35 comments on American Fascists: Christian Right vs U.S.A.
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
ekyprogressive's Profile
On 9 hours ago
About Me
- Birthday: Apr 14, 1975
- Gender: Male
- Status: in-a-relationship
- Yahoo: jamrn414
- Blog Traffic: 74,270 Visitors
Recent Posts:
- Bush Family Pastor Endorses, Obama.. 3 days ago
- RCMO & PALS, So you want to play... 4 days ago
- Interrogation Room In the White House. Used?! 6 days ago
- 2/3 of Corporations paid No taxes?! 6 days ago
- Russia & Georgia Explained: Audio 1 week ago
- McCain's Ties to the Georgia/Russia Conflict. 1 week ago
Read All Entries
Browse by Tags:
Blogster Bush blogster Cheney corruption Conservatives Corruption Church Economy Election FISA Gay_Rights Georgia Gay Health_Care Iran Iraq Medicine McCain Nursing Nuclear Obama Oil Religion Russia Republican Torture Troops Violence War
Browse by Category
- Arts & Culture (5)
- Automotive (2)
- Business (17)
- Cities & Towns (6)
- Computing & Technology (24)
- Education (3)
- Entertainment (127)
- Fashion & Style (1)
- Food & Drink (19)
- Health & Fitness (94)
- Hobbies & Games (2)
- Home & Garden (2)
- Jobs & Careers (4)
- Life & Events (70)
- Money & Finance (12)
- News & Issues (752)
- Parenting & Family (32)
- Politics & Legal (1102)
- Religion (25)
- Sports & Recreation (1)
- Travel (1)
Favorite Links
American Fascists: Christian Right vs U.S.A.
September 25, 2007 / by ekyprogressive
Email this blog post to a friend
To email posts to friends, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
Friends
khadimhussain
4 minutes
AngelNurse
4 minutes
dragonflyby
2 hours
mmmhollywould
2 hours
jennywren
2 hours
martne
3 hours
rfbeams
4 hours
greatmartin
4 hours
donnamg
4 hours
unlimited
5 hours
Chris Hedges was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times for many years where he won a Pulitzer Prize. He is also the author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "Losing Moses on the Freeway." Chris has a Master's degree in theology from Harvard University and is the son of a Presbyterian minister. He is currently a senior fellow at the Nation Institute - and he is here with me now in the studio.
It's becoming too easy to throw around names like that in an increasingly anti-intellectual and pro-emotional atmosphere that you "progressives" are not only participating in with the Religious Right but, despicably, ratcheting up. I'm as afraid of people like you being in control of things as I am of the Religious Right. Neither extreme is good because you're both against freedom, just in different ways: you would deny me economic (and other) freedoms as readily as they would deny me social and cultural freedoms.
We are not against freedom my man, you are. Its time to see the truth...
"How do you propose paying for your socialized healthcare for an increasingly older population and with fewer native workers"-----IF we didn't have to spend $500,000 a minute on this corporate welfare system we call "Iraq" where we are there to line the pockets of corporate contractors and oil companies. IF, big business didn't have to shell out big bucks or I and you didn't have to shell out big bucks for our half-@ssed insurance plans, and if separate appropriations for medicare/medicade and vets care didn't have to be appropriated, and you pool that all together. You would have increased corporate profits, less stressed workers, better healthcare, and could afford slight tax increase to pay for it (which would be a portion of what we were paying out anyway for the premeiums for these HMOs or insurance policies. Then the businesses wouldn't have to worry about that aspect of their workers, their workers wouldn't worry about their health or the health of their families, the army wouldn't have to worry about the vets who come home (because, like the rest of us, they are covered).[SMILE]
2. No, I don't support Social Security, Medicare, or other government-run Ponzi schemes. They're untenable and impractical over the long run, which is why people from countries with socialized medicine who pay exorbitant tax rates still have to find alternatives when rationing kicks in (which is more and more common in those countries while the governments try to find new cash for old problems; the problem is the system itself, not cash incomes and outlays).
