I know - it's been a while since I've posted. I'm in the final weeks of one of my courses and the final week of my campaign for school board begins tomorrow. Beyond that, my full-time job has been quite busy of late. Apologies for the lapse.
Ironically, today I had the pleasure of spending some time in Washington D.C. - albeit only an airport!
I just watched our President's speech on Libya. His speech was fine - fine. First - let me say that I'm ok with what we are doing in Libya. I'd like to see those who are closer to the conflict (Europe is only a few hundred miles away) take more of the burden. I'd like to see the Arab League, particularly the very oil-rich country of Saudi Arabia, foot more of the bill. However, as per usual, they don't, so we will.
I'm unsure of Obama's end-game here. He says Qaddafi needs to be out of power, because the world will be a better place without him. However he says that regime change is not the goal. The two seem to go hand in hand to me. Another bit he didn't tell us, and we don't know, is who we are helping. Who are to opposition forces?
He said he didn't want to wait for pictures of genocide and mass-graves. I can applaud that stance.
I still do not understand why we aren't concerned with obvious genocide going on in places like the Sudan. Granted, Libya has large amounts of oil which supply Europe. Sheppard Smith reported tonight that Italy, Germany, France, and Spain are the main recipients of Libyan oil. I understand that allowing the overall supply of world oil to be diminished would increase prices for all of us. However, this President doesn't seem concerned with those prices. Instead of supporting drilling of our own MASSIVE supply of oil, he went on a trip to Brazil and offered to give them billions of dollars to explore for oil so we could "be one of your biggest customers".
Regardless - I'd have liked to hear him say "President Bush, I apologize for denigrating the work you did in Afghanistan and Iraq. I applaud your ability to get an international coalition together. I also understand and agree that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in it and I understand that he was already filling mass graves with his civilians. It's easy to sit outside the Oval office and judge the actions of the President, but when you are the person deciding to save innocents, or protect your own people, you HAVE to make a call. And despite the fact that the intelligence was wrong, you were right".
That said - in both Iraq and Afghanistan - there was a plan. There was a goal. Over and over we heard the term "stay the course". Here there is not. I'd like to see the goal of regime change. The goal of freedom, democracy. Historically we've seen voids in governments filled by evil-doers. If Qaddafi is removed, who or what will take his place? Mr. President, we've started this, we need to finish it. If we stop now, we may leave a more dangerous situation - one inviting Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups to take over and proliferate in a country with a leadership vacuum.
The man who stood at the podium tonight was a different man than we saw a few years ago. I think now that he's faced with the intelligence reports and the horrifying truth of what is out in this world and particularly in the middle east, he sees that American strength and military might may be the only things that can save us. He didn't say that, but he certainly sang a different tune than we've heard before.
The final point I'm going to make may be a leap... in answering the question of why all these countries are now fighting the repression they've existed under for decades. Why do the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen suddenly have the urge to stand up and fight? Why are they willing to die - seemingly - for their freedom. I believe that years from now this will go into history as one of the greatest legacies of George W. Bush's presidency. I believe that the freedom found in Afghanistan and Iraq have opened the eyes of a region that's been blind. I wish these people the best. I wish an end to Sharia law which oppresses women horribly - going so far as to punish a woman that is raped with being stoned to death or forced to marry her rapist. The women in the middle east are the biggest tragedy and as an American woman, I can only hope and pray that these women gain a voice. If Barack Obama helps them to get there, then I'll have no choice but to applaud at least this part of his (I hope short-lived) presidency.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Gay marriage - this one's going to be fun!
Every once in a while it's fun to throw a curve-ball. Here's mine. I do not have the slightest issue with allowing gay marriage! I have yet to find someone who can explain to me how allowing a same-sex couple to be married somehow belittles my heterosexual marriage. Until that happens, I'd really just as soon everyone stop fighting about this, don't we fight about enough?
So what's the deal - gay marriage, civil union what's the difference? Same-sex marriage provides all the same "rights and responsibilities" (on the state level) as heterosexual marriage, from Family Medical Leave rights, to pension benefits, to healthcare power of attorney. Civil Union, may offer all of these, some of these, or none of these. It is really determined on a state by state basis.
According to religioustolerance.org, same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and D.C. Civil unions or registered domestic partnerships which offer many of the same state benefits are available in: California New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Illinois, and Hawaii. New York and New Mexico recognize same-sex marriage if performed in another state.
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, gay marriages granted in any state do not give rights on the federal level. This law states that no state must recognize a same-sex marriage granted in another state and goes on to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The DOMA vote crossed party lines, but in the end only 1 Republican representative and 1 Independent representative voted against it. 65 Democrat representatives voted nay, as did 14 Democrat senators. No Republicans voted against it in the senate.
Last month, President Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA in courts by calling it unconstitutional. It remains to be seen if this move will give married same-sex couples federal rights.
I've had this conversation with a man, who I believe thinks the same way as many who oppose same-sex marriage. Mind you, this man is the least-religious, and least-religiously-educated man I know... yet in this argument, I find him speaking of the bible...
He says "Marriage is only between a man and a woman".
I ask "Why"?
He says "The bible says that's how it should be."
I say "And the bible ranks women right after animals, is that how it should be too"?
I ask "If we want to get religious, why did God create homosexuals or allow them to evolve - assuming it was wrong for them to love"?
He says God didn't create them, it's their choice".
I say, "Oh, ok! So you think (to use men as an example) these men, who like yourself, really LOVE women, CHOOSE to spend their lives doing acts that they really find to be vile and disgusting with other men, all for the fun of it? Or maybe just so they can get beat up?"
He says "Marriage is for the purpose of having children".
I ask "What about heterosexual couples that are unable to conceive? OR who simply do not want children? Should those marriages be dissolved? Maybe we should test for fertility before allowing a couple to marry".
He tells me "Of course not".
I ask what the difference is.
He stammers a little... Ah - new tack.
He tells me"It's bad because then the homosexual couples want to adopt".
I say "That's great".
He says "It's bad for the children".
I ask "So, children are better off in foster homes, which are notorious for all kinds of abuse, than in a loving family with two same-sex parents?"
He says "Children need both influences - a man and a woman".
I say "Uh -oh! We'd better remove the children from all single-parent households! Do you think gay people don't have friends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers?"
He says "The kid will be bullied".
I say "Teach him karate"!
I know this is a touchy subject. But again - until someone can convince me that allowing gay marriage will somehow belittle my own marriage, I cannot find a reason to resist it. I would really think that the exorbitant divorce rate among heterosexuals does enough to belittle the meaning of the word marriage. Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women couldn't really do much more damage, could it? My heart goes out to the men and women I know, who are in loving relationships and cannot get the legal rights the rest of us can. And not only that - there's the sting of knowing they don't get the social satisfaction of the word husband or wife, the public acknowledgment that their love is real.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar16.htm
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/DOMA_2.htm
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/wheremarriage.htm
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage.htm
So what's the deal - gay marriage, civil union what's the difference? Same-sex marriage provides all the same "rights and responsibilities" (on the state level) as heterosexual marriage, from Family Medical Leave rights, to pension benefits, to healthcare power of attorney. Civil Union, may offer all of these, some of these, or none of these. It is really determined on a state by state basis.
According to religioustolerance.org, same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and D.C. Civil unions or registered domestic partnerships which offer many of the same state benefits are available in: California New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Illinois, and Hawaii. New York and New Mexico recognize same-sex marriage if performed in another state.
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, gay marriages granted in any state do not give rights on the federal level. This law states that no state must recognize a same-sex marriage granted in another state and goes on to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The DOMA vote crossed party lines, but in the end only 1 Republican representative and 1 Independent representative voted against it. 65 Democrat representatives voted nay, as did 14 Democrat senators. No Republicans voted against it in the senate.
Last month, President Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA in courts by calling it unconstitutional. It remains to be seen if this move will give married same-sex couples federal rights.
I've had this conversation with a man, who I believe thinks the same way as many who oppose same-sex marriage. Mind you, this man is the least-religious, and least-religiously-educated man I know... yet in this argument, I find him speaking of the bible...
He says "Marriage is only between a man and a woman".
I ask "Why"?
He says "The bible says that's how it should be."
I say "And the bible ranks women right after animals, is that how it should be too"?
I ask "If we want to get religious, why did God create homosexuals or allow them to evolve - assuming it was wrong for them to love"?
He says God didn't create them, it's their choice".
I say, "Oh, ok! So you think (to use men as an example) these men, who like yourself, really LOVE women, CHOOSE to spend their lives doing acts that they really find to be vile and disgusting with other men, all for the fun of it? Or maybe just so they can get beat up?"
He says "Marriage is for the purpose of having children".
I ask "What about heterosexual couples that are unable to conceive? OR who simply do not want children? Should those marriages be dissolved? Maybe we should test for fertility before allowing a couple to marry".
He tells me "Of course not".
I ask what the difference is.
