Conversations in the Coffee Party are often complicated by the need to address short-term issues and long-term systemic reforms. Today on LUNCH WITH LOUDEN, Jeanene and Debilyn are tackling this head-on, as it relates to our freedom.
Why does anyone think that the trendy movement to attack women’s freedoms might not be a Coffee Party concern?
The systematically executed strategy to use women’s issues as symbols for everything wrong with America is one borne of the vilification of “social justice”, and ridiculous amounts of cash that buy, in turn, the gratitude and loyalty of those that believe that freedom is for the “righteous” and the rest of us must be controlled.
We must rebrand any challenge to liberty, whether access to medical science or the right to work for a living wage, as not pro-anything, but rather as anti-American. We must fight the short term fights in the state legislatures and halls of Congress; and we must fight the bigger fight to end the domination of our political process by those who can buy the game.
It’s about power. Collateral damage is acceptable. As we wade farther into the sequester and compromises are made, what will the collateral damage be?
Our own fears and insecurities about the economy and individual futures are incited by our leaders and media as they are more than happy to assign blame to the usual suspects; immigrants, minorities and women.
It seems trendy at the moment to declare ANY spending for individuals in need a “wasted dollar” even when that dollar may yield savings far into the future. Investing now for family planning, education and immigration reform could save billions for future generations.
Today, these issues are used as CASH COWS for special interest groups of all stripes. As each issue is being attacked and defended, we the people are expected to take sides and fight.
This is the bigger game. How do we change the game so we don’t have to fight the same fight, over and over again?
Join the conversation today on LUNCH WITH LOUDEN or listen later.
LUNCH WITH LOUDEN
Every Thursday at
noon Pacific (3 pm ET)
Coffee Party ON!
Jeanene & Debilyn
As far as abortion, I would rather government stay out of it all together. No funding, no for or against restrictions. Is that something we can agree on? Doesn’t that simplify things on the issue?
As far as this “standard of sovereignty”. Each person is sovereign in their own rights, but still those rights do not extend to demanding someone else’s labor or money without first establishing a free trade between them. Why does there have to be a different standard? Isn’t there supposed to be equal protection under the law? Equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcome.
As far as taxes, the burden has actually shifted towards the rich much more than it used to be. Up until the 90’s, lower income percentiles have paid more of a percentage of total revenues to the federal government than they do now. Once EIC and other tax credits were introduced, from the late 90’s to the GWB years, the bottom 50% of those making any income dropped off of paying any tax, including payroll. The top 25% is now basically supporting the rest.
Back when tax rates were up around the 90% rate, extremely few paid even close to that if at all. They didn’t reinvest that money back into business, they just had the company convert their personal income into stocks and bonds before they got paid. The only thing those high tax rates did was to distort what people did to get paid and what they went into.
Just ask yourself, would you be willing to pay yourself earned income from a wealthy business you owned if the tax rate was 25%? What about 90%? Why would the answer be different between the two if 90% is “just”? Why is it different when it’s your own hard earned money, compared to someone else you don’t know? That is where I see the greed and envy come in.
You are right to be concerned about how much tax you pay: the burden has been shifting from successful individuals and businesses to people like you and me for most of this grandmother’s life. I count myself among those who resent the notion that only little people pay taxes, and that the amount of money paid by any given entity is the issue.
“Fair share” is an easily debated theory, but the reality is that those at the far right end of the financial bell curve are not threatened in lifestyle or enterprise if we were to return to a time when they paid a greater tax rate. This is not envy, this is skin in the game. Who benefits most from a stable and just society? I assert the wealthiest among us ultimately has the most to loose in an unstable and unjust America.
Thanks so much for your comment,
Jeanene from LUNCH WITH LOUDEN
Theft, whether it’s directly stealing from someone, or voting to have someone else do it for you, is still theft. I get that we must all pay taxes for the services that our elected government provides, but the part that is just transfer payments from one group to another is the part I’m talking about. If you want to be charitable to those who have fallen on hard times, do it with your own money and time, rather than stealing it from someone else claiming it’s for the greater good.
I recommend that every time you claim a right, that you examine what it is that you are claiming. Are you claiming something that someone else made, earned, or would provide? If so, then that isn’t a right. Rather it’s envy and greed of others who have legally and rightfully earned what they have.