Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
filthy "CONSERVATIVES" who would starve the poor are hogs at the trough: The 10 Republicans in question have collected about $6.7 million in federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to analysis by the Environmental Working Group
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Nickname unavailable
Jun 20, 2013, 12:29:04 AM6/20/13
to
filthy "CONSERVATIVES" who would starve the poor are hogs at the
trough: The 10 Republicans in question have collected about $6.7
million in federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to
analysis by the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they’ve
also justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
recipients and misrepresentations of the program’s nature and
performance
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/issue/
How Republicans Who Took Millions In Farm Subsidies Justify Cutting
Food Stamps
By Alan Pyke and Andrew Breiner on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm
The House plans to vote this week on a farm bill that cuts nearly $21
billion from food stamps, and several members who support the cuts
have benefited significantly from the various forms of farm subsidies
provided by the same legislation.
The ten Republicans in question have collected about $6.7 million in
federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to analysis by
the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they’ve also
justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
recipients and misrepresentations of the program’s nature and
performance. Rep. Stephen Fincher’s (R-TN) erroneous biblical argument
for cuts that would knock two million Americans off of food aid drew
attention last month given that he’s gotten nearly $3.5 million in
farm subsidies over the years. But some of his colleagues deserve
similar scrutiny for their apparent hypocrisy with regard to the House
farm bill.
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), who’s gotten over $500,000 in subsidy
payments since 1995, is a particularly interesting case. While Noem is
diplomatic in most public statements on food stamps, she endorses a
common smear of the program when away from cameras. In a constituent
letter obtained by ThinkProgress, Noem wrote that “loopholes and fraud
in the current program have lead to federal spending on SNAP to
increase [sic] by 270 percent over the past ten years.” Rep. Vicki
Hartzler (R-MO) offers to same rationale for the cuts, and has taken
$500,000 in farm subsidies as well.
In fact, the jump in food stamp enrollment is due almost entirely to
the catastrophic economic collapse and ensuing Great Recession. Even
amid that heightened strain on the program’s staff, “SNAP achieved its
lowest error rates on record in fiscal year 2011,” according to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Outright fraud is down to just
one percent.
Waste, fraud, and abuse are more common in the farm subsidies programs
that have sent over a million taxpayer dollars to the Hartzler and
Noem households over the years than in food stamps. Crop insurance
alone has a 4.7 percent error rate, compared to 3.8 percent for SNAP.
Other common rationales from this group of would-be SNAP cutters fare
no better under scrutiny. Many conservatives believe charities and
individuals can better serve the hungry. But as ThinkProgress has
noted, food charities say they are already beyond their capacity and
cannot step into the breach the House bill would leave. Conservative
objections to policies that expand SNAP eligibility to families just
above the program’s cutoff level of 130 percent of the poverty line
look less righteous when you consider that 8 in 10 hungry American
children live in households with income up to 185 percent of the
poverty line.
And while Rep. Marlin Stutzman’s (R-IN) suggestion that America’s poor
amount to budget fat in need of trimming is a philosophical question,
the question of dependency he raised in a 2012 Wall Street Journal op-
ed criticizing food stamps has no basis in fact.
trough: The 10 Republicans in question have collected about $6.7
million in federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to
analysis by the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they’ve
also justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
recipients and misrepresentations of the program’s nature and
performance
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/issue/
How Republicans Who Took Millions In Farm Subsidies Justify Cutting
Food Stamps
By Alan Pyke and Andrew Breiner on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm
The House plans to vote this week on a farm bill that cuts nearly $21
billion from food stamps, and several members who support the cuts
have benefited significantly from the various forms of farm subsidies
provided by the same legislation.
The ten Republicans in question have collected about $6.7 million in
federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to analysis by
the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they’ve also
justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
recipients and misrepresentations of the program’s nature and
performance. Rep. Stephen Fincher’s (R-TN) erroneous biblical argument
for cuts that would knock two million Americans off of food aid drew
attention last month given that he’s gotten nearly $3.5 million in
farm subsidies over the years. But some of his colleagues deserve
similar scrutiny for their apparent hypocrisy with regard to the House
farm bill.
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), who’s gotten over $500,000 in subsidy
payments since 1995, is a particularly interesting case. While Noem is
diplomatic in most public statements on food stamps, she endorses a
common smear of the program when away from cameras. In a constituent
letter obtained by ThinkProgress, Noem wrote that “loopholes and fraud
in the current program have lead to federal spending on SNAP to
increase [sic] by 270 percent over the past ten years.” Rep. Vicki
Hartzler (R-MO) offers to same rationale for the cuts, and has taken
$500,000 in farm subsidies as well.
