By Leslie Tillmann
I want to know why the Republicans /Conservatives are doing what they are doing and what their ultimate goal is for the United States.
Short term goals of immediate compensation to their rich-guy backers are obvious. But what is the long term goal? Do we get rid of the EPA/Science of Climate Change to enrich the petroleum industry …but for how long? What do they do when the price of petroleum goes down past the point of profit (like it has lately)? When do they want to turn to taking care of our air and land and sea? Do they really believe that Climate Change is not real? Do they want their grandchildren to breathe? I know they don’t seem to care about children in Flint Michigan having clean water, but what about their own families? How about the recent decision to halt spending on NOA satellites giving us information about upcoming storms…hurricanes and tornados? Most of these people live in states more affected by these tragedies than the folks in the blue states. Do they care that predicting storms helps people prepare? Prediction will not happen without keeping this in the budget.
What About Science
In other areas of science learning, they are equally lacking in interest. Do they really think that vaccinations are causing autism? The National Institutes of Health does important research for all Americans (and the world) on diseases and their treatment (sometimes vaccines) and cures. And scientists have proven definitively that autism is NOT caused by vaccines. Why stop this? Do they think stopping the spending will stop the diseases? I don’t see what they are conserving by spending less…they are just giving disease more access to people. It is the same thing with healthcare. I want to know the upside to NOT giving the American people access to healthcare…both preventative care and treatment of disease. The only (short term) upside I can see is that private sector insurance companies make more money. The downside is that people get sick and die. Is that what they want? The upside to people dying is that there are less people to govern, I guess. The downside is that there are less people to work in a productive society. So what do they want in the long term?
Why is there such denial of evolution? Denial of evolutions is not even in the bible… it is a fact and is happening continuously in the world today…species evolve and so do ideas. How can someone not believe in the science of biology that believes in evolution and yet believe that science can discover the cure to cancer? How does one separate this in their mind? Is magical thinking a part of this way of thinking? When one can pray away the gay, can one pray away the cancer, the TB, the syphilis, the diabetes? How does this work? What is the long term benefit of this way of thinking?
Education and Educating
How about the ultimate goal of not educating people? What is the upside of dumb folks? Is it that they will believe anything told to them? The downside appears to be that they will be too dumb to work at complex jobs required by a future economy. So the goal seems short-sighted. As other countries DO educate and prepare their people for the complexity of the future, we will suffer both economically and socially by this. What is the long term goal?
What is the point of racial and religious discrimination? Short term it seems to be pitting people against each other to get people sidetracked from the real issues at stake here. When everyone is riled up about the “other” then we are not at our best. This harkens back to the lack of education, as above. The incitement of fear requires dumb acceptance of what the “leader “says. Science has proven that racial differences are totally non-determinative in all aspects of intelligence and other areas that some leaders cite as relevant. So what is the benefit besides obfuscation? Voting discrimination based on physical differences allows them to keep their party in play. This seems short term until the next Democratic wins. Then, like a giant see-saw, we go to having more people vote and so the short term goal is negated, and it just makes people angry (and these are the people who are gaining population numeric supremacy thus far). I’d like to know the long term goal…WHY?
The most important domestic question concerns the long term goals of eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Most adults today benefiting from these programs have contributed throughout their working lives and their children, and some grandchildren, are continuously contributing as well. So what is the goal of bringing people to poverty? To keeping them from healthcare? Is it having them die early? So they do not have to give them their own money? Putting the Social Security funds into the private sector does give the private sector the opportunity to earn commissions but why? The private sector financial markets seem to be doing quite well but greed is omnipresent I guess. But is that simple fact the overriding reason for taking the assurance of some financial stability from seniors and others who receive benefits from the funds? Widows, orphans, disabled and elderly all receive Social Security benefits (like Paul Ryan himself did when his father died).
It seems that the only argument is that the public sector does not do as good a job as the private sector in providing goods and services to citizens. But where is the proof? Where are the statistics and the FACTS? Why do 23 industrialized countries have better health outcomes for their citizens while their medical services cost less than ours? Why do children in Finland have a better educational result (with public education) than our children, with our cost per child topping theirs by so much? Why are public universities in Canada educating more of their citizens with less debt? Why are our infant death statistics higher than others?
There are countless other domestic items we could discuss, but international concerns are raising their heads too. Why not help people who are in other countries? We have enough economic wherewithal to assist much more than we do now, but seem to want to stop all together. Besides the fact that assisting others to grow and improve helps our relationships with these others, it provides an example that our way of life is preferable to other, more restrictive forms of government. Are we so bereft of feeling for less fortunate people that we cannot assist in improving their lives?
Relations with Other Nations
Why is the State Department’s budget being decimated? How do our embassies and consulates keep their defenses intact? The hard lesson learned at Benghazi seems not to be learned… security is achieved by strong walls and enough personnel to defend the facility. And we need enough personnel to assist traveling Americans and to facilitate relations with host countries. The EU has decided to stop allowing visa-less travel to Americans because of our newly imposed regulations. Tit for tat is not diplomacy and will not assist our short or long term goals. All of this needs an adequate budget. Why the military is considered, all of a sudden, the first resort rather than the last resort…instead of diplomacy? Why have many, many diplomatic positions not been filled? Why do we have embassies all over the world empty of the lead diplomat? Why is this happening? And what is even the short term goal?
Other, much less wealthy countries, are taking many more refugees than we are. And our Republican leaders are tormenting these people as they take their place here among us with illegal orders. The plans to separate mothers and children who immigrate is diabolically inhumane and purposeful, unnecessary torture. This does not make American great, but takes our greatness and tramples it under foot.
It is understandable to renegotiate our trade agreements occasionally to meet current needs rather than past items that are no longer relevant. But why is it necessary to cut ourselves off from all trade with others, insulting and condemning them? What is the long term benefit to insulting our long term trade partners? How does this further our greatness?
Why do we need to insult our long term treaty partners? The greatest achievement of post-World War II was the formation of a united Europe and NATO…along with the UN. Although not perfect in all respects, there has been peace in Europe and less all-encompassing warfare since the end of that war and significant strides in diplomacy throughout the world since the founding of those organizations. And children are being fed and vaccinated and educated. Why do we want to end this? Diplomacy has led to a treaty with Iran that stops their participation in nuclear development. What is the long term end game to stopping the negotiation of peace and using warfare instead? Short term it befits munitions manufacturers…but long term?
There is a developing famine in sub-Sahara Africa and the short term benefit to not helping is that we don’t spend the money and people die. Long term? What could be a benefit?
WHY? WHY? WHY?
I would like someone to answer these questions seriously… and at length. I’m asking why because I care, don’t you?