Never got a chance to talk with you about the topics brought up in class today, so I figured I might as well send an email. I don't know if this email even works, as the staff directory certainly doesn't any more, but it's not hard to put the first letter of your first name and your last name together.
If we approach this problem from a different angle, it's easy to see the answers to a lot of your questions. I'm also disagree with some church's method of collecting new churchgoers, but religion as a whole is relatively sound. No person is ever religious or non religious. Technically, we are all agnostic. Who can prove the existence of God? Not you, and most definitely not me. But our beliefs differ because of what we think are the PROBABILITIES of God existing. True agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing are 50/50. Maybe it's this, maybe it's that. And no one can argue with agnosticism. But it's only gained mainstream acceptance because of the liberalization of society. As our country continues to become more educated, and as more and more of our people feel like they are being trampled by the middle class, our society has begun to lean to the left. Acceptance for gay marriage and abortion has now become the majority instead of the minority. There are posters on our school doors that say "This is a safe and secure environment for all LGBT peoples." Strikes are featured prominently in our media, and it's generally portrayed as a big corporation stomping on the little guy. We're all leaning left. and it's not a bad thing. Times change. Opinions change. Right now, religion may seem like a big joke. But as we become more disgruntled with the Democratic leadership we have now, people may just start to lean right. This is because voters care more about fiscal and economical issues than they do about social issues. The number one question posed to presidential candidates is "How are you going to fix the economy?" While abortion, gun rights, same sex marriage, and immigration reform are still as polarizing as they were four years ago, our priorities have since changed. As we begin to lean left on fiscal issues, we also find ourselves leaning left on social issues. This is because voters generally go down their list of importance when looking at potential candidates. Because Bush tanked our economy so royally with his tax cuts and wars, most people turned to the opposite party to govern differently. This meant that voters went down their list, looked down at #1, saw, "Fix the economy," looked up, saw a Democrat, and said, "Yeah, let's vote for him." Voting for a democrat for fiscal issues means also having to adopt his stance on social issues. What this long and verbose aside was meant to say was that the ideas presented today seem so rational because they line up so well with our society's beliefs. Frankly, one of the results of having an unpopular Republican president is that the Republican Party gets a bad rep. And as Republican denials of perfectly logical plans increase in number, so does their unpopularity. Your commentary sums up the frustration with the "No" party quite well. Religious fanatics? Check. Stupid and illogical? Check. Bailing out Wall Street and taxing Main Street? Check.
I feel, however, that the Republican's fiscal policy is sound. The ideology behind their ideas were the basis of today's America. Our country was founded on the foundations of equality and opportunity. Equality meant that everybody was taxed and represented equally. Opportunity meant that every man had the chance to go out, win it big, and keep what he earned. The Golden Age of American industrialism continued on the backs of the rich. Rockefeller, Carnegie were rich, and rightfully so. They had WORKED for their money. But our tax policy today - the belief that we should tax the rich and feed the poor, is exactly what keeps us from having sustainable growth. Growth always comes from the pockets of the rich. Taxes always come from the pockets of the rich. But now, an ever increasing amount of money is flowing from the upper middle class and true upper class into the bottomless pit that is the poor. Social Darwinism stated that it was not possible for everybody to be rich. You always have to make your money from somebody else. However, our current tax policy is highly detrimental to growth because it taxes growth so heavily. Why invest a million dollars into a company and hope to get three million out of it when you know that the government is going to take half of it? We're feeding a vicious cycle. The rich earn money from the poor - big corporations earn money from selling consumer products. The profit earned from this, rather than being invest and recycled into more R&D or more advanced technologies, is being taken back by the government. And what for? To pay out the welfare checks for the poor, who go out there and help corporations make more money from their purchasing of consumer goods. Generally, the cycle rotates upwards. As R&D develops new technologies, companies can earn more money, consumers have to pay less, and we are all better for it. But instead of this winning formula, our current leadership chooses to instead fuel this vicious cycle of stagnancy, where they take money away from the people who can do the most with it and put it in the hands of the people who can do the least with it. When you earn 25K, what are the chances that you're going to be the guy to come up with penicillin? But when you leave that money with the corporations, they can take millions, if not billions of dollars to fund new projects. But no. They take money away from the companies that will make something NEW, and give it to people who can only purchase something OLD. And in the midst of this, graft, corruption and inefficiency mean that it's a cycle that will only continue to become more vicious. As the government runs out of money to give out, they choose to take even more away from the corporations. And guess what? Corporations choose not to fund new projects, not to create new consumer goods because they know any profits they do make will be stolen to put a band-aid over a gaping fiscal deficit. So much for better leadership. The Republican ideology, therefore, offers a pleasant alternative. Tax cuts are meant to stimulate growth. Growth means increase in tax revenues, which offset the lower percentage of taxes. Growth means more employment, which means more tax revenue. Growth means less spending of stimulus that doesn't work, and more money spent to take care of the red ink on the bottom of our budget where it says projected results. Are tax cuts the only way to do this? No. But it has become quite obvious that the Democrat's choice for increased spending and increased stimulus isn't working.
The remarks of right-wing commentators and candidates for political office - Their remarks are meant to do one thing: inspire the demographic that the Republicans target. Republicans do not target young, Latino, non-religious voters. They target the old white man, as you would probably put it. The demographic that these candidates are aiming for in the primary are a highly religious, fiscally and socially conservative group. These candidates know they cannot hope to win the primary offering up moderate views on hot-button topics. The Republican party wants a Republican candidate, not a middle of the road candidate. The Republican voters care little about the chances of a potential GOP candidate. They care about how he represents their views and their ideas. A far right-winger like Perry or Bachmann is much more endearing to the American Republicans because he offers everything that the demographic wants, and more. Candidates like Huntsman and Romney, on the other hand, are far less likely to commit to radical stances on hot-button issues. Romney's refusal to sign the abortion pledge is an easy example to remember. Everything that these candidates or commentators say is meant to do something for their position in the Republican party. It's like going to a plastic surgery conference and talking about the best way to perform plastic surgery on the world. While the idea that you can change your physical appearance is very appealing to these surgeons, the society as a whole does not really accept it as "mainstream." Celebrities are roundly criticized for their eagerness to undergo these operations, and plastic surgeons are also under the gun for offering them. In the end, the proclamations of Republican candidates is only outrageous to you because they weren't designed to target you. They were designed to inspire the average, religious Republican. From our perspective, it seems to be nothing but religious BS. But from their perspective, it's a legitimate statement that can fire the hearts of millions of potential voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment