum:
I asked my very intelligent and well educated, conservative friend to share his thoughts on this post and he responded under the condition that he remain anonymous. His response is at the very bottom of this post.
Originally published in the Financial Times
During the past few weeks in the FT, the “Right Thinking” warriors of the Republican party have laid out their manifesto in broadly appealing principles rendered so gauzily as to nearly erase from history the hard-edged specifics that some of these same authors have sworn allegiance to.
But then the memories of GOP dogma kick in: vast, unaffordable tax cuts; evisceration of social welfare programmes; deep cuts in spending on practically everything else, from food stamps to national parks; steadfast opposition to gay marriage; intimations of harsh treatment of the US’s 11m illegal immigrants.
And on and on. The contrast between the high-minded commentary that appeared in these pages and pre-existing policy proposals could not be starker.
Proving that his silver tongue is matched by a silver pen, Congressman Paul Ryan issued a call to “restructure” entitlements so “important programmes can succeed well into the 21st century”.
In fact, what he has proposed in his draft budget is to transform Medicare from an entitlement programme in which seniors receive the care that they need into a voucher plan in which the elderly would receive a fixed allotment to buy their own insurance. If that amount proves insufficient or the insurance does not deliver adequate coverage, well, tough luck!
Medicaid, healthcare for the poor, would suffer a different, but equally disabling fate. It would be turned over to cash-starved states, the fiscal equivalent of being sent to the knacker for execution.
Meanwhile, Glenn Hubbard says the US needs to fix its riddled tax code and get its fiscal house in order. Well, of course it does; every sentient American knows that. But Mr Hubbard blithely ignores the plan put forth by Governor Mitt Romney, who he is advising: 20 per cent across the board tax cuts costing $2.8tn over the ensuing decade, to be paid for by closing loopholes that Mr Romney has refused to specify (apart from two minor items.) Even in a cynical age, that is cynicism of mind-boggling proportion.
The Romney/Hubbard tax plan would not result in net additional revenues, which means reducing the deficit would require spending reductions on a vast and – I believe – politically unacceptable and socially undesirable scale.
Finally, Mr Hubbard offers up the thoroughly discredited argument that deficit reduction can spur near-term economic growth. He should ask the British (or the eurozone members) how that austerity stuff is working out for them.
Amid all the disingenuousness lie a few hopeful wisps. Senator Olympia Snowe’s cri de coeur for the GOP to retreat from its extremism to the centre right is welcome – even coming on the eve of her retirement – as is the estimable Jon Huntsman’s call to embrace the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt, a giant widely admired across party lines.
But that same Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to espouse national healthcare, while Mr Huntsman, a former Utah governor, advocated repeal of ObamaCare during the Republican primaries. Now he says full repeal of ObamaCare is “unlikely” and wants the “pointless sound bites” dropped.
Barack Obama mostly escaped a direct lashing. Instead, Republicans were sure to include code words to subtly identify the incumbent’s alleged failures: “defeatism”, “crony capitalism”, “ad hoc responses”, “bureaucrats” and the like.
In fact, Mr Obama is far closer to the right approach than his Republican nemeses. Putting in place a long-term deficit reduction plan is an urgent priority but it should be balanced between tax increases and spending cuts and phased in gradually, just as a speeding car should be decelerated slowly.
US spending on social welfare programmes can be curbed humanely, without gutting the social safety net. And of course policy certainty would benefit business and consumers alike. But let’s put the blame for the current drifting where it belongs: on Congress.
By all means go back and read the Right Thinking series, just also be sure to read the transcripts of the Republican presidential debates and the policy papers of Mr Ryan, Mr Romney and others who form the true core of the Republican party.
