Waxing Chaotic
What is freedom? Each political party tries its best to control us with emotional, empty words such as "freedom" and "patriotism." I'm sick of hearing about it. Critics of the Democrats say they're trying to "take away our freedom" by imposing national healthcare or increasing taxes. National healthcare takes away our choice to be irresponsible by forcing people to have healthcare and if money is freedom, then taxes indeed reduce freedom.
That's the argument put forth by the Republicans and it appeals to my desire to have more money (but remember, everyone wants money -- even the wealthy). But more money doesn't always equal freedom. In fact, Americans have it pretty good. It could always get better, so, like I said, I'm not against having more money... but, as Americans, what do we need the money for? More stuff is always nice, but not necessary. What are the necessities money can buy? Food, shelter, and in America, healthcare. Healthcare is damn expensive in this country and if you can't pay for it, then you've possibly been selected for extinction by the money god.
But getting more money is really the trick, isn't it? There's a reason the Republicans frequently harken back to the 1950s as the time of dreams, because we had just gotten out of a world war and a "police action" in Korea. Manufacturing was booming from the wartime demands and young men were dwindling in number. For a man not deployed overseas, finding a job was easy. Things were prosperous, as long as you weren't a woman, black or homosexual. It was good to be a white man in the 1950s.
Fast forward sixty years and we haven't had a good world war in a long time. From time to time, politicians try to drum one up to get the economy rolling again, but it usually falls flat because there are no world dominating despots getting any real traction out there. The "war on terror" was a good effort, but the terrorists proved to be even more disjointed and inept than we had imagined -- not nearly as sexy and cool as "24" led us to believe.
So the money has to come from somewhere. The wealthy don't want to give it up, so they sell the illusion of "trickle down" economics, which is, as one economist described, "like pouring a glass of water down a carpeted staircase. It all gets absorbed at the top." Ronald Reagan is the champion of this, and the mention of his name will bring a tear to any conservative's eye. And America became prosperous during those years... for the wealthy. The unemployment rate in 1982 was 9.7%. The conservatives forget that little details when swelling with pride about their patron saint.
So, this veered off into an economy rant -- but what really disturbs me about the Republicans' call to freedom is that they want to limit our freedom in a more sinister, entirely unconstitutional way: They want to govern morality. The right-leaning Republicans would be very happy with putting Christian prayer back into the school (after all, that's the only true religion, right?), and doing away with homosexual marriage (they're just deviants who are clearly not due the same rights as heterosexuals). This is the Land of the Free, as long as you fit into what the Republicans deem as normal behavior.
The next on the list are the Democrats, so-called "Socialists" by the Republicans -- therefore "un-American" and "unpatriotic." The basis for this claim is that they want to take away our freedom by imposing national healthcare. For a national plan to work, everyone must participate. Therein lies the rub. The government is forcing citizens to own insurance whether they want it or not.
But is this really an infringement on freedom? I pay school taxes, but my kids don't attend school. I'm forced to pay Social Security and Income Tax. Where's the outrage about this? We all pay taxes for things whether we participate in the programs or not. We've been told for decades that Social Security will go bust any day now, but we still pay into it. I need healthcare. I use it. Everyone needs it. The current healthcare system is terrifying and by more accounts than my own, one of the worst in the world. Those with the most money, get the best care. The problem is, money needs to be rare to be valuable and so that means most people end up in lifelong debt if they have something catastrophic happen (insurance companies will drop coverage when it ceasing being profitable).
So, I pay some more taxes, but benefit from it. Directly benefit. I can now be unemployed and not fear that a heart attack will bankrupt my family for the next generation. I might very well contract cancer someday, and with national healthcare, I wouldn't be dropped from coverage and have to eventually end treatment. Before you say "Death Panels," consider that your bank account is currently your Death Panel. I say this from experience. I recently lost a friend to cancer because she had to stop treatments after her insurance was dropped.