In fact, the jump in food stamp enrollment is due almost entirely to
the catastrophic economic collapse and ensuing Great Recession. Even
amid that heightened strain on the program’s staff, “SNAP achieved its
lowest error rates on record in fiscal year 2011,” according to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Outright fraud is down to just
one percent.
Waste, fraud, and abuse are more common in the farm subsidies programs
that have sent over a million taxpayer dollars to the Hartzler and
Noem households over the years than in food stamps. Crop insurance
alone has a 4.7 percent error rate, compared to 3.8 percent for SNAP.
Other common rationales from this group of would-be SNAP cutters fare
no better under scrutiny. Many conservatives believe charities and
individuals can better serve the hungry. But as ThinkProgress has
noted, food charities say they are already beyond their capacity and
cannot step into the breach the House bill would leave. Conservative
objections to policies that expand SNAP eligibility to families just
above the program’s cutoff level of 130 percent of the poverty line
look less righteous when you consider that 8 in 10 hungry American
children live in households with income up to 185 percent of the
poverty line.
And while Rep. Marlin Stutzman’s (R-IN) suggestion that America’s poor
amount to budget fat in need of trimming is a philosophical question,
the question of dependency he raised in a 2012 Wall Street Journal op-
ed criticizing food stamps has no basis in fact.
Bret Cahill
Jun 20, 2013, 1:10:38 AM6/20/13
to
> filthy "CONSERVATIVES" who would starve the poor are hogs at the
> trough: The 10 Republicans in question have collected about $6.7
> million in federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to
> analysis by the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they’ve
> also justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
> (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
> recipients and misrepresentations of the program’s nature and
> performance
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/issue/
>
> How Republicans Who Took Millions In Farm Subsidies Justify Cutting
> Food Stamps
> By Alan Pyke and Andrew Breiner on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm
> The House plans to vote this week on a farm bill that cuts nearly $21
> billion from food stamps, and several members who support the cuts
> have benefited significantly from the various forms of farm subsidies
> provided by the same legislation.
> The ten Republicans in question have collected about $6.7 million in
> federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to analysis by
> the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they’ve also
> justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
> (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
> recipients and misrepresentations of the program’s nature and
> performance.
Bloomberg is trying to get Big $ugar off of food stamps.
> trough: The 10 Republicans in question have collected about $6.7
> million in federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to
> analysis by the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they’ve
> also justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
> (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
> recipients and misrepresentations of the program’s nature and
> performance
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/issue/
>
> How Republicans Who Took Millions In Farm Subsidies Justify Cutting
> Food Stamps
> By Alan Pyke and Andrew Breiner on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm
> The House plans to vote this week on a farm bill that cuts nearly $21
> billion from food stamps, and several members who support the cuts
> have benefited significantly from the various forms of farm subsidies
> provided by the same legislation.
> The ten Republicans in question have collected about $6.7 million in
> federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to analysis by
> the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they’ve also
> justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
> (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
> recipients and misrepresentations of the program’s nature and
> performance.
It's hard to believe these two events are not connected.
Bret Cahill
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 20, 2013, 10:21:14 AM6/20/13
to
On 6/20/2013 1:10 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> filthy "CONSERVATIVES" who would starve the poor are hogs at the
>> trough: The 10 Republicans in question have collected about $6.7
>> million in federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to
>> analysis by the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they�ve
>> filthy "CONSERVATIVES" who would starve the poor are hogs at the
>> trough: The 10 Republicans in question have collected about $6.7
>> million in federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to
>> also justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
>> (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
>> recipients and misrepresentations of the program�s nature and
>> (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
>> performance
>>
>> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/issue/
>>
>> How Republicans Who Took Millions In Farm Subsidies Justify Cutting
>> Food Stamps
>> By Alan Pyke and Andrew Breiner on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm
>> The House plans to vote this week on a farm bill that cuts nearly $21
>> billion from food stamps, and several members who support the cuts
>> have benefited significantly from the various forms of farm subsidies
>> provided by the same legislation.
