Okay...excuse my language...but what the fuck is going on in this country? I cannot even wrap my head what has gone on in the past 6 months. I think about it a lot and it's scary. I hate to pull a Carl Paladino here, but I'm mad. I'm really mad and I have some questions for the republicans.
You say you want to save money. You say you want us to live within our means. If that is the case, then can you please explain to me how a person is supposed to live within their means when you keep asking them to pay out of pocket for things you get for free? Can you please explain to me how cutting health care to women's clinics is not an attack on women and the poor in general? Can you please explain to me how controlling my health care choices fits into your 'small government' argument? Can you please explain to me how causing more unintended pregnancies, which a good percentage will eventually be put on welfare/medicaid, will save you money? Can you please explain to me how much further you will be going and what is your endgame?
I might be able to form more rational thoughts within the next 24 hours and make a nice progressive argument against this bullshit, but right now I'm just a little mentally worn out. Rank hypocrisy will do that to you.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Santorum...There's a Reason This Guy's Name Means What it Does
I tuned in to Meet The Press today, as I do every Sunday because I'm a huge nerd. But this week was especially exciting because I wanted to see Rick Santorum crash and burn. He didn't disappoint.
There was so much wrong with the interview today but my main takeaways were:
1. Deficits matter now, but not in 2002 when they were trying to start the Iraq war.
2. No abortion even in cases of rape and incest and doctors should be criminally charged.
3. He'd get rid of the Affordable Care Act including the 'pre existing condition' protection.
4. He prefers home schooling over public schools because of 'weird socialization' public schools create, and he wants to overhaul public schools and make them more like a "one room school house experience".
Not kidding, my jaw was on the floor through most of the interview. Good thing no one takes this asshole seriously. And if you haven't Googled his last name yet, please do it, it's hilarious.
There was so much wrong with the interview today but my main takeaways were:
1. Deficits matter now, but not in 2002 when they were trying to start the Iraq war.
2. No abortion even in cases of rape and incest and doctors should be criminally charged.
3. He'd get rid of the Affordable Care Act including the 'pre existing condition' protection.
4. He prefers home schooling over public schools because of 'weird socialization' public schools create, and he wants to overhaul public schools and make them more like a "one room school house experience".
Not kidding, my jaw was on the floor through most of the interview. Good thing no one takes this asshole seriously. And if you haven't Googled his last name yet, please do it, it's hilarious.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
It's NOT okay
Here's a comment that is currently making the rounds on Facebook:
Sure, this SEEMS like a good idea. Like Rick Scott says, we don't want people getting assistance and then laying around all day watching TV. But not everyone working has to pass a drug test, trust me on that one. The government obtaining your bodily fluids and violating your privacy without probable cause is against the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment. It's also been reported that Rick Scott, governor of Florida has ties to a company that makes profits off of drug testing materials.
Here's another concern, and this is just me stretching my own logic, but it makes sense to me. If you take a drug test, it's possible that the government COULD extract your DNA. I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory on the Glenn Beck level, but state governments have said before that they wanted to create a DNA database to assist the police in catching criminals. With all that the new republican governors have done already this year, is the really such a stretch? While I'm all for catching criminals in crimes where DNA could be a factor (murder, rape, etc.) obtaining a match with DNA provided during a welfare screening (or any other prerequisite test) could be thrown out due to its constitutionality (see previous sited amendments). Then that person would most likely get off.
Back to the issue at hand. The whole reason Rick Scott wants to do this is because of the Florida budget. This is the same argument that I made in Wisconsin but I'm going to say it again, this is not about the budget. If it was, the governor would not be suggesting that they pay all of this money to test the people who are asking for assistance. I'm all for means testing, but all us progressives are saying is do it in a logical way that won't cost the state even MORE money (by paying for the testing).
This is just another 'big government' solution brought forth by people who ran on 'little government' issues. Just because hypocrisy coming from the right is constant, doesn't mean we should get used to it.
Since a lot of my friends are re posting this 'I'm okay with drug testing for welfare' thing, here's my blanket comment to you:
Sure, this SEEMS like a good idea. Like Rick Scott says, we don't want people getting assistance and then laying around all day watching TV. But not everyone working has to pass a drug test, trust me on that one. The government obtaining your bodily fluids and violating your privacy without probable cause is against the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment. It's also been reported that Rick Scott, governor of Florida has ties to a company that makes profits off of drug testing materials.
Here's another concern, and this is just me stretching my own logic, but it makes sense to me. If you take a drug test, it's possible that the government COULD extract your DNA. I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory on the Glenn Beck level, but state governments have said before that they wanted to create a DNA database to assist the police in catching criminals. With all that the new republican governors have done already this year, is the really such a stretch? While I'm all for catching criminals in crimes where DNA could be a factor (murder, rape, etc.) obtaining a match with DNA provided during a welfare screening (or any other prerequisite test) could be thrown out due to its constitutionality (see previous sited amendments). Then that person would most likely get off.
Back to the issue at hand. The whole reason Rick Scott wants to do this is because of the Florida budget. This is the same argument that I made in Wisconsin but I'm going to say it again, this is not about the budget. If it was, the governor would not be suggesting that they pay all of this money to test the people who are asking for assistance. I'm all for means testing, but all us progressives are saying is do it in a logical way that won't cost the state even MORE money (by paying for the testing).
This is just another 'big government' solution brought forth by people who ran on 'little government' issues. Just because hypocrisy coming from the right is constant, doesn't mean we should get used to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)