Kurt Evans plans to run for U.S. Senate in 2016. Evans will seek office as an Independent. He is the first candidate to declare for any of South Dakota's three statewide offices in 2016 (U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and Chris Nelson's seat on the Public Utilities Commission). Evans will run for the seat currently occupied by Senator John Thune, the GOP's number-three man in the upper chamber.
Evans is running because of his concerns about privacy and civil liberties. Evans says the intelligence community has been unconstitutionally seizing our telephone and Internet data. Evans predicts he would be "less inclined than Senator Thune to accept the intelligence community's self-justifying propaganda at face value."
On the economy, Evans is less worried about fiscal policy and more worried about monetary policy and the dastardly Fed: according to Evans, the Federal Reserve is inflating the money supply, which will lead to hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar... unless Senator Evans can stop them.
On foreign policy, Evans opposes "meddling in the affairs of other nations, especially in the Middle East."
These positions support Evans's self-description as a "reasonably consistent pro-life libertarian," but notice he's not capitalizing that l. Evans says he will run as an Independent. He ran unsuccessfully for state auditor under the Liberatarian banner this year ("unsuccessful Libertarian"—that's redundant, right?). South Dakota Libertarians lost their official party status this year after failing to field a gubernatorial candidate. Evans is hanging onto his libertarian philosophy, but he says he has left the Libertarian organization "mainly due to a lack of honest communication by the members of the state party's executive committee." (Communication may be complicated by the fact that, prior to the November election, one of the five SDLP board members appears to have returned to his permanent home in Texas. Following the election, the party chair also left the state, for Colorado.)
Evans ran for Senate as a Libertarian in 2002 against Thune and incumbent Tim Johnson. He ended his campaign in late October, but his name remained on the ballot, and he drew 3,070 votes, six times the slim 532-vote margin of victory by which Thune failed to beat Johnson.
Evans thinks he can poll much better in 2016, based on the lessons of the 2014 Senate race. By Evans's read, this year's run by Larry Pressler showed that Independent candidates can at least poll in the double digits (Pressler broke 17%, far from a win, but better than any recent non-major-party Senate candidate in South Dakota). Evans reads a different lesson in the more typically low-polling (3%) Independent bid by Gordon Howie: "announcing after another non-major-party candidate has already entered the race creates a significant disadvantage."
Like Pressler, Evans will need to craft pitches that will appeal across party lines. Evans says he can win Republican votes with most of his domestic policy. He will pitch his foreign policy and positions on civil liberties to Democrats. He hopes his overall approach to politics will appeal to Independents. "Under most circumstances, though," says Evans, "I try to avoid thinking of people in groups."
Evans sees ill in grouping and labeling people. But even he can slip. As he gets ready to run, Evans acknowledges his own fallibility and asks our forgiveness:
I believe it's wrong to use pejorative labels that devalue and dehumanize other people, but last month I referred to Pat Powers as a 'Mary-worshipping douchebag' in an anonymous comment at South Dakota War College. I apologize to my fellow participants in South Dakota's political blogosphere for that very bad decision [Kurt Evans, e-mail to Madville Times, 2014.12.17].
Evans recognizes the value of respectful, intelligent, issue-oriented conversation, and he's willing to apologize when he slips from that standard. Let's hope he holds to that standard as he works to build a Senate campaign that he can sustain through November 8, 2016.
Anti-Catholicism is epidemic in this country.
Powers is a douche bag who dreams about virgins: but he worships the greenback and nothing else. Evans is merely delusional.
Yep, Kurt Evans was the spoiler for John Thune in the race in 2012, or maybe not. I wish him well in this race and hope that he siphons off some votes that would go to stretch. I hope Weiland or Herseth Sandlin will decide who runs against Thune so we can get this parade down main street.
I to am concerned about the overreach of the intelligence community and meddling in other country's affairs. But the constant drum beat against the Fed and current monetary policy is naive and reckless. A hard money anti-inflationary policy implemented now would throw the economy back into recession.
So Larry how do you know what PP dreams of?
What part of Holy Roman Kiddie Diddlers escapes you, pseudonym?
Larry, how long is that going to continue to be a thing for you? Do you really want to overgeneralize and stereotype that way? There are lots and lots and lots of Catholics who are just as repulsed by pedophilia as you are. And the behavior is by no means indicative of, nor exclusive to, members of any one particular faith. You know that, of course. So, WTF?
My dear Mr. Fleming: which part of being denied a permit to demonstrate police brutality driven by Rapid City's catholics for coverups of clergy crimes for a century and a half escapes you?
Now that Kurtz has blown hard on the dog-whistle, that must mean it's time to get out those dusty old Klan costumes in time for Christmas.
not calling the catholics and the republicans out for epic fails seems to be, enabling. if you are gonna call yourself either, you should defend your administration or change it.
The Catholic Church with all it's issues throughout history including what happened with pedophilia is still and will probably always be my home. Don't you think as long as flawed human beings are involved in Religion here on Earth there is always the chance of abuse, manipulation and crimes committed in the name of God?
I have been very fortunate to have been educated by and known numerous nuns and priests who sacrificed to do some incredible things. They have been my heroes and I'm sure it is very hurtful to see their lifetime of good work be tarnished by pedophiles and those that covered for them. I'm also inspired by what Pope Francis has done so far.
Kurt I'd like to offer a sincere congratulations and good luck in your campaign! I hope you are able to help bring up issues and really challenge John Thune!
Speaking of Catholics, did you hear about what Pope Francis up and did? Yup, he poked a big ole stick in the eye of every goofy republican in the country that hates Cuba. Damn, that boy had a big ole stick too. Normalize relations with Cuba is about time. We should be able to make some serious cash here with exports so our ag folks will be wearing a grin. The news they received not so long ago was kind of in the crapper, so this will bring some needed revenue in. Uh, also, the President had a lot to do with this as well. Cool stuff. Maybe we can all get a chance to use Fidel Castro's bass fishing hole.
During his campaign John Thune said he would limit himself to three terms. Will he live up to that.
Larry with 20% of the population having disabilities, and that percentage increasing as people age, I am curious about your stance regarding issues related to individuals with disabilities, which include education, employment, transportation, healthcare, and housing.
John Thune has been against other places in the world becoming accessible to individuals in those countries, and U.S. citizens with disabilities, including veterans with disabilities, what is your opinion about that?
Leslie, I am a Catholic, and my religion needs no defense from one like me, but your remark seems quick and cruel.
Whether you attended an all-boys school on the East coast or matriculated at Oxford, you will have seen a greater percentage incidence of sexual crimes committed against students in those institutions than you will see within the Catholic Church. All religious denominations fight this same scourge and the Catholic Church does better, not worse, than most. It's incidence of child-sex crimes ranks it neither the worst, nor the best, of the bunch.
That's no justification, but does show the disproportionate response people bring to this issue when the Catholic Church gets thrown into the mix.
The Catholic Church deserves better, even from those who hate her.
Crimes against indigenous are so widespread the news evens escapes suppression sometimes.
http://krqe.com/2014/12/16/gallup-diocese-gives-credibly-accused-clergy-list/
None of this belies the fact that Kurt Evans is a serial quitter.
My apologies everyone, I got Kurt mixed up with Larry Kurtz.
I am sorry Larry.
Evans' worst is over at Dakota War College.
There was a time when remarks so ugly and shameful ended one's public career. You'dhave to be nuts, or Kurtz, to vote for him.
For the record, Blase Cupich is okay with me but Paul Swain and Chuck Chaput can burn in Zell.
Hey Kurt Evans, over here. Here is how you differentiate yourself from your opponent, in this case, John Thune. You put him in the corner with a question like "What do you think about this Cuba deal? Thune will bust a gut saying how evil it is is and then you go for the jugular and say, Rand Paul supports it. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_PAUL_CUBA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Zing, you get the farmer vote. They tell me that is quite a big deal here in the Sunshine State.
patrick-i grew up here, remember clearly JFK's election, national elation and horrific death, was educated in western state universities, and am not part of cruelty or catholic hate.
perhaps you did not mean "dog whistle" as Moyers programs depict. there is no reason to characterize Kurtz' comments as such. there is no pretense in his assertions.
I am generally somewhat aware of SD and national/global lawyering/legislation evading and preventing catholic child abuse prosecution, effecting boarding school victims. If i were a catholic i would do everything i could to influence leaders to accept responsibility for that, especially in such an Indian Nations/State as South Dakota, as either a resident catholic or a republican, as applicable.
More personally, i am sorry to have offended you. I do like your Pope.
I would not say the Roman Catholic Church is better than other denominations or religions at responding to clergy-perpetrated child abuse. The large and unwieldy hierarchy, plus immense material possessions, raise the stakes for obfuscation a great deal.
In my experience as a clergy woman, the very large majority of RCC clergy are good and decent people who are appalled at the way these abuse instances have been hushed in the past. It's very difficult for them, as blanket condemnation is for any group, whether it's by race, association, poverty status, or anything else.
The St. Paul archdiocese in MN is a textbook example of very poor handling of clergy abuse suits. The archbishop delayed, denied, hid evidence, had so many convenient memory lapses, etc., that his reputation, and therefore the church's itself, was severely tarnished. He was denounced by lay people, RCC religious (meaning nuns, monks, etc) and a couple of brave priests.
Good luck with your campaign Mr. Evans.
Nick Nemec wrote:
>"A hard money anti-inflationary policy implemented now would throw the economy back into recession."
Temporarily, yes. I believe that's true.
Lynn wrote:
>"Kurt I'd like to offer a sincere congratulations and good luck in your campaign! I hope you are able to help bring up issues and really challenge John Thune!"
Thanks, Lynn.
"JeniW" wrote:
>"John Thune has been against other places in the world becoming accessible to individuals in those countries, and U.S. citizens with disabilities, including veterans with disabilities, what is your opinion about that?"
This is the first I've heard about it, but if there's anything online you'd like me to read, you're welcome to post a link.
Patrick Duffy wrote:
>"Evans' worst is over at Dakota War College. There was a time when remarks so ugly and shameful ended one's public career."
I'm not sure what remarks you mean, Pat, but I'm genuinely sorry you're offended.
Jerry wrote:
>"Here is how you differentiate yourself from your opponent, in this case, John Thune. You put him in the corner with a question like 'What do you think about this Cuba deal?' Thune will bust a gut saying how evil it is and then you go for the jugular and say, Rand Paul supports it."
I don't know whether John would give a direct answer, but thanks for the thought-provoking suggestion.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"Good luck with your campaign Mr. Evans."
Thanks, Deb.
Kurt, here is an example:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/218040-senate-gop-block-un-treaty-on-disability-rights
Pat Powers has no problem using humanism or atheism as a club with which to beat his political opponents. Recall is portrayal of Angelia's Schultz's worldview as a political liability this summer. He made no effort to stand up to the bigotry of voters who would exclude her from office for not practicing the faith of their choice: http://dakotawarcollege.com/state-sen-tim-begalka-brings-up-a-point-about-angelia-schultz-how-many-sd-candidates-self-identify-as-humanist-in-sd/
PP's problems are myriad: he deleted a comment that reminded his reader(s) that Brookings Utilities owns his electric service as he blasted EPA because he hates his life.
Kurt, I mean the remarks you made about Catholics and Mormons.
You should be ashamed of yourself for championing such egocentric bigotry.
Mr. Duffy, I'm curious about your "anti-catholicism is epidemic" comment. I haven't noticed evidence of that.
Aren't 4 or 5 of the nine SCOTUS seats filled by the RCC? Isn't the RCC leading the US in membership numbers? RCC anti-abortion and anti-birth control positions are dominant. Pope Francis is enormously popular. I don't see an anti-catholic bias there.
I do see very strong opposition, even outrage around the child abuse issue. To me that's entirely reasonable. Of course people are outraged. How could they not be? Yes, some of that outrage has spread to encompass the larger Roman Catholic Church. A share of that has been earned by bishops and archbishops showing much more concern for protecting the church's material assets than for the victims of these horrible crimes.
BTW, I am in agreement that every church has had officials who committed criminal acts of all kinds. But I'm sure you are aware that the RCC gets the majority of attention, including positive press too.
Considering the RCC's position of power and influence worldwide, I find it hard to gin up much sympathy for those in the hierarchical levels above parish priest. I also recognize that there are bishops and archbishops who are trying to do the right thing.
i think he meant "endemic" :)
"JeniW" posted:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/218040-senate-gop-block-un-treaty-on-disability-rights
Thanks for the link. My view is that those of us who want to give our time or money to help individuals with disabilities ought to be free to do that, but we generally shouldn't use government to take other people's time or money for our causes, even when those causes are noble.
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"Pat Powers has no problem using humanism or atheism as a club with which to beat his political opponents."
I'm not sure I can comment on that point right now without undermining my apology.
Patrick Duffy wrote:
>"Kurt, I mean the remarks you made about Catholics and Mormons. You should be ashamed of yourself for championing such egocentric bigotry."
I'm still not sure which remarks you mean, Pat, but I'd like to say for the record that I believe egocentric bigotry is wrong.
Kurt, my link has nothing to do with money. It is about creating a standard to make things better for everyone with disabilities.
If you object to that, that is your right, but most certainly I would not vote for you.
Mr. Evans, while I realize you were using Mr. Duffy's qualifier in referencing 'egocentric bigotry,' I have to ask, is there any type of bigotry you DO condone? I would hope you would want to 'go on record' condemning bigotry in any psychological, philosophical, theological, anthropological, political, or social form, no?
Kurt, when you argue "My view is that those of us who want to give our time or money to help individuals with disabilities ought to be free to do that, but we generally shouldn't use government to take other people's time or money for our causes, even when those causes are noble," how do you distinguish such "noble causes" as police protection, fire protection, military defense, public schools, and the like, or do you also believe it is wrong for the government to take other peoples' time and money to fund these "noble causes?"
If you support the taking of time and money for these "noble causes" then can you explain why they are better "noble causes" than helping the disabled?
BCB, could we pose the same questions to Senator Thune?
Here is the link to why John Thune voted against the U.N. Treaty.
He accepted the Home School lobbyist perspective of the Treaty.
I think the real reason why he and other Republicans voted against it is because Obama is in favor of it, and the Home School lobby group has a heap of money and power.
I submit this link, not because I agree with their stance, but to show why the objection by some.
http://www.hslda.org/landingpages/crpd/analysisandfaq.aspx
Because it seems like Kurt Evans seems to agree (but I do not know that for sure,) I cannot with clear conscience vote for him.
