The Potty Politic

Alternate Title: “In Which I Somehow Manage to Mush Politics and Some Funny Kid Shit Into One Post”

I have been hopping mad ever since this thing with Paris and a huge faction of Americans have gone on social media and essentially outed themselves as xenophobic and/or ignorant jerks in regards to the potential influx of Syrian refugees.  There have been remarks ranging from simply expressing fear of potention terrorists coming in with refugees, to callous statements of the variety of “Just blast them all and let God sort them out.” Yes, I literally saw that one somewhere.

Some people trot out the good old self-serving whataboutisms to justify denying the refugees sanctuary, like “we can’t even take care of our own homeless and veterans…”  which brings me, in a round about way, as is my usual style, to today’s little post.  In my experience, many of the people who are fond of the “homeless veterans” cliche are the same people who would vote against most social welfare programs, including those that many veterans would benefit from.  So you see, they really don’t want to take care of Syrian refugees OR our people on “their” dime. I had literally just finished complaining to my husband about this little bit of shameless hypocrisy when I left the room to retrieve something from the bathroom.

My kid says from her place on the toilet, (and I have no idea how long she has been sitting there) in her now customary sassy-like manner, “I didn’t say you could wipe me; I said Daddy could!!!”

Not to be outdone by the five year old, I counter with some sass of my own… “I didn’t come in here to wipe you anyway, so Nyya!” or some such thing…

And suddenly her tone changes and she goes plaintively, “But whhhhy?”

.  .  .


And then I call out to hubby, “Honey, we have a little republican in here!” And he’s already laughing.



41 responses to “The Potty Politic

  1. I can see how maybe paying veterans a pension might be part of the military, but I will donate my OWN money to the poor (even the lazy ones). I have no right to say that because they put themselves in their position, that I am not going to help them. I also have no right to force “charity” on anyone else. I want to let in Syrian refugees, too. I;m not a republican, I just hate big governments.

    • It’s great that you feel that way, but clearly, not enough people do. Also, as to the poor, saying they “put themselves in that situation” implies some judgement. You really don’t know their situation, but believe me, I can tell it doesn’t take much to lose everything. Sometimes it’s an illness. Sometimes it’s bad luck.
      Sometimes it’s more greedy people at play. For example, employers who will let you work your way up the ladder for years, become a top paid administrative employee, and then “eliminate” your position, so they can hire and train a new guy to do what you do for half the cost. Fiscally good for the business, shitty for the employee, who is expected to be “loyal” and hardworking and is given no loyalty in return.
      Imagine a person who is pretty ill, unable to afford all their medical care because of some douchebag like the aforementioned patent jerk, and also has mounting medical bills. They lose their job because they are too sick to work. They lose their house because they don’t have as much money coming in (a single income no longer cuts it, even at 40 + hours a week.) How is this a situation they “put themselves” in?
      Just saying, you speak of wanting to be generous of your own accord, which is awesome! But I urge you to also be generous in spirit. Things are not always what they seem. A lot more lately it seems.
      PS… Didn’t mean to rant, just ended up typing more than I intended.

      • If there are enough people to vote for welfare, there are enough people to give charity. Help me make it socially unacceptable to let people starve, instead of legally. Have you ever studied the psychology that shows that welfare money isn’t registered as wealth in the human mind, but gifts are?

        • I have never heard of that report. I can see the distinction in a way. A gift seems to imply a surplus, where as welfare usually occurs where there is a derth of resources, so it is easy to see why no one would regard welfare as “wealth.” It’s not a fun thing to have to go through. I would LOVE for it to be socially unacceptable…but talk is cheap, and many people don’t want to open the purse strings. That’s why I feel like legislation could help. I know you don’t agree with forcible redistribution of wealth, but really, that’s what we already have, it just goes to 1% instead of all of us.

      • My dad is an excellent and charitable capitals who helps huge amounts of people all of the time. His motivation is not money, but he earns a lot of money. Many people think he is greedy, and he is put in the highest tax bracket. More than halfi of his income is stolen from him each year, and he