"The Gods of the Copybook Headings" - Rudyard Kipling

The Gods of the Copybook Headings*

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

(*From Wikipedia entry. Links were not removed.)

"If" -Rudyard Kipling

Conservatives need to hold these sentiments more than ever.

If—

Rudyard Kipling, 1865 - 1936

If you can keep your head when all about you
   Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
   But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
   Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,
   And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
   If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
   And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
   Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
   And stoop and build ‘em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
   And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
   And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
   To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
   Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on”;

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
   Or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
   If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run—
   Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

How could a Christian vote for a Republican?

Someone named “Jim Green” posted this question on Mike Rowe’s FB page.

"Why on Earth would ANYONE vote Republican? A reptile has more decency than the Republicans in Congress! Only an odious toad would pass Ryan’s budget or gut Food Stamps—and these depraved snakes made them THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY! If only one child in America goes hungry because of the Republican’s War on Children it explains why---IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A CHRISTIAN, AND VOTE REPUBLICAN,
A CHALLENGE….will you PLEASE explain to the American people why you vote/are a Republican—because for the life of me I cannot understand WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE REPUBLICAN! (NO trashing the Prez as a reason—it may make our RACISTS happy—but it is an idiotic explanation/justification.) 
Ref: https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/photos/a.151342491542569.29994.116999698310182/892525064090971/?type=1&permPage=1)

Here are four responses, each slightly different but address the question "Why would a Christian vote Republican?"

PART 1 – Rationally, it makes no sense to vote Democratic from an economic standpoint.

First, I'll admit that if each Christian read the Democratic Party platform and took Jesus’ command to give to the poor, by itself, then they and everyone else should be Democrats, because the party touts itself as the one that helps the poor, sick and elderly.  Who could be against that?  

Jesus commanded us to serve others and the best way to do that, according to most liberals, is for everyone to pool their money through taxation so that the government can take the primary role ensuring everyone has enough to eat, a place to sleep and a free health clinic.  One could say those “rights” have been extended to free college tuition and cell phones, but the point is the necessities of life should be guaranteed by the government.  This philosophy was embodied in the “Second Bill of Rights” promoted by the Patron Saint of liberals, FDR.  

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights.)

Specifically, there were six “rights” listed:  The right to a useful and remunerative job; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age and unemployment; the right to a good education.

Now I don’t know the definition of “adequate food and clothing” or “a decent home” but I’m sure that can be decided by a central federal agency, since one agency has already determined what is “a good education” (i.e. – “Common Core.”)  Also, the Federal government has already thought about and Michelle Obama has taken the lead in determining what is “adequate food.”  We just need to listen to those who know better to the standards for all Americans.  Trust them.

Since no one should begrudge any person these fruits of America’s bounty, and as the gentleman in the post on Mike Rowe’s FB page said, Republicans are evil and greedy to be against such guarantees.  Putting it that way, then everyone should be Democrats.  It seems to be the most humane and charitable position to take. 

But looking ahead, what will be the result of everyone agreeing the government should act as the charitable arm of society, if it tried to remove all traces of poverty, hunger, homelessness, joblessness, illness, etc?  Well, at first there would be a lot more funds directed to charities, so that the heretofore private clinics, soup kitchens and shelters are fully funded and can serve the most people.  Organizations like Salvation Army and Food for the Poor would be awash in government largess.  But where would the line for charity end?  Wouldn’t it be logical for all charities to line up for government support, even to the point some new ones would be created to serve some need, such as starving Albanian artists in the upper East Side of New York?  I’m sure there are a few and they need money for food and rent to continue their chosen work, so there would be an application from the SAAA (Starving Albanian Artists of America) added to the list of applicants. 

WELL, certainly, logically, the government would have to construct a new building in DC and hire thousands of bureaucrats to take care of all of these applications and requests, and heads of many federal agencies would apply to Congress to double and triple their funding, and there would be cries of lack of support for one group or another, until the Democrats (which is all of Congress at this point) decides the best and most efficient way to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, etc. is for the government to take over all of the charitable organizations and make them public entities, which would be run more efficiently by a central organization in DC.  

What could be better and more Christ-like than that? 

One organization could better serve all of the hungry people in America than a million soup kitchens and food pantries scattered across many communities.  I contribute each year to the “Irving Cares” food pantry but it finds there are many more people who need help than it can provide, so I’m sure it will benefit from being part of the federal government, with a better employment system under civil service and better work rules under Federal regulations. 

For goodness sake, we already have 45 million people on food stamps (SNAP) operated by Department of Agriculture, which is certainly a large organization serving the poor and it is run very well indeed.  Except for the office in Clayton County, Georgia, that had a small glitch of some kind in 2012 and failed to distribute money to its SNAP EBT cards (as food stamps.)  The result was dozens of irate poor people showed up at the office because they couldn’t buy groceries that day and their children were “starving.”  (See http://universalfreepress.com/watch-what-happens-when-georgia-citizens-food-stamps-are-cancelled/.)  Or, back in Oct 2013, a glitch seemed to be timed with the government “shut-down,” but it deemed to be a coincidence.  Though people were nearly rioting over a few days without EBT money.
(See http://twitchy.com/2013/10/12/riot-time-food-stamp-users-in-near-panic-over-ebt-card-failures/.)

I’m sure those incidents won’t be repeated ever again because the government will always function perfectly from now on, and it will always have enough money to fund all of the ever-increasing number of EBT recipients.  And besides that, if one day there didn’t happen to be enough money and every single EBT card was at zero, then I’m sure the 45 million people will all understand it is only temporary and they will calmly and serenely go on their way, perhaps conduct one or two peaceful demonstrations, and not loot and burn as we see all the time when certain people don’t get their way. 

A scenario of burning and looting on a widespread scale is the very logical outcome of the Democrats taking up a Christ-like chant “We must help the poor, we must feed the hungry, we must clothe the needy,” eventually getting that power, and then inevitably failing to deliver. 

I have no objections to doing those things for the poor, but on a private basis, and I contribute to organizations I feel do the best job doing so.  If the government takes over doing those jobs to a wide extent, you can be sure it will be done inefficiently, corruptly, and poorly.  FEWER people will be helped than are now.  The government is not a charity and will never be able to function as one as well or as humanely as a private organization.

The best example of this is the first hospital built in America.  From Wikipedia:
       Pennsylvania Hospital today is a private, non-profit, 534-bed teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System.  It was founded on May 11, 1751 by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Bond, it was originally conceived by Dr. Bond as an institution "for the reception and cure of the sick poor . . . free of charge," and it was funded grace to donations of the people of Philadelphia.  On September 2, 1751, Mathias Koplin donated the first plot of ground for the new hospital.  As the hospital received support of the leading families in Philadelphia, its permanence was secured.

Pennsylvania Hospital wasn’t funded by the government because in 1751 the government was nowhere near as large as it is today, sucking up resources from people who could be doing those charitable works, nor would people have trusted the government with that much money or authority.  I believe Benjamin Franklin solicited funds from the wealthier citizens of Philadelphia, and then matched the total.

Organizations like the Salvation Army and Red Cross only succeed because there is accountability.  People will generally not contribute to an organization if it is found to be corrupt and/or inefficient.  There are websites that report the how much of an organization’s solicited funding actually supports the stated purpose.  Overhead and administrative costs are reported so donors see where their donations go.  On the other hand, there is a general lack of accountability in a large public organization like the VA, HHS or IRS, as we’ve seen many times recently.  The public can be outraged about improper or inefficient conduct but there is no recourse.

One other point about large public organizations serving masses of people on a nation-wide scale:  We have track records on the dismal results of governments trying to do this.  It’s already been tried and it has failed every time.  Soviet Russia, Cuba and North Korea guaranteed there would be no hunger or homelessness; it’s right in their constitutions.  But those countries had or have more poverty than most others.  Communism/Socialism can’t guarantee a freedom from want, though they say they do.  Capitalism is the only economic system that has lifted the most people from abject poverty.  It was instituted in Hong Kong and Singapore, for examples, and today those economies thrive and people are much better off for it.