Here is a different perspective of the Treaty (which was actually a product of George Bush.)
http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/12/04/senate-rejects-treaty-protecting-persons-disabilities
If there is an epidemic of anti-Catholicism in the country as Patrick Duffy says, they only have themselves to blame. The millions of hate dollars the RCC spent in MN trying to establish an anti-gay law and then the biggest gay basher of them all, Archbishop Nienstedt being investigated for messing with an altar boy really just affirms that the Catholic Church is the poster child for immoral behavior and hypocrisy. They rank right up there with the Penn State sex abuse case, as they should be. So people like Duffy and Troy can whine all they want about how their church is so ridiculed, but they seem to forget the victims here. By the way, I have been ridiculed in my own family by turning against the Catholic Church, I've been to Catholic churches, I know all there is to know about that powerful church.
That last line meant to say, I went to a Catholic school. The bullying was horrible, no difference from a public school, except the holier than thou hypocrisy everyone seemed to have.
Jenny, don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Catholics whose lives are enriched by the Mass, the mysteries of the Rosary, the wonder of the Liturgy of the Hours, these Catholics are not the outliers. Those who commit evil are the outliers of my Church, literally and existentially, outliers to the perfection we are all preparing to celebrate in a few short days. Their imperfections are obvious.
Forgive my Church. Forgive all of us whose lives are an insufficient beacon of that the mystery that began with the ultimate act of humility, the birth in a manger that changed us all.
Forgive the bullies and whiners whose personal message seems empty when compared to your sense of perfect justice that probably inspires such condemnation.
I forgive Kurt Evans for his mendacious bigotry, but I believe his bigotry disqualifies him from holding public office. I believe that no rational person judges an entire group of folks like Mormons and Catholics like Kurt Evans does, and I know he does so because he knows his embittered message of hate and exclusion will be well-received by many in South Dakota.
Forgive me if my comments have dredged up your worst memories of the Catholic Church.
Merry Christmas to all.
Cory, I too would like to have Thune's viewpoint on the question I asked Kurt. From my perspective, however, it appears Kurt's views are based on an honest, if illogical, unfortunate and inconsistent, view of the world shared by libertarians.
Thune gives the appearance of being a somewhat dishonest opportunist who supports policies based on how they benefit him and him alone. I have not heard or read anything by Thune to suggest that he shares the libertarian world view that it is wrong to tax those who can well afford to pay taxes and use the proceeds to help fellow human beings in need. Instead, Thune's opposition to taxation is simply a means to advance his political career by pandering to the wealthier anti-tax folks who might support or donate to his political career path.
Mr Duffy, don't try to put 'perfect' into this. I'm a realist, I don't ask for perfection. I just know enough about Catholicism and its secrets that I want no part of it. I grew up in a big, chemically imbalanced nutty Catholic family that had no sense of decency in how to treat each other, with an physically and mentally abusive mother that treated her loving husband and children like crap most of the time, with brothers and sisters that have nothing to do with each other in their adult lives. But, we played the part of the loving Catholic family on Sunday mornings second row at Church, singing loudly and lovingly to our perfect loving lord jesus christ. Oh, you betcha I have nightmares from it, and dang it, I don't have no sense of perfect justice, so quit tellin' me otherwise Duffy.
It's hard to hold your pee in when chanting that long boring rosary.
Even an imperfect sense of justice ought to relent in the name of love.
Oh, I'm all for love, Duffy. Tell that to all the anti-gay Catholics in MN that spent millions of its dollars to try to get an anti-gay hate bill on the books.
'Bigotry' means intolerance. Paradoxically, we can't overcome it by being intolerant of it. Because in doing so, we become what we hate (bigots.) Per Duffy, as with a great many problems we all have with others, love may be the only answer. Always worth a thought. Peace brothers and sisters.
"JeniW" wrote:
>"Kurt, my link has nothing to do with money. It is about creating a standard to make things better for everyone with disabilities."
The article at your first link says the CRPD would require the rest of the world to meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That would cost unfathomable amounts of money.
Here's a link to a great story by Dan Simmons-Ritchie explaining why it would cost $38 million to make the civic center in Rapid City ADA compliant. The total is the equivalent of more than $500 for each of Rapid City's 70,000 men, women and children. And that's for the civic center alone:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_d76635f4-0774-5fe5-9e84-7c67562a10b0.html
Here's another link to a story explaining that it could cost U.S. employers between $2 billion and $4 billion to meet ADA standards for employees with "bashful bladder syndrome":
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/10/americans-with-disabilities-act-covers-bashful-bladder-syndrome-could-cost-employers-billions/
The CRPD would apply to many impoverished nations that would be driven to economic ruin by the compliance costs.
Bill Fleming wrote:
>"Mr. Evans, while I realize you were using Mr. Duffy's qualifier in referencing 'egocentric bigotry,' I have to ask, is there any type of bigotry you DO condone?"
No, there isn't.
Bill Fleming wrote:
>"I would hope you would want to 'go on record' condemning bigotry in any psychological, philosophical, theological, anthropological, political, or social form, no?"
Not really. I'd actually prefer to use the word as little as possible.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"... how do you distinguish such 'noble causes' as police protection, fire protection, military defense, public schools, and the like, or do you also believe it is wrong for the government to take other peoples' time and money to fund these 'noble causes?'"
I view police protection and military defense as unfortunate necessities rather than noble causes, and I believe education and fire protection can be provided more efficiently under voluntary contracts.
Patrick Duffy wrote:
>"I forgive Kurt Evans for his mendacious bigotry, but I believe his bigotry disqualifies him from holding public office. I believe that no rational person judges an entire group of folks like Mormons and Catholics like Kurt Evans does, and I know he does so because he knows his embittered message of hate and exclusion will be well-received by many in South Dakota."
Saying it over and over will probably make more people believe it, Pat, but it won't make it true.
I only remember making one remark (not "remarks") at SDWC that mentioned Mormons. It was this one from seven months ago: "I believe authoritarian Catholics and Mormons are generally more prone to cronyism than traditional libertarian Protestants."
Is that the remark you're using as the basis for your ongoing accusations of egocentric/mendacious bigotry and "judging an entire group of folks like Mormons and Catholics"? If so, I have some follow-up questions.
Suppose one of your fellow Catholics had made the following comment: "I believe atheistic Libertarians are generally more prone to drug abuse than traditional Catholic Democrats."
—Would you say the comment implies that every individual Democrat is a traditional Catholic Democrat?
—Would you say the comment implies that every individual Libertarian is an atheist?
—Would you say the comment implies that every individual Libertarian is prone to drug abuse?
—Even if you couldn't accept the truth of the comment, would you reflexively assert that the person who made it could only have been motivated by egocentrism, mendacity and bigotry?
—Because al-Qaeda opposes Libertarianism, would you feel justified in suggesting that the person who made the comment was an al-Qaeda member or sympathizer?
The point of the last question is that you, Pat Powers, Troy Jones and Lee Schoenbeck have each suggested that because the Ku Klux Klan opposes Catholicism, only a Ku Klux Klan member or sympathizer could have made my original comment.
If your answer to any of the above questions is no, then I'd like to hear your explanation for the double standard. Pat Powers told direct lies about this year's Libertarian candidates and blocked my comments when I tried—in a perfectly civil manner—to correct him, but when I made an honest statement about my own beliefs, he apparently felt compelled to defame me with false accusations of bigotry.
And I have to keep reminding myself that you, Pat Powers, Troy Jones and Lee Schoenbeck aren't indicative of Catholics in general. The vast majority of the Catholics who've read the accusations at SDWC may have believed them, but at least they didn't add to them.
I've publicly expressed my admiration for Catholic politicians who lean libertarian, especially Pat Buchanan, Dave Brat and John English, and I've privately expressed my admiration for libertarian-leaning Mormon Mike Lee, but those facts are beside the point.
The point is that I've never said all or even most Catholics and Mormons are prone to cronyism, but even if I had, that wouldn't have justified your false accusations about my motives for doing so.
Kurt, you've identified the quote which my comment addressed.
I think I need more information.
What was the purpose of your comment concerning what you perceived to be the general tendencies of Roman Catholics toward cronyism? It's undeniably ignorant, like saying all blacks just loves themselves some watermelon, or all Jews venerate the pursuit of money to the exclusion of all else, or that all Irish are vicious, melancholy drunks.
If you made this comment unprovoked, simply grabbing out of thin air a bigoted broadside against two entire religious groups, then I stand by my condemnation of your remarks.
If, on the other hand, context changes the way your remarks should be viewed, that there was some sort of provocation which drove you to such reckless, anti-intellectual and irreligious speech, then I agree that I need to hear that provocation and understand it before I can really understand what you said.
One does not have to be a Klansman to hate the Catholic Church. One could be a Nazi, or a member of the Aryan Nation, or a member of the now-defunct Politburo, or a creature like Dick Cheney and all might, and probably do, hate my Church.
You don't have to be any one or the other to get a corner on anti-Catholicism, and a Klansman's hate won't make him a member of the Politburo, but folks are known by the ideological company they keep.
Hang around Madville Times for just a little while and you'll see that a fairly significant number of posters here get so apoplectic about all matters touching upon the Catholic Church that you will find amicable company here on that topic. Such doesn't make you and them Klansmen, per se, but it does place you and the anti-Catholic company it appears you find sympathy with on par with one another when it comes to broad, biased, bigoted and stupid generalizations about the Catholic Church.
Dakota War College is little better in its posters' willingness to use general labels to express a bigoted worldview.
You started this and so the response, that you are known by the company you keep, is hardly unfair.
What the Hell are you thinking, anyway, when you lump over a billion people together to label and condemn them?
Surely you know better than this.
And what is a "Mary-worshipping douchebag," anyway? It's clearly perjorative, and intended as such. It's on its face breathtakingly ignorant. It was meant to express contempt. In more than a few places in America, those are fighting words. And you intend to hold public office.
And so you should publicly answer my question:
What is a "Mary-worshipping douchebag?"
Kurt, that argument about the cost of ADA was used loud and often by those opposed to the ADA being made law in the U.S.
What you, and others who had failed to mentioned, was the revenue generated by making buildings and employment more accessible.
It is like those who objected to increasing the minimum wage to $7.25. They argued that there would be loss of jobs, businesses would go out of business, and etc. Turns out that was not what happened.
There are businesses in Sioux Falls that are not physically accessible to me, and others who use wheelchairs, or other mobility devices so the owners of those businesses cannot gain a profit from me.
There is one business that is not accessible to me, but the owner is willing to meet me at a place that is accessible to me; that is an ADA standard that did not cost that business a penny.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot in good conscience vote for you as it seems to me that you are saying that people with disabilities are not "good enough."
Kurt, I really appreciate your willingness to respond to my questions! Thanks. Your response naturally generates the follow up inquiry: when you say "police protection and military defense" are "unfortunate necessities rather than noble causes," you seem to be favoring one group - those who think they need all of us to pay for their protection by the police and military - over other groups - such as disabled folks. What makes your preferred group better and more deserving of our tax dollars than the group of people with disabilities?
Pat, please note that Kurt publicly apologized for using the phrase "Mary worshipping douchebag." While I understand you taking offense at the use of the term, I don't understand your overlooking his apology.
As for the meaning of the phrase, it seems pretty obvious in all respects but "douchebag." The comment "Mary worshipping" seems directed at the evil aspect of catholicism that sees females as inferior beings who have no right to protect the integrity of their bodies - you know, the whole God raped Mary story. As for use of the word "douchebag," I fully agree with you that this makes absolutely no sense and and seems to be in itself misogynistic.
Kurt, here is a link to a different perspective of the arena in Rapid City, and provides more information/details than the link you provided.
http://sd-ccd.org/home/news/focusonabilitiesnewsletter.
As for your link about the "shy bladder," it opens up the topic by mentioning employers performing drug test of employees. There are ways of testing for drug use other than the "dirty UA" approach, but that aside:
"However, as noted above, an individual who is covered only under the “regarded as” definition of “disability” is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(e). Thus, someone who needs a reasonable accommodation for paruresis (e.g., to be permitted to take a hair, saliva, or patch test intended to detect the illegal use of drugs rather than a urine test) would need to demonstrate that his or her paruresis constitutes either an actual or record of disability. In addition, an employer determining if it must grant a request to take an alternative drug test will be able to consider whether such a test would cause an “undue hardship,” which may include whether an alternative test is an effective means of determining current illegal use of drugs." (source: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2011/ada_definition_disability.html)
I have sensory and physical disabilities. The only time I asked for an adjustment was a flashing signal to let me know that my phone is ringing because in an open area I could not tell if it was my phone that was ringing, or those of co-workers. All the other things I needed, I provided.
What we are talking about gets down to is the quality of life for individuals with, and without disabilities.
As I suspected, one may to consult the dictionary of street slang to discern the proper connotative meaning of the latter pejorative term.
Surprising to me, as far as insults go, the terms 'douche' and 'douchebag' appear not to be interchangeable, although I suppose it's possible for one to be considered both (or neither), depending on context, and the relative familiarity between the insulter, the insulted and the degree to which those witnessing the verbal exchange are familiar with the nuanced meaning of the two colloquialisms.
Not wishing to overgeneralize, I'll leave it to Mr. Evans to clarify what he meant, even as i acknowledge his wish to retract and erase the whole piece of business. As Mr. Duffy notes, it is unlikely he will be allowed to un-ring that bell, so he might just wish to clarify it.
I suspect he meant the term in the 'street' sense, and not the clinical one having to do with any type of hygiene.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchebag
Powers' being a Mary-worshipping douchebag is incontrovertible. Evans' being a serial quitter might not be.
Kurt Evans said: "And I have to keep reminding myself that you, Pat Powers, Troy Jones and Lee Schoenbeck aren't indicative of Catholics in general. "
Kurt, do you mean that Duffy, Powers, Schoenbeck and I are "indicative" of those "prone to crony Catholicism" and "Mary-worshipping" or is it "Catholics in general?"
Sidenote: Your apology reminds me of the guy who says "I'm sorry I offended you." There is nothing in your apology which says you don't believe Catholics are prone to cronyism or Mary worshipping. The former is bizarre and the latter is a lie. Like I said on the War College, I know thousands of Catholics and I've never met a single one who worships Mary. Not one. Ever.
P.S. Pat, Lee and I pretty much try to respond to anti-Catholic statements on the War College presuming first (unless the tone is too strident) the statement is based on misinformation until it becomes clear it is bigotry. Thanks for doing the same here.
Schoenbeck was bought off by his church long ago: Powers is merely a lying sack of spit.
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2013/04/blogger-powers-admits-task-too-much-to.html
Remember Bob Carlson?
http://www.southdakotamagazine.com/bishops-pheasant-hunt
https://madvilletimes.com/2014/06/sex-with-kids-illegal-archbishop-carlson-uncertain-under-oath/
Non Catholics claiming Catholics worship Mary display a fundamental misunderstanding, or willful ignorance, of Catholic theology. They know not what of they speak. Asking a saint, any saint, to intercede on our behalf is exactly that, asking for intercession. Only God, in the form of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is worshiped.
The distinction between 'adoration' and 'veneration' is not always readily apparent to non-Catholics. Nor, I might argue, is it always well understood among some Catholics (it's a really, really, really big church.) In my mind (and I believe most dictionaries), 'adoration' in the context of religion is reserved for deity, and 'veneration' not necessarily. I won't go into it deeper, because if i do, we will all most certainly get confused, and my intent here is to help clarify. ;-)
Bishop Carlson -ex-Sioux Falls diocese-did everything in his power to keep the pedophiliac priests a secret in MN, Kurtz. But yet, I'm just overgeneralizing it and a bigot, as Duffy says.
You guys know better than that. Of course their is cronyism when it come to Religion and politics. Read the Book of Guymon. lol
And then Bishop Paul Dudley, who is hailed as a saint in SD, was accused by two women of having abused them as little girsl in the 50s and 60s, but that good ol' statute of limitations had run its course. Interesting, I thought the Catholic male order all preferred little boys.
Jenny is right. There is to much cover-up when it comes to sex crimes. This happens beyond the Catholic Church, it is happening in our State Government, and all of our elected officials know.
Well, Jenny and Tara, you're not alone in your critique.
http://www.speroforum.com/a/JMAZDKRBCG55/75424-Pope-Francis-lambastes-his-closest-advisors#.VJmOw4EAY
Is it really necessary and appropriate that every mention of the Catholic Church has to revert/include a discussion of the sex abuse scandal?
This thread is about Evans' future US Senate candidacy and his statement about referring to a Catholic as a "Mary worshipping douchebag" and whether that reflects a deep-seated bigotry against Catholics. Anti-Catholic bigotry unifies Patrick Duffy, Nick Nemec, Bill Fleming, Lee Schoenbeck, Pat Powers & myself but I would think would engender opposition by more than just a few here who claim to oppose bigotry.
But forcing a woman to wait three days to exercise her right to a D & C is okay because religion.
Troy, where is the Bible do you find the "Queen of Heaven" mentioned and who does it refer to?
Nobody here has denied that Pat Powers is a Mary-worshipping douchebag.
Nick, would you consider Steve Hickey an intercessor?
You know darn well Evans does not stand a chance against Thune, Troy. By the way, that's just the attitude that the Catholic Hierarchy wants Catholics like you to say "let's not talk about the sex scandal". That old-fashioned vow of secrecy needs to stop.
Steve,
I'm reading the context of your question to refer the Caananite Queen which was condemned by the prophets. As we have discussed before, this is not a reference to Mary. Instead, the mother of David is the prophetic reference to Mary. While not willing to discuss this again, for those who didn't see it, I'll just make a few small points.
"Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:31-33)
And, there is Psalm 45 which not only speaks of the Kingdom of God but also its Queen.
Since Catholics consider the Kingdom of God to be together the Kingdom in Heaven and the Kingdom on Earth, we believe the Queen of His Kingdom is Mary, the Mother of the Lord God Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God.
I give the above explanation because it is this "accusation" which then is used to misrepresent the idea we worship Mary, which I say again Catholics do not do.
My very Catholic mother and grandmothers all worshipped Mary! How can you say that the women, especially older women, of the Catholic church do not honor and respect St Mary! They all had their Mary statues on their bedroom dressers. As an ex-Catholic I take a bit offense to not admitting that Mary has played an important part in the female lives of serious practicing Catholic women. Yes, if Evans said that statement it was in ill taste for someone that want to run for Senator.
Jenny,
I talk about it a lot and express how appalled and sad I am about what occurred. But, if every conversation about Catholicism becomes a conversation about the scandal, it implies that the scandal is the full sum and substance of the Church which is false.
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2014/12/if-mary-and-joseph-tried-reach-bethlehem-today-they-would-get-stuck-israeli
So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/see-the-virgin-mary-on-toast-no-youre-not-crazy/
Are we missing the point here? The main news is that Kurt Evans is running for Senate. I suppose, given Evans's past electoral performance, we may dismiss the import of that candidacy. If the secondary news of Evans's apology is to be our focus, then we may still be missing the point. Evans said we shouldn't be wallowing in such labeling and ad hominem attacks. Evans is saying we should not campaign or blog or otherwise publicly discourse (I really want to say discurse here, but the dictionary doesn't attest that form) with a focus on dismissing entire groups based on our prejudices about their religion. As BCB notes, Evans has apologized for an incendiary and bigoted comment. Shall we keep beating Evans up, or shall we wait to see if he proposes specific anti-Catholic policy on the campaign trail?
While I'm thinking of it, just what policy agenda do we advance by shouting that Catholics suck?
I find bigotry loathsome as well. I don't want my Senator to be a bigot. But how does the Senator Evans would replace feel about my religion (or lack thereof)?
More broadly (harkening to the question JeniW raises about policy on disabilities), Evans may be too libertarian on social assistance policy, but is Senator Thune any better? Would a Senator Evans promoting bad policy based on a bad yet consistent political philosophy be worse than a Senator Thune promulgating bad policy based on unprincipled political opportunism?
And Democrats, O South Dakota Democrats, will you provide us with a viable alternative this time?
Someone seeing Mary on toast has as much to do with indicting Catholicism as someone seeing ISIS agents on the Mexican border does with indicting Christianity. Can we stop going there?
rather than cover it up, troy, this thread is much broader than kurt v. pat.
"Philadelphia district attorney is making a bold statement: that the Catholic hierarchy's failure to protect children from sexual abuse isn't the fault of an inept medieval bureaucracy, but rather the deliberate and criminal work of a cold and calculating organization."
that strikes me of epic hypocrisy. merry xmas victims!
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-catholic-churchs-secret-sex-crime-files-20110906#ixzz3Mk9Ls5fw
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
I haven't studied the issue since then. forgive me.
attack me, rollingstone and my apology to pat if you like.
Troy, for us Biblical Christians, we have to follow God's Word. The Queen of Heaven is a pagan goddess.
So from a Biblical view, Mary deserves honor, but not to the level of a pagan goddess. And further, I don't think a pagan goddess is of any sort of a high level. Calling Mary the Queen of Heaven is a dishonor, Biblically speaking.
It is no wonder that the Catholic hierarchy consider the Bible in the hands of us so-called common folk, or plowman, a problem. Hey Nick, you are a plowman.
Kurt Evans is a serial loser: why he chooses ego over service is a symptom of being broke ala Bosworth/Haber and not a political solution.
If is wasn't for Kurt Evans, Tim Johnson would not have beaten John Thune. Thanks Kurt. And let it go, he apologized for the douchebag comment. Cory you've got to get a hold of the Book of Guymon. That explains everything. One thing about the Mormons, they are very open and proactive with issues concerning their big issues in their church, pornography. I just wish the Catholics would come out to the public and talk about it sex crimes. That should be a priority for the Pope. Rounds didn't help matters when he signed the bill hb 1108 to protect the Priests. Love Catholics, just don't like the cover-ups. Patrick, you're not be any chance Catholic are you?
Politics and religion. Best two dinner topics around. But let's return the focus to Cory's attempt to return the focus to who's going to be a top drawer candidate who can defeat John Thune. It won't be Kurt. He's no Larry Pressler, and Bill Fleming is right again, he will never un-ring the douchebag comment. Yes, it was aimed at one nefarious person, but there is no way all Catholics would not be offended no matter how many times and ways Kurt apologizes.
Do the Democrats have an A List candidate who has a shot at Thune? Will they crater the party as they did in 2010 by allowing Thune a free term without opposition? How will Democrats build up the farm team, which is nearly eliminated, if they won't win seats in Pierre and hand off a chunk of the Legislature as uncontested gifts to the SDGOP?
With a name like Patrick Duffy, how could I be anything other than an Irish-Catholic Democrat?
Patrick, didn't you read Ted Muenster's thesis in RCJ Sunday? He said Roe v. Wade made Catholic Democrats extinct... or at least rare! How'd you survive?
96, I find it deeply ironic that insulting Pat Powers would be a politician's undoing. It's like a teacher getting fired for getting tough with a bully... ;-)
I was just being cynical and giving you a bad time, Patrick, now go have a Jamison. It is quite obvious that you are Catholic. Remember 1982 NCAA tournament with 6 seconds left on the clock?
Pat Powers didn't like it when Lora Hubbel called him little pp. Don't feel bad Cory, I ran for school board to challenge the Fine Arts Center and now I know longer sub. Innovative, outside the box, open minded people have a hard time fitting in, in SD. I was more accepted living in Provo Utah.
Cory, I said the same thing here on Madville Times before Mr. Muenster opined that Roe v Wade destroyed the South Dakota Democratic Party and did so when the party was at its peak.
How did I survive?
Because I am a Democrat.
Because I am a prairie populist.
Because I believe there is more that binds us together than splits us apart.
Because Roe v Wade is no longer a political issue, it is a judicial one.
Because I love this State and the people who live here.
Because I believe in a fair shake for everybody.
Because I believe it is my faith that has given me the "political strength" I need when I am frightened by I believe I had to do about EB-5 in the last election, when I stood next to a man sentenced to death, when I represented a woman preyed upon by her boss, when I represented an investor cheated by his stockbroker, when I tried the longest criminal case in South Dakota history, tried and retried and tried again the biggest environmental case ever litigated in both South Dakota and US history, when I tried back-to-back the two longest Voting Rights cases ever tried in US history, when I spent over a decade doing Voting Rights work to protect the rights of Natives here in South Dakota, whenever I stand up and speak what I honestly believe is truth to power. I cannot imagine finding the staying power for what I do without my faith.
Because the strength of my faith informs my strength as a trial lawyer, a husband, a father, a grandfather, a son.
Because I believe in the bottom of my heart that it is my faith that has informed the essence of what it means to be a Democrat.
Because I believe that a Democratic Party without people of faith is no party at all, a shared alliance so small that you can fit it into a pup tent or onto the pages of Madville Times, and I believe that these tiny iterations of the Democratic Party are doomed.
Because I believe our day as Democrats is coming and when it comes it will strike with the kick of a mule and when that happens the "city on a hill" will be one where we Democrats look for reasons to join those who may not agree with the party on every single little detail of what constitutes modern, liberal thought, but instead join hands with Steve Hickey and his powerhouse congregation in a real, meaningful effort to make life better for our fellow South Dakotans.
Because elections are made to be won and cannot be won without Catholics like me whose faith lives inform them about the essential, political fairness absolutely owed to all, trumpeted by Pope Francis with every word he utters and every step he takes.
That's how I "survived."
I would prefer to say I've "thrived."
Is this the official announcement, Patrick? ;)
LOL. Me too Jenny!
Here's the bumper sticker:
Patrick Duffy, U.S. Senate
Kicks Ass. Takes Names.
Mr. Duffy, does Mr. Muenster overestimate the cleavage wrought by Roe v. Wade on the Democratic Party? To whatever extent Muenster's thesis holds water, what was a a greater factor in that cleavage: other Catholics losing site of all the profound reasons you give for remaining a Democrat, or Democrats being jerks and pushing Catholics away?
All of the above. Mr. Muenster does not overestimate the cleavage wrought, the Party abandoned American Catholics to Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party, and many American Catholics abandoned the Democratic Party once it became obvious that many Democrats had adopted a Know-Nothing Party approach to Catholic participation in party politics.
Put yourself in my shoes and look at the tiny little microcosm of the Democratic Party that manifests itself on the pages of Madville Times. Comments about my faith made here are wicked, mean and vile and would be socially impermissible if made about blacks, Jews, Natives, women, about nearly any other slice of the American demographic.
The tone of the times is that it is more than permissible to say such derogatory things, it is laudatory for self-professed liberals and, apparently, Libertarians, to rant about the Catholic Church in ways that are simply unacceptable.
I am hardly "welcome" here.
I just won't leave.
" But, if every conversation about Catholicism becomes a conversation about the scandal, it implies that the scandal is the full sum and substance of the Church which is false."
Thats because if your not a hardcore Catholic it stops being about religion and becomes a multi layered crime against both children, and when their grown everyone around them.
Those Bishops that turn their heads and look the other way, or worse yet move the offender somewhere else to repeat are even more guilty then the priest that molested.
Does the same thing happen in other churches? Damn right it does but the prevelence of confirmed cases against priests that were ignored or moved on suggest that the church either, 1. Just doesnt give a shit, or 2. are comfortable remaining complicit in the coverup of the crimes.
The new Pope has made great strides in trying to change the attitudes of the people in the church. If he really wanted change he would be telling his Bishops to stop the games or have their peepees wacked. I havent seen that happen yet.
Saying these things doesnt mean I think all catholics are bad, far from it. It does however mean that i dont trust the the church to deal fairly with its victims. Do we really need to go into how the statute of limitations got shortened in South Dakota just when trial dates were being talked about. Why the rush at that time, who were those legislators trying to protect? Well freaking "duh."
96tears, " So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Two, but only one if she's fat.
Evans has apologized for an incendiary and bigoted comment. Shall we keep beating Evans up, or shall we wait to see if he proposes specific anti-Catholic policy on the campaign trail?" It doesnt make any difference Cory, there is a huge canyon between intelligence and stupid. You can be blessed with both, but the only thing that will stick in someones mind is the last one. And as Ron White says, "You cant fix stupid." Kurt is unelectable not because he seems to know what a douchebagis, but doesnt have enough common sense to not say what hes thinking.
And this from Troy, "for us Biblical Christians, we have to follow God's Word." Thats bullshit!! There is no such thing as a biblical Christian. They are only pretenders living vicariously through the pretty stories they read. Yes they are only chinos, not biblical christains, scholars, or authorities, just chinos. And here's why.
According to not just any authority but "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/6
" Mathew 6 tells in detail how a Christian should conduct themselves both in prayer and in the way they live in their everyday lives. It dont look to good if your claiming to be a Christian but cant, or wont live by the rules that the man gave you.
Those of you that know me know that it doesnt matter what religion it is I'm going to be against the lies and hypocrisy that are used to control people. If thats your religion, and I'm sure it could be, then you are a chino, a jino, a mino, a Mormon, a Church of Scienctallogy, or a bum with really good speaking skills.
It isnt always the money you should follow when your talking about legislation, sometimes its the threat of eternal hell that makes otherwise good people introduce bills designed to impede justice at the expense of its,"the crimes" victims.
Patrick you say, " Put yourself in my shoes Comments about my faith made here are wicked, mean and vile and would be socially impermissible if made about blacks, Jews, Natives, women, about nearly any other slice of the American demographic."
Come on now. Your talking about apples and oranges here. Blacks, Jews, women, and natives have no choice in who they are. On the other hand, if you were born with the ability to reason, you also have the ability to quit, or change your religion if you feel youve been wronged. I bet that you have even had to argue that point in court.
Jim and Tammy didn't have a thing on the chinos in South Dakota, but at least they were entertaining. Nuff Said
The Blindman
"
How I love to hear these pious folk speaking in their tongues trying to outdo themselves on poor ole Kurt, Blindman. It makes me only that much more sure of the fact that it is all theater. If any of these actors were worth a damn, they would take a curtain bow and move on. Bill Shakespeare would be proud of the cast of misfits that try to out Jesus themselves. Kind of a Macbeth mini series with Sibson being cast as __________. Life is funny as hell man.