He stammers a little... Ah - new tack.
He tells me"It's bad because then the homosexual couples want to adopt".
I say "That's great".
He says "It's bad for the children".
I ask "So, children are better off in foster homes, which are notorious for all kinds of abuse, than in a loving family with two same-sex parents?"
He says "Children need both influences - a man and a woman".
I say "Uh -oh! We'd better remove the children from all single-parent households! Do you think gay people don't have friends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers?"
He says "The kid will be bullied".
I say "Teach him karate"!
I know this is a touchy subject. But again - until someone can convince me that allowing gay marriage will somehow belittle my own marriage, I cannot find a reason to resist it. I would really think that the exorbitant divorce rate among heterosexuals does enough to belittle the meaning of the word marriage. Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women couldn't really do much more damage, could it? My heart goes out to the men and women I know, who are in loving relationships and cannot get the legal rights the rest of us can. And not only that - there's the sting of knowing they don't get the social satisfaction of the word husband or wife, the public acknowledgment that their love is real.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar16.htm
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/DOMA_2.htm
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/wheremarriage.htm
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/i/biblemarriage.htm
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Stem Cells - huh? blah blah blah
By degree I'm a biologist. By experience, I'm a microbiologist. Currently I work for a company that provides sterilization for a number of markets, using gamma radiation and Ethylene Oxide gas. I'd say it's a fair comment to say I usually "get" the science stuff. And it took me a while to wrap my head around the stem cell issue.
Essentially, a stem cell is just a cell that hasn't decided what it wants to be yet. So it can turn into an eye cell, a stomach cell, a heart cell, a blood cell etc. This is exciting stuff! Right? Well, I sure think it is, but many just hear "Blah Blah Blah".
Let's skip all the nitty gritty - the key parts to understand is that many scientists believe these "magic" cells will be able to cure many diseases. We can already see benefits for some blood diseases - like leukemia. Bone marrow holds stem cells that can be used to form different blood cells. Umbilical cord blood is a similar type of stem cell. These are considered "adult stem cells".
So what's an embryonic stem cell? This is a cell that comes from a destroyed embryo. An embryo is the stage of human development right before fetus. These cells have not yet been successful in curing any diseases. There are 60 lines of embryonic stem cells that were already in existence before George W. Bush had to make his decision on funding this research. Each line came from a separate embryo, and they can continue to divide and essentially provide limitless cells for experimentation.
Why did he impose a ban on the research? He didn't. No one did. There was never a ban. George W. Bush was the first president to offer federal funding for this research. To be fair, the funding bill was first proposed during Clinton's administration, but he left office before he could sign it. Bush added a caveat that said the research must use one of the existing stem cell lines. You cannot create and destroy new life if you want federal funds. There's a slippery slope theory, about women getting pregnant to get paid for their embryos and other horror scenarios. Would these happen? Maybe. Does it matter? No.
So how come John Kerry and John Edwards and so many others kept talking about "the ban on stem cell research"? I don't know... no scruples? And how come they said "People like Christopher Reeve would get up and walk" if John Kerry were President and could lift the "ban", when in fact, no diseases have been cured by embryonic stem cells? I couldn't tell you the answer. I'm still baffled at how they made so many people believe these silly tales.
And how come Bush didn't make it clear that there was NO BAN? You've got me.
Unfortunately in the world of politics, there are a lot of things I don't know and don't understand. Bald-faced lies and refusal to set the record straight are just a couple.
For the record, last week, President Obama lifted all restrictions on which lines can be used in research. He has not however, offered funding for creation of new lines.
Also for the record - I am such a strong believer in such research that I have had the cord blood of all 3 of my children banked. And yet, somehow, GW Bush is still one of my heroes... go figure.
References:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/statements/082701list.asp
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blwhrelease16.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/09/politics/100days/domesticissues/main4853385.shtml
Essentially, a stem cell is just a cell that hasn't decided what it wants to be yet. So it can turn into an eye cell, a stomach cell, a heart cell, a blood cell etc. This is exciting stuff! Right? Well, I sure think it is, but many just hear "Blah Blah Blah".
Let's skip all the nitty gritty - the key parts to understand is that many scientists believe these "magic" cells will be able to cure many diseases. We can already see benefits for some blood diseases - like leukemia. Bone marrow holds stem cells that can be used to form different blood cells. Umbilical cord blood is a similar type of stem cell. These are considered "adult stem cells".