Now liberals will point to European nations with smugness and say the “social democracies” are working well.  But the fallacy is they STARTED as capitalist systems (and maintain some capitalist threads) and added socialist elements which dragged down their economies to a much lower level than would otherwise be enjoyed.  I lived in the Netherlands for two years in the 70’s and saw how the middle class was abused by the tax system so that there was no upward mobility at all.  Once you had a job or a store you just stayed there with few chances for entrepreneurship or business expansion.  There was no economic development unless the government funded it.  It’s probably worse since the 70’s as governments expanded their welfare states.

Personally, I’m fine with the government taking over all programs to help the poor as people give up their jobs and benefit from the handouts and government largess, which is what I’d recommend in order to crash the system as soon as possible and get it over with.  Because the handouts will last only as long as there are taxes coming from the dwindling fraction of citizens who would rather have jobs.

If Republicans don’t maintain a majority in Congress – by showing they can institute reforms that support the capitalist system for the benefit of all -- then surely the Democrats will roar back and in the next wave we will see even more socialist programs.

Socialist systems do work – for a while, . . . . “until the government runs out of other people’s money,” as Margaret Thatcher famously said.   After a socialist system collapses, as they are slowly doing in UK, France, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, then anarchy will reign, as we saw in Greece when pensions had to be cut for people retiring at age 50 and free college tuition could no longer be offered to teens.  The previous beneficiaries were incensed and rioting ensued. 

I’ve concluded the objective of seeking to serve all people is built on the thinking of Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who openly called for deliberately crashing the welfare system we have today.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
For the original presentation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, see the 1966 article reproduced here:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/03/24/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty
It had the objective of creating crises in government organizations such that they would be scrapped outright, and out of the mayhem that follows supplanting them with a national income distribution system.  Quoting the article: “The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution.”  It was intended to alleviate the “crushing burden of financial insecurity” for everyone. 

To put this strategy in historical context, the radicals of early 20^th century Europe hoped for an overthrow of the evil capitalist countries by the proletariat, as foretold by Marx, but it hadn’t happened during the first World War or during the economic downturn of the 1930s.  At institutes discussing the societal changes, such as the Frankfurt School, radicals/Marxists came to a conclusion: 

     “With the growth of advanced industrial society during the Cold War era, critical theorists recognized that the path of capitalism and history had changed decisively, that the modes of oppression operated differently, and that the industrial working class no longer remained the determinate negation of capitalism.”  (The Wikipedia page goes on and it’s rather weighty reading, what with comparing critical theory vs. traditional theory, analysis of the dialectical method, and discussions of the various philosophies.)

With the proletariat no longer a dependable fuse needed to ignite a world revolution, the radicals changed their tactics from an active rebellion and pursuit of violent overthrow, to a plan of corrupting and overloading the governments with welfare states so large and cumbersome they would collapse from their weight.  These were essentially the same crises as the Cloward-Piven strategy envisioned.  Instead of overthrowing governments from the outside, the leftists would take them over from the inside.  The ultimate result would be the same:  Anarchy, and then institution of more humane and “fair” (socialist/communist) organizations, with Leftists in charge, of course.  

In my estimation, underlying this strategy is the goal of instituting a pure communist system of government to enforce the confiscation of property and reallocation of assets and wealth to realize the utopian dream.

Bottom line:  People who vote Republican do so, not out of lack of charity or compassion, but based on rational thought.  This is not to say those who vote Democrat do not think rationally, but I’m starting to lean that direction.

--------------------------------------------

PART 2 – Here's a different answer: Because it is not Congress’s money to spend in a charitable way.