3. I thoroughly disagree with your premise that the war is why we don't have socialized medicine. We could have both war and socialized medicine if it were politically desirable. The two are completely different issues, and this nation can "walk and chew gum." Shame on you for confusing issues like that.
4. I don't object to letting Mexicans run Mexico as they see fit, whether it's for good or bad. I don't believe, as you appear to, that US policy should require our neighbors and trade partners to pay excessive wages relative to their GDP or ascribe to various regulatory policies modeled on the Green Party platform. We're not a colonial power, and I'm appalled that you think we should be. I object instead to feel-good legislation that sets arbitrary limits on what industry can do (e.g., pollution standards) without giving industry incentives (which you would probably call "corporate welfare" since it would benefit them to some extent -- but that's because you object to corporations and the concept of profit) so industry has both the resources to make changes and incentive to make the changes you want them to make. Finally, wages are a function of supply and demand; this is why the unreasonable demands of unions like the UAW have led to the decline of domestic manufacturing in automobiles and, as a trickle down, other industries.
5. Outsourcing isn't a result of free enterprise, it's a result of excessive regulation and other factors mentioned in (4). Chief among them is labor unions, which have negotiated for wages in excess of market capacity. Outsourcing is a consequence of your crappy political beliefs. You should learn from your mistakes, not repeat them.
6. I strongly disagree that free markets need government oversight or supervision. Shareholders with grievances have recourse if they believe they're being mis-served by executives. They can sue, they can vote in new boards, etc. Companies in free markets are bound by laws of supply and demand. Should consumer demand give higher value to so-called "green" companies than polluters, the so-called "green" companies will fare better. The problem is, you would rather attempt to arbitrarily mandate supply and demand; the result is more bad consequences, such as those noted in (5).
7. Finally, I would rather give out "corporate welfare" than welfare to the indigent and idle because the former are highly productive and benefit society while the latter group -- the poor -- are a drag on society and the culture. Instead of taxing corporations (who pass taxes on to consumers -- which is a stupid way for government to squeeze even more from free citizens), you should tax poverty because impoverished people are the ones who require more government intervention in their lives: more police, more social workers, more jails, more medicine, etc.
I didn't say the war is why we don't have it, just that we could more easily afford it if we weren't giving our money to Bush Cronys.
#4) IMHO, I am not saying, or didn't mean to say, that we should force other nations to act contrary to their capacities or to give excessive anything. BUT, if they violate civil liberties, if the maintain a system that places their people in poverty when options exist, then we should not do trade with them period, until they come to standards agreed upon as basic civil rights by a group, say the UN. You speak of incentives, but have you not noticed the ever growing gap between the rich and the poor? CEOs making 20+million a year while their workers live in poverty? And you can say with a straight face they need incentives? Cut the fat cat to 10 milliion a year, or even 5mill. a year (I am sure he can make it without the heated pool). There is a difference between a profit and the obscene.
5) Tax bonus are given to corporations who outsource. corporations such as Hallibear are exempt because they claim their main office is in Dubai (which probably is a shed with a phone and a secretary chained to a desk, ok im being hyperbolic but you get the point). It is more the result of the greed of the corporation than "demands exceeding their capacity" how do I know this, again, look at the yearly paycheck of the CEOs.[ROLLEYES]
6)"Shareholders with grievances have recourse" and where does that come from? Oversight. How would they know that something was amiss if not for regulation? If you are so trusting that No one will lie to you in the realm of business, then send me your 401k, I promise to take care of it for you...[TONGUE][LOL] No oversight required[ROLLEYES] I don't believe we need additional regulation, just enforcement of existing laws, which have been tossed to the side in recent years during this conservative taint of government.