>> The ten Republicans in question have collected about $6.7 million in
>> federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to analysis by
>> the Environmental Working Group. Over the years, they�ve also
>>
>> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/issue/
>>
>> How Republicans Who Took Millions In Farm Subsidies Justify Cutting
>> Food Stamps
>> By Alan Pyke and Andrew Breiner on Jun 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm
>> The House plans to vote this week on a farm bill that cuts nearly $21
>> billion from food stamps, and several members who support the cuts
>> have benefited significantly from the various forms of farm subsidies
>> provided by the same legislation.
>> The ten Republicans in question have collected about $6.7 million in
>> federal farm money dating back to the 1990s, according to analysis by
>> justified cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
>> (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
>> recipients and misrepresentations of the program�s nature and
>> (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) with a variety of smears against
>> performance.
>
> Bloomberg is trying to get Big $ugar off of food stamps.
>
> It's hard to believe these two events are not connected.
>
Along with a 3rd event, the changing demographics where the South picked
>
> Bloomberg is trying to get Big $ugar off of food stamps.
>
> It's hard to believe these two events are not connected.
>
up more seats in Congress and more congressmen while the BLUEST of BLUE
States in the North lost people and tax base and demographics and
population and LOST voters on the 10 year census because they moved to
the SOUTH and the RED States where apparently people voted with their
feet that life *WITHOUT* the Progressives BOOT HEAL on their throat is
much better. Better enough to pack up their entire LIFE and move.
Maybe they'd rather work than be on the Progressives food stamp programs
that micro manage their diets.
--
*Rumination*
#13 - Being Liberal means, never knowing that, you are your own worst enemy.
Nickname unavailable
Jun 20, 2013, 12:32:47 PM6/20/13
to
On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
States Are the Parasites:Rand predicted rightly that parasites
invariably despise the producers they feed on:you should be
embarrassed that red state behavior bears her out so clearly
http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Fa...
AlterNet / By Sara Robinson
Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the
Providers, Red States Are the Parasites There's only one way to
demonstrate who America's producers and parasites really are. It's
time to go Galt. February 29, 2012 |
Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article
updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long
time ago. It's now well-understood that blue states generally export
money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.
TPM published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution
works:
(click for larger version) Progressives believe in the redistribution
of wealth, so we're not usually too upset by this state of affairs.
That’s what it means to be one country. E pluribus unum, and all
that. We’re happy to help, because we think we’ve got a stake in
making sure kids in rural Alabama get educations and seniors in
Arizona get healthcare. What’s good for them is good for all of us.
We also like to think they’d help us out if our positions were
reversed. It’s an investment in making America stronger, and we feel
fine about that.
But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and
that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way
too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone
fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth
creators. That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that
money to the red states in the first place. We're working our butts
off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good
kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages
together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally
Playing By The Rules. And the fates have smiled on us in rough
proportion to the degree that we’ve invested in our own common good.
So we've got every right to get good and angry about the fact that,
by and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned
ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on
stuff we don't approve of. We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax
dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only
education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy
misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies,
and so on. And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our
productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked
insanity about how we’re just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-
soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who can’t wait to
hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.
Ironically, the conservative movement's favorite philosopher had some
very insightful things to say about this exact situation. Ayn Rand's
novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized
"producers" -- noble, intelligent Übermenschen whose faith in their
own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams
drives everything else in society. And she called out the evil of
"parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to
producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming
mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is
going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's
darkly implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you
want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few
narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-
parasites tale.
But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the
conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees,
flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly
concentrated in the blue cities and states -- the regions full of
smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to
money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places
in the country to live.
Advertisement
And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only
exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and
Texas) -- the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a
fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense,
and refused to invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say
that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling
labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about
their wealth- destroying ways.
And we producers have had enough.
Progressives Go Galt!
If you're a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this
producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let's go there. All the
way there — and then some. But fair warning is in order: you may not
like where we end up. By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare
the birth of a new Progressive Objectivism — a frankly producerist
personal- responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red
leeches off our collective blue hide. If they think they can get by
without us, let’s not stand in their way. What these people need from
us, at minimum, is some tough talk — the kind of stern, grown-up
verbal whoop- ass the conservatives wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to
unload on us if the roles were reversed. The time has come for blue
America to go Galt. Our farewell rant — long and epic, as Rand's
turgid writing style would have required — might sound a bit like
this: First off, dear Red Staters: If your town’s economy depends on
a nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate
highway, national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you
are, in every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest
of us paid to build.
Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest
deduction — which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and
with it your status in the middle-class — we don’t want to hear
another word from you about how you made it all on your own. And that
goes for those of you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took
out an SBA loan, or went to well-funded public schools back when such
things existed. You are what you are because we believed in you, and
invested in you. And we’re deeply insulted that you refuse to even
acknowledge that fact. Third: Don't come crawling to us to support
those kids you couldn't afford to have, but refused to allow
contraception or abortions or actual fact-based sex education to
prevent. It's just that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off
in every way that matters because we plan our families. A failure to
plan on your part does not create an obligation on ours. Your
policies force women to have kids, even when they're patently not
ready to have them. Now (as you’re so fond of telling women who find
themselves unhappily pregnant), you get to live with the consequences
of those choices.
Fourth: Don't ask us to pay to educate your kids if you're not
willing to have us teach them what we know about the world. We
believe in free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public
education because it’s done more than any other government service to
make us rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.
We realize some of you aren't too keen on public schools. It's great
that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating
your own kids. Just be warned: if you don't teach them real science
and real history — including evolution, climate change and the actual
contents of the US Constitution — we're probably not going to hire
them. So we hope you're also ready to take responsibility for that,
too, which will probably mean supporting your grown kids in your
basement until you die.
Advertisement
Fifth: Between federal water reclamation projects and farm subsidies,
we are paying you zillions of dollars to grow stuff we'd actually
rather not eat. Don’t look now, but those of us in blue cities and
states are moving away from your petrochemical-saturated GMO-bred
CAFO- grown industrial “food” products as fast as we possibly can.
There aren’t enough organic and community-supported farms to feed all
of us yet — but we have taken responsibility for this, and are
working hard on the problem. You can either get on this train, or
holler at it while it flattens you. What you cannot do is yell at us
because we don’t want to eat what you choose to grow. Notice, too,
that the only reason we’re having to subsidize you in the first place
is that the all-holy free market does not bless you with profits on
this crap. In your own book, that makes you a capital-L Loser. In
ours, we’ll settle for “parasite.” Sixth: We are so over your
bigotry. Again: we know from our own long experience that including
women, gays and minorities makes us not only culturally richer; it
also makes us more economically productive as well. And the recent
economic meltdown has shown us that monocultures run exclusively by
rich white men tend to stagnate into breeding pools for all kinds of
social and financial parasites, who then come forward to prey on
those least able to resist -- like you. Diversity isn’t just an
idealistic fetish for us: we do it because we think it makes us
richer on every front that matters. If “parasite” is just another
word for “people who willfully make bad choices that keep them poor
and ignorant,” then your prejudices by definition make you parasites.
And we are not, therefore, obliged to deal with you. And finally: If
you want to pretend global warming isn't happening, you do not get to
come whining to us when you get hit with droughts or floods. We're
not going to send FEMA to bail you out. We're not going to build
canals to give you our water. We're not going to fund your levees. If
you're so sure God will provide, go ask him to keep your reservoirs
full and your cities dry. Because we resign. But will we come back?
Yep. It all sounds really ugly. But that’s the point of going Galt:
it’s a big fat tantrum designed to prove just how important you are
in the grand scheme of things. (The tactic is also not unfamiliar to
any mother who’s gone on a protracted housekeeping strike to gain
appreciation from an uncooperative family.) If others have to suffer
hardship to learn the lesson — well, that’ll teach 'em. The
emotionally satisfying goal is to get the parasites to come back,
begging on their knees for your vital help and resources. They know
now, in a way they didn't before, that they cannot survive without
you. So: if that fantasy moment were to come, what would it take to
convince us Progressive Objectivists to emerge once again from our
cool blue producerist enclave, and take responsibility for the
chastened masses once again? We have just five simple demands: 1.
Stop taking more money from the federal government pot than you put
into it. If you believe in paying your own freight, then do it. If
you can’t, that’s fine -- we'll go back to helping you out -- but you
have to let go of that producerist superiority crap, because you’re
simply not entitled to it. 2. Admit that we were right. Admit that
nobody in America ever makes it on their own, and that we are all in
this together, and that there’s such a thing as the common wealth and
the common good. Admit that regulation is necessary to keep the
unprincipled strong from preying on the weak. Admit that there has
never in history ever been any such thing as a free market: markets
are created by governments, and need to be overseen by them. And
finally: admit that your conservative leaders got us into this
economic mess, and don’t know squat about how to get us out of it.