I don’t know of much polling data in South Dakota to support any conclusions. Ted Muenster once co-owned a firm that did polling and he may have some old data to base his assumptions. I think his premise is becoming more and more outdated.
Anecdotally, the abortion issue doesn’t have as much intensity with Democrats at the grassroots level as at the grasstops. And when I say grasstops, we’re talking about a small (and growing smaller) cadre of older Democrats who hold precinct, county and state party offices, people who go to county and state party meetings and those who go to state conventions. The pro-choice activists have been more inclined to rattle cages and thrust a pro-choice plank in the state party platforms, or to shoo away anti-choice activists who seek precinct and county party positions. The anti-choice activists are quieter and better organized to put their people into positions before their polar opposites realize what’s going on. Both sides are prone to cry out that they’re being discriminated over religious differences, but I’ve seen far fewer incidents of this as time moves along and older activists drop out.
These are broad generalizations, but I’ve seen only collegiality between pro-choice and pro-life legislators in the Democratic caucus for the last 10 years and longer. It doesn’t take a genius to roll a county party or challenge the state Dem convention over reproductive choice issues, and the payoff is small and usually backfires badly. For Democrats to squabble over such small potatoes is like watching a contest for the tallest midget.
As for Republicans, we’ve seen more intensive attempts to shrink wrap their party and ruin candidates and office holders who step out of line on core issues (God, gun, gays, etc.). I saw the absurd, vicious and personal attacks and lies against former representative and senator Joni Cutler over a simple judgeship. She was a firmly pro-choice legislator but the uber-right faction in Sioux Falls crowned their Marty Jackley-wannabe candidate and tore in Cutler as badly as I’ve ever witnessed. While state Republicans are famous for falling in line and voting straight party line, they have been on a path of making waves inside the party over emotionally-charged personal issues. Apparently, there aren’t enough Democrats to shoot at, so they’re turning the guns on themselves.
Both parties are at a crossroads to decide if they want to polarize their bases. Democrats need to be the big tent party to survive. Republicans need to stop the shrink wrapping their tent to stay on top.
I read Patrick's monologue and see myself there where Church Teaching forms me and illuminates my outlook in Missa. The fact we see things different makes me respect him, his views no less. In fact, more. While neither of speak the fullness of Truth, by our aspirational pursuit together the Truth can be found.
I read the writings of Dorothy Day and Fulton Sheen with the same openness despite their outward differences.
Quick reminder: Sibsonists dominate the South Dakota Legislature.
Well the problem with the Catholic hierarchy, is that men rule. The Bishop and Arch Bishops are predominately Republican, but the Nuns..........Democrat. Sister Simone Campbell is the true representation of how the Catholic Church should represent itself. The Nuns should have a voice and lead the Church. Move over guys, it's time for women like the good Sister Campbell, who happens to be a Democrat and Lawyer have some say in church policy.
Patrick Duffy asks:
>"What was the purpose of your comment concerning what you perceived to be the general tendencies of Roman Catholics toward cronyism?"
If I remember correctly, the purpose of the comment was to give a truthful answer to a direct question.
Patrick Duffy asks:
>"What the **** are you thinking, anyway, when you lump over a billion people together to label and condemn them?"
You ask what I'm thinking when I do something I don't do. I'd say the technically correct answer is nothing.
Patrick Duffy asks:
>"And what is a 'Mary-worshipping douchebag,' anyway?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche#Slang_uses
"Douchebag" is a pejorative term referring to an arrogant or obnoxious person, so a Mary-worshipping douchebag would be an arrogant or obnoxious person who worships Mary.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"... when you say 'police protection and military defense' are 'unfortunate necessities rather than noble causes,' you seem to be favoring one group - those who think they need all of us to pay for their protection by the police and military - over other groups - such as disabled folks. What makes your preferred group better and more deserving of our tax dollars than the group of people with disabilities?"
You've apparently made an invalid assumption somewhere. My statement that the police and military are unfortunate necessities has nothing to do with any preferred group.
Troy Jones asks:
>"Kurt, do you mean that Duffy, Powers, Schoenbeck and I are 'indicative' of those 'prone to crony Catholicism' and 'Mary-worshipping' or is it 'Catholics in general?'"
If I understand your question, the answer is neither.
I'd like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, except those who'd be offended by such a wish. To them I wish a merry December 25. :)
Thank you, Mr. Evans. I take both your wishes as well meant, but for me today is called Eat Day Eve. And I, for one, really hope you keep running for things. I think you would fit well into the newly evolved SDDP.
Kurt Evans: "And I have to keep reminding myself that you, Pat Powers, Troy Jones and Lee Schoenbeck aren't indicative of Catholics in general. "
Kurt, let me ask it another way, what do you think is "indicative of Catholics in general and how are Duffy, Powers, Schoenbeck, and I different?"
Duffy is a Democrat and not an earth hater like you and the rest are, Troy.
This is a very interesting discussion. The intersection of religion and politics is fraught with danger and misunderstanding. I think it is one of the reasons why it was wise to separate church and state.
Growing up in the St. Mary's neighborhood of Sioux Falls meant that we Protestants were sometimes outnumbered. If you wanted to play, there had to be a wall of separation between sandlot baseball and religion. That wall sometimes broke down when we argued about purgatory, which was nowhere in the protestant mindset, but it was no more odd to this Lutheran than adult total immersion baptism that some of my Baptist friends practiced.
The best thing my Lutheran confirmation class ever did was take us to visit other churches. I remember being really taken by the artwork in the Greek orthodox church, and the similarity in the structure of the services at the Cathedral. It made me realize why some folks thought that we Lutherans were just watered down Catholics. We laughed at the sliding chairs in a fundamentalist church--is that why they called them "holy rollers?" Anyway, I think the purpose of these trips was to show us the differences between Lutheranism and everything else out there, and that we, of course, had better answers to life's problems.
Before JFK, I doubt there was much difference in voting patterns between Protestants and Catholics in South Dakota. Republican dominance during the 40s and 50s was about what it is now. The voting patterns in my 50/50 neighborhood seemed to match other more Protestant precincts. [In the big cities, Catholics tended more toward the Democratic Party, but that may have had more to do with ethnic tendencies, class identification and machine politics than religious reasons.]
But a lot of young South Dakota Catholics were energized by John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, and this period coincided with protestant George McGovern's organizational skills. So, Catholics migrated into the Democratic Party through the 60s, and made a difference in voting in the larger cities by the early 70s. By then young Catholic Democrats were gaining office. And these were Catholics primarily motivated by the social gospel, not abortion politics.
Abortion politics in the 1970s change things with the voters, but it wasn't just Catholics. Lutheran churches also were anti-abortion. And, of course, the rise of the Fundamentalist churches occurred then as well.
But Ted Muenster hits on big non-religious factor for the decline of the Democratic Party---the Oahe Irrigation Project. The issue split both parties, but Democrats had fewer ways to cobble together a working coalition within their party.
Don,
Catholics have been historically strongly connected to the Democrat party since the great immigration of the Irish and Italians after Civil War. Jon Lauck wrote a mini book for the state historical society that further linked the Catholics to the Dem Party and mainline Protestant to GOP best exemplified by the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment to our state constitution. JFK mainlined being Catholic. It was rare to be GOP and Catholic and the migration began with Roe.
Joe Biden could rally members of the Holy Roman Kiddie Diddlers if Clinton chooses not to run.
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/
Pay is right. The political division still falls along ethnic and 'social class' lines, not just among Catholics but since the church is so big, it's perhaps most noticeable there. Recall that at one time being Christian meant being Catholic. Period.
Kurt, Merry Christmas to you and all the best for you and your family!
Thanks for your response that "My statement that the police and military are unfortunate necessities has nothing to do with any preferred group." I probably was not clear in my question. The two groups I meant to identify were: (1) hungry impoverished people; and (2) people who need help in defending themselves from criminals or putting out fires.
If I understand your argument correctly, you are contending that the first group of needy people should not get any help from our government, but should rely on the generosity of private individuals for survival; and , the second group is a preferred group of people that should get help from police and fire departments paid for by the government with our tax dollars, rather than rely on help only provided by private volunteers.
Thus, it seemed to me that if you contend that meeting the second group's need for help should be paid for by the government, but the first group's need for help should be covered by volunteers rather than the government, then you are contending our government should favor or prefer the second group over the first group with our tax dollars. But I do not understand why you would take the position that the second group should be preferred over the first group if the government is going to use tax dollars to help anyone survive, hence my question.
Troy,
I'd be interested in seeing some historical breakdown and trends in voting precincts. I grant that there was anti-Catholic feeling in the elites, but I think it was more class and ethnicity based. Religion is always an easy way for elites to mask class-based and ethnicity-based efforts to sideline people.
Where I grew up (Sioux Falls in the 50s and 60s), there seemed to be no such voting pattern. The north of Sioux Falls tended to be more Catholic, but also more poor. How you tease apart those demographic variables would be difficult, I expect.
"""""
I am hardly "welcome" here.
I just won't leave."""". Myself included as one of two or three Pubs who dare enter. Similar to racism is the division practiced here. I continue to repeat, "this is exactly why the Democrats in SD bear responsibility for one party governance."
Thanks Patrick and Donald for raising the level at Maddville. Both eloquent, capable with the pen and comfortably interesting, uncommon here.
Merry Xmas Les! You are as welcome as you can be in my view anyway. It is always good to really be able to see the other road so I am clear about the one I travel on. Of course, I speak for myself and not the others here, but yours and Sibsons presence here as the true voice of the republican party, really helps me understand things in your eyes.
Les, I did not know your a republican. I thought that you were one of those blue dog dudes that are republican lites. Ya fooled me.
Glad to see Les brought us a nice, vintage Christmas whine. ;-)
Don,
You are correct ethnic and economic were factors. Read Lauck's book and it overlays the religious factor. My experience in Gettysburg was a reflection of the religious in spades. Catholics were not Republican. The only political lesson my Grandpa gave to me was not to trust the GOP was because they were at there core anti-Catholic. After reading Lauck's book and the environment of when he grew up explained everything.
Troy,
Yeah, I will read Lauck's book. I know one of my classmates (Christopher Harper) at SF Lincoln relates anti-Catholic prejudice directed at his father in his book, "Flyover Country." So, maybe things weren't quite as rosy as I remember them.
That batch has been on the cellar for years, Bill. Since it was Christmas, I saved the vinegar for the new year. I fully realize if I wasn't here, you would be eating each other and our last hope for a two party system in SD would be entirely gone.
Merry Christmas and Happy new year, Les.
christianity: it's what's for dinner.
Yes, brother Bill! And to you and all here, a peaceful New Year ahead.
When the lights come down at main street square Mr. Fleming becomes a much better skater. He kicks asses and doesn't even bother to take names.
les, grudz, sibson, troy. your purpose here is to undermine our political effort. consistently. you are like guys that used to say "I read Playboy for the articles."
i am not interested in watching you slide by and play your games.
the best response for you know who, however, is to ignore him all together as a troll.
you other three, as you approach his monopolization, can expect increasing lack of comfort, eloquence and courtesy extended to you.
this board contains a very large part of intellectual, liberal activity, despite your attempts to demean it. there is nothing else in SD like it.
Leslie,
For being an intellectual, your last post was really hard to follow.
But, then again, maybe it was you talking above my head.
And, I would hate to undermine your political effort. You are doing so well be of influence in South Dakota.
Troy et al are nervous because they are now going to be under pressure to demonstrate their ability to govern. No more Dems to blame anything on. ;-) They need to have at least a semblance of a scapegoat in order to do their pivot, duck and weave routine. LOL. At least my friend Mr. Jones is subtle about it, unlike Mr. Powers who still doesn't get it, and in any case, most likely uses a double-barrel shotgun to swat mosquitos. ;-)
Bill, I was a little surprised that Kurt decided to "pivot, duck and weave" instead of answering my very simple question seeking an explanation why he would use government money to help people who might need police and fire protection, but not poor and hungry indigents. Indeed, in this day of "open carry" it is hard to see why libertarians like Kurt still think we need to use government funds for the police, especially when Kurt knows we have armed volunteers like George Zimmerman willing to kill unarmed teens to protect his neighbors.
Quick reminder: Kurt Evans is a normal South Dakota voter.
The irony there, BCB is that I'm pretty sure either you or I could answer your question to any conservative's satisfaction, so it's always puzzling to me when they don't even remember their own talking points. :-)
I've been coming here and there for 7 years and the names in this post recognizable for that time frame at Madville, Jones, Duffy, Grudz, Pay, Flemming and Heidelbugger, all with considerable intellectual abilities. Unfortunately it is easy to get nervous with all the dilution(my part included) of such in predicating our future, Bill.
Schadenfreude makes the GOP go 'round.
Les makes Don Pay's dog look like an intellectual.
What breed of dog do magicians like the best?
Labracadrabrador.
I could agree with you on that Kurse.
Mr. Evans is insaner than most and will be first in line at Badlands Pawn and Tatoo Parlor Beer Joint Coolest Pawn Shop in that shitty town on the east end of South Dakota, might as well be Minnesota
Kurt or kurtz, some people drop the zee. It's OK, same thing.
Bill, I am not at all confident that I can answer my question in a manner that would support denying public help to the poor and indigent. To me the whole position of libertarians relative to using public funds for their preferred groups (those who might need police or fire protection) while denying indigents food, housing and health care stinks of pure hypocrisy.
Indeed, if they truly believed in personal responsibility, they would insist that we all have the duty to carry guns and kill anyone who might cause trouble in the neighborhood. They would insist that we all buy our own fire extinguishers to put out our own fires, while relying only on volunteer fire departments that have no public funds.
Problem is, libertarians seem to realize that taking such a position when dealing with crime and fires is stupid, while closing their eyes to the serious harm suffered by people who, due to disabilities or circumstances beyond their control, do not have food, shelter or health care. It seems incredibly disingenuous to argue that the government has no business helping the latter group, but should pay the cost of protecting libertarians capable of protecting themselves from crime, fires or other emergencies.
That said, I would be interested in your view of how such positions can be rationalized or justified, short of dismissing humans in need of food, shelter or health as people less important and undeserving of help paid for by governmental funds. So what do you think is the answer that might satisfy conservatives or libertarians like Kurt?
This could be an interesting episode similar to Yale Professor Shelly Kagan's philosophical approach whereby he tries to identify the very best arguments for dualism and then identifies the problems with such arguments:
oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-176#sessions
Troy Jones asks:
>"... what do you think is 'indicative of Catholics in general and how are Duffy, Powers, Schoenbeck, and I different?'"