7) Ok, that is just too stupid for words. Sorry bud, but it is. How are you going to tax a population that is already paying the MAJORITY OF THE TAXES as it is, while the top 1% get the least tax applied to them. What we need, in regards to taxes, is a flat tax system, everyone pay the same percent, across the board. Corporations and the wealthy have more loopholes and exemptions in this current system than they know what to do with. Tax the poor, are you out of your mind! Do you know how many people are in poverty or one paycheck away from catastrophe do to this idiotic notion of supply side economics that does not work, has never worked, for anyone but the wealthy? What do they do with it, they stick it in their pocket and say f*ck the people, as they always have.
See this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbzGlVETXlg
Interesting discussion.
Peace..James
Re (4), I'm not alarmed by income disparity. I'm all for it. Those who produce should enjoy the fruits of their labor whether they're the ambitious entrepreneurs or those with marketable skills. Those who risk the most should have the most to gain -- and likewise, those who spend years in positions of increasing responsibility deserve to be rewarded. I don't wring my hands when workers don't add skills to make themselves more valuable or when people decide to not work. You're wrong about the level of the disparity. Poverty affects only those without marketable skills whose notion of the American Dream is based on increases in assistance or in the minimum wage; few adult workers actually rely on minimum wage jobs. The median income in our country is $48,201 (wikipedia article about household income). That's not a poverty wage. I find your solution of capping income levels far more obscene than someone being openly and fairly rewarded by himself or his company's board. When did America become the land of salary caps and limited opportunity?!
Re (5), I have no objection to businesses here in Texas or in any other state being incorporated in Nevada or Delaware and taking advantage of benefits that such incorporation can have -- those two states in particular have quite a racket going in filling a niche left by states whose policies aren't as business-friendly. I similarly have no objections to multinational corporations moving headquarters to sensible locations, whether it saves them money in taxes (which are paid by their customers not by them) or if it occurs for other logistical reasons. Since you used it as an example, how much of Halliburton's business -- both now and projected -- is in the Middle East? How much in the US? Do you think that's a valid consideration? Or are you so blinded by your political views that you can't concede that a company with growing business interests in one region should be tied down to another? And regardless, why does your definition of freedom not extend to the freedom to live and work wherever one wants?
Re (6), bureaucratic "oversight" leads to much fewer internal changes than whistle-blowers and investor discontent does. I think SEC and other regulatory oversight is a lot like the drug war: the solution is worse than the problem. I don't think companies need minders from the government -- that's totally against my idea of what freedom is.
Re (7), I'm serious. If you want to end poverty, tax it. If you want achievement, allow it. That's sound economics. It's also not "supply side," per se, it's shifting the payment of societal costs to those most responsible for society's problems. If I behave and am productive and you cause trouble and don't produce anything, why should I have to pay for either your incarceration or your food, apartment, air conditioning, and cable?
Unlike you, I don't see achievement as something undesirable that should be capped, regulated, or otherwise meddled with by the government. I laud the idea of a flat tax rate, though, which is why I've supported presidential candidates like Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Pete DuPont. As far as your claim goes, the top percent pays way, way more than its fair share. Those in lower tiers don't. The top 10% are paying nearly three-quarters of all income taxes.
http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/6771827.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
Now, how do you propose people to better themselves when education costs have rose nearly 40% while wages have remained stagnant while the dollar has fallen in value? Most families in poverty do work...This is from the U.S. Census...
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/pov/new06_100_01.htm
There is a point when corporate greed becomes obscene, That is what I am against. If everyone in the corporation can be above the poverty level, then fine, Mr. CEO get your pretty share, BUT often this is not the case. And in those circumstances, reform is needed.
RE5) Halliburton still performs a great deal of functions here in the U.S. They just opened up here in Kentucky to drill natural gas. Now, in their circumstance, they are given our tax dollars to perform functions (which are often done poorly), at "cost-plus", and have to pay no taxes on that being considered now an outside entity (actually, I will have to check, because I think the dems recently passed legislation saying "no you don't!")
