It is immoral to cut programs that the elderly, the disabled and the poor

[cali]

need simply to survive. It is immoral to ask those with the least to sacrifice the most.

That's my frame and I'm sticking with it.

It's immoral.

[Drale]

1. The very nature of the right is Immoral

Fascism.

[efhmc]

2. Of course it is, that is why the repubs do it.

Those people are not important to them.

[cali]

3. what I'm saying is that's the frame dems need to be using.

[efhmc]

14. The problem with that is that many/most Americans

are much more concerned about how monetary issues will effect them, not some ambiguous "others".

[efhmc]

17. The problem with that is that many/most Americans

are much more concerned about how monetary issues will effect them, not some ambiguous "others".

[cali]

21. it can be personalized

it's immoral to sentence our parents and grandparents to desperation and penury during their retirement years, etc.

[efhmc]

28. I tried to "explain" that to a repuke woman walking by

a booth the Dems were working once and she shouted as she went by, "Do I LOOK like I need Social Security?" My friend said, "Actually she does." My point is that these are supremely selfish people who are not able to visualize anything beyond their own little bubble.

[Raksha]

37. Exactly! It is through their own narcissism and selfishness

that the Koch machine is able to get its hooks into them and manipulate them to such great effect--great for them anyway. It's why the divide-and-conquer technique works so well with them. They are TOTALLY self-centered.

I have a graphic example of that kind of mindset living right across the street from me. When she says she doesn't want "Obama" cutting *HER* Social Security or any of *HER* other benefits as a low-income senior, she means just exactly that. Occasionally she's willing to extend it to my SS as well, since I'm of her same age and race and income bracket, but even that's pushing it.

She doesn't give a damn if anyone else's rights get trampled on, because she's incapable of putting herself in their shoes. A couple of examples: She hates illegal immigrants and totally approves of Jan Brewer's now-legalized harrassment of Latinos in Arizona; she just posted on her Facebook page that she's always been in favor of mandatory drug testing for people on welfare.

I keep telling her that anything the government can do to "them" they can do to HER just as easily, but it never seems to sink in. The teabagger mindset is all based on narcissism and projection, as the Republican propaganda machine knows very well.

[marew]

47. You summed it up perfectly! n/t

[Blue Owl]

4. Word

K&R

[grahamhgreen]

5. Immoral, and unecessary. All we need to do is raise taxes on the rich to the greatest generations

tax rates.

No DEBT in 10 years.

[bullwinkle428]

6. 110% agreement.

[aquart]

7. OR they could tax the rich.

[aquart]

11. Don't say immoral. Say unChristian.

Make it specific to their needs.

[cali]

13. no, I can't bear to buy into their frame.

[patrice]

24. You don't have to buy into it in order to use it against them, only understand & be honest about it

and them.

[cali]

31. morality is not wholly owned by Christians

[patrice]

33. I don't think it is, but they do, so I see your problem with being associated with that lie, but ...

that lie IS their "damnation"; it's just toooooooooooo sad that they will drag down so many with them as they go.

[WinkyDink]

43. No, but Christianity is claimed by a pot-load of REPUBLICANS.

[patrice]

27. Their frame is the opposite of the Christ's intent. nt

[still_one]

8. and that is what the Democrats should be blasting. Any Democrat who does not believe that should

join a different party

[cali]

10. yep. it's a simple, clear message- that we're not hearing.

[zazen]

9. immoral and UNAMERICAN

No need to get into the various forms of exploitation and oppression that shaped the many Americas we have today. A simple label will sufficeth.

[cali]

12. KISS

[patrice]

15. If you strip the story of Jesus of all of the mumbo-jumbo, you can see that he IS still with us & we

ARE still torturing and killing him - no matter how many crosses we all wear.

I believe his purpose was to resist and to change how the powerful take advantage of the less-powerful and that's why his Church-State killed him.

To me, the fact that so many Christians ignore this very obvious truth is proof positive of their profound abasement by the whited sepulchers who lead them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. What's "immoral mean?" asks the dumb ass Teabagger. Seriously. They-don't-care.

That's how their brains works and they have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA empathy for anyone. :grr:

[cali]

19. tea baggers aren't the only voters in the country.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. But it's the Teabaggers who put the freakin' assholes who are trying to do this, in office. Granted,

this has always been the GOP wet dream, but the Teabaggers have put it back on the agenda. There's NO WAY people in this country are going to accept destroying Medicare and SS. That's just NEVER going to happen.

Did you see Rachel Maddow's show last night? She had the sweetest graph showing the idiot-in-chief's poll numbers. The more the SOB talked about "privatizing" SS...the more his poll number went down. Another poll showed something like 93% LIKE SS and Medicare! This will NEVER float with the American people once they ALL hear about it and hopefully, the Teabagger's reign of terror will come to a screeching halt.

