If I weren’t a RACIST REDECK, an OPEN-MINDED LIBERAL I would be!

This guest post was submitted by regular commenter, matt. If anyone else wishes to submit a guest post, please email it to Stephanie (link on side).

I love to hear comments such as, “Republicans are just a bunch of racist, religious [as if to say being religious is a bad thing], hate mongering bigots.”

If only we could all be as open-minded and non-judgmental as our friends, Keith and Janeane.

Any wonder why our nation is so divided?

Yes, it’s true, the GOP is no shining star, but after listening to the media coverage of the Tea Party protests, I am more than happy to be a racist redneck conservative.

Let’s break it down for all ya’ll rednecks that have ‘em misfiren’ synapse.

Jeneane: “Let’s be honest, this is about hating a black man in the White House.”

Yes, and that must be why the liberal media couldn’t find any protestor signs regarding Obama’s skin color. For me, the only good reason I had to vote for Obama was that he is the first black man to run for office. Not reason enough for me, so I didn’t vote for him. By the way, 98% of blacks voted for Obama, and who is the racist?

-Jeneane: “the limbic brain is much larger in [the conservatives'] head space…causing their synapse to misfire.”

(please note the laughing of Keith Olberman, and how he will not stand up to what is being said…maybe because he believes it) Kind of scary. I didn’t realize Jeneane was so educated in the field of medicine. I wish I was diagnosed before the Election, I could have treated the illness and would have voted for Obama.

-Jeneane: “This is pathological, it’s about philosophy and lifestyle, again, this is about racism…the conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement.”

Really?, Well aren’t we just the nicest racists you ever saw? I guess policy bashing translates into Racism somewhere in the intellectual liberal mind, with no misfiring synapse. On a separate show by Olberman, he showed video clips of White Power Nazi’s in a military Style march, behind quotes he was reading while covering the “Tea Parties”….and the Conservatives are the ones fear-mongering?

-Jeneane: “who else is FOX talking to other than older, urban white guys and their girlfriends suffering from Stockholm syndrome.”

Way to go Jeneane, fear-mongering yet again. Conservatives certainly have a lot of psychological problems now, don’t we? Still no defense by Olberman. My poor mother, held captive by my racist father all of those years and even forced to go to a white power church …Mormons!

-Olberman: “what if somebody gets hurt at one of these things?”

Jeneane ,“That is an unfortunate byproduct… of a volatile group like this of the limbic brain.”

Please MSNBC, find some kind of violence to show us…that’s right, there wasn’t any violence to be seen.

-Jeneane: “The Republican party now depends on immigrant bashing and hating a black man.”

You got us there, Jeneane, Upholding those darn immigration laws. Is it just me or is there no substance whatsoever to their claims? Must be an intellectual thing.

-Olberman: ”We’d have peace in our time if they didn’t do it.” (speaking of the conservative media’s so called misinformation.)

That’s right, peace and harmony all around. Obama is flawless after all. And with all of his experience we should just follow along like mindless intellects, never questioning a thing. That’s how the liberals treated Bush after all, right?

Now, I know Jeneane doesn’t speak for all liberals, but MSNBC and Keith Olberman agreed with, and aired every bit of the interview. If Rush Limbaugh is the face of the conservatives, doesn’t that make Keith Olberman that face of the Liberals? And people wonder why liberal talk radio doesn’t work.

Don’t worry, it gets even better.

The Tea Party Protests were advertised as exactly that, Tea Party Protests, except for a childish few who decided to portray it as a sexual “tea bagging” party. All that I can say is, conservatives are the “evil” ones?

I didn’t attend a Tea Party, and I know they didn’t exactly coincide with the purpose behind the “Boston Tea Party”, as liberals are very quick to point out, but aren’t liberals the ones pointing out that the “right” only sees “moral” issues as those pertaining to abortion , gay marriage etc? Well, here you go liberals, conservatives protesting “immoral” spending, that’s what these parties were about. I know darn well that this out of control spending started with Bush, as does the conservative media, but when Obama triples the debt in 3 months, people felt the need to protest. It had nothing to do with the skin color of our President.


Stephanie said...