"I don't think companies need minders from the government -- that's totally against my idea of what freedom is"---My idea of freedom is actually similar, but I look at the workers too. Just ponder this, we have become a "debtor nation", savings on the average are in the negatives, and wages, as I said have stagnated for middle class and lower class occupations while costs have rose. I worry that through corporate indifference, economic conditions requiring people to go in debit to live or pay for required health care and education, that "Freedom" is lost as those individuals are stuck in a cycle of debt to the very corporate bodies that paid them poorly and gouged their wallets to begin with. You know what I mean?[SMILE] And remember, about taxing, the poorest are struggling as is, taxes are based upon percentage of your income. They "pay more" because they have more, if you tax those who are already struggling, you will just increase the demand for assistance.
7RE)not everyone starts with the same opportunities, That suggestion would only worsen the problem. How about free or cheap education, provided by either federal grants &/or teacher incentives including tax breaks, loan forgiveness, or the like available to all? Or is that too "Socialized" for you? Other countries do similar things. Then those with financial difficulties, as well as those with privilaged backgrounds, don't have to worry about those costs upon their households? Of course, if you added health care for everyone in addition to that, there wouldn't be so much poverty and people on welfare and the like, because incomes could be used on bills, food and housing, instead of staying alive or trying to improve ones condition.
I usually do pretty good seeing eye to eye with libertarians, except, as you have noticed, in the area of business politics...
[LOL][LOL][SMILE] Fun discussion, peace man![COOL]
Your argument also fails the veracity test when it comes to what other nations -- indeed, the entire UN (don't forget there was a presumption that Saddam had programs in defiance of the UN) -- had determined independently through their own intelligence agencies. That's why I don't accept the Monday-morning quarterbacking of senators who've had a change of heart because the war has continued long enough to become a liability to their political aspirations.
Moreover, it was the official policy of the *previous* administration to change the regime in Iraq -- to get rid of Saddam. The only thing this administration did differently was carry out the policy instead of merely announce it. Why (since you asked Why Iraq?)? Because the costs of leaving Saddam in power with or without an active WMD program were too high. It was neither an arbitrary nor capricious nor personal action. It was a move to preempt a continuing threat in a volatile region with a collateral benefit of making Iraq the epicenter of terrorist activity against US interests instead of our office buildings (like 9/11). That was the determination and sense of our government BEFORE President Bush was elected, BEFORE 9/11 ever happened, and that was the determination and sense of our government *AFTER* 9/11. It's total BS to suggest that the policy was anything else. I'm in the camp of libertarians who believe it's in our national interest to fight those who threaten annihilation of America on their own streets rather than see blood of civilians flow again on ours.
College costs have risen steadily because government funding of them has risen steadily. It's unaffordable to many families because they're overtaxed and because government overspends. I see *self*-improvement as a personal issue. You see self-improvement as a collectivist issue.
You didn't answer the questions I asked about Halliburton. I realize they have continuing business interests in the US. They also have overseas interests, specifically in the Middle East. They see that region as one in which they have much more room for expansion and opportunity. Accordingly, they chose -- as free people -- to move their main offices to the region. I ask again, What do you find objectionable about free people choosing to live and work wherever they desire?
You're engaging in a /non sequitur/ in response to the point about corporations not needing minders. We aren't a debtor nation because of corporations, we're a debtor nation because many people choose immediate gratification over sacrifice and saving. I don't feel sorry for people who are "poor" but have large flat screen televisions, new furniture, eat more at one setting than two or three people in other countries would eat and are, accordingly, public health risks because they're diabetic, have high blood pressure, and lack insurance. "Poor" Americans have it better than wealthy people in most nations. Boo hoo!
As I alluded in the other response, there will be "haves" and "have nots" regardless of how you want to try to legislate that reality away because it's an issue of human behavior and not specifically an economic problem (its *symptoms* are economic and it's manifested in the economy, but its roots are firmly grounded in human behavior -- the choices people make). You want to deflect the damage bad choices make. I think that's a worse choice because it causes those who make good decisions to subsidize the bad choices others make. It thereby reduces the freedoms of both groups -- the poor are worse off because they lack incentives to get out of the mire of making bad choices, the successful are worse off because you rob them by force. All you've done is tear down the "rich" in the process, you've done nothing build up the poor, much less to fix the underlying problem of the poor making bad decisions in the first place.