The VERY best response to those who wish the federal government was more charitable is the (some say fictional) speech by US Representative David ("Davy") Crockett before a vote was taken on a bill bequeathing $10,000 to an admiral’s widow.  His speech is titled "Not Yours to Give" at various web sites.  See:
http://fee.org/library/detail/not-your-to-give-2
http://www.constitution.org/cons/crockett.htm

Legend has it the particular bill was certain to pass before Mr. Crockett’s speech, but the bill failed, according to the Congressional Record of the vote.  (The CR does not record Mr. Crockett's remarks, only that he did speak.)  Simply, Crockett allegedly argued the money was not Congress’s to give to whomever it wished.  The funds were entrusted to Congress to spend on specific items as it has the authority, and that authority from the States and the People is dictated by the Constitution, not based on the whims of the representatives.

We don’t necessarily need more politicians like Davy Crockett, though they would be nice to have around these days, but we DO definitely need more citizens like Horatio Bunce, the farmer David Crockett quotes in his speech.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 3 – The government does not owe you anything just because you pay taxes!

Here is an opinion gleaned from FB commentary, which is always a good source of liberal thought and fallacious arguments:  “Taxpayer funded anything is not a gift to anyone who pays taxes. Their taxes pay in, the government should pay out. The idea that anyone receives anything for free from a tax funded program is ridiculous. Everyone pays for tax payer funded programs, because everyone pays taxes of some kind. Therefore, taxpayer funded programs benefit everyone.”

IMHO, that is a ludicrous stance.  If that was the case, then why is the government running out of money?!  The concept of “nothing is free” is exactly why the government is in trouble; no one thinks the government “costs” anything because the money comes from each taxpayer so it is “his/her” money that each is receiving.  (One problem to that, of course, is many people do NOT contribute so expenditures end up outpacing income.)  

Logically, though, it’s simple to turn around the above statement to show the fallacy:  If it was true “everyone pays for taxpayer funded programs” so “taxpayer funded programs benefit everyone,” then wouldn’t it be better for everyone to keep their own money, save and invest as they deem fit, and thereby have much more money for their own financial security, rather than the government collecting and redistributing it? 

(Aside:  That exactly what I found when I was given the option of saving FICA contributions to a private 401k account, with my employer contributing also, just as it would under FICA, so that after 12 years I had amassed much more money than the government had credited me in the previous 28 years of work.)

The answer by liberals to the above suggestion (which is essentially privatizing Social Security) is always “No!” because they think
(1) the government can distribute money more “fairly” when the rich contribute their “fair share” and thereby help the poor (see the fallacy of government acting as a charity, above),
(2) investments are always rigged for the rich so that the middle class will never benefit from investments to the degree necessary that will enable a return sufficient to provide financial security (which isn’t true if a long-term investment strategy is in place), and finally
(3) the government can better secure the funds for the particular retiree -- except it can’t and it won’t.  

The government actually spends all of the funds it receives from whatever retirement program it enacts, and it issues Treasury bonds for funds meant to be saved for future benefits.  The SSA has been cashing the collected T-bills at the US Treasury, but soon those instruments will run out, and only raising taxes or reducing benefits are available options.  

The SSA has been acting as a giant Ponzi Scheme that uses “new” money to replace “old” (spent) money.  Millennials should be particularly vehement about this scheme because the system will fail and be out of money just about the time they receive their first Social Security check.  Raising FICA tax rates seems unlikely so Millennials should plan on receiving only 50% of their benefits.  Or perhaps nothing at all.

---------------------------------------------------------

PART 4 – The Republican Party is not the one that has demonstrated itself to be evil.

Turning the question around: “Why would a Christian ever vote Democrat?” 

Here are a few reasons:

• The 13th Amendment (Abolished Slavery) had 100% Republican Support vs 23% Democratic Support
• The 14th Amendment (Citizenship for Freed Slaves) had 94% Republican Support vs 0 Democrat votes
• The 15th Amendment (Right to vote for all) had 100% Republican Support vs 0 Democratic votes.
• Jim Crow laws were passed by Democratic state legislatures in the South.
• The KKK was a Democratic-supported organization. 
• The film “Birth of a Nation” promoted the KKK and it was shown in the White House to Woodrow Wilson (D) who praised it.
• The president who sent federal troops to Little Rock High School in support of the first blacks to attend school there and who faced down Arkansas Governor Faubus (D) over school integration was Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican.
• The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was created under Attorney-General William P. Rogers, a Republican. 
• The Senate Majority Leader who stonewalled and watered down the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1957 was Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, while President Eisenhower pushed for passage.  After Johnson became president on death of JFK, Sen Mike McCormick (D-MI) became Majority Leader and ushered the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 past the Judiciary Committee (whose Democratic chairman choked off the CRA of 1957) and brought the bill to the floor.  
• The CRA was filibustered by Southern Democrats for 57 days, then a vote taken on a substitute bill that passed 73-27 (20 Democrats opposed,) and President Johnson signed it in to law.