I think that if there was any question of whether or not the mainstream media is biased toward the left (hard to believe there would be after the elections, but just in case), the coverage of the Tea Parties answered it. Seeing all the references to tea bagging jokes was disgusting and insulting. It is also disheartening that newscasters would feel the need to disparage common citizens exercising their free rights to protest.

However, even more discouraging than that was President Obama's reaction. I find his sarcasm and mocking of American citizens unbecoming.

I have little hope for America anymore.

Oh, and since when is an actor/comedian an expert on anything? I am so sick of reading headlines where some actor slams conservatives, religious people, whatever. I am not sure what about actors makes them so great to warrant attention to their opinions.

Quimby said...

I'm really not sure if there's a point to this post. Is it just to bash liberals? Because if so, surely you can do better than that?

Come on. I'm a liberal, and I could do better than referring to a few comments from a comedian. Lift your game, Matt!

Stephanie, I've got one of my radical feminist interpretations for the "tea bagging" comments, you ready for it? One of the quickest ways to denigrate anything is to compare it, in some way, to a woman. By comparing the tea parties (which, I have to say, I thought were just plain dumb and hardly grass-roots) to a sex act that a woman would prefer on a man (a comparison that I have to say was juvenille and beneath anything even approaching real news), it's just a way to denigrate and dismiss the protests. There are more intelligent ways to do that - actually engage on the issues - but long gone are the days when we expected intelligence from our newsreaders.

But I have to disagree with the comments about mainstream news being left-wing. Well, mainly, I have to take exception to it being called "news." I watch too much news from too many sources. American television news - network or cable - is just so much sensationalism, tabloid, yellow journalism, with scant mention of anything that qualifies as real "news." From Greta on Fox News who seems to have built her career around talking about crimes committed against blonde girls; to CNN saying it's anti-American if you don't drink Coke and Pepsi; I just want to scream - Where's the news?

Quimby said...

argh - "prefer" should be "perform"
(and how funny that in a post I'm posting to correct a mistake about a sex act, the word verification is "gropi")

Stephanie said...

Interesting point about denigrating women, Quimby. (Sad, too)

I agree with your point on the "news", Quimby. I get most of my news online, and even on my beloved foxnews, I can't stand to read half the headlines because they are sensational, or irrelevent, or just plain stupid (or somehow related to sex).

I think matt's point was similar to yours about the news - that this interview wasn't news at all and grossly mischaracterized what actually happened.

Laura said...

Didn't read all comments but wanted to a address a comment Stephanie made:

"I have little hope for America anymore."

See this is the thing about some conservatives that really annoys me. Please forgive me as this is somehwhat of a trigger issue for me, but I have heard similar comments in Sunday school from people who feel the need to point out that our country is headed for the crapper. Really?? Even when Bush was in office, I don't think I ever lost confidence in the spirit of America. I may have disliked his actions but I never "lost hope." For eight years, democrats have put up with a republican president who severely damaged the reputation of America, but I never "lost hope" that our country would recover. But less than six months after getting a democrat in office, there are certain governors (who happens to be of my state) hinting at succession! Must you really be so pessimistic? Seriously, give the man a chance before you start making predicitions of doom and gloom. If you don't have faith in the president, at least have faith in the country.

I agree with the idea of the original post. It's obvious the media is not kind to conservatives, but let's be honest - Fox commentators don't exactly play fair either. To say that either Hannity or Olberman present actual "news" is laughable. It's entertainment, intented to appeal to a specific audience and boost ratings.

For the record, I hate them both and generally get my news from NPR.

Quimby said...

The seccession talk - and the related attempts at legislation in something like 20 states to nullify the US Constitution (legislation that is being spear-headed in at least some states by a group that used to have a radically racist outlook) - is interesting, and definitely something that needs to be addressed by conservatives if they don't want to be dismissed as a bunch of racist rednecks. Given the fact that this is the first time in several generations that it has even raised its ugly little head, and given the fact that there is a black man in the White House and that much of the talk is coming from Southern states, isn't it at least a possibility that there are some segments of the population who are being moved by racial ideology more than political ideology?

Stephanie said...