No, I don't want more government involvement in the lives of free citizens. I don't care what other nations do. There's no such thing as "free or cheap" anything from the government -- government adds layers of bureaucracy that cost in excess of what any service is actually worth. That requires excessive taxation, not fair taxation. I don't think we're under-taxed as it is, and income taxation remains a vestige of serfdom. I'm not a serf. I choose freedom instead of serfdom -- free markets and free minds for free people. Why do you object and choose serfdom over freedom?
http://ekyprogressive.blogster.com/wmds_bush_knew_war.html
The republicans, who still have the majority of the media in their pockets, spin any opposition to the war as not supporting the troops (of course, they wont talk about the Webb amendment they refused to allow to pass). There is the worry that if they de-funded the war, that Bush would leave them there anyway for political gain of his party (hostages comes to mind). But defunding may not work anyway, I am going to do a post on this today, a Presidential loophole to the congress pulling the funds, that I just learned about myself today..[SAD][MAD][SAD]
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD. "-----Not given false info huh...[ROLLEYES]
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/print.html
The UN was cautious, but they were not willing to approve military action, because there was not enough evidence. But independently going in there, we too violated U.N. rules. And there were inspectors doing their job, and they were finding nothing.
"Because the costs of leaving Saddam in power with or without an active WMD program were too high."---He was a B*stard but to say the cost was too high, here after seeing what this illegal invasion and occupation has done, meanwhile ignoring those who really did attack us. Where is the limit on Pre-emption for security? War of pre-emption is a war crime, plain and simple. Look it up if you don't believe me. The justifications to initiate war is very specific: Humanitarian crisis or immediate threat. Iraq was at that time neither of those. I know our government desired a change in their government, but it is this manipulation of other countries for personal gain that has many nations distrustful of us. The overthrow of the Iranian leader, the banana republic, all examples of our governments manipulation of other nations, often to the detriment of the people and the benefit of corporations.
As for Hallibear, I find it objectionable when they move specifically to avoid tax laws and to be able to conduct dirty business in private, such as using slave labor to build the embassy which they did. Their move was to protect their @sses and avoid paying taxes on profits they made from our tax dollars. That is when I find it objectionable.
Your opinion on the poor is incredible. Are you aware that many military families recieve federal aid, some getting food stamps. When wages do not meet the cost of living, how are people suppose to save? Like I said, the average savings in America is in the negatives, meaning people have had to tap into their savings or go into credit debt just to get by. Product costs go up, transportation costs go up (gas anyone), but the dollars value drops for the American consumer and their wages stagnate while CEOs make more than they have in history. Then we have them outsource and avoid taxes. Come on, you can't see that. And you admitted that cost of education has increased, and not everyone can move up, somebody has to do those other jobs, should they be sentenced to a life of poverty when they don't have to be? When the employer CAN do better by them, as well as the government?
You tend to blame the poor for their own condition, and in some ways you are right to do so, but look at regional issues for a moment. I live in SE kentucky, coal country. For my grandparents and parents, universities were hard to get into, and working in the coal mines paid them better than some educated positions. Many old timers in this area discouraged their children from furthering their education, because that meant leaving home and most could make a "decent living" in the mines. Naturally, the coal began to get scarce, and the companies left. Now my area has many who are undereducated, and where no other job sources have entered the area (factories and the such is just "here and there"), there are many in poverty in my area, most of them do work, but they barely get by. My point being, there are multiple factors at play in situations like these, here you had geographical and cultural issues colliding with large corporations (coal) to move a population to dependence upon the corporation by making education seem not worthwhile and disruptive to the local perception of "family structure". Then, when the corporations were through, you are left with multiple generations of individuals in poverty with few options. And believe me, the locals here are not lazy in general. Of course there are a few everywhere, but you see what I am saying. So while you could simplify and say it's their own fault, really, there is more than just the black and white you try to present...