So what's an embryonic stem cell? This is a cell that comes from a destroyed embryo. An embryo is the stage of human development right before fetus. These cells have not yet been successful in curing any diseases. There are 60 lines of embryonic stem cells that were already in existence before George W. Bush had to make his decision on funding this research. Each line came from a separate embryo, and they can continue to divide and essentially provide limitless cells for experimentation.
Why did he impose a ban on the research? He didn't. No one did. There was never a ban. George W. Bush was the first president to offer federal funding for this research. To be fair, the funding bill was first proposed during Clinton's administration, but he left office before he could sign it. Bush added a caveat that said the research must use one of the existing stem cell lines. You cannot create and destroy new life if you want federal funds. There's a slippery slope theory, about women getting pregnant to get paid for their embryos and other horror scenarios. Would these happen? Maybe. Does it matter? No.
So how come John Kerry and John Edwards and so many others kept talking about "the ban on stem cell research"? I don't know... no scruples? And how come they said "People like Christopher Reeve would get up and walk" if John Kerry were President and could lift the "ban", when in fact, no diseases have been cured by embryonic stem cells? I couldn't tell you the answer. I'm still baffled at how they made so many people believe these silly tales.
And how come Bush didn't make it clear that there was NO BAN? You've got me.
Unfortunately in the world of politics, there are a lot of things I don't know and don't understand. Bald-faced lies and refusal to set the record straight are just a couple.
For the record, last week, President Obama lifted all restrictions on which lines can be used in research. He has not however, offered funding for creation of new lines.
Also for the record - I am such a strong believer in such research that I have had the cord blood of all 3 of my children banked. And yet, somehow, GW Bush is still one of my heroes... go figure.
References:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/statements/082701list.asp
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blwhrelease16.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/09/politics/100days/domesticissues/main4853385.shtml
Monday, March 14, 2011
What the heck just happened in Wisconsin?
Collective bargaining rights are essentially the power behind labor unions. A group of people gets together and collectively bargains their pay, benefits, working conditions etc. In WI and just over half of the states in this country, all public employees are unionized. Therefore, all public employees have collective bargaining rights (whether or not they want them). These employees must pay union dues and must be members of the union representing their group. Although "public employees" include many other groups, such as firefighters and police, the main group in this most recent fight was the teachers. So that's who I'm going to discuss.
First - what about the other half of the states? They are "right-to-work" states. This means that employment in a public (paid by government) position does not require union membership or dues payment. Therefore in these states, the individual employee can decide if he or she wants to be included in the union and the contract negotiated by the union.
In Wisconsin specifically, teachers pay $0, that's right, zip, zilch, nada - toward their heathcare and pensions. According to the Governor, Scott Walker, this financial burden was in large part responsible for the state's severe debt (3.6 billion dollars). Scott Walker and the Republicans in the legislature put forth a bill to end collective bargaining rights of these workers. The idea was to have teachers pay a portion of their healthcare (insurance) and a contribution to the pension fund.
Now - depending on who you watched or listened to, some reported that Scott Walker approached the unions to ASK for concessions in these areas to make up some of the deficit and the unions refused. Others report that Walker never approached the unions first. What's the truth? I have no idea.
According to Walker - if public employees don't start contributing to these benefit costs by April of this year, 1500 state employees would have to be laid off by the end of June. And another 10-20,000 would have to go in the future.
According to Walker, this is only about the state budget, which is so far in the hole, this was the only way to fix the issue. According to Democrats, this is about busting the unions, about politics, about making sure the Republicans stay in power. WAIT A MINUTE... what in the world does this have to do with Democrats vs. Republicans?
Oh yeah - Democrats are large supporters of unions, and unions are the largest supporters of Democrats. For information on who contributes to each party, check opensecrets.org: (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php) The theory goes that if the unions cannot collect millions of dollars in dues to contribute to Democratic campaigns, then the Democrats won't stand a chance to win.
When the time came to vote on the bill, 14 Democratic State Senators left WI and hid in IL for a couple weeks. The WI State legislature was stymied. You see, at that point, the bill contained both the reduction of collective bargaining rights and fiscal portions (money). The Republicans figured out that they could remove the spending sections and with a simple majority, pass the collective bargaining rules. State rules require 3/5 of the members to be present to pass fiscal bills. Without the Democrats, the bill as it was could not be passed. However, once the spending provisions were removed, the vote was made, the bill was passed.