3. Join the reality-based world. Accept that America’s prosperity
utterly depends on how well-educated its kids are, especially on
topics like science and history. Accept that evolution happened, and
that climate change is happening now. Embrace nuance. Learn something
about how to assess evidence and think rationally, without a pre-
determined conclusion. Remember that God only helps those who've
gained the real-world skills to help themselves. 4. Admit that we
love our country every bit as much as you do — and that, given our
much greater success at creating strong families, productive 21st-
century industries and excellent places to live, we might actually
know more that you do about how to make it work better in the
future. 5. Last but by no means least: Knock off the hate-mongering,
threats and name-calling. Your heroine, Ms. Rand, predicted rightly
that parasites invariably despise the producers they feed on; you
should be embarrassed that your own behavior bears her out so
clearly. And, just once, say thank you to us for all the
contributions we’ve made (or, at least, tried to make) toward your
well-being. We don’t ask for much, but a little gratitude now and
then wouldn’t hurt. Five easy steps. Do this, and we’ll come back and
work with you as co- creators of an America we all can love. Until
then, though, you can pay your own bills. We’ve decided we have
better things to invest that money in — upgraded schools, single-
payer healthcare, expanded college systems, mass transit, sustainable
technology investments, and forward- looking research to launch new
industries that will make us richer yet. And you’ll have a choice,
too: you’ll either learn what it takes to produce like we do, or
you’ll get to find out what real poverty feels like. Would that we
had the guts to go Galt. We probably don't; it's just not in our
natures to tell people who are hurting to go to hell, or leverage our
economic might to get the political upper-hand. But there's nothing
stopping us from pointing out, loudly and often, exactly who is
really who in this producers-versus-parasites relationship. We didn't
draw that ridiculous battle line -- but maybe it's time for us to
accept their terms of engagement, stake our rightful claim as the
country's actual producer class, and show them just how tall and
proud we are to stand on our far more fertile ground.
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
States Are the Parasites:Rand predicted rightly that parasites
invariably despise the producers they feed on:you should be
embarrassed that red state behavior bears her out so clearly
http://www.alternet.org/visions/154338/Ayn_Rand_Worshippers_Should_Fa...
AlterNet / By Sara Robinson
Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the
Providers, Red States Are the Parasites There's only one way to
demonstrate who America's producers and parasites really are. It's
time to go Galt. February 29, 2012 |
Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article
updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long
time ago. It's now well-understood that blue states generally export
money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.
TPM published a great map showing exactly how this redistribution
works:
(click for larger version) Progressives believe in the redistribution
of wealth, so we're not usually too upset by this state of affairs.
That’s what it means to be one country. E pluribus unum, and all
that. We’re happy to help, because we think we’ve got a stake in
making sure kids in rural Alabama get educations and seniors in
Arizona get healthcare. What’s good for them is good for all of us.
We also like to think they’d help us out if our positions were
reversed. It’s an investment in making America stronger, and we feel
fine about that.
But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and
that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way
too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone
fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth
creators. That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that
money to the red states in the first place. We're working our butts
off, being economically productive, going to college, raising good
kids, supporting reality-based schools, keeping our marriages
together, tending to our busy and diverse cities, and generally
Playing By The Rules. And the fates have smiled on us in rough
proportion to the degree that we’ve invested in our own common good.
So we've got every right to get good and angry about the fact that,
by and large, the people who are getting our money are so damned
ungrateful -- not to mention so ridiculously eager to spend it on
stuff we don't approve of. We didn't ship them our hard-earned tax
dollars to see them squandered on worse-than-useless abstinence-only
education, textbooks that teach creationism, crisis-pregnancy
misinformation centers, subsidies for GMO crops and oil companies,
and so on. And we sure as hell didn't expect to be rewarded for our
productivity and generosity with a rising tide of spittle-flecked
insanity about how we’re just a bunch of immoral, godless, drug-
soaked, sex-crazed, evil America-hating traitors who can’t wait to
hand the country over to the Islamists and the Communists.
Ironically, the conservative movement's favorite philosopher had some
very insightful things to say about this exact situation. Ayn Rand's
novels divided the world into two groups. On one hand, she lionized
"producers" -- noble, intelligent Übermenschen whose faith in their
own ideas and willingness to take risks to achieve their dreams
drives everything else in society. And she called out the evil of
"parasites," the dull, unimaginative masses who attach themselves to
producers and drain away their resources and thwart their dreams.