All the rest is Monday-morning quarterbacking.
We're not ignoring Al-Qaeda. Neither are our allies. We've isolated them geographically (hints: Al-Qaeda *IN IRAQ*, caves, Gitmo, etc.) and financially. We can't isolate their ignorance or their zeal, but their leaders are neither free nor able to summon the resources required for large attacks.
I support Halliburton's decision -- as free citizens from a free nation -- to relocate wherever they desire for whatever reason. I don't object to anyone taking advantages of tax shelters and havens; they're obliged to do that for their shareholders and their customers, especially since costs of taxation are passed on to their customers. I don't object to companies having business interests in other countries. I don't have any issue with relocating a business to where the business thinks it's interests will grow the most. Halliburton isn't doing anything wrong.
We might actually agree that our military deserve much higher wages. That's one form of government spending I approve (it's Constitutional to provide for a common defense, not to pay for schools, museums, or the arts).
I realize there are myriad factors that contribute to poverty, but they boil down to the same thing: poor planning, poor choices. Electing officials that don't expand opportunities and local development is a poor decision, particularly when it ties the economy to one particular resource. Sometimes that's also a function of NIMBYism, but it's not good for anyone if all the eggs are in one basket and the basket is dropped. The answer is always more industry, not less. And not more government. Your region isn't alone. The steel/rust belt has experienced the same thing, the oil industry has gone through its ups and downs, and so on. Most elected officials have a better idea now than they did 30-40 years ago the importance of diversifying their economies.
Federal and state funding has helped retrain many people for new jobs in emerging sectors, but retraining should never be seen as a last recourse. People have to understand that the economy is dynamic because of the pace of innovation, and they have to make decisions about what kind of work they want to do as the economy changes. They can't presume that they'll be doing the same *kind* of work in the same *manner* ten years from now even if they stay in the same industry. The exponential pace of change requires people adapt at faster rates and faster rates to new technologies regardless of industry. It requires a commitment to ongoing improvement in skills.
Those who embrace change and stay up with technology will always flourish. Those who stubbornly refuse to change to keep up with innovations won't. It's a personal choice, not a collective choice. It should be a personal price to pay, not a collective one. If government gets involved, government will stay involved. Government doesn't set up programs that self-destruct; government sets up programs that expand and never have exit strategies.
And I'm not being facetious. You object to our troops being in Iraq for four years and with the administration not having a set exit strategy (though it does have benchmarks for when troop levels can be reduced). I object just as equally to paying for a war on poverty for over *forty* years -- and it's lacked timetables, benchmarks, and goals, yet you want to expand it and even fund healthcare. The war in Iraq will end and be paid for before we're finished paying the interest for the one you want to expand.
Al Qaeda is an extremely small percentage of Iraq, the term Al Qaeda had become a catch-all phrase for anyone the administration ends up in battle with. And last I checked only like 10 at gitmo had been charged with anything. And of around 380, only 80 may end up charged with anything at all..
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070604-1532-guantanamo-trials.html
And yes, we both agree the men and women who serve in the military deserve much better pay, and better health care than they are receiving now!
How long should we have waited, until the UN approved military action, instead taking the law into our own hands. there is a reason the U.N. is there, and there is a reason they monitor these situations. Refugees, supplies, civilian welfare, support in the reconstruction, all things we sorely could have used. If we can break ranks and invade who we want without consequence, then what is to stop complete lawlessness in the international community when other nations decide to do similar actions? Everyone was saying he had them? Thats funny, that is not how I remember it. I remember weapons inspectors saying they didn't find anything..
[HUH]
http://bumpedoff3.blogster.com/pay_taxes.html
[SMILE]
The Mexican government is fucked because it is corrupt and morally bankrupt.
All the best,