What does this actually mean for teachers in WI? Well, they are no longer required to be union members, although they are still allowed. Union dues are no longer automatically paid. And unions must be re-certified each year as the employee's representative (each year the employees will vote to be represented). These employees can still collectively bargain their salaries and other items like teacher-student ratio, and job safety items, but their benefit packages are off the table. This will ultimately mean that they will have to pay some portion of their healthcare (insurance) costs, and will have to contribute to their pension fund. Overall the amount being asked is roughly half of what average private-sector workers pay. On top of that, it has been reported that average pay/benefit package of Milwaukee public school teachers is over $100,000. I'd think that for 9.5 months of work, that's a decent living.
You may hear the argument about public-sector vs. private-sector. The public sector is government jobs. The private-sector is private businesses, even if publicly traded on the stock market. Unions can get into any business if the workers vote for them. There is a large argument against the unionization of public workers for a few reasons. One is that all of their salaries and benefits are paid for with taxes. Essentially this is giving these employees the right to collectively bargain to increase benefits that raise everyone's taxes, and the rest don't have the right to collectively bargain against them. Two other issues when it comes to teachers are tenure and last-in, first-out policies. Tenure means that after a certain number of years, for example 3 years, a teacher cannot be fired without excessive proceedings, regardless of most causes. Last-in, first out says that a school district MUST reduce employee levels based on seniority. So, for example, in Wisconsin this year, the teacher who won an award as "Outstanding first year teacher" was laid off a week later due to union requirements.
The overall union issue is another topic for another day. Some of the union arguments, both for and against, play into the situation in WI and developing in several other states. However, for today, I wanted to present a clear idea of what went on. Please let me know if I've left you with questions.
References:
First - what about the other half of the states? They are "right-to-work" states. This means that employment in a public (paid by government) position does not require union membership or dues payment. Therefore in these states, the individual employee can decide if he or she wants to be included in the union and the contract negotiated by the union.
In Wisconsin specifically, teachers pay $0, that's right, zip, zilch, nada - toward their heathcare and pensions. According to the Governor, Scott Walker, this financial burden was in large part responsible for the state's severe debt (3.6 billion dollars). Scott Walker and the Republicans in the legislature put forth a bill to end collective bargaining rights of these workers. The idea was to have teachers pay a portion of their healthcare (insurance) and a contribution to the pension fund.
Now - depending on who you watched or listened to, some reported that Scott Walker approached the unions to ASK for concessions in these areas to make up some of the deficit and the unions refused. Others report that Walker never approached the unions first. What's the truth? I have no idea.
According to Walker - if public employees don't start contributing to these benefit costs by April of this year, 1500 state employees would have to be laid off by the end of June. And another 10-20,000 would have to go in the future.
According to Walker, this is only about the state budget, which is so far in the hole, this was the only way to fix the issue. According to Democrats, this is about busting the unions, about politics, about making sure the Republicans stay in power. WAIT A MINUTE... what in the world does this have to do with Democrats vs. Republicans?
Oh yeah - Democrats are large supporters of unions, and unions are the largest supporters of Democrats. For information on who contributes to each party, check opensecrets.org: (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php) The theory goes that if the unions cannot collect millions of dollars in dues to contribute to Democratic campaigns, then the Democrats won't stand a chance to win.
When the time came to vote on the bill, 14 Democratic State Senators left WI and hid in IL for a couple weeks. The WI State legislature was stymied. You see, at that point, the bill contained both the reduction of collective bargaining rights and fiscal portions (money). The Republicans figured out that they could remove the spending sections and with a simple majority, pass the collective bargaining rules. State rules require 3/5 of the members to be present to pass fiscal bills. Without the Democrats, the bill as it was could not be passed. However, once the spending provisions were removed, the vote was made, the bill was passed.
What does this actually mean for teachers in WI? Well, they are no longer required to be union members, although they are still allowed. Union dues are no longer automatically paid. And unions must be re-certified each year as the employee's representative (each year the employees will vote to be represented). These employees can still collectively bargain their salaries and other items like teacher-student ratio, and job safety items, but their benefit packages are off the table. This will ultimately mean that they will have to pay some portion of their healthcare (insurance) costs, and will have to contribute to their pension fund. Overall the amount being asked is roughly half of what average private-sector workers pay. On top of that, it has been reported that average pay/benefit package of Milwaukee public school teachers is over $100,000. I'd think that for 9.5 months of work, that's a decent living.