Conservatives love this story. They're eager to claim the gleaming
mantle of the producers, insisting loudly that their tax money is
going to support people (mostly in blue states and cities, it's
darkly implied) who won't or can't work as hard as they do. If you
want to arouse their class and race resentments, there are few
narratives that can get them rolling like this producers-versus-
parasites tale.
But the NYT story and that map up there prove beyond arguing that the
conservative interpretation of events is 100 percent, 180-degrees,
flat-out wrong. America's real producer class is overwhelmingly
concentrated in the blue cities and states -- the regions full of
smart, talented people who've harnessed technology and intellect to
money, and made these regions the best, most forward-looking places
in the country to live.
Advertisement
And the real parasites are centered in red states (the only
exceptions being states with huge resource reserves, like Alaska and
Texas) -- the unimaginative, exhausted places that have clung to a
fading past, rejected science, substituted superstition for sense,
and refused to invest in their own futures. It's not unfair to say
that those regions are simply feasting off the sweat of our ennobling
labor, and expecting us to continue supporting them as they go about
their wealth- destroying ways.
And we producers have had enough.
Progressives Go Galt!
If you're a conservative who thinks Ayn Rand called it true with this
producers/parasites thing, then by all means: let's go there. All the
way there — and then some. But fair warning is in order: you may not
like where we end up. By way of a modest proposal, I hereby declare
the birth of a new Progressive Objectivism — a frankly producerist
personal- responsibility crusade aimed at getting these whiny red
leeches off our collective blue hide. If they think they can get by
without us, let’s not stand in their way. What these people need from
us, at minimum, is some tough talk — the kind of stern, grown-up
verbal whoop- ass the conservatives wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to
unload on us if the roles were reversed. The time has come for blue
America to go Galt. Our farewell rant — long and epic, as Rand's
turgid writing style would have required — might sound a bit like
this: First off, dear Red Staters: If your town’s economy depends on
a nearby dam, canal, harbor, airport, military base, interstate
highway, national park or monument, or prison, just STFU. Because you
are, in every way possible, a parasite, living off something the rest
of us paid to build.
Second: If you are a homeowner who takes a mortgage interest
deduction — which is how the rest of us subsidize your house, and
with it your status in the middle-class — we don’t want to hear
another word from you about how you made it all on your own. And that
goes for those of you who got your education via the GI Bill, or took
out an SBA loan, or went to well-funded public schools back when such
things existed. You are what you are because we believed in you, and
invested in you. And we’re deeply insulted that you refuse to even
acknowledge that fact. Third: Don't come crawling to us to support
those kids you couldn't afford to have, but refused to allow
contraception or abortions or actual fact-based sex education to
prevent. It's just that simple. Our blue-state babies are better off
in every way that matters because we plan our families. A failure to
plan on your part does not create an obligation on ours. Your
policies force women to have kids, even when they're patently not
ready to have them. Now (as you’re so fond of telling women who find
themselves unhappily pregnant), you get to live with the consequences
of those choices.
Fourth: Don't ask us to pay to educate your kids if you're not
willing to have us teach them what we know about the world. We
believe in free, comprehensive, rigorous and reality-based public
education because it’s done more than any other government service to
make us rich, powerful and successful; and we want the same for you.
We realize some of you aren't too keen on public schools. It's great
that you want to take on more personal responsibility for educating
your own kids. Just be warned: if you don't teach them real science
and real history — including evolution, climate change and the actual
contents of the US Constitution — we're probably not going to hire
them. So we hope you're also ready to take responsibility for that,
too, which will probably mean supporting your grown kids in your
basement until you die.
Advertisement
Fifth: Between federal water reclamation projects and farm subsidies,
we are paying you zillions of dollars to grow stuff we'd actually
rather not eat. Don’t look now, but those of us in blue cities and
states are moving away from your petrochemical-saturated GMO-bred
CAFO- grown industrial “food” products as fast as we possibly can.
There aren’t enough organic and community-supported farms to feed all
of us yet — but we have taken responsibility for this, and are
working hard on the problem. You can either get on this train, or
holler at it while it flattens you. What you cannot do is yell at us
because we don’t want to eat what you choose to grow. Notice, too,
that the only reason we’re having to subsidize you in the first place
is that the all-holy free market does not bless you with profits on
this crap. In your own book, that makes you a capital-L Loser. In
ours, we’ll settle for “parasite.” Sixth: We are so over your
bigotry. Again: we know from our own long experience that including
women, gays and minorities makes us not only culturally richer; it
also makes us more economically productive as well. And the recent
economic meltdown has shown us that monocultures run exclusively by
rich white men tend to stagnate into breeding pools for all kinds of
social and financial parasites, who then come forward to prey on
those least able to resist -- like you. Diversity isn’t just an
idealistic fetish for us: we do it because we think it makes us
richer on every front that matters. If “parasite” is just another
word for “people who willfully make bad choices that keep them poor
and ignorant,” then your prejudices by definition make you parasites.