Sorry, Laura, I have little hope. I'm not really sure where I am supposed to get hope from? Did you hear that 46 cents of every dollar being spent by the U.S. government will come from debt this year? That means that we are either in for a dramatic increase in taxes or rampant inflation. Either way it is going to hurt, and I am putting my money on inflation since I don't think there are really that many "rich" people to tax the hell out of anymore. Most of the wealth was fabricated to begin with.

The thing that liberals don't seem to get is that true conservatives were disgruntled after Bush proved not to be fiscally conservative - it's not just Obama coming in. It's the entirety of government. It's liberal policies taking over that were started by Bush. Actually, I can pinpoint the exact second I completely lost hope. It was when Bush signed the Bailout. But, things just keep getting worse. All the solutions to "help" just compound the problem. And when common citizens say, "Hey! Stop the spending!" and get mocked by the major media AND the President, well, I'm not really sure how to find a positive spin in that.

The secession talk is overblown. Texas and other states don't want to secede. They want their rights as states recognized and not removed by the federal government. It IS a similar issue to what the civil war was fought over. The civil war wasn't really about slavery - it was about states' rights. And while I appreciate the outcome of the civil war (that slavery ended up being abolished because the states were all united under that common law), I also appreciate that the constitution and its founders valued state rights.

the related attempts at legislation in something like 20 states to nullify the US ConstitutionI'm not sure where this is coming from. Are you talking about the state laws intended to nullify any federal laws passed on gun control? That's not the same thing as nullifying the constitution. It actually upholds the constitution (through both the second and tenth ammendments). The constitution upholds state rights, and the legislation is trying to keep it that way instead of the federal government taking over everything. That's not the way our founding fathers envisioned the U.S.

Stephanie said...

Quimby, I really don't think any of the secession talk is related to racism at all. I think that is a spin put on (same as the comedian in the original post) to discredit people who want the government to stop out of control spending. The election polls showed that race wasn't a factor for white voters.

Stephanie said...

Well, it may have been for a few individuals, but not a statistically significant amount, or enough to sway politics.

Stephanie said...

Another reason I have little hope is the warning issued by the Department of Homeland Security that groups of people who oppose abortion, oppose higher taxes, want state rights over federal rights, want illegal immigration stopped are "right-wing extremists" who need to be watched for potential terrorism. That's basically an indictment of conservatives - suddenly people are dangerous because of their political beliefs. Pretty scary stuff.

Quimby said...

For the most part, Stephanie, the nullification legislation is very poorly written and quite vague and could be used for any number of situations.

I think if we're going to be honest about the way the Founding Fathers envisioned the Constitution, it's worth noting that there was a great deal of division, even amongst the Founding Fathers, as to how much power should belong to the state and how much to the federal government. (It's also worth keeping in mind that they never envisioned assault rifles.)

If it is really about state's rights, where was the uproar when Bush was trampling on them (and on our Constitutionally-protected civil rights) left, right, and centre? They were silent then - but now, suddenly, they see the menace?

And at the risk of sounding mean (and I don't want to be mean to you, Stephanie, because I really do like you) - if it took you until the Bailout to see that Bush was not at all serious about controlling spending, well, you had some pretty serious blinders on. The war in Iraq is exorbitantly expensive and has been since it began. The Patriot Act. The vast expansion of government with the formation of Homeland Security. All of these things should have sent off big red flags for true conservatives. Instead - silence. Until the bailout is signed and Obama wins the election. And then the uproar.

Stephanie said...

Yeah, I admit that it took me a while to catch on. That's part of what is so scary to me - realizing that all of this started years ago under the party and President that sold itself as conservative. And now the Republican party is talking about rebranding itself, but it's the exact same people in charge.

Stephanie said...

I also admit that it took me a while to figure out where I stood on the Iraq war and Patriot Act. But, there were a lot of issues that I was writing letters to President Bush on because I disagreed with him.

And Rick Perry is the governor with the secession comment. He is anything but conservative. I didn't vote for him the last election cycle. The best thing Texas can do is vote him out. He's just political posturing. I am so sick of politicians political posturing to appeal to conservatives.

Stephanie said...

That's one thing you can say for Obama - he's as liberal (if not more) that he claimed to be.

Stephanie said...