You may hear the argument about public-sector vs. private-sector. The public sector is government jobs. The private-sector is private businesses, even if publicly traded on the stock market. Unions can get into any business if the workers vote for them. There is a large argument against the unionization of public workers for a few reasons. One is that all of their salaries and benefits are paid for with taxes. Essentially this is giving these employees the right to collectively bargain to increase benefits that raise everyone's taxes, and the rest don't have the right to collectively bargain against them. Two other issues when it comes to teachers are tenure and last-in, first-out policies. Tenure means that after a certain number of years, for example 3 years, a teacher cannot be fired without excessive proceedings, regardless of most causes. Last-in, first out says that a school district MUST reduce employee levels based on seniority. So, for example, in Wisconsin this year, the teacher who won an award as "Outstanding first year teacher" was laid off a week later due to union requirements.
The overall union issue is another topic for another day. Some of the union arguments, both for and against, play into the situation in WI and developing in several other states. However, for today, I wanted to present a clear idea of what went on. Please let me know if I've left you with questions.
References:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6267543-wisconsin-law-curbs-union-dues-certification
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Federal Debt? Deficit? Who cares?
President Obama said American families need to live within their means, then his annual budget proposal added 1.3 trillion dollars to the deficit. That's adding 41,600 YEARS!
A 20 year old family member said to me "Who cares about the debt? It doesn't affect me. We'll never have to pay it back". Do you feel this way? Do you believe that the deficit and the debt do not affect you?
Republicans in Congress proposed a federal budget cutting $61 Billion from the federal spending this year. Democrats countered with $6 Billion in cuts. Neither side agreed. Democrats suggested meeting in the middle and came back with $10 Billion in cuts. What do you want your government to do?
What does it all mean?
Hello world,
Welcome to my first blog post. I firmly believe that most people pay very little attention to politics. And I firmly believe that most people don't understand some of the basic premises behind the parties and what they stand for. This is my attempt make some sense of it all.
Before I met my husband, I considered myself to be a liberal: My definition "For freedom". Therefore I voted Democrat, without a clue. When I met Sean, he explained that the words liberal and conservative refer to SIZE and SCOPE of government. As we discussed issues, I discovered that I'm as fiscally (money) conservative as they come!
So here's the first lesson:
The GOP = Grand Ole Party - The Republican Party, conservative re: conservatively sized government (supports smaller government, less government programs, less spending, more personal responsibility). In school we are taught they are kind to BIG BUSINESS. In truth, they tend to be kind to all business, because businesses generate jobs, which generate more people collecting wages. With so many working, income tax rates can be lower because more people are paying them, sales taxes can be lower, because more people can afford to buy things. More people buying means greater need for goods and services, and more jobs. A cycle. Therefore, in general - Republicans lower taxes. On the social side, I don't agree as vehemently. The GOP is against gay marriage and pro-life. Pro-2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms), pro-constitution in general.
Democrats - liberal re: liberally sized government (support larger government, more government programs, higher spending, less personal responsibility). In school we are taught they are kind to the poor. In a way, they are. They support more programs like welfare. They typically raise taxes to pay for government spending on these programs. They believe taxing businesses and the rich is good policy. In general, Democrats raise taxes. On the social side, Democrats are pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, and anti-2nd Amendment rights.
Welcome to my first blog post. I firmly believe that most people pay very little attention to politics. And I firmly believe that most people don't understand some of the basic premises behind the parties and what they stand for. This is my attempt make some sense of it all.
Before I met my husband, I considered myself to be a liberal: My definition "For freedom". Therefore I voted Democrat, without a clue. When I met Sean, he explained that the words liberal and conservative refer to SIZE and SCOPE of government. As we discussed issues, I discovered that I'm as fiscally (money) conservative as they come!
So here's the first lesson:
The GOP = Grand Ole Party - The Republican Party, conservative re: conservatively sized government (supports smaller government, less government programs, less spending, more personal responsibility). In school we are taught they are kind to BIG BUSINESS. In truth, they tend to be kind to all business, because businesses generate jobs, which generate more people collecting wages. With so many working, income tax rates can be lower because more people are paying them, sales taxes can be lower, because more people can afford to buy things. More people buying means greater need for goods and services, and more jobs. A cycle. Therefore, in general - Republicans lower taxes. On the social side, I don't agree as vehemently. The GOP is against gay marriage and pro-life. Pro-2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms), pro-constitution in general.
Democrats - liberal re: liberally sized government (support larger government, more government programs, higher spending, less personal responsibility). In school we are taught they are kind to the poor. In a way, they are. They support more programs like welfare. They typically raise taxes to pay for government spending on these programs. They believe taxing businesses and the rich is good policy. In general, Democrats raise taxes. On the social side, Democrats are pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, and anti-2nd Amendment rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)