ADDENDUM: here is my friend’s response
I understand your economic argument that gov’t spending goes straight to the bottom line of GDP immediately. However, borrowing money for our government to spend today brings forward consumption from the future as you know. So look forward fifteen years and understand you have pulled economic activity from this America to the America of fifteen years ago and oh by the way we borrowed money to do so, so we have to tax the citizenry higher than we would have. You have a situation where we have less growth already and then you have to tax higher just to service your debts….not a winning proposition….Also, where I throw my hands up with that spending=growth at any cost bull shit is that it assumes that any single dollar spent is good for economic growth regardless of how that dollar is spent. This clearly does not pass the common sense test. Do we really think failed solar companies are on equal footing with whatever business idea did not get funded in the private market place because of crowding out of capital…..fuck no when we put it like that. Also let us not just look at the surface of what happens with a funding a shotty solar company (it is just an easy target so I’m using it). The government obviously spends the money….they either tax or borrow money to do this…borrowing the money implies taxation later to repay the debts along with their interest or inflationary policies which as you know are a hidden tax. So they spend the money on this solar company….the citizens who have already been taxed have to pay more for their energy bills because solar does not work out so hot. Then you have a citizen you has been taxed (today or later) paid more for his energy bill and has nothing to show for it……is this representative of economic growth….no
Sorry for any grammar errors I was going fast.
I do think you opinion is a valid one for 10 years ago.
I appreciate his response, and I think that this gets us closer to a more constructive debate.
The debate about how the healthcare system should work has been something that I think plenty of American citizens have been confused and unsure about for quite a long time. I personally don’t know how I think it should work in terms of insurance, which I think is the real hot button issue. I realize that in many countries the government plays the role of insurance company for the health care industry, and in the world’s industrialized nations they pay a lower percentage of their GDP (their nations overall economic activity) on healthcare than the United States. And yet they still manage to have a longer life span… Yet, while this is true, emergency care in the United States is almost unarguably the best in the world, and private industry has spurred a lot of medical developments that have helped a lot of people. So there are arguments to be made for whether or not the government should play a role as medical insurance provider.
With the healthcare debate back in the picture I thought that it would be good to post something that would be telling of the reasoning behind the big decision that was just made by 5 of the justices in the United States Supreme Court.
The key component to the Affordable Care Act is that there would be a mandate for American citizens to have private medical insurance. This became a quick point of contention for a lot of conservatives who found this to be government overreach – and while this may be true it is also true that the idea of an individual mandate was designed by conservatives/Republicans (at the Heritage Foundation) in the 1990’s. This means that at some point this was a Republican goal but has now become highly offensive.
Probably the 2 most surprising things about the decision by the court to rule the ACA and the mandate constitutional was: that Chief Justice Roberts (very conservative) was the deciding vote, and that it was ruled constitutional under the Tax Authority rather than under the Commerce Clause as many people suspected. The assumption about the ruling being based on the Commerce Clause lead a few news networks to actually misreport the ruling (as Justice Roberts first explained that the bill wouldn’t be constitutional under the Commerce Clause). What he had to say about that was quite compelling actually, and helped me understand the reasoning for the ruling. I have posted the passage below on the reading of the ruling about why the Commerce Claus didn’t fit.
I have competing feelings about this being ruled a tax, but the more that I think about it the more that I think it might make sense, as the court explains that the government should not use regulation to compel citizens to get into the market. However, I do have a hard time with the ruling being called a tax due to the nature of the flow of money. Tax dollars are supposed to be representative of a national endowment and investment, and if they are just going straight to a corporations it’s unlike any other tax as far as I understand. I know that tax dollars often go to very specific/select groups often including corporations, but they always have to go through the government first (ie: the government pays Black Water and other military contractors), but with this “tax” it will never go through a means of making sure that funds are being used for the people, the average consumer.
I am trying to be optimistic. I understand the arguments about the Commerce Claud, and the Tax Authority both being innapropriate, but I do believe in making our healthcare more affordable, and that is one thing that a mandate inherently is supposed to do. And I would like to see America have a system open to making sure that average people aren’t taken advantage of, while the market place can remain competitive for hard working Americans…
Whether or not I end up thinking that Justice Roberts was right I do respect him taking a risk of losing popularity and possibly his reputation for the rest of his life… Conservatives, feel free to criticize him if you think he was wrong, but don’t call him a coward, that was anything but cowardice.
If you’d like a copy of the final ruling click here:
Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act
It’s interesting how much more something sticks out on a page when it is highlighted…
Gradycarter's Blog 