As I've explained above (2014.12.22 at 22:54), Catholics in general may have believed SDWC's defamatory accusations against me, but at least they didn't add to them. As I'd pointed out in the same comment, you, Powers, Duffy and Schoenbeck are different because you've each suggested I'm a Ku Klux Klan member or sympathizer.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"... I was a little surprised that Kurt decided to 'pivot, duck and weave' instead of answering my very simple question seeking an explanation why he would use government money to help people who might need police and fire protection, but not poor and hungry indigents."
You've asked two questions that applied to me, and I've answered them both, but your subsequent remarks leave me wondering whether you've even read those answers.
Kurt, I am glad you are still here and thanks for your comment. I reread our previous comments and would have to partially agree with you. Somehow my mind transposed government funding of the military with government funding of fire protection. You very plainly said that the government should not fund fire protection in your comment at 2014.12.22 AT 22:52 and it was my mistake in pressing the question based on the incorrect premise that you thought government should fund fire departments. I apologize.
If you are willing to give me a second chance (and I would understand if you are not), perhaps I can focus my question to you with more precision and accuracy. In your above referenced comment you stated:
"I view police protection and military defense as unfortunate necessities rather than noble causes . . . ."
At 2014.12.23 AT 05:26 I then followed up with the observation that you seemed to be
"favoring one group - those who think they need all of us to pay for their protection by the police and military - over other groups - such as disabled folks."
I then asked,
"What makes your preferred group better and more deserving of our tax dollars than the group of people with disabilities?"
At 2014.12.24 AT 22:47 you responded:
"You've apparently made an invalid assumption somewhere. My statement that the police and military are unfortunate necessities has nothing to do with any preferred group."
I considered this a classic dodge and weave in an apparent effort to avoid any straightforward answer to my last question, so I pressed the issue, albeit incorrectly substituting fire protection for military funding in my follow up questions.
Maybe it would help me understand and address your position if you could elaborate on your point that you do not consider people who want the government to pay for police and military protection a "preferred group." Why do you argue that government of funding police and military is an unfortunate necessity, while then arguing that using government funding to help the weakest and neediest in our society to survive not an unfortunate necessity?
BCB, I will happily engage in the rhetorical exercise you suggest, but first, i'd like to see if kurt is going to answer your question the way I think he might, or if he is going to continue being coy. His behavior reminds me a little of that of Rand Paul and Paul Ryan who have run into a few snags while voicing their Ayn Randian philosophies in a full throated manner and have felt the need to tone it back and/or reframe their arguments to better suit the attitudes of the general voting public. I like to think it's not purely a rhetorical exercise, but rather a reexamination of conscience of sorts. Because, along with all the other rights, I believe we all have an equal right to change our minds ;-)
BCB, so as not to appear as 'being coy' myself, I would expect Mr. Evans's response to run along these lines: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
If he does run along those lines you show Bill Fleming, then bcb was spot on by bringing in fire protection.
Jerry, yes, I agree. That's kind of where the rubber meets the road in that line of argument.
Dang! You see how interesting Evans could make the campaign? He gets you guys to keep coming for a discussion of interesting points about political philosophy and policy. Evans needs to find a way to give straight, "un-coy" answers (I will let Bill continue to measure that coyness here) and invite more people into conversations like this.
Kurt, you need a blog, or a really active Twitter feed, or your own daily radio call-in program on WNAX, or a Chautauqua circuit with free beer... something to get more people to come have these conversations.
I followed your link to minarchism, Bill. I'll bet it doesn't strike you, or any other Madizen for that matter, that I'm strongly opposed!
Yes indeed, government has a greater obligation to its citizens than simply keeping them alive.
Interesting link Bill, I had not seen that term before - Thanks. I do not think minarchism answers my inquiry though. Even if we limit the issue to police protection and military defense, it seems inconsistent for libertarians to support taxation to pay for these services when our citizens have a Constitutional right to arm themselves to the hilt, including AR-15's and AK 47's, and should be required to accept responsibility (in the libertarian world view) to protect themselves (and whatever neighbors they favor) from criminals.
As for the military, why wouldn't libertarians take the position that the citizenry should hire private for profit groups to protect them from military aggression, similar to Andy Carnegie's use of the Pinkertons to quell the Homestead riot.
Why should libertarians like Kurt demand that the government forcibly take money (taxes) from others to protect groups that have capacity and responsibility the responsibility to protect themselves, but object to taking money to aid those who are not capable of obtaining the food, shelter and medical care they need to survive?
I believe that Kurt speaks in good faith, but perhaps Bill has identified the problem - there really is no rational explanation for using the government to take forcibly take your money, but use it only for favored groups - those who don't want to pay for either their own police or military protection, while excluding all others who might be in need from sharing in the largesse.
Correct bcb, in my view folks like Kurt obscure the the issues with these handy dandy themes of states rights that hide their true agenda, that of being just another republican. He should be primaried by another Independent that is really an Independent. Don't expect him to answer your questions with and honest answer either, he will go down in the weeds and hope like hell this thread ends.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"You very plainly said that the government should not fund fire protection ..."
I said I believed it could be provided more efficiently under voluntary contracts. There may be limited situations in which government should fund fire protection as part of its policing activities, but I don't believe it intrinsically has the right to take our money for that purpose.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"Why do you argue that government of funding police and military is an unfortunate necessity, while then arguing that using government funding to help the weakest and neediest in our society to survive not an unfortunate necessity?"
Government has to avenge acts of theft, violence and defamation to prevent a complete breakdown of the social order. Broad attempts to use government coercion to micromanage our lives and force selfish people to act like unselfish people, on the other hand, eventually result in more poverty and suffering than they alleviate.
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"Kurt, you need a blog, or a really active Twitter feed, or your own daily radio call-in program on WNAX, or a Chautauqua circuit with free beer... something to get more people to come have these conversations."
Maybe you ought to let me guest-post at Madville (ha ha). Thanks for the compliment, Cory.
Kurt, what would happen if there were not enough contractors to make sure that there are services provided?
Being contractor means people having to start a business. It takes a heap of money to start and maintain a business. Where would the money come from to start a business?
For example, for starting a fire fighting business would mean having to have a location/building for the trucks, the fire trucks, being able to provide wages and benefits for the firefighters, plus all the equipment such as oxygen, hoses, ladders, etc.
A lot of people just do not have that kind of money to start a fire fighting business. Where would the start-up money come from?
Kurt, thanks for your answer: "Government has to avenge acts of theft, violence and defamation to prevent a complete breakdown of the social order."
I take it from your answer that the only legitimate function of government in the libertarian view is to forcibly take tax dollars from everyone and use the proceeds to hire government workers who will then pay someone else (such as a policeman or a soldier) or some group (such as a police force or the armed forces) to inflict revenge on people who behave badly. But doesn't this again sort of beg the question - why not allow everyone to keep their earnings and use them to hire private individuals or mercenary groups to inflict that revenge? Why would a libertarian believe there is a need to tax everyone and waste this tax revenue by hiring bureaucratic middlemen who in turn pay individuals to act as policemen or soldiers?
"JeniW" asks:
>"Kurt, what would happen if there were not enough contractors to make sure that there are [fire-protection] services provided?"
Those seeking the services would be free to address that question in any way they chose, for example by relocating, or by directly arranging for their own fire protection, or by offering more money to draw more contractors into the market, or by deciding the cost of fire protection outweighs the risk of going without it.
"JeniW" wrote:
>"It takes a heap of money to start and maintain a business... For example, for starting a fire fighting business would mean having to have a location/building for the trucks, the fire trucks, being able to provide wages and benefits for the firefighters, plus all the equipment such as oxygen, hoses, ladders, etc."
I disagree with that premise. A fire-fighting business wouldn't necessarily need any of those things, and at some point the financial and human cost that would be incurred in providing them exceeds the financial and human cost that would be incurred due to their absence.
"JeniW" asks:
>"Where would the start-up money come from?"
Those starting the business would be free to address that question in any way they chose, for example by using their own money, or by soliciting investors, or by borrowing, or by seeking charitable contributions, or by some combination of the above.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"I take it from your answer that the only legitimate function of government ..."
I don't believe I've said government has only one legitimate function.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"But doesn't this again sort of beg the question ..."
You asked why I said government funding of the police and the military is an unfortunate necessity, and I answered that government has to avenge theft, violence and defamation to preserve the social order. That doesn't seem to me to beg the question in any way.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"... why not allow everyone to keep their earnings and use them to hire private individuals or mercenary groups to inflict that revenge?"
Most people wouldn't.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"Why would a libertarian believe there is a need to tax everyone and waste this tax revenue by hiring bureaucratic middlemen who in turn pay individuals to act as policemen or soldiers?"
I can't speak for every libertarian, but I don't regard hiring government officials as necessarily wasteful in itself.
Private fire-fighting? Treat fire-fighting like health insurance and fires that threaten only poor people go unfought. I can't ascribe to that model. I prefer a model, like our military, where we decide the most efficient way to fight the threat is to work together through government to create one large, non-profit entity that everyone supports and that serves everyone.
Bill Gabbert of Wildfire Today and i have talked about private fire-fighting for at least seven years but insurance costs are astronomical.
Again, Evans surprises me with his answer. I would have guessed he would question why government should be given a legal monopoly on theft, violence, and defamation rather than to suggest that government's sole function is to 'avenge' those things. It's also curious to me that those appear to be his whole criteria for creating and maintaining social order.
I appreciate Kurt taking the time to share his perspective, but what seems to not be mentioned is exactly how and in details he would implement those beliefs.
There are thousands of people in institutional settings be it jail/prison, nursing homes, group homes, VA hospitals and nursing homes, and programs such as Children's Home Society where the primary funding is government.
There are not enough resources on the private level to adequately support those (not that they are funded adequately enough now, but receive funding.)
Kurt is a troll for the insurance companies that actually do provide fire fighting for multi million dollar homes. Chubb Insurance is one of these that protects homes in harms way of fires. Kurt once again proves he is just another republican, not to be taken seriously. Kurt believes that if you have the private money, then you should have protection by private contractors. Nothing new to see here, wash rinse repeat of republican mantra. https://www.chubb.com/eSubscribe/wdsHome.do
Chubb actually has the power to direct public resources to the homes they are protecting. So if you are middle class, high or lower, and live next or close to one of those mansions, you can kiss your castle adios as Chubb will save the powerful, with the help of your taxpayer supplied resources. It is good to be a republican king.
Kurt, I think you are right in your two comments that most people would not hire private police and military, and that hiring government officials is not necessarily wasteful in itself. Now take it to the next step - before telling our neediest fellow human beings to rely on charity for survival, rather than government, shouldn't we consider the same two points, namely, (1) most people will not use a sufficient amount of their own personal funds to fund charities to help strangers in need, and (2) hiring government officials to distribute tax dollars to those in need is not necessarily wasteful in itself.
The ranches in northwestern SD provide their own firefighting services. Local towns like Bison, Prairie City and Buffalo have volunteer fire departments, but it can easily be an hour before they get to the site.
The country halls often have a shed that houses a small firetruck. The neighbors can go to that shed when necessary to take the truck to the fire.
In addition, each ranch has firefighting equipment. It's a unit made to fit into the back of a pickup. It's usually stored in an elevated manner, often hung from a type of scaffold, so that only one person is needed to load it and head for the fire. The pickup is backed under it, it's lowered, secured, and ready to go.
The unit consists of a large water tank. There is a pump, small gasoline engine, hoses, rakes, shovels, picks, helmet, etc.
One Sunday afternoon I was heading east from Newell on highway 212 to Zeona for services at Immanuel Lutheran, when I noticed smoke rising near the Ben Ash monument. I turned north on the Zeona road from Mud Butte, and soon began encountering pickups. It was the ranchers heading for the grass fire.
They had a telephone system that rang everyone when the fire number was called. It was a peculiar ring that alerted them and gave the fire location.
This would not work in any place with buildings above 2 storeys.
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"Private fire-fighting? ... I can't ascribe to that model."
But unlike South Dakota's #2 political blogger Pat Powers, you don't block my comments. :)
"JeniW" wrote:
>"I appreciate Kurt taking the time to share his perspective, but what seems to not be mentioned is exactly how and in details he would implement those beliefs."
I wouldn't implement the details. That's kinda the point.
"JeniW" wrote:
>"There are thousands of people in institutional settings ... where the primary funding is government. There are not enough resources on the private level to adequately support those ..."
I'm wondering where you think government gets its resources.
Jerry wrote:
>"Kurt is a troll for the insurance companies ... Kurt once again proves he is just another republican ..."
Neither of those claims is true.
Jerry wrote:
>"So if you are middle class, high or lower, and live next or close to one of those mansions, you can kiss your castle adios as Chubb will save the powerful, with the help of your taxpayer supplied resources."
That doesn't seem like a very strong argument in favor of taxpayer-supplied resources.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Now take it to the next step - before telling our neediest fellow human beings to rely on charity for survival, rather than government, shouldn't we consider the same two points, namely, (1) most people will not use a sufficient amount of their own personal funds to fund charities to help strangers in need, and (2) hiring government officials to distribute tax dollars to those in need is not necessarily wasteful in itself."
Yes, we should consider those points, and I agree with the first, but as I've said above (2014.12.28 at 23:20), broad attempts to force selfish people to act like unselfish people eventually result in more poverty and suffering than they alleviate.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"The ranches in northwestern SD provide their own firefighting services... It's a unit made to fit into the back of a pickup... They had a telephone system that rang everyone when the fire number was called."
It's hardly surprising that the good-ol'-boys network of rich libertarian cowboys would close ranks to maintain their socioeconomic and political hegemony over South Dakota's northwestern regions, but when the wind changes and the fire starts roaring toward the home of a less wealthy or more progressive neighbor, I'll bet they just lean against their trucks and snicker.
[DISCLAIMER: The preceding sentence is intended as irony.]
Thanks for the great comment, Deb.
Kurt, I do not believe that there are not enough private resources to deal with those in institutional settings, including the facility in Yankton for the mentally ill, because there is not enough willingness to do so.
When we read comments about individuals who are in prison, there is a lot of hostility toward the individuals who have been determined guilty of committing a crime. There is a LTE in the Argus Leader regarding someone in prison. Read the comments. I do not think there are enough people to donate money to support every prison in the country and every inmate. The government gets the resources by the taxes that people pay. A lot of people would probably not pay taxes if it was not forced.
Or how many people would donate to making nursing homes better for those residing there? The resources now come from tax revenue. Most nursing homes do the best that they can with what they have, but it is very obvious that individuals who live on the Medicaid wings have less quality surroundings than those who are Medicare or private pay.
That should read "I do not believe that there are enough private resources to deal with...."
Kurt, I am unsure what you mean when you say "broad attempts to force selfish people to act like unselfish people eventually result in more poverty and suffering than they alleviate." Are you saying that by taxing people that we are trying to force selfish people to act in an unselfish manner? If so, why wouldn't that objection also apply to taxing folks, but using the funds for police and military?