And we are not, therefore, obliged to deal with you. And finally: If
you want to pretend global warming isn't happening, you do not get to
come whining to us when you get hit with droughts or floods. We're
not going to send FEMA to bail you out. We're not going to build
canals to give you our water. We're not going to fund your levees. If
you're so sure God will provide, go ask him to keep your reservoirs
full and your cities dry. Because we resign. But will we come back?
Yep. It all sounds really ugly. But that’s the point of going Galt:
it’s a big fat tantrum designed to prove just how important you are
in the grand scheme of things. (The tactic is also not unfamiliar to
any mother who’s gone on a protracted housekeeping strike to gain
appreciation from an uncooperative family.) If others have to suffer
hardship to learn the lesson — well, that’ll teach 'em. The
emotionally satisfying goal is to get the parasites to come back,
begging on their knees for your vital help and resources. They know
now, in a way they didn't before, that they cannot survive without
you. So: if that fantasy moment were to come, what would it take to
convince us Progressive Objectivists to emerge once again from our
cool blue producerist enclave, and take responsibility for the
chastened masses once again? We have just five simple demands: 1.
Stop taking more money from the federal government pot than you put
into it. If you believe in paying your own freight, then do it. If
you can’t, that’s fine -- we'll go back to helping you out -- but you
have to let go of that producerist superiority crap, because you’re
simply not entitled to it. 2. Admit that we were right. Admit that
nobody in America ever makes it on their own, and that we are all in
this together, and that there’s such a thing as the common wealth and
the common good. Admit that regulation is necessary to keep the
unprincipled strong from preying on the weak. Admit that there has
never in history ever been any such thing as a free market: markets
are created by governments, and need to be overseen by them. And
finally: admit that your conservative leaders got us into this
economic mess, and don’t know squat about how to get us out of it.
3. Join the reality-based world. Accept that America’s prosperity
utterly depends on how well-educated its kids are, especially on
topics like science and history. Accept that evolution happened, and
that climate change is happening now. Embrace nuance. Learn something
about how to assess evidence and think rationally, without a pre-
determined conclusion. Remember that God only helps those who've
gained the real-world skills to help themselves. 4. Admit that we
love our country every bit as much as you do — and that, given our
much greater success at creating strong families, productive 21st-
century industries and excellent places to live, we might actually
know more that you do about how to make it work better in the
future. 5. Last but by no means least: Knock off the hate-mongering,
threats and name-calling. Your heroine, Ms. Rand, predicted rightly
that parasites invariably despise the producers they feed on; you
should be embarrassed that your own behavior bears her out so
clearly. And, just once, say thank you to us for all the
contributions we’ve made (or, at least, tried to make) toward your
well-being. We don’t ask for much, but a little gratitude now and
then wouldn’t hurt. Five easy steps. Do this, and we’ll come back and
work with you as co- creators of an America we all can love. Until
then, though, you can pay your own bills. We’ve decided we have
better things to invest that money in — upgraded schools, single-
payer healthcare, expanded college systems, mass transit, sustainable
technology investments, and forward- looking research to launch new
industries that will make us richer yet. And you’ll have a choice,
too: you’ll either learn what it takes to produce like we do, or
you’ll get to find out what real poverty feels like. Would that we
had the guts to go Galt. We probably don't; it's just not in our
natures to tell people who are hurting to go to hell, or leverage our
economic might to get the political upper-hand. But there's nothing
stopping us from pointing out, loudly and often, exactly who is
really who in this producers-versus-parasites relationship. We didn't
draw that ridiculous battle line -- but maybe it's time for us to
accept their terms of engagement, stake our rightful claim as the
country's actual producer class, and show them just how tall and
proud we are to stand on our far more fertile ground.
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 20, 2013, 12:45:55 PM6/20/13
to
On 6/20/2013 12:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
You deleted every word I posted and left My name at the top, were you
> On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
trying to fool somebody to trick them into reading your swill by
associating it with my Pseudonym? What's the matter they won't read
your propaganda, or what?