And I think that it took me a while to catch on because I got lazy. I was so interested in getting him elected because he was branded as this true conservative, that after he was elected, I just sort of trusted that he was going to do what I would want him to do. I was lazy and not paying attention. I fully admit that at first I supported his actions with the Iraq War and Patriot Act because, well, that's what he said we needed, and he's a true conservative. After all, he was opposing embryonic research and and giving nods to social conservative issues. I feel like I totally got played, but I allowed myself to be played by being ignorant. I have to accept responsibility for that.

Stephanie said...

And I hope liberals aren't making the same mistake - assuming everything Obama does is great because he's the liberal they wanted in office. If I've learned anything from Bush, it is to be critical and involved.

Donald said...

The problem with the "Tea Parties" was not that they were racist, but that they were based on an irrational anger (possibly based on racism in some limited cases, admittedly) but that they were naively informed and poorly organized (by a corporate lobbyist front group, no less).

We conservatives should be smarter than to tie ourselves to such a mindless "movement" (that has already filtered out). True consevativism is about being honest with not only voters but with ourselves, and to do so, we need to admit three things.

1. No one's taxes went up
2. Federal spending in a recession IS an effective remedy, though we need to address the spending immediately after
3. Bank bailouts were neccessary as our economy is now financial centered, not manufacturing centered. If the large banks failed and lending halted, our economy sinks further.

Admitting these things doesn't make a person conservative (conservative just means we pay back the money asap after the necessary spending) and pretending the three things I listed above AREN'T facts just make us sound stupid and uneducated to anyone with an internet connect and capable of doing a tiny bit of research.

Too many people, angry more at the rejection of the Republican Party than anything else, are willing to pick up a sign and protest mindlessly, without thinking it through, and to those more educated on the issues, it's nearly embarassing to watch.

Thus, the "Tea Parties" only further compound the problems we have getting back into the arms of voters as a "party of the people." We need better leaders who can rely on truth to promote conservative ideals, not Sean Hannity's talking points and fact challenged assertions.

Also, 98% of black didn't vote for Obama. 85% did. And that is about the same percentage of black voters who consistently vote for Democrats even before Obama. I point this out because another mistake conservatives are making is assumign Obama won simply because he is black. As long as we keep pretending that is true, we will fail to see what really cost us our position of power with the American people.

We lost because we blindly supported Bush, and betrayed the constitution. Manufacturing rage against a very popular President Obama doesn't get us back where we need to be, it just makes us look childish.

We need to drop the social conservative wedge issues (the country has moved on) and tighten down our focus on responsible fiscal management of our country (working WITH Democrats, not perpetually against) if we hope to dig ourselves out of the regional party status we have earned.

Sorry for the diatribe, but as a lifelong (and elderly!) conservative, I hate reading something this stupid in defense of conservative ideals. We should be smarter than this.

Anonymous said...

I would have to disagree with where fiscally irresponsible spending started. I don't think it started with Bush. I think it started with Clinton. Reagan and the 1st Bush were both fiscally conservative. Clinton spent a LOT of money on irresponsible glutonous government committees and programs that America didn't (doesn't) need.

Quimby said...

Reagan was not fiscally responsible. That is a fairly large re-interpretation of the facts.

Reagan encouraged defecit spending - on a personal level and on a national level - firstly to get out of debt; and then to continue economic growth. When he left office the national debt was at 42% of GDP.

Quimby said...

This site has an interesting graph that shows quite clearly that Reagan/Bush I were much worse at managing the debt than Clinton (but still better than Bush II)

The same graph is found at this site http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001395.htm which also provides further tidbits, such as:

- Reagan presided over a doubling of the American national debt.
- By the time he left office in 1989 Reagan equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history.
- Clinton's 1993 deficit-cutting package (passed without a single GOP vote in either house of Congress) helped usher in the surpluses of the late 1990's.

There is also this site http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Ronald-Reagan-Domestic-policy.html which includes the following quote:
"[Reagan's] policies contributed to the largest budget deficits in American history and a tripling of the national debt during his eight years in office. Indeed, one of Reagan's most important legacies was his contribution to an enduring fiscal crisis. He helped create a federal budget that was structurally, and radically, unbalanced; and he launched an era in which the national debt grew steadily and dramatically for many years."