"JeniW" wrote:
>"I do not think there are enough people to donate money to support every prison in the country and every inmate."
I don't believe I've said prisons should only be financed through voluntary donations.
"JeniW" asks:
>"Or how many people would donate to making nursing homes better for those residing there?"
I'm not sure. My view is that those of us who want to give our time or money to improving nursing homes ought to be free to do that, but we generally shouldn't use government to take other people's time or money for our causes, even when those causes are noble.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"Are you saying that by taxing people that we are trying to force selfish people to act in an unselfish manner?"
No, I was suggesting government forces selfish people to act like unselfish people when it gives away their money expecting nothing in return.
Kurt, I am still having trouble figuring out what you mean when you say: "I was suggesting government forces selfish people to act like unselfish people when it gives away their money expecting nothing in return."
First, when does the government give away anything without expecting something in return? Certainly by providing help to the neediest people, we all get many things in return, such as the security of a safety net in the event we fall on hard times, avoiding the increase in crime and sorrow that can come from someone's inability to support or feed their family, avoiding the displeasure of seeing starving children in the streets and dead bodies along the road, etc.
And second, how do you force a selfish person to act in an unselfish manner? Indeed, even if you held a gun to his head the selfish people might obey your orders, but not for an unselfish motive, rather he would obey for the very selfish motive of avoiding his own death or injury.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"First, when does the government give away anything without expecting something in return?"
Often.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Certainly by [the government] providing help to the neediest people, we all get many things in return, such as the security of a safety net in the event we fall on hard times, avoiding the increase in crime and sorrow that can come from someone's inability to support or feed their family, avoiding the displeasure of seeing starving children in the streets and dead bodies along the road, etc."
I believe government redistribution of wealth has nearly the opposite of the effect you claim, but that's beside the point. The context indicates that what I meant by "expecting nothing in return" is not requiring the recipients to provide goods or services in exchange for the money.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"And second, how do you force a selfish person to act in an unselfish manner?"
You don't. You can only force selfish people to act _like_ unselfish people.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Indeed, even if you held a gun to his head the selfish people might obey your orders, but not for an unselfish motive, rather he would obey for the very selfish motive of avoiding his own death or injury."
Exactly.
Kurt, your answer of "Often" merely begs my question. It would be more helpful for you to provide examples of such situations if you can.
When you say the when our gov't helps people in need by redistributing wealth "has nearly the opposite of the effect you claim," are you saying that under our current redistribution policies you or people in general:
do not have the security of a safety net in the event we fall on hard times,
have experienced increases in crime and sorrow from folks who have access gov't benefits support or feed their family
see starving children in the streets and dead bodies along the road?
Or is there some other "opposite effect" you discern from redistributing gov't money to, for example, pay for nursing home care for the elderly and infirm?
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Kurt, your answer of 'Often' merely begs my question. It would be more helpful for you to provide examples of such situations if you can."
The situation we've been discussing is direct government redistribution of money without requiring the recipients to provide goods or services in exchange.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"When you say the when our gov't helps people in need by redistributing wealth 'has nearly the opposite of the effect you claim,' are you saying that under our current redistribution policies you or people in general: do not have the security of a safety net in the event we fall on hard times, have experienced increases in crime and sorrow from folks who have access gov't benefits support or feed their family / see starving children in the streets and dead bodies along the road? Or is there some other 'opposite effect' you discern from redistributing gov't money to, for example, pay for nursing home care for the elderly and infirm?"
Not exactly, but I believe our current redistribution policies result in more poverty and suffering than they alleviate, and I expect the situation to get much worse if the national debt continues to rise.
Kurt, I think I understand your position - you are saying we should not pay for medical care for a helpless orphaned baby because the baby cannot "provide goods or services in exchange" or care for a quadriplegic for the same reason.
The fact that you "not exactly" see the very evils I described appears to constitute evidence that your thesis is unsupported in fact. Can you identify any historical situation in which by adopting policies to help the needy, it has resulted in more people not having their needs met?
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Kurt, I think I understand your position ..."
I'm not sure you do.
>"... you are saying we should not pay for medical care for a helpless orphaned baby because the baby cannot 'provide goods or services in exchange' ..."
No, I believe we should give our own money for the baby's medical care, but we generally shouldn't use government force or the threat of government force to take other people's money for our causes, even when those causes are noble.
>"... or care for a quadriplegic for the same reason."
I don't agree with your suggestion that a quadriplegic individual can't provide goods or services.
>"Can you identify any historical situation in which by [government] adopting policies to help the needy, it has resulted in more people not having their needs met?"
I believe that's been the result of nearly every situation in which government has directly redistributed money.
Kurt, even if you think such a situation could never happen in the world, for the sake of advancing the discussion, imagine a situation where the "we" you speak of is unable or unwilling to step up to provide for the orphaned baby. If that situation came to pass would you then support using public tax dollars (assuming this is the money you are talking about when you say "we generally shouldn't use government force or the threat of government force to take other people's money for our causes") to provide for that baby?
Your statement that "I believe that's been the result of nearly every situation in which government has directly redistributed money," doesn't really provide any examples at all. And use of the qualifier "nearly" makes your answer even less informative. Why not give a direct answer and identify one such historical situation that did what you claim, and contrast it to another historical situation that falls in the "nearly" category? You might be able to persuade me that your position is factually accurate and is a logical perspective I should support.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"If [a situation where the 'we' you speak of is unable or unwilling to step up to provide for the orphaned baby] came to pass would you then support using public tax dollars ... to provide for that baby?"
The situation you describe is similar to one faced by President Grover Cleveland in which he opposed federal financial aid to an orphanage in New York City during a severe economic crisis. His response summarizes the prevailing policy in America during the first 150 years of its existence:
"I will not be a party to stealing money from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens, no matter what the need or apparent justification. Once the coffers of the federal government are open to the public, there will be no shutting them again... It is the responsibility of the citizens to support their government. It is not the responsibility of the government to support its citizens."
If we were truly unable to provide for the baby, forcible redistribution of our money wouldn't do any good, and if we were merely unwilling to provide for the baby, forcible redistribution of our money would result in more poverty and suffering than it would alleviate.
"Bearcreekbat" asks:
>"Why not give a direct answer and identify one such historical situation that did what you claim, and contrast it to another historical situation that falls in the 'nearly' category?"
Partly because I'm not sure what kind of situation you mean. Do you want a specific period in U.S. history, or a specific program, or the names of specific taxpayers, or what? Maybe you can help me understand by giving an example of a "situation" in which government has redistributed money to help the needy.
Kurt, the idea that you would not be willing to support public policies to help an orphaned baby in the hypothetical I proposed is a bit surprising, but it does clarify for me you view on the value of the lives of helpless human beings.
Your other argument was something along the line of "nearly" every single government program aimed at helping people in poverty has made them worse off. I asked for examples several times but you have given none, instead switching the question to me to identify programs that have actually helped people in poverty. Okay, here's one - The food stamp program (SNAP) has helped millions of people avoid hunger as they worked their way out of poverty, while also helping sustain a strong market for agricultural products, which in turn added revenue to South Dakota farmers. Here is a short article from the Center on Budget Policy and Priority describing the success of SNAP -
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239
The New Republic's analysis of the CBP report states:
"In 2011, according to the Center’s analysis, "SNAP kept about 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2011, including about 2.1 million children. SNAP also lifted 1.5 million children out of deep poverty (defined as 50 percent of the poverty line) in 2011, more than any other government assistance program.""
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Kurt, the idea that you would not be willing to support public policies to help an orphaned baby in the hypothetical I proposed is a bit surprising ..."
I believe the policies I support would help to prevent your hypothetical from arising.
>"... but it does clarify for me you view on the value of the lives of helpless human beings."
Your suggestion that I place a low value on the lives of helpless human beings isn't true.
>"Your other argument was something along the line of 'nearly' every single government program aimed at helping people in poverty has made them worse off."
No, you asked for a situation that's resulted in "more people not having their needs met," and I referred specifically to situations in which "government has directly redistributed money."
>"I asked for examples several times but you have given none, instead switching the question to me to identify programs that have actually helped people in poverty."
I was asking you to clarify what kind of situation you meant by giving an example of a "situation" in which government had redistributed money for the purpose of helping the needy, regardless of whether it "actually helped people in poverty."
>"Okay, here's one - The food stamp program ..."
Thanks for clarifying. The food stamp program is a good example of one I believe results in more poverty and suffering than it alleviates.
Kurt, I did not intend to suggest that you place a low value on human lives, rather, I meant to suggest that you place a higher value on money, given your unwillingness to use public money to help people in need.
Your comment, "The food stamp program is a good example of one I believe results in more poverty and suffering than it alleviates," is inconsistent with the information I linked for you to look at. Can you provide any factual support for your theory that by adding buying power to a poor family's food budget, the SNAP program increases poverty?
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Kurt, I did not intend to suggest that you place a low value on human lives, rather, I meant to suggest that you place a higher value on money ..."
Then neither what you suggested nor what you meant to suggest is true.
>"Your comment, 'The food stamp program is a good example of one I believe results in more poverty and suffering than it alleviates,' is inconsistent with the information I linked for you to look at."
Your New Republic quote above (2015.01.11 at 11:51) refers to an earlier version of this CBPP article:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3744
But you posted this link:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239
I'm wondering whether that's intentional.
>"Can you provide any factual support for your theory that by adding buying power to a poor family's food budget, the SNAP program increases poverty?"
These are excerpts from noted economist Casey B. Mulligan's testimony before Congress in February 2013:
"Nobel laureate James Tobin ... said ... 'It is almost as if our present programs of public assistance had been consciously contrived to perpetuate the conditions they are supposed to alleviate.' ... A presumably unintended consequence of the recent safety net expansions has been to reduce the reward to working and thereby keep employment rates low, keep unemployment and poverty rates high, and keep national spending low, longer than they would have been if safety net program rules had remained unchanged...
"Even if governments had somehow been able to fund these programs without any taxes, the process of distributing the program benefits would have reduced the reward to working... The consequences of a low reward to working are felt all over the economy, even by persons whose individual reward to working might not be all that low... Both the 2008 Farm Bill and the 2009 [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] increased the amount of the SNAP benefits paid to eligible households, and thereby increased job acceptance penalty and layoff subsidy rates...
"Job acceptance penalty and layoff subsidy rates can equal or exceed 100 percent in some cases, which means that the reward to working is zero or negative... as James Tobin put it, wasteful and demoralizing rates... It is sometimes claimed, by non-economists at least, that the safety net does not prevent anyone from working because everyone strives to have more income rather than less, and would gladly take any available job that paid them more than the safety net did. This 'income maximization' hypothesis is contradicted by the most basic labor market observations, not to mention decades of labor market research...
"Earning income requires sacrifices, and people evaluate whether the net income earned is enough to justify the sacrifices. When the food stamp or unemployment programs pay more, the sacrifices that jobs require do not disappear. The commuting hassle is still there, the possibility for injury on the job is still there, and jobs still take time away from family, schooling, hobbies, and sleep. But the reward to working declines, because some of the money earned on the job is now available even when not working...
"Decades of empirical economic research show that the reward to working, as determined by the safety net and other factors, affects how many people work and how many hours they work. To name a small fraction of the many studies: Hoynes and Schanzenbach (2012) show how potential participants stopped working or reduced their work hours when the food stamp program was introduced. Studies of unemployment insurance find that program rules have a statistically significant effect on how many people are employed, and how long unemployment lasts. Yelowitz’ (2000) research shows how a number of single mothers found employment exactly when, and where, state-level Medicaid reforms increased their reward from working. Gruber and Wise (1999) and collaborators show how the safety net for the elderly results in less employment among elderly people. Autor and Duggan (2006) and the Congressional Budget Office (2010) explain how the number of disabled people who switch from work to employment-tested disability subsidies depends on the amount of the subsidy relative to the earnings from work. Murphy and Topel (1997) show how poor wage growth among less-skilled men helps explain their declining employment rates during the 1970s and 1980s.
"Because economists have identified many other cases in which means-tested and employment-tested subsidies caused people to work less (Krueger and Meyer 2002), it should be no surprise that the same kinds of behavioral responses occurred since 2007: a larger safety net reduced aggregate employment and hours worked... Focusing on just one of any of the safety net expansions is also misleading as to the magnitude of the overall increase in job acceptance penalty rates and therefore potentially misleading as to the sources of the major changes in the labor market since 2007...
"To see this, imagine that [unemployment insurance] rules became more generous, and that added to the number of households who were unemployed and with less income than they have when working. A number of the added unemployed people apply for food stamps, which from the food stamp program’s point of view makes it look like 'the economy is getting worse,' so food stamp officials recommend enhancing food stamp benefits, which further increases the job acceptance penalty rate...
"It is sometimes thought that safety net transactions only impact the people who participate in the programs. To the contrary, the safety net is funded by taxpayers, lenders, owners of government debt, beneficiaries of government programs other than the safety net, or some combination thereof. As a portion of the beneficiaries opt to earn less, they also opt to spend and save less, as their household budget constraint frequently requires. They lawfully pay less tax. Businesses anticipate having fewer employees and invest less. These behavioral changes are bad news for employers in general, for people who produce the consumer and investment goods that beneficiaries would be buying if they were back at work (and goods the program funders would be buying if they were not funding the [safety net] expansions), and for people who live in places like Michigan whose economies are especially intensive in the production of such goods (Galí, Gertler and Lopez-Salido 2007)...
"Even if redistribution did not depress the reward to working, the stimulus assertions would be wrong because they ignore the spending of the people who fund the programs... Redistribution to the poor may reduce aggregate labor demand if the poor tend to purchase goods and services that are less labor intensive in their production than are the rest of the goods and services in the economy. Also note that government transfers are very different from government purchases of goods and services such as military spending or highway construction, which have been shown to significantly increase GDP in many instances ... When redistribution is combined with increases in job acceptance penalties and layoff subsidies – as a number of recent policies have done – it significantly reduces aggregate spending because people typically spend less when they are not working...
"The bottom line is that helping the poor and economically vulnerable has a price in terms of labor market inefficiency... First of all, 100 percent job acceptance penalty rates are difficult to justify as a reasonable balance between equity and efficiency and the recent safety net expansions documented here added millions to the number of people facing such rates. Second, rather than making people feel safer, a number of the safety net expansions may themselves be a source of uncertainty via the political process because, among other things, they must be repeatedly renewed by Congress, and taxpayers are still unsure of exactly who will pay for them (Baker, Bloom and Davis 2011)."
How do job seekers force employers to hire them?
It seems we face a hard choice when we see hungry people: feed them today, or tell them to get a job so they can get a check a month from now and feed themselves then. For a certain percentage of hungry people, those options mutually exclude: as Kurt's expert says is shown by empirical evidence, some percentage of them will take the free food as a cushion allowing them to work less or not seek work at all (let me check: is Mulligan saying that both happen? will the person in the street with no job at all be more likely not to seek work if fed? or do benefits only cause working poor to work a little less?).