[H2O Man]

18. Definitely.

Extremely much so.

Recommended.

[and-justice-for-all]

20. It is exteremly immoral....

Rachael said it best last night, the repukes are going after the most poplar social programs, which includes the Post Office; simply to start their Government gutting scheme. Where cuts matter and make a significant difference the repukes are not cutting i.e the Pentagon budget.

[Urban Prairie]

22. Immoral?

I consider it to be ultimately, intentionally, and inevitably genocidal.


:mad: :grr:

[cali]

23. that doesn't make an effective frame.

[nomorenomore08]

25. I agree with both of you, actually.

What the right wing is advocating, and has advocated for decades, essentially amounts to mass murder by neglect. But there's no way to put that across, in so many words, without sounding completely hyperbolic.

[patrice]

29. True. But they think it isn't true, because no one of theirs has said this. They refuse to recognize

their own responsibility for anything that is an emergent property of their own beliefs and actions. They claim to be spiritual people, but their spirituality is NOT grounded in who they are; indeed that's their point, by "God's grace and forgiveness" there is no relationship between the actual seconds of their lives and the spiritual truths they claim.

[Urban Prairie]

32. It will if tens of millions more must instead turn to family, friends, and charities

for any hope of continued survival, not taking into consideration that many if not most charities are already overwhelmed, and those who may (or may not) have family and friends who cannot support, shelter, clothe or feed them indefinitely, or be able to provide the funds for many who already have the need for or will sooner or later require expensive medical/dental care or Rx drugs.

[WinkyDink]

42. It would, if so-called Christian ministers/priests actually preached Christianity.

[jillan]

26. My disabled daughters SSI will pay for her housing when I die. Do they want her to live in the

streets? She is unable to take care of herself.

And they obviously want her to die. They already made it so she can't go to the doctor for a well visit.
Now they want to make it so I can't take her to the doctor when she's ill?

And they call Obamacare a "death panel"????

[patrice]

34. I can barely imagine what that would be like;

I think it would destroy me to not be able to do what needs to be done for my daughter/son.

:hug:

[Urban Prairie]

35. Yup... "Death Panels"

The rightwing doesn't "mince" their blatant lies, in fact, they shout them, for examples: "Take OUR Country Back", "Socialism" "Personal Responsibility" "Liberal Fascism" the last the title of one of their books.

[patrice]

36. For those who, understandably, do not buy into the conventional frame for morality, i.e. religion ..

how do you propose that we go about establishing what morality is?

Saying something is immoral doesn't help much with anyone who thinks morality is mumbo-jumbo, or, worse yet, a political tool of the lower economic classes.

How do we go about establishing why immorality is real? - and - If we predicate morality on any kind of self-interest (like, "If you don't care for the poor and powerless, eventually you will become one of them, so you'd best be good to them or else.") all we'd be doing is extending the conditions of SELF interest to include others.

So how do we go about using a frame that refers to "morality" without contradicting our own prescriptions against basing everything on self-interest, or without resorting to religious mumbo-jumbo?

I am really interested to see some ideas on this question.

[Mnemosyne]

38. Word, cali. K&R n/t

[ItNerd4life]

39. So now budget cuts = morality? These cuts do NOT reduce spending

I guess economics isn't understood by some people here. First off, no program is being cut as in reduced spending. Government cuts are never actual budget cuts.
Government proposes 10% increase, change 10% increase to 6% and Government calls it a 4% cut! This is ludicrous! Since when is a 6% increase a 4% cut?

Look at the actual dollars spent year over year, they all increase. This is why we have a huge deficit, because people don't understand budget cuts and government bullcrap.

[cali]

40. oooh, semantics. how adorable. I guess I should have said cuts to programs.

and sorry, deary, but I damn well do understand how it works. YOU are the one that understands jackshit if you don't think the repuke budget cuts aren't real cuts. duh. now get yourself back to freepwadville where you'll fit in nicely.

[GeorgeGist]

41. The Ritch don't care.

[inna]

44. could not agree with you more. thanks for clarity, this time.

hey, i'll even rec.

[cali]

48. hey, thanks

:hi:

[stevedeshazer]

45. Well, that's a pretty blanket generalization.

But I agree.

:)

[I Drink Water]

46. Yes, especially in the context of slashing taxes for the uber rich, in which they

have successfully been able to capture three decades of worker productivity growth. Unfortunately, there is a large segment in our society that significantly value tax cuts to the uber rich.

This is where their values lie. It is not with civil liberties, ending wars, funding social safety nets, investing into alternative energy, being concerned with our deteriorating educational system, high cost health care, low than needed health outcomes, or being fiscally responsible.

Tax cuts to the uber rich is what dominates they values, even if means pulling the safety net under the elderly, poor, and disabled.

Honestly, it makes me feel dirty to be around these people and call them my fellow citizens.