In short, the Democrats have a history of prejudice, racism and bigotry.  Republicans have historically stood for civil rights and freedom for all.

Any claims that Republicans are gutting programs, like cutting funds for school lunches or food stamps and the like, are not based in fact.  Sometimes certain Representatives and Senators will try to cut the rate of increase in a program but it is not the same as cutting actual dollars from it.  Instead of a 5% increase, the increase will be only 3%, which might save many billions of dollars.  That is NOT a "cut" and it is NOT "gutting” a program!

Republicans aren’t evil and greedy, just trying to be prudent with the taxpayers’ money.  The problem is Congress is now spending our children’s money and our grandchildren’s money.  We can’t afford to be charitable if it means mortgaging the future of the next several generations.  Bankrupting the nation by being overly charitable isn’t going to help anyone in the long run.

I would look at the Democrat Party's platform and compare that to a definition of "charity" to see if government programs are really what Jesus described and if paying taxes is really a Christian act.

'Free college' vs. 'free roads'

While my brother and I were discussing a proposal for 'free college,' he said "Did you know that your state has 'free' roads? What's up with that?"

I had many internal reactions to that remark.  

1. On a broad level, why is it some people (you know: THOSE people) will immediately compare their opponent's stance to an extreme position (a non sequitur even) to try to prove a point?  Examples: If someone opposes coal plant regulations that have questionable value but will certainly raise electric prices, and thereby hurt lower-income families, WELL that must mean he/she is for dirty air and more lung disease!  If people are against the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") then they want poor people to get sick and die.  (The literal argument made by Representative Alan Grayson on the House floor.) 

And if I'm against federal funding of college tuition then I must also be against local taxes to maintain local roads.

2. With respect to federal financing of college tuition, I suppose the basis of such legislation will be "to promote the general welfare" -- after all, it's the most-often cited phrase of the Constitution in the enactment of legislation.  It is also the most poorly interpreted clause.
It's true that the US Constitution's preamble contains the phrase "in order to . . . promote the general welfare." That statement in the Preamble is just a guide or objective and it does not confer any authority or direction for the federal government to do anything at all.  It certainly did not mean the government was empowered or authorized to pay welfare benefits to anyone. The word "welfare" in the preamble means something different than the "welfare" we think of as payments to individuals today.

3. Further, the Tenth Amendment unambiguously reserved to the States (or to the People) all powers not specifically granted by the Constitution. Welfare, education and health were areas not mentioned and so those responsibilities/authorities were retained by the States. Over time, the federal government usurped those powers but they were not in the intent or words of the Constitution.  This should not be controversial.

4. On the other hand, Congress WAS specifically granted authority by Article 1 Section 9 to establish (construct) "Post Roads" which were at the time the common routes of commerce.  Today those routes would be called Interstate or US highways.  Most roadways now are local streets, maintained by local governments.  Cities obtain their power to tax and spend, typically, from a charter granted by the respective state.  Road construction and maintenance is one such authority.

5. Communities (cities/counties/states) may establish educational institutions of whatever level at their discretion, and as authorized by the respective electorate.  Junior colleges are often subsidized by either direct property taxation or a special tax district.  The objective is usually to make post-high school education affordable to many who do not wish to or cannot afford to attend a four-year college.

