Monday, August 01, 2005

Baffling Quotes From Brownback

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), a leading conservative in the senate responded to the issue of embryonic stem cell research curiously. In an interview, the Kansan said "This will be one of, I believe, the first time we've ever used taxpayer money to pay for the intentional destruction of human life and that's what this does."

Supposedly the next question for the senator would be "Have you ever heard of a practice called Capital Punishment?" At a blog called Nobody Could Have Predicted.., the blogger says that the U.S spends more taxes on intentional killing than anything else.

Although one could obviously argue the point that defense spending isn't "intentional killing", which this blog would, defense does not represent as large of a percentage of the budget as social security.

However, the blogger brings up a good point, whether it be intentional or not. It's suprising that more people don't object to their taxes funding technology and wars that kill thousands of people. I am not suggesting a movement, it's just that so many people identify themselves as pacifists, yet they don't object to the high taxes they pay, largely because of high defense spending.

6 Comments:

At 2:55 PM, Anonymous njcons said...

The Pentagon?

 
At 7:06 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

Thought you worked for a Congressman? Cause if you did
you'd know "national defense", a legitimate role of the federal government, is not the big ticket budget item.

 
At 11:16 PM, Blogger Jack said...

I did say in the post "defense does not represent as large of a percentage of the budget as social security"

Social Security was the only large entitlement plan that's percentage i was sure of, but medicare, medicaid, and other human services are large portions.

By the way, I did not put "whether it was legitimate or not". I was simply saying that many people object to war and considering we have the largest military budget in the world by far, you'd think more would protest by refusing to pay taxes etc. Not everything has to be politicized!

 
At 9:40 AM, Blogger Xpatriated Texan said...

Thoreau was so incensed at his tax money going to an unjust war that he refused to pay them - and was then locked up for it. He intended for it to be a statement of principle, but an anonymous donor paid his bail and he was physically thrown out of jail against his wishes.

Thoreau was a rare persona in America in many ways.

As far as the debate on Social Security vs. Defense spending, I'd say a detailed discussion of the issue (which I won't attempt) would have to include the interest we are accruing to the vast deficits we allowed over the last fifty years.

According to the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 ), we spent 454.1 billion on defense in 2004. Social Security cost us 491.5 billion that same year. So they are actually fairly close (within 10%) at this point.

As far as Brownback is concerned, he's simply a right-wing hack, in my opinion. I expect him to announce his 2008 candidacy after the mid-term elections, though. If so, I expect him to continue to ignore reality and history. After all, that's what got him this far.

XT

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger Jack said...

He was rare indeed. A radically liberal thinker who was also, in many way, strongly anti-government.

"The best government is one which governs least."

Brownback isn't our favorite type of senator out here in Jersey, but he actually votes with the Democrats on some issues such as guns. Not that other Republicans don't, but you would expect a right winger like him to vote with the NRA as well as against almost all environmental restrictions.

 
At 10:44 AM, Blogger Jack said...

There are several explanations for Zell Miller's ideological shift.

1. He was snubbed by the Democratic Party in some way. Maybe he wasn't allowed to pursue legislation or have a committee assignment, or maybe something more personal. Maybe Tom Daschle made a joke to Dick Durbin about Georgian Mountain People that got around.

2. He had a specific goal he wanted to achieve and the majority GOP welcomed him if he made some "major concessions". That's a little far fetched.

3. The guy changed his mind. He was tired of voting with tree hugging, welfare giving, peace loving, french appeasing liberals. And he decided never to vote with them again.

4. He went slightly senile and became very hateful. This scenario would have to include one of the above three. Perhaps earlier in his career he would have been more flexible, but something ticked him off and because he was going slightly crazy, it hit him hard.

Sometimes people forget how old some of these senators are. That's an incredibly politically incorrect thing to say, I know, but it's true. Jim Bunning...I can't go into his things.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Counter
Web Site Counters Who Links Here Listed on BlogShares