The policy question, then, is how big is that percentage? I would posit (uh oh—no empirical data!) that a certain percentage of hungry, jobless people will say, "Whew! Thank goodness my belly and my kids' bellies are full! Now I've got the energy to go look for a job." Some percentage will say, "With Food Stamps taking care of the grocery bill, I can afford the bus fare (car repairs? a new dress shirt and tie for the interview? new printed résumés? a job skills workshop?) to get across town for job interviews.
How big is the percentage of citizens who will work less if we give them food stamps and other assistance? How big is the percentage who will receive that aid and still work just as hard to get themselves out of their dire straits? (And, as JeniW asks, what is the percentage who, even with that aid, will be able to find employers who will hire them and pay high enough wages to get them out of poverty?)
And, as our decision point, how big does the percentage of those who work less because of food stamps etc. have to be to justify not giving food stamps to anyone? In other words, how many rotten apples does it take to spoil the barrel?
Kurt, my apologies for mixing up the links to the CBPP postings. I cannot see how my mistake changes the factual information provided.
Your lengthy quotes does not address your earlier claim that poor people are worse off due to receipt of welfare payments. Instead, it seems to argue (without any identified factual support and with the repeated use of qualifier weasel words such as "It is almost as if") a completely different point, namely, that welfare is a dis-incentive to work. I saw nothing in your quote to suggest that a low-income family who receives food stamps is worse off than a similarly situated low-income family.
The information you provided does not even support an argument that providing welfare to any family reduces the reward for working. Instead, it seems to suggest that the eligibility requirements for assistance reduce the reward for working. In other words, if I earn $100,000 a year, my income is too high for food stamps, hence, under your theory I lose my incentive to earn $100,000.
And how about this brilliant observation - welfare "significantly reduces aggregate spending because people typically spend less when they are not working." Wow, people who have smaller incomes because they are not working spend less money than those with greater incomes?
And then there is the observation that single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled did not work as much when they received subsidies. It is as if the author doesn't understand that single mothers do substantial work by home making and caring for the kids. And how is it a bad thing if the elderly and disabled leave the work force because they are able to use transfer payments to support themselves?
The conclusion of your quotes identifies the only fact that might make a welfare recipient less happy and secure, namely politicians who constantly threaten to reduce or end the transfer payments the recipient needs to pay for food and shelter.
Finally, we agree that it is okay to forcibly take other people's money through taxation. But you value that money so much that retaining it and using it to protect the groups you favor, such as groups afraid of criminals and groups afraid of other nations, is a higher value to you than using some of the money to help orphans who cannot help themselves.
"JeniW" asks:
>"How do job seekers force employers to hire them?"
The policies I support wouldn't let job seekers force anyone to hire them.
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"It seems we face a hard choice when we see hungry people: feed them today, or tell them to get a job so they can get a check a month from now and feed themselves then."
I'm not saying we should tell people to work for a month before they eat. I believe we should give our own money to feed the hungry, but we generally shouldn't use government force or the threat of government force to take other people's money for our causes, even when those causes are noble.
Cory asks:
>"... is Mulligan saying that both happen? will the person in the street with no job at all be more likely not to seek work if fed? or do benefits only cause working poor to work a little less?"
I'm pretty sure he's saying both happen: "Decades of empirical economic research show that the reward to working, as determined by the safety net and other factors, affects how many people work and how many hours they work."
Cory asks:
>"How big is the percentage of citizens who will work less if we give them food stamps and other assistance? How big is the percentage who will receive that aid and still work just as hard to get themselves out of their dire straits?"
Questions about how hard people will work aren't exactly the same as questions about how many hours they'll work, but I'd expect that nearly all citizens will work harder when the reward to working is greater.
Cory asks:
>"And, as our decision point, how big does the percentage of those who work less because of food stamps etc. have to be to justify not giving food stamps to anyone? In other words, how many rotten apples does it take to spoil the barrel?"
From my point of view the barrel is pre-spoiled due in part to the fact that the program also reduces the reward to working of the people whose money is taken to pay for it.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Kurt, my apologies for mixing up the links to the CBPP postings. I cannot see how my mistake changes the factual information provided."
It obviously doesn't, but I'm still not sure which article you meant when you said my position is inconsistent with it (2015.01.13 at 11:12).
>"Your lengthy quotes does not address your earlier claim that poor people are worse off due to receipt of welfare payments."
The information I quoted includes this: "A presumably unintended consequence of the recent safety net expansions has been to ... keep unemployment and poverty rates high ..."
>"Instead, it seems to argue (without any identified factual support ..."
Mulligan cites numerous empirical studies.
>"... and with the repeated use of qualifier weasel words such as 'It is almost as if') ..."
Those words appear only once, in a direct quotation of Nobel laureate James Tobin. Mulligan doesn't use them at all.
>"The information you provided does not even support an argument that providing welfare to any family reduces the reward for working. Instead, it seems to suggest that the eligibility requirements for assistance reduce the reward for working."
I believe the information supports an argument that welfare reduces the reward to working either with or without eligibility requirements, but in any case your question was about the food stamp program, and the food stamp program has eligibility requirements.
>"In other words, if I earn $100,000 a year, my income is too high for food stamps, hence, under your theory I lose my incentive to earn $100,000."
Right. Your incentive is now $100,000 minus the amount the food stamp program would provide.
>"And how about this brilliant observation - welfare 'significantly reduces aggregate spending because people typically spend less when they are not working.' Wow, people who have smaller incomes because they are not working spend less money than those with greater incomes?"
No, Mulligan's statement is independent of income.
>"And then there is the observation that single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled did not work as much when they received subsidies. It is as if the author doesn't understand that single mothers do substantial work by home making and caring for the kids."
Your suggestion that Mulligan doesn't know raising kids takes work is absurd. It's also completely irrelevant to the point he was making, which is simply that the reward to working affects how many people work and how many hours they work.
>"And how is it a bad thing if the elderly and disabled leave the work force because they are able to use transfer payments to support themselves?"
It's a bad thing because (1) work builds character, (2) work generally increases the amount of wealth in society, and (3) government uses force or the threat of force to take those transfer payments from other people.
>"The conclusion of your quotes identifies the only fact that might make a welfare recipient less happy and secure, namely politicians who constantly threaten to reduce or end the transfer payments the recipient needs to pay for food and shelter."
That statement implies that the death of a spouse never makes a welfare recipient less happy and secure.
>"Finally, we agree that it is okay to forcibly take other people's money through taxation. But you value that money so much that retaining it and using it to protect the groups you favor, such as groups afraid of criminals and groups afraid of other nations, is a higher value to you than using some of the money to help orphans who cannot help themselves."
No, I don't favor groups afraid of criminals and groups afraid of other nations.
This is really a wonderful conversation that I have been silently following. Until now.
I think there can be no question that survival is the ultimate motivation for anything, including work.
I support the idea that willing giving is the ideal way to help people.
My chief concern, as I've demonstrated previously here, is those unable to support themselves. The goal of the populace voluntarily caring for them is laudable. And it doesn't work.
The programs begun by FDR in the 1930s weren't created because there was no need. They were created to relieve great suffering.
Kurt, you are steadfast in your support of voluntary giving to support those in need, but that is not sufficient. It doesn't work. You say your opinion is that giving will be enough, but when has that been widely proven to be true?
In the 1960s a neighbor girl who had Downs Syndrome rode my school bus. There was little help for her and her life was a daily struggle. Her parents finally sent her away to a home. It was expensive and the family, including 3 other children, lived in dire poverty while paying for her stay.
People could have offered help, but there was little and not enough to mitigate their suffering.
Is that kind of life acceptable to you Kurt?
*184 comments and 27 days duration for this post.
And it's not even about abortion, LBTGs, or religion! Woo-hoo!
Kurt, i have read and heard the comment addressed to those who are unemployed, or are working, but not earning enough, "Get a job."
Job seekers fill out applications, send resumes, go on interviews, do all the right things, but are not hired. So, my question is, what are they to do?
An employer advertises a job opening, 20+ people apply for that that job. The employer is only going to hire one person. That is great for that one person who is hired, but what of the other 19+?
How do the other 19+ people persuade the employer to hire them too?
You have an opinion, which is fine, but I have yet to read any practical solutions to the current problems. How would you encourage employers to hire more people and/or pay enough so that people do not need to seek assistance for any source?
Deb, you're right: this is a worthwhile conversation. John Thune should be as interested in engaging his constituents in direct, authentic, challenging discussions of real issues. I don't think John Thune has gotten to say an honest, heartfelt word in public since 1996.
Kurt, there are other issues facing our country besides those who have not enough, or no income and have to resort to public assistance.
What is your opinion of the Keystone Pipeline? Should it be built, why or why not? If is built, who should be responsible for the oil spills, and the wildlife impacted by the pipeline?
The U.S. spends a lot of money on foreign aid, embassies, and military bases in other other countries. Should the spending on those be reduced or eliminated?
Should the Edwards Air Force Base in SD be reduced or eliminated? Should the National Guard facilities in Sioux Falls be reduced or eliminated?
SD depends on federal dollars to support public education, should SD stop accepting those monies?
Governor Daugaard proved that SD has the resources to support Mt. Rushmore during the government shut-down. Should SD stop accepting federal dollars to support Mt. Rushmore and other state parks?
Should other states be responsible for maintaining the National Parks such as Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosmite, and other parks? If states are unable or unwilling to provide financial support to those parks, should the National Parks be discontinued?
Should every state be responsible for their own roadways without assistance from the federal government.
What about agencies that have the mission of public safety, such as the FDA, the CDC, airline trafficking, and etc? How about FEMA?
There are thousands of people in the U.S. jails and prisons who will eventually complete their terms. Some of those individuals do not have a support system, financially or otherwise, so they use criminal behaviors to get what they need for survival and pleasure, and they end up back in prison. What do you recommend to end that cycle?
There are individuals living in institutions that are supported by the federal dollars, including those at the Yankton Human Services Center, the Redfield Developmental Center, and many of the nursing homes. If the feds reduce, or do not provide financial support for those institutions, what would become of the individuals who do not have friends or family who are able or willing to care for them.
I have other questions, but that is enough for the moment.
Thank you.
Bearcreekbat makes an interesting distinction between well-being (represented by happiness and security) and the amount of "work" one does. Deb's comment about survival as motivation for work identifies work as a means to an end. Kurt's comments seem to identify work as a valuable end in itself. Kurt lays out his central principles for valuing work:
"(1) [W]ork builds character, (2) work generally increases the amount of wealth in society, and (3) government uses force or the threat of force to take those transfer payments from other people."
That one sentence from Kurt seems to cut brilliantly to the heart of the matter. Underline that passage.
I put "work" in quote marks above because, when we get to Bearcreekbat's comment about single mothers and Kurt's three-point declaration of principles, I want to make sure we aren't using the word in two different meanings. When Bearcreekbat speaks of the work single moms do, he's referring to physical, mental, and emotional effort that gets things done. When Kurt declares his three principles, he's referring to the same effort on #1, but on #2 and #3, he appears (correct me is I'm wrong) to be referring to economic activity that contributes to traditional measures of gross domestic product. Which definition do you all find more useful?
Now, let's look at Kurt's three principles in the context of public welfare programs:
(1) Work builds character. Not absolutely. Too much work can starve one's character. Drudging along for an overbearing boss obsessed with power and money can drain character. More work, like more suffering, isn't always good.
Furthermore, poverty doesn't make it easy to build character. Break out Maslow's hierarchy: if you can't meet your basic needs of food, shelter, and security, you're going to have a hard time climbing up the hierarchy to "self-actualize," or build the best character you can. Public assistance helps the unemployed get off the treadmill of scrambling to survive, enjoy some breathing room, and get back into better conditions. Public assistance helps the guy who can't work because of sickness or injury keep food on the table until he can get up and put in the full eight hours he wants to put in.
(2) Work generally increases the amount of wealth in society. Kurt, does my blog create wealth? Does the stay-at-home parent changing diapers and making meals create wealth?
(Note: I do not want a welfare check so I can sit around and blog. I'm content with the occasional voluntary tip in the jar.)
Does transferring wealth from higher-income taxpayers to low-income citizens destroy as much wealth-creating potential as leaving citizens in desperate conditions that foster violence, sickness, and despair?
(3) [G]overnment uses force or the threat of force to take those transfer payments from other people. That critique applies to every action government takes. There's no way around that use of force (which is relatively, since we do it in obedience to laws that we prescribe to ourselves, via democracy). Our aversion to taking wealth by force doesn't mean we should end all public assistance programs any more than it means we should end public education, military spending, road construction, and mail delivery (oops! wait! USPS funds itself!). It just means we should run those programs intelligently and efficiently so we do not sacrifice our tax dollars in vain.
We can value work, but we must primarily value people and their general welfare. Folks gotta eat before they can have a philosophical conversation.
Oops, wait, Cory. USPS funds itself exactly as does SS, congress and every other government act. They tell us what it will cost and allow no competitive service to replace it. The only services not funded by the end recipients are those being discussed. Not all bad for sure but do they really deserve as the poor and needy, more children and more time to enjoy them than those who've worked long hours so no support is necessary?
The comment that "A presumably unintended consequence of the recent safety net expansions has been to ... keep unemployment and poverty rates high ..." doesn't address whether people who receive transfer payments are better or worse off. It doesn't rebut the common sense conclusion that if a family has more resources, that family will have a better opportunity to meet its basic needs.
And the idea that poverty rates are higher simply because of transfer payments is simply non-sense. Poverty rates are based on a family's income and resources. If a family's income and resources are below an identified standard, then the family is considered to be in poverty. By definition, transfer payments to any family cannot reduce that family's income and resources.
Your response to my $100,000 a year income observation is consistent with my point - transfer payments do not reduce the incentive to earn, rather it is the eligibility levels that could have the effect of reducing the incentive to earn. If a single mother is eligible for $100 a month in food stamps, unless she takes a job paying $150 per month, in which case she gets no food stamps for her kids, then such eligibility rules are reducing the value of her work to $50 per month ($150 wages less $100 in food stamps). Add to that the $75 per month that she pays for day care and transportation costs, and she loses $25 per month by working. That is one manner in which the eligibility rules could be designed to be a dis-incentive to work. Thus, the $100 in food stamps adds to family income and make the family better off than it would have been without the $100 in food stamps. Perhaps we could agree that by changing eligibility requirements so the working families do not lose benefits unless they have earnings that, after expenses, exceed the poverty level we could eliminate any disincentive for working.
Your comment that "No, I don't favor groups afraid of criminals and groups afraid of other nations" seems odd since you have previously stated that you would forcibly take other people's money to pay for the military (presumably to benefit "groups afraid of other nations") and the police (presumably to benefit "groups afraid of criminals").