 

6. As a general rule, taxes should be spent on "common" elements that can be used by all members of society, such as roads, bridges, water/sewer mains, parks, schools, libraries, police & fire services, garbage collection, etc., but taxes should NOT used to benefit individual citizens one at a time, unless of course in direct government employment and providing a service to the general citizenry.  Military and civil service retirement plans should be privately funded and not set up as direct payments to individuals.  The GI Bill seemed like a good idea -- subsidizing servicemen's college after separation, in order to return them to civilian life -- but again this can be turned into a "boondoggle" that is more expensive than it was originally intended.


7. To equate "free college" with "free roads" on a federal level is a false and meaningless comparison.

There's "tolerance" and then there's something better

What Is the Commonly Used Word That Penn Jillette ‘Really’ Doesn’t Like?

Apr. 27, 2015 8:14pm Erica Ritz (TheBlaze.com)

Famed magician Penn Jillette said he “really” doesn’t like the word “tolerance” in an episode of The Glenn Beck Program that aired Monday.

“It’s a word that often brings to mind condescension,” he explained. “There’s a way you ‘do’ tolerance. … ‘We were out to dinner, and there are your wife’s friends and I tolerate them.’ It’s such a negative connotation. And so often when you’re in a group of people, and someone starts saying nuts stuff that everybody knows is nuts stuff, … everybody smiles and nods and lets them move on. And that kind of tolerance seems, to me, to be not good.”

Jillette said the world needs a “kind of tolerance that says, ‘I like you as a person, and you’re wrong.” The person doesn’t need to be vilified, but their beliefs don’t need to be unquestioningly accepted either, he explained.

“And once you have that conversation, you have to be able to go back to where you and I are,” Beck added. “I think you’re wrong on things; you think I’m wrong on things. That’s cool. I still like you.”

“It’s just finding that exact tightrope that you have to walk down of being able to live and exist with someone and at the same time, not give up your own principles,” Jillette agreed.

Jillette cautioned, though, that a person’s goal shouldn’t be to try to change the mind of a person they disagree with.

“You never try to change their mind,” he said. “My goal sitting down with you must not be, must not be to say, ‘How can I get my friend Glenn to become an atheist and not a Mormon?’ That cannot be my goal. My goal has to be, ‘Can I speak to this person from my heart on whatever happens to come up?’ And that subtle difference to me is the tightrope. I can’t be trying to manipulate you. I can’t be saying in the car on the way over, ‘I’ve got the argument that will convince him!’”

Jillette also cautioned people on both sides of the aisle against “wanting to be outraged.” He specifically referenced the backlash against Memories Pizza in Indiana.

“You’re dealing with what we have to be very careful of, which is turning people into hypotheticals,” he said. “This was never going to come up. Never once, never ever, was [this family's objection to catering a gay wedding] ever going to hurt anyone. It never was going to. And my problem is tears being shed, police being called for death threats, people screaming, people yelling, people saying we need more government, people saying we need less government.”

“It is people wanting to be outraged on both sides, and carry on on both sides,” Jillette continued. “And you know as well as I do, there was never going to be a conflict between one gay person and that pizza place for as long as we’re going to be alive. Never going to be.”

Deficit Spending and the National Debt

A video on YouTube called “The Debt Limit Explained” by CGPGrey (cited below) is a good primer on how federal budgetary, taxation, spending and deficit policies and procedures are supposed to work in theory, and it basically lays out how the system has worked, until 2008.  Recall that then-Senator Obama railed against President Bush’s requested increase in the debt ceiling as being “unpatriotic” and “irresponsible.”  On the floor of the Senate, he said "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."  So taking a lead from the video, weren’t his fellow Senators in charge of the budget and federal spending?  The Senate was controlled by the Democrats and the president was a Republican, and it was an election year.