Stephanie said...

Donald, while I agree with a lot of what you are saying (We lost because we blindly supported Bush, and betrayed the constitution and We need to drop the social conservative wedge issues and tighten down our focus on responsible fiscal management of our country), I do think you are mischaracterizing the anger behind the tea parties. I didn't participate in them, but as I understand it, the point was: Taxed Enough Already - not that taxes were just raised but that we pay enough already and don't want the increased taxes that are coming and inevitable without changes in spending. The point was to send a message that out of control and wasteful spending by government needs to stop.

And I wholeheartedly disagree about the Bailouts as-is being necessary. They were rushed through and wasteful with little accountability. Sure, some amount of money pumped into the system was likely appropriate, but this was reckless.

And about the tea parties, I didn't participate because I didn't feel it was necessary. But, it really makes me angry to see common citizens exercising their free right to protest a valid point (wasteful government spending) being disparaged and mocked and mischaracterized by so many.

Stephanie said...

Let's agree that both Republicans and Democrats (and their respective Presidents) got us into this mess. Who really wants it to continue? Who really wants to continue to run huge deficits and borrow from China? Why is it wrong to say, "Enough. Let's be fiscally responsible now!" Obama is the current President. He's done a great job of blaming Bush but not of changing anything. Sure, he cut 1/2 of 1%, but that is a drop in the bucket. There has to be more wasteful spending he can find to eliminate. I might be more interested in liberal programs like universal healthcare if the government (both parties) didn't already prove themselves so incompetent in fiscal responsibility.

Quimby said...

Stephanie, sit down and put your feet up, because I'm about to knock your socks off.

I think government should be run like a business.

Businesses exist to make their owner(s)/shareholders wealthier. That's fine; I've got no problem with that. Obviously since I'm a pinko commie I think workers should control the means of production; and because I work in a farming community and know just how much prices are jacked up I get annoyed when I go to the grocery store. But generally speaking, we're all motivated by self-interest, and I don't expect businesses to be any different.

My primary beef with the business model is, they don't have to care about me. See, there's that self-interest coming into it. The only stocks I own are in my retirement portfolio and I don't have to tell you that's really taken a dive. I don't like the idea that we can trust business to take care of health, education, etc. etc., because there is no incentive in it for them to care about me. I'm too small and too poor.

Government is different: We are all equal shareholders (one person, one vote) and so they have to pay attention to us. Sure, they pay attention to some voices more than others (damned dirty lobbyists) but they still have to care about the little guy because, let's face it, there are more little guys than big guys. We can kick them out.

Thus, government should exist to make us wealthier. That is precisely why I support universal education, health care, etc. - Sure, I pay for these programs through my taxes, but I don't really mind paying taxes as long as I can see a visible return to me. A healthy and wise population will be a wealthier population; and because everyone has the same opportunities we'll all rise up together.

Bail-outs don't bother me - so long as they are operated like a business investment. If I invest in a company, I want my money to grow. It's the same with my tax money. If it's invested in a company, I want my money to grow. I want a return on my money. When I give money to charity, I don't expect to see it back; but when I give money to a business, I consider it a loan, not a gift.

That's why I don't think it's a bad thing that government is asking for some control over how a business is operated: They've invested in that business and should be treated as an investor in a commercial transaction. That's our money. It's a loan, not a gift, and if the government is a primary stockholder, they should get to direct the spending of that money to guarantee that we see a return on our investment. Just as businesses can remain private if they don't want their shareholders to have a say, so, too, can businesses reject our tax dollars if they don't want the government to have a say.

The first step? We have really got to stop electing people we'd like to have over for a barbecue, and elect boring accountant types instead. After all, we are investing a fairly hefty chunk of change in the business of government.

matt said...

Quimby, Yes, in fact there is a point to this post. Maybe two or three.
No, It's not just to bash liberals.
I guess I missed the comedy part,(I found it rather disgusting) I thought that Kieth is a "journalist" and Jeneane is a actress/politcal activist. I'm not surprised at all by your comments, just dismiss it all, that's how liberals usually do it.
I do agree with you on the lack of "news".

Laura, I agree with you one the sense of failure that Mormons especially have toward our country/president. I was working for a lady just the other day that believes Obama is the Anti-Christ. C'mon, let's be real people. I think it is fine to dislike or disagree with Obama as long as there is a reason to it, but when people hate him just because he is a Democrat that's not coo yo!

Donald writes, "Federal spending in a recession IS an effective remedy, though we need to address the spending immediately after"
I would much prefer to address the spending before it's spent so I know what it is being spent on.
He goes on to say,"Bank bailouts were neccessary". yes, but to what extent? aren't we just delaying and compounding the effects of our bad economy?
I will agree that some of the protesting was a bit embarrassing, but part of the point of this post was that it was done in a peaceful way, completely opposite of how it was portrayed.
By the way where did you find 85% of black that voted for Obama? Just wondering, I couldn't find it. I did find 96%.
I agree that we HAVE to work with Dems in order to untie the country and to get the Republican Party back to the way it should be. That is another reason for the post, to show how libs HATE anything republican/conservative. How do we expect to get along when degrading comments are made without anything to back it up. I actually wouldn't mind if the Republican and Democrat Parties go away altogether. The two "Parties" are just rivals it seems, with no real interest in what is good for the people.

Quimby writes, "Thus, government should exist to make us wealthier."
I agree. They are there to protect the free market system, so I can get as wealthy as I possibly can...and so can you!
"A healthy and wise population will be a wealthier population; and because everyone has the same opportunities we'll all rise up together."
Yes, that will absolutely be the case in heaven! Unfortunately we live in a time when "you work hard so I don't have to."

The Constitution says, "that all men are CREATED equal", not, "that all men are created EQUAL."

Quimby said...

Ah, Matt, what a voice of hope and reconciliation!

Quimby said...

Seriously, Matt, if all you want to do is make wide sweeping generalisations about liberals or about what I was saying, what's the point trying to dialogue at all? Are you even interested in dialoguing, or just in shouting down everyone else who doesn't agree with you? (Because if so you'd better have a good set of lungs.)

And, um, you added the emphasis on "All men are created equal" - so don't try to pretend like you can read the FF's minds. Because frankly, you suck at reading MY mind and I'm alive here and now; so I can only imagine how much suckier you are at reading the minds of some guys who have been dead for 200 years.

Quimby said...

"A healthy and wise population will be a wealthier population; and because everyone has the same opportunities we'll all rise up together."
Yes, that will absolutely be the case in heaven!

And what is so bad with trying to create that sort of society here on earth?

If you agree that that is a celstial system - if you agree that that would be an ideal system - shouldn't we try to encourage that here?

Read up on Europe. It is possible to have a society that functions at a very high level with a high standard of living for all (higher in many countries than in the US) and less debt (certainly than in the US).

Quimby said...

(BTW, it's the Declaration of Independence. I'm just saying. If you want to try to drown out my voice and awe me with your wonderful wisdom, at least get your documents straight.)

matt said...

Quimby, you are free to take my comments however you want. All I said was libs tend to dismiss whatever makes em look bad. The things Kieth and Jeneane were talking about, are, belive it or not, the way many if not most Liberals tend to look at conservatives(crazy, racist, mindless zombies), especially conservatives that protest something completely rational. All I was looking for was any liberal anywhere to denounce how the Tea Parties were portrayed. But, no, it was dismissed as "comedy".
(By the way, I have a great set of lungs, I was told I should be an opera singer from the time I 3yrs old :)

I suck at reading your mind? well great, I didn't know I was attempting to. And the FF's minds, yes, I did add the emphasis, but It was to show those who don't understand the FF's that they never intended to make anyone equally wealthy. Ben Franklin said, "to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty".
And granted Honest Abe wasn't a Founding Father, he said, "That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is house less pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting wealthy; it would do more harm than good" (quoted in "The Freeman: Ideals on Liberty", May 1955 p.7)

The problem with trying to create a system where everyone has the same wealth and opportunities is that it has to be based on love. The government is not based on love. Primarily, we as people don't love each other. That's why it will work in heaven, because those who make it will all get along and love each other.

"If you agree that that is a celstial system - if you agree that that would be an ideal system - shouldn't we try to encourage that here?"

We should encourage it here by helping those that are less fortunate become self reliant (our ward is helping a lady by tutoring her in math so she can get a G.E.D. and get a job to support her family) and in turn they help others become self reliant.

I apologize for citing the wrong document. The great thing about blogging is I can't drown out your voice. But if you want to take it that way, by all means, what ever make you happy!

I've never claimed great wisdom either. I'm only a high school grad, stating things the way I see them. The great thing is, you can do the same and I won't even take offense or say that you suck :)

Quimby said...

Matt, if you re-read my comments, you will see that I did not dismiss them as "comedy" as you accuse me; I merely dismissed JG as a "comedian". Likewise, when Dennis Miller - one of your guys - makes ignorant, stupid comments about liberals, I merely dismiss him as a "comedian." If I were to spend my time actually getting upset at the way liberals are portrayed by conservatives - which happens a whole lot more, just look at Limbaugh and pretty much everyone on Fox News - I wouldn't have time for anything else in my life.

I really cannot comprehend what you are saying about wealth. I don't mean for that to sound insulting; it's just that I've lived under both systems and it seems like such a no-brainer to me. Americans tend to compare their wealth by their neighbor's poverty. In much of the rest of the developed world, we tend to compare our wealth by our neighbor's wealth. That is to say, I am not rich because you are poor; I am rich because we are all prospering together.

T.J. Shelby said...

You probably agreed with the Tucker Carlson side of the Jon Stewart debate too...Comedy Central should outshine CNN, CNBC and FOXNews in journalistic integrity...

Quimby said...

"to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty".

"our ward is helping a lady by tutoring her in math so she can get a G.E.D. and get a job to support her family"

I wonder if you even see the condescension in statements such as these? Poor people are not poor because they are lazy or because they do not work as hard as rich people. Poor people are generally poor because they have not had the opportunities that wealthier people have had.

A living wage is a beautiful thing. A full-time job should come with a living wage, adequate to meet needs. That there are so many Americans who would disagree speaks volumes for their selfishness and lack of compassion.

matt said...

"our ward is helping a lady by tutoring her in math so she can get a G.E.D. and get a job to support her family"

Honestly I don't see the condescension in this statement. I see people willing to help another further their education and self worth, by not having to rely on others.

"Poor people are not poor because they are lazy or because they do not work as hard as rich people."

This is where we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Speaking from my personal experience, I have to say most poor people I know are poor due to poor choices (finances) and lack of work ethic. I know this is only one example, but it's my experience every day: The guy that works for me (we paint houses) is poor only because of poor choices and not working hard! He gets 15$ dollars an hour because that is all he is worth work wise. I have to tell him everything to do, he just walks around until I give him another task.
I'm not trying to brag, but when I was painting for another company, before I went on my own, I would figure out things that needed to be done, on my own, without having to be told. In turn I got $4 an hour raise within one year. Our opportunities where no different, I took advantage of them, my employee hasn't.

Now speaking to poor choices, he is terrible at finances. Which I believe to be the true problem with poor people.

"Poor" is a relative term. If I made $30,000 a year or $300,000 a year I would be "poor" either way if I spend as much as I make. I understand that $300,000 would bring much more prosperity if budgeted properly, but I have also met people that make $30,000 a year and have no debt. Sure they don't have a big house, fancy cars or expensive recreational vehicles, but they do have financial freedom, which I believe is what makes a person truly "rich".

Back to the guy that works for me, I drop him off at his house many times a week, as he has no car. He lives in a "second chance" apartment complex, for people with bad credit to try and rebuild it. I see many of the same people everyday, just sitting...and smoking. They just hang out sitting, doing nothing living off of the government. My employee tells me often of neighbors selling pills they get from the gov't to make money, or they tell him if they get a job they can't collect welfare, so they just hang out.

I know this doesn't describe all less fortunate people as many do work very hard and just have bad circumstances. These people are what welfare is for, not able body bums. I have no problem helping those in true need. But when the gov't is so willing to help anyone and everyone it tends to make people complacent.