That should have been "Ellsworth Air Force Base," not "Edwards" that was my mistake.
Cory, your comments about Kurt's 3 part love of work are very good. I am especially surprised that Kurt feels we need to force the elderly and disabled to work at menial jobs to build their character. Many elderly and disabled folks already have fine character.
I would add that even if work "increased the amount of wealth in society," what good does that do for society if the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, but not used to benefit all of society. Wealth qualifies as only an "instrumental good" because it can be used to obtain necessary items for happiness, such as food and shelter. In contrast, an "intrinsic good" is to, as Cory puts it, "primarily value people and their general welfare." Wealth not used to satisfy this "intrinsic good" for all does not benefit society and even loses value as an "instrumental good."
Perhaps that is the main difference in Kurt's outlook and mine. He seems to value wealth as an "intrinsic good" in and of itself, rather than using it to meet the basic needs of the people.
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"You say your opinion is that [voluntary] giving will be enough, but when has that been widely proven to be true?"
I don't believe I've said that. I've actually agreed with the point made by "Bearcreekbat" that "most people will not use a sufficient amount of their own personal funds to fund charities to help strangers in need" (2015.01.01 at 22:56).
Deb wrote:
>"People could have offered help, but there was little and not enough to mitigate their suffering. Is that kind of life acceptable to you Kurt?"
I can accept it, but I obviously don't approve of it.
"JeniW" wrote:
>"Job seekers fill out applications, send resumes, go on interviews, do all the right things, but are not hired. So, my question is, what are they to do? ... That is great for that one person who is hired, but what of the other 19+?"
The answers to those questions aren't going to be the same for everyone.
"JeniW" asks:
>"How do the other 19+ people persuade the employer to hire them too? ... How would you encourage employers to hire more people and/or pay enough so that people do not need to seek assistance for any source?"
I'm not sure either of those outcomes is possible. I'm also not sure giving detailed answers to the many policy questions in your subsequent comment (2015.01.17 at 07:25) would be a wise investment of my time, especially since you've already said repeatedly that you wouldn't vote for me. Maybe you can pick out the three or four you consider most important.
Cory Heidelberger wrote:
>"When Kurt declares his three principles, he's referring to [physical, mental, and emotional effort that gets things done] on #1, but on #2 and #3, he appears (correct me is I'm wrong) to be referring to economic activity that contributes to traditional measures of gross domestic product."
That's a reasonable perception given the context, Cory, but I don't mean "work" in the second sense at all there.
Cory asks:
>"Which definition do you all find more useful?"
For me it depends on the situation.
Cory asks:
>"Kurt, does my blog create wealth? Does the stay-at-home parent changing diapers and making meals create wealth?"
I'd say yes to both.
Cory asks:
>"Does transferring wealth from higher-income taxpayers to low-income citizens destroy as much wealth-creating potential as leaving citizens in desperate conditions that foster violence, sickness, and despair?"
My view is that forcible transfers of wealth contribute to those desperate conditions and destroy more wealth-creating potential.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"And the idea that poverty rates are higher simply because of transfer payments is simply non-sense. Poverty rates are based on a family's income and resources... By definition, transfer payments to any family cannot reduce that family's income and resources."
Are you claiming poverty rates can be based on the income and resources of one family?
In any case, if government transferred $5,000 to you from your employer, and your employer had to lay you off to make payroll, that transfer payment could reduce your family's income and resources.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Your response to my $100,000 a year income observation is consistent with my point - transfer payments do not reduce the incentive to earn, rather it is the eligibility levels that could have the effect of reducing the incentive to earn."
I disagree. Say your family is eligible for $10,000 per year in benefits with no eligibility requirements. Now your choice is between $110,000 if you work and $10,000 if you don't. Without the transfer payments your choice would have been between $100,000 if you worked and $0 if you didn't. The incentive to work is greater in the scenario without transfer payments.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Your comment that 'No, I don't favor groups afraid of criminals and groups afraid of other nations' seems odd since you have previously stated that you would forcibly take other people's money to pay for the military (presumably to benefit 'groups afraid of other nations') and the police (presumably to benefit 'groups afraid of criminals')."
As I've already told you above (2014.12.24 at 22:47), "My statement that the police and military are unfortunate necessities has nothing to do with any preferred group."
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"I am especially surprised that Kurt feels we need to force the elderly and disabled to work at menial jobs to build their character."
You lie obnoxiously and relentlessly. I don't feel we need to force the elderly and disabled to work at menial jobs to build their character.
Kurt, I had hoped you would answer at least some of my questions, because like everyone else, I am capable of changing my mind.
But, I agree that you have to choose your battles, and trying to convince me, or others who disagree with you, may not worth it. My questions at least will give you food for thought as you become more active in your campaign.
You might be able to start your own blog to help your campaign efforts.
Kurt, you ask, "Are you claiming poverty rates can be based on the income and resources of one family?" Right, whether a family falls below the established poverty line depends on the family's income and resources.
Your hypothetical on transfer payments doesn't hold up unless the transfer payment is large enough to meet all the needs, wants and desires of the family. For example, a transfer payment of one cent certainly cannot diminish anyone's desire to earn $100,000.
In any event, your attack asserting that I "lie obnoxiously and relentlessly" certainly doesn't draw me any closer to understanding, let alone accepting, your positions. Instead, it shows me that you dismiss any argument I make without giving it any real thought since you view my comments as obnoxious and relentless lies.
For example, I asked you, "And how is it a bad thing if the elderly and disabled leave the work force because they are able to use transfer payments to support themselves?" You responded at 2015.01.16 AT 23:40, that "It's a bad thing because (1) work builds character . . . ." Then you call my follow up regarding your position that the elderly and disabled should be required to work, rather than receive transfer payments from tax dollars a lie.
Perhaps my use of the adjective "menial" before jobs put you off, although I cannot understand why, since you did not distinguish or describe the type of work you think the elderly and disabled should have to do to survive and build their character. The number of elderly workers I have seen cleaning tables, mopping floors, taking orders or flipping burgers at fast food places, certainly suggests to me that many of the jobs available to the elderly and disabled are in fact menial.
Anyway, given that you have resorted to name calling rather than deciding to continue a meaningful discussion suggests your positions are so weak that you cannot rationally defend them.
What I'm getting here is that Kurt has certain opinions that he's sticking with. When others describe the hardships some of those opinions will create, Kurt sometimes agrees. But Kurt doesn't have policy responses to alleviate that suffering. I guess that means that he simply feels that suffering is inevitable and government has no obligation to the sufferers.
Does that sound right?
From Kurt's comment:
》Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
》>"You say your opinion is that [voluntary] giving will be enough, 》but when has that been widely proven to be true?"
》I don't believe I've said that.
I didn't say you did. I'm asking: "when has that been widely proven to be true?" And if it's true that voluntary giving is inadequate, do you have Any Plan for those people? Or is that not government's problem?
Deb Geelsdottir wrote:
>"When others describe the hardships some of [Kurt's] opinions will create, Kurt sometimes agrees."
I'm wondering when you'd say I've agreed that my opinions will create hardships, Deb.
>"I guess that means that he simply feels that suffering is inevitable and government has no obligation to the sufferers. Does that sound right?"
It doesn't sound right to me.
>"And if it's true that voluntary giving is inadequate, do you have Any Plan for those people? Or is that not government's problem?"
I believe government has an obligation to protect the life, liberty and property of every citizen by avenging acts of theft, violence and defamation, but broad attempts to use government force or the threat of government force to address individual suffering result in more suffering than they alleviate.
I'd asked:
>>"Are you claiming poverty rates can be based on the income and resources of one family?"
"Bearcreekbat" replied:
>"Right ..."
That isn't true. The poverty rate would be the number of families in poverty divided by the total number of families, usually expressed as a percentage.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"Your hypothetical on transfer payments doesn't hold up unless the transfer payment is large enough to meet all the needs, wants and desires of the family."
That isn't true. No transfer payment is large enough to meet all of a family's desires, and a moderate transfer payment—even one without eligibility requirements such as a lottery jackpot—clearly reduces the incentive to work.
>"For example, a transfer payment of one cent certainly cannot diminish anyone's desire to earn $100,000."
That isn't true. The smallest amount of money that could diminish a person's desire to continue working is always one cent more then the largest amount that couldn't. It's unlikely that a given recipient would end up at precisely that threshold, but it's not impossible.
>"Instead, [your attack asserting that I 'lie obnoxiously and relentlessly'] shows me that you dismiss any argument I make without giving it any real thought ..."
That isn't true. I give each of your arguments real thought.
>"For example, I asked you, 'And how is it a bad thing if the elderly and disabled leave the work force because they are able to use transfer payments to support themselves?' You responded at 2015.01.16 AT 23:40, that 'It's a bad thing because (1) work builds character . . . .' Then you call my follow up regarding your position that the elderly and disabled should be required to work, rather than receive transfer payments from tax dollars a lie."
That isn't true. There was no follow-up regarding my position that the elderly and disabled should be required to work, because I don't hold the position that the elderly and disabled should be required to work.
>"Perhaps my use of the adjective 'menial' before jobs put you off, although I cannot understand why ..."
That isn't true. You can understand why it put me off. That's the reason you spent a somewhat lengthy paragraph trying to justify it.
>"Anyway, given that you have resorted to name calling rather than deciding to continue a meaningful discussion suggests your positions are so weak that you cannot rationally defend them."
That isn't true. I haven't resorted to name-calling rather than deciding to continue a meaningful discussion.
Deb Geelsdottir quoted me quoting her:
>>>"You say your opinion is that [voluntary] giving will be enough, but when has that been widely proven to be true?"
Then she quoted my response:
>>"I don't believe I've said that."
Then she wrote this:
>"I didn't say you did."
???
"JeniW" wrote:
>"My questions at least will give you food for thought as you become more active in your campaign."
Thank you. :)
At 2015.01.18 AT 23:48 Kurt calls me an obnoxious relentless liar and then Kurt says "I haven't resorted to name-calling rather than deciding to continue a meaningful discussion." Seriously . . . . ?
Kurt says, "I don't hold the position that the elderly and disabled should be required to work." You know Kurt, I really hope that is true. I guess I misread your comments at:
2015.01.14 AT 23:36 purportedly quoting noted economist Casey B. Mulligan's testimony that "Gruber and Wise (1999) and collaborators show how the safety net for the elderly results in less employment among elderly people. Autor and Duggan (2006) and the Congressional Budget Office (2010) explain how the number of disabled people who switch from work to employment-tested disability subsidies depends on the amount of the subsidy relative to the earnings from work. "
At 2015.01.15 AT 13:10 I responded "And how is it a bad thing if the elderly and disabled leave the work force because they are able to use transfer payments to support themselves?" At 2015.01.16 AT 23:40 Kurt responds "It's a bad thing because (1) work builds character, . . ."
I really see no point, however, in continuing to identify your prior comments when you make later comments disavowing your earlier comments. It seems like a waste of time reminding you and any readers of what you posted earlier. So have it your way Kurt, and believe that people like me who call you out on unreasonable positions are nothing more than relentless obnoxious liars.
"Bearcreekbat" wrote:
>"At 2015.01.18 AT 23:48 Kurt calls me an obnoxious relentless liar and then Kurt says 'I haven't resorted to name-calling rather than deciding to continue a meaningful discussion.' Seriously . . . . ?"
No, I'd written, "You lie obnoxiously and relentlessly." I don't believe everyone who's ever lied can be appropriately called a liar, and whether you could be is beside the point. You know there was no name-calling in that statement, so rather than quoting me, you intentionally misrepresent my words.
>"I really see no point, however, in continuing to identify your prior comments when you make later comments disavowing your earlier comments."
I'm wondering what comments you'd say I've disavowed.
>"So have it your way Kurt, and believe that people like me who call you out on unreasonable positions are nothing more than relentless obnoxious liars."
People like you don't call me out on unreasonable positions.
Kurt, most candidates are at least wise enough to understand when they have been taken to the woodshed. Take BCB's lesson, or don't, but at least try to realize that you're not fooling anyone here but yourself.
You can't expect people to read your mind. If you want people to vote for you, you need to be clear about who you are, and what you stand for. If this is all the better you can represent yourself, why in the world would anyone think you can represent them any better?
You sound for all the world like a witness on trial trying to avoid incriminating himself.
That's not what this is. This is your neighbors trying to get to know you better. And at least from my perspective, I know less about you having read all this than if I'd never read anything.
Point being, when it comes to getting elected, our knowing who you are isn't really our problem, it's your problem.
Bill Fleming wrote:
>"Take BCB's lesson, or don't, but at least try to realize that you're not fooling anyone here but yourself."
I'm wondering exactly how you'd say I'm fooling myself, Bill.
>"If this is all the better you can represent yourself, why in the world would anyone think you can represent them any better?"
I'm wondering exactly what you'd say is wrong with the way I'm representing myself.
>"You sound for all the world like a witness on trial trying to avoid incriminating himself. That's not what this is. This is your neighbors trying to get to know you better."
It doesn't seem to me like either of those things, but I'd say the first is a better analogy. :)
>"And at least from my perspective, I know less about you having read all this than if I'd never read anything."
That claim is absurd.
>"Point being, when it comes to getting elected, our knowing who you are isn't really our problem, it's your problem."
I believe it's your problem too, Bill.
Kurt, I don't intend to have a dialogue with you.
You've given me no reason at all to be interested in one.
I've given you on the other hand some free advice.
Take it or leave it, your call.
Bill Fleming wrote:
>"Kurt, I don't intend to have a dialogue with you. You've given me no reason at all to be interested in one. I've given you on the other hand some free advice."
Yes, you've advised me to try to realize I'm fooling myself, but you've declined to say how I'm supposedly doing that.
>"Take it or leave it, your call."
Thanks for at least being libertarian about this, Bill. :)
Les, USPS is not exactly like Social Security. USPS pays its way with postage we pay.
JeniW, perhaps Candidate Evans should start his own blog. I'm not saying I do not appreciate his presence here—I would be thrilled to have Evans and whoever runs against him engaging constituents in this comment section on a regular basis. However, if I were a candidate, I would want to have a blog of my own where I could write posts and invite conversations on topics of my choosing.
As a candidate, I wouldn't do 3–6 posts a day as I do here—a candidate has a lot more handshaking, fundraising, and media appearances to do than a normal blogger! But once or twice a week would be great, maybe alternating between "Life on the Campaign Trail" reviews and position statements inviting civic discussion.
What do you think, Candidate Evans? Ready to buy KurtEvans.com and a hosting plan, install WordPress on a subdomain, and start writing?
Cory Heidelberger asks:
>"What do you think, Candidate Evans? Ready to buy KurtEvans.com and a hosting plan, install WordPress on a subdomain, and start writing?"
Not yet, Cory, but thanks for the encouragement, both here and above (2014.12.27 at 16:03).