So move to today, 2013, and see how the situation is further removed from theory.  Working against the theoretical model, described in the referenced video, are six factors in today's practice of that model:

1. There has not been a budget passed by Congress since 2009.
2. The FY 2009 spending level was increased from about $2.5 Trillion annually to about $3.5 Trillion because of the $800 Billion added by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“the stimulus bill.”)  Without annual budgets, every year thereafter the spending level has been carried into the next year, and so appropriation and authorization bills passed by the House and Senate automatically increased as well.  (That is a rather convoluted process but I think I summarized it in one sentence fairly well.)  As a result of failure of Congress (read “Senate”) to pass budgetary restrictions on spending, we’ve entered an era of hyper-deficit spending without recourse.  The House has tried to pass a budget to limit spending (not reduce the current levels but just reduce the annual increases in spending) to see the bill die in the Senate without even being considered.
3. Then there was another huge block of money authorized under the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP.)  This program was initiated under Bush but supplemented under Obama.  The program has become something of a ‘slush fund’ by the Administration because the repaid money (by the bailed-out banks) was not returned to the General Fund but retained by the Administration for other ‘stimulus.’  It has been an on-going drain on federal spending.
4. Entitlements make up by far the biggest percentage of federal spending (about 60% -- defense in comparison runs about 25-30%) and the entitlement programs have been on “autopilot” without much Congressional oversight, such as food stamp program.  The latest so-called Farm Bill includes a rubber stamped Administration request for expansion of the program – after all, who is against feeding the poor? – and food stamps now make up over 80% of the Bill.  The program has been expanded to cover families making 125% of the poverty level, and there isn’t much check on who is eligible.
5. The president has much more discretion in spending than the video implies.  Let’s say Congress appropriates $600 million for transportation projects.  That money can be shifted by the Secretary of Transportation to virtually any use he wishes, such as ‘green energy’ savings.  
6. The fuzzy math of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is adding to the deficit without oversight/approval of Congress.  There were blank checks inserted to allow the Secretary of HHS to create new bureaucracies and health care programs.  The actual cost is incalculable. (Ref: http://freebeacon.com/financially-unstable/.  The GAO report dated Jan 17, 2013 is here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-271R.)

In summary, the current fiscal situation can best be described as “dysfunctional.”  The Senate has sandbagged their budgetary responsibility and the spending is way out of control.  Should Congress take control?  Short answer:  Yes.  The next logical question is, can it?  Again, going for brevity:  Probably not.  But we can hope for the best while expecting the worst, which in this case is continued deficit spending into the foreseeable future until, inevitably, the monetary system (meaning the dollar itself) crashes. 

Now, “monetary policy” is different from “fiscal policy” because the first is managing the entire economy, what it uses to transact business, i.e.—the dollar, or money, and the second is the taxing and spending done by the federal government.  “Fiscal policies” are set by Congress and the Treasury Dept.  “Monetary policy” is the purview of the Fed, as it sets interest rates for prime loans (to banks) and thereby the available money supply in the entire US.  Then there is one other power of the Fed:  It can “create money” by adding fictitious numbers to its own balance sheet.  More on that below.

The issue of the deficits run up by Congress and the President is compounded by a set of actions recently taken by the Federal Reserve as it reverses a long-standing position it adamantly held (or rather the Chairman of the Fed, Mr. Ben Bernanke, has reversed a position.)  He testified at a Congressional hearing in June 2009 that the Fed would not “monetize the federal government’s debt,” meaning the money that the Fed creates out of thin air would not be used to buy Treasury notes (the bonds sold to fund the federal government’s deficit spending.)  Beginning in 2010, that policy has been replaced by “quantitative easing” which is exactly what he said the Fed would not do.

(ref: blog.themistrading.com/we-will-not-monetize-the-debt-bernanke-639)

What’s that you ask?  Can the Fed actually do that?  You thought only the Treasury Dept “prints money” and that is where money is created?  Actually, printing currency, as the Treasury does, has nothing to do with how the government SPENDS money.  Those fresh new bills coming from Treasury printing presses are purchased by banks and held in their vaults until demanded by their customers.  (Anyway, only about $10 Billion in currency is printed each month, not near enough to cover the $4 Billion per day needed by the federal government for its deficit spending.)  The money “created” by the Fed – just by adding zeros to the bottom of its balance sheet – is now being used to buy T-bills, and that money is then funneled directly into the economy by government spending. 