"A full-time job should come with a living wage, adequate to meet needs. That there are so many Americans who would disagree speaks volumes for their selfishness and lack of compassion."

I think this goes back to making proper decisions financially. If you only make 15$ and hour, you have to be extra careful of spending habits, and should probably have a room mate or two or three or four.
I am sure many jobs do under pay, but let's say a full time McDonald's employee wants enough $ to support a family, (who sets how much is "enough"?) McDonald's will have to increase prices on product, in turn, people will go elsewhere to eat. The result, McDonald's closes and all lose their jobs.

I know it's not all black and white, but we see too much gray on these issues. Not everyone will get to enjoy the luxuries of life, (myself included, I have no "toys" or a big house) but that is not what makes one rich, It's is living free of debt.

Quimby said...

Matt, you are making some pretty big assumptions based on heresay and rumour.

Some poor people are lazy, certainly. So are some rich people. So, for that matter, are some middle-class people. Industry is no indicator of wealth.

I agree that we need better financial training.

Your McDonald's example doesn't hold weight because, yes, prices would go up, but wages would go up too so that people would still be able to eat at McDonald's.

The GED statement was condescending because a living wage should be dependent on willingness to work and not on education. I'm a huge cheerleader for education. But some people just don't have the sort of mind that works that way. It doesn't mean they're stupid, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, it just means that their talents lay elsewhere. These people should still expect to make a living wage. The ability to survive should not be dependent on one's education level, but on one's willingness to work. (And when circumstances conspire to make paid employment impossible, yes, I believe the state has an obligation, because nobody should have to starve in a wealthy country.)

matt said...

"Your McDonald's example doesn't hold weight because, yes, prices would go up, but wages would go up too so that people would still be able to eat at McDonald's."

This doesn't hold weight either. If wages go up and prices go up too, we're back to square one. If every one made at least 50k a year and the dollar menu became the five dollar menu, we'd still be in the same situation.

"The GED statement was condescending because a living wage should be dependent on willingness to work and not on education. I'm a huge cheerleader for education. But some people just don't have the sort of mind that works that way."

I agree, my job doesn't require any formal education. But I am also taking a risk when work slows down, I don't have anything to fall back on.

I believe that a willingness to work is as important as financial responsibility. Unfortunately a 9-5 doesn't cut it and one has to work two jobs. Yes, it's hard, but it's worth it.

The problem with the living-wage is that it will continue to increase as people spend more and more, irresponsibly.

Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be made a living off of. They are meant for teenagers, part time, seasonal etc. They are usually minor tasks that simply can't allow a higher pay. Again, If we pay these people a living wage, their respective stores will close as payroll would run the business out of business.

As I said previously, i realize many jobs under pay. The nice thing is we are not forced to work anywhere. If people don't like their jobs they can quit. I know now is not the best time to hear that you can just find another job, but it would send a message to employers that more is required of the task.

Quimby said...

But I'm saying, people shouldn't have to work 2 jobs. That was why we had the entire labor movement, after all, to enshrine the idea of a 40 hour week. (8 hours work 8 hours play 8 hours sleep) There are places in the world that actually do pay a living wage, and the economy continues to thrive, and McDonald's continues to offer crap food at affordable prices.

You seem to think that the way it is now, is the way it must be. What I am saying is, we can change it. There are alternatives.

Cameron said...

Just a couple of quick comments...

If we're going to give President Obama a pass for profligate spending because it's a recession, then we'd also have to give President Reagan the same break since he did basically the same thing.

Those that are questioning why conservatives supported President Bush's spending and are just now jumping on the cut spending bandwagon simply weren't paying attention. The man had a 20% approval rating for a reason.

Those that say today's spending is just the same as what President Bush did should note that the biggest deficit from 2000-2001 was about $500 billion. That was also the biggest ever for this country. President Obama's budget will likely triple that. And triple it every year for the next 3 or 4 years. So maybe we could consider that the $1.5 trillion that broke the camel's back.

Those lamenting the lost hope mantra must have forgotten the incessant BusHitler jokes of the last 8 years. Just the fact that the TEA parties didn't result in any soldiers burnt in effigy gives them one up on the leftist protests during the Bush presidency.