The Republicans are all about individual freedom, unless we're talking about sex. Then they're all up in your business. The Democrats take away money with whatever social program happens to be in the queue. I think someone peeking into my bedroom and telling me what they think is normal behavior is a bit more of a restriction of freedom. Given the choice, the abnormal folks tend to be much more interesting.
That's the argument put forth by the Republicans and it appeals to my desire to have more money (but remember, everyone wants money -- even the wealthy). But more money doesn't always equal freedom. In fact, Americans have it pretty good. It could always get better, so, like I said, I'm not against having more money... but, as Americans, what do we need the money for? More stuff is always nice, but not necessary. What are the necessities money can buy? Food, shelter, and in America, healthcare. Healthcare is damn expensive in this country and if you can't pay for it, then you've possibly been selected for extinction by the money god.
But getting more money is really the trick, isn't it? There's a reason the Republicans frequently harken back to the 1950s as the time of dreams, because we had just gotten out of a world war and a "police action" in Korea. Manufacturing was booming from the wartime demands and young men were dwindling in number. For a man not deployed overseas, finding a job was easy. Things were prosperous, as long as you weren't a woman, black or homosexual. It was good to be a white man in the 1950s.
Fast forward sixty years and we haven't had a good world war in a long time. From time to time, politicians try to drum one up to get the economy rolling again, but it usually falls flat because there are no world dominating despots getting any real traction out there. The "war on terror" was a good effort, but the terrorists proved to be even more disjointed and inept than we had imagined -- not nearly as sexy and cool as "24" led us to believe.
So the money has to come from somewhere. The wealthy don't want to give it up, so they sell the illusion of "trickle down" economics, which is, as one economist described, "like pouring a glass of water down a carpeted staircase. It all gets absorbed at the top." Ronald Reagan is the champion of this, and the mention of his name will bring a tear to any conservative's eye. And America became prosperous during those years... for the wealthy. The unemployment rate in 1982 was 9.7%. The conservatives forget that little details when swelling with pride about their patron saint.
So, this veered off into an economy rant -- but what really disturbs me about the Republicans' call to freedom is that they want to limit our freedom in a more sinister, entirely unconstitutional way: They want to govern morality. The right-leaning Republicans would be very happy with putting Christian prayer back into the school (after all, that's the only true religion, right?), and doing away with homosexual marriage (they're just deviants who are clearly not due the same rights as heterosexuals). This is the Land of the Free, as long as you fit into what the Republicans deem as normal behavior.
The next on the list are the Democrats, so-called "Socialists" by the Republicans -- therefore "un-American" and "unpatriotic." The basis for this claim is that they want to take away our freedom by imposing national healthcare. For a national plan to work, everyone must participate. Therein lies the rub. The government is forcing citizens to own insurance whether they want it or not.
But is this really an infringement on freedom? I pay school taxes, but my kids don't attend school. I'm forced to pay Social Security and Income Tax. Where's the outrage about this? We all pay taxes for things whether we participate in the programs or not. We've been told for decades that Social Security will go bust any day now, but we still pay into it. I need healthcare. I use it. Everyone needs it. The current healthcare system is terrifying and by more accounts than my own, one of the worst in the world. Those with the most money, get the best care. The problem is, money needs to be rare to be valuable and so that means most people end up in lifelong debt if they have something catastrophic happen (insurance companies will drop coverage when it ceasing being profitable).
So, I pay some more taxes, but benefit from it. Directly benefit. I can now be unemployed and not fear that a heart attack will bankrupt my family for the next generation. I might very well contract cancer someday, and with national healthcare, I wouldn't be dropped from coverage and have to eventually end treatment. Before you say "Death Panels," consider that your bank account is currently your Death Panel. I say this from experience. I recently lost a friend to cancer because she had to stop treatments after her insurance was dropped.
The Republicans are all about individual freedom, unless we're talking about sex. Then they're all up in your business. The Democrats take away money with whatever social program happens to be in the queue. I think someone peeking into my bedroom and telling me what they think is normal behavior is a bit more of a restriction of freedom. Given the choice, the abnormal folks tend to be much more interesting.
Comments
Post a Comment