--
*Rumination*
#14 - If more Government, solves all the problems, prison must be a
Socialists Utopia.... and a Club Med vacation for Liberals.
Nickname unavailable
Jun 20, 2013, 2:54:25 PM6/20/13
to
On Jun 20, 11:45 am, BeamMeUpScotty
headers for his our lies, distortions, and propaganda.
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/2013 12:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> > Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
>
> You deleted every word I posted and left My name at the top, were you
> trying to fool somebody to trick them into reading your swill by
> associating it with my Pseudonym? What's the matter they won't read
> your propaganda, or what?
>
no, i am sick of a worthless piece of "CONSERVATIVE" crap changing my
> On 6/20/2013 12:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> > <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> > Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
>
> You deleted every word I posted and left My name at the top, were you
> trying to fool somebody to trick them into reading your swill by
> associating it with my Pseudonym? What's the matter they won't read
> your propaganda, or what?
>
headers for his our lies, distortions, and propaganda.
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 20, 2013, 3:06:34 PM6/20/13
to
On 6/20/2013 2:54 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:45 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2013 12:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
>>
>> You deleted every word I posted and left My name at the top, were you
>> trying to fool somebody to trick them into reading your swill by
>> associating it with my Pseudonym? What's the matter they won't read
>> your propaganda, or what?
>>
>
> no, i am sick of a worthless piece of "CONSERVATIVE" crap changing my
> headers for his our lies, distortions, and propaganda.
>
>
Funny because when I don't change the subject line you Libs tell me I'm
> On Jun 20, 11:45 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2013 12:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
>>
>> You deleted every word I posted and left My name at the top, were you
>> trying to fool somebody to trick them into reading your swill by
>> associating it with my Pseudonym? What's the matter they won't read
>> your propaganda, or what?
>>
>
> no, i am sick of a worthless piece of "CONSERVATIVE" crap changing my
> headers for his our lies, distortions, and propaganda.
>
>
off topic that I need to start my own thread so I reply the way I see
fit and change the subject so I'm absolutely on the topic, and you don't
like it no matter what I do. So logic tells me that you Libs just don't
like the truth, no matter what the subject line is.
--
*Rumination*
#62 - Democrats have created a Matrix to convince you life is good....
you might call it the Liberal-Socialist "MACHINE" that has created your
Democrat Matrix. Neo... swallow the bitter RED pill in the post above,
and see reality.
BeamMeUpScotty
Jun 20, 2013, 3:16:57 PM6/20/13
to
On 6/20/2013 2:54 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jun 20, 11:45 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2013 12:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
>>
>> You deleted every word I posted and left My name at the top, were you
>> trying to fool somebody to trick them into reading your swill by
>> associating it with my Pseudonym? What's the matter they won't read
>> your propaganda, or what?
>>
>
> no, i am sick of a worthless piece of "CONSERVATIVE" crap changing my
> headers for his our lies, distortions, and propaganda.
>
>
Funny because when I *don't* change the subject line you Libs tell me
> On Jun 20, 11:45 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2013 12:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 9:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rand Worshipers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are the Providers:Red
>>
>> You deleted every word I posted and left My name at the top, were you
>> trying to fool somebody to trick them into reading your swill by
>> associating it with my Pseudonym? What's the matter they won't read
>> your propaganda, or what?
>>
>
> no, i am sick of a worthless piece of "CONSERVATIVE" crap changing my
> headers for his our lies, distortions, and propaganda.
>
>
I'm told I'm off topic that I need to start my own thread so I reply the
way I see fit and change the subject so I'm absolutely on MY topic, and
you don't like it no matter what I do. So logic tells me that you Libs
just don't like the truth, no matter what the subject line is.
Didn't you ever notice I extract the subject line from the post and from
just don't like the truth, no matter what the subject line is.
either the part I quote and am answering or from my own answer.... that
was at the request of you Libs.
You wanted me to start new threads and/or stay on topic so I did stay on
topic by changing the topic.
Typical Liberal that wants to micro manage my life for me and tell me
what to think. You'll discover that you can't keep people in a box
unless you lock them in it, and even then they spend more time trying to
get out than they do listening to you.
--
*Rumination*
“After the Soviet collapse, Marxism is a relic, a pathetic anachronism
reduced to its last redoubts: North Korea, Cuba, and the English
departments of the more expensive American universities.”
-Charles Krauthammer-
0 new messages