This is the greatest danger to our economy at present, because “printing money” has never worked and it has always ended badly, usually resulting in hyperinflation.  Examples are: 1779 Continental dollar (from which grew the expression “not worth a continental,”) 1801 French franc, 1919 Russian ruble, 1923 Weimar German mark, 1979 Argentine peso, 1980 Brazilian real, and 2008 Zimbabwe dollar.  The US also entered a period of inflation in 1864 when the “greenback” hit inflation rates of 40%.  I recall in the late 1970s, the US dollar inflation ran at about 10-12% -- it was a difficult time to save money or to forecast what anything might cost a couple of months into the future.  

If the trend to "monetizing the debt" isn't stopped soon, the economy will collapse. That is almost as bad as the government "defaulting," which is unlikely since the government's income (funds received in taxes and fees) far exceed interest owed each month on the total debt.  So far.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Debt Limit Explained":

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=8

Website: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-debt-limit-explained

Presidential & VP candidate debates

I saw a comment recently about Biden losing the VP candidates' debate due to his bizarre aggressive behavior, and how Obama 'lost' the first presidential debate "because he didn't interrupt Romney enough."  So I assumed the commenter was saying the “winner” is the candidate who interrupts the most.  The companion assertion is:  no interruptions at all is deemed to be bad. 

That doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.  In viewing the debates I didn’t give ‘points’ for interrupting, but what was said and how.  Indeed, I’d say a whole set of different characteristics were used by viewers to evaluate the candidates:  Confidence, thoughtfulness, being forthright, strength of conviction (but not arrogant,) and certainly intelligence.  Biden was one or two of those.  Ryan hit on all of them.

On the other hand, I think the deficiency on the part of the president's performance was passion in his answers/responses.  He doesn’t need to be hostile or uncivil to be effective, just positive, persuasive, ardent, and still factual.  

When someone refers to the constant interruptions by Biden (numbering 82 at one count) and says “Both parties do it," then I have to ask for an example of that behavior by a Republican candidate.  I can’t recall such boorish hectoring on the part of any GOPer, though it’s certainly possible if intemperate passion overrides civility for a brief moment, and it could be said the debates during the GOP primaries were heated.  Biden made it a practice for 90 minutes.  Also, as someone has said, “pointing to bad behavior doesn't excuse other bad behavior.”  

If there is an example of disrespectful behavior on the part of a Republican candidate, I will promptly condemn it, for what that is worth.  Perhaps Romney was interrupting Obama?  Not that I recall as significant, so was the commenter, above, asserting that Ryan laughed rudely during Biden's presentations?  Certainly not.  Speaking of which, did anyone think viewers were laughing along with the VP?  I really doubt it.  However, the Democrat base probably was thrilled about the "designated pit bull" for their party going after Ryan and challenging him viscerally; though most viewers were appalled.

No, the president also “lost” on substance, not just style, although the latter brought the most comments.  He did look listless and almost, I’d say, aloof.  As I write this on Sunday, October 14, here is a prediction:  Look for Mr. Obama at Tuesday’s debate (town hall format) to come on like gangbusters, double down on the VP's disgraceful performance in terms of hostility and discourtesy, and further erode his standing with all-important independents (now at 55-45 deficit.) 

In terms of polls, states are slowly turning "pink."  FL, VA and NC have moved from toss-up to "lean Romney."  PA, MI and MI are moving from the Democrat column to toss-up status.  CA moved 8 points toward Romney.  (Granted, he’s still down 22 points – hey, it’s LA-LA land – but that movement is nationwide.  

Bob Woodward on Fox News Sunday today said, 

     “Everyone has been kicking around this question, ‘Are you better off now than 4 yrs ago?’  But the question people want answered is ‘How are you going to make me better off in the next year, in the next 4 years?’  If you really look at the details, neither campaign has answered that sufficiently.”  

     That was a good point, but it’s the wrong question because I don’t think "the government can make me better off.”  If the government gets out of the way then businesses and individuals can do better on their own.  So the question should be, “How will your administration improve the business climate, ease regulations, and encourage businesses to hire."

Government can't create jobs, only businesses can do that, and they will do so when the economy expands so demand increases for a particular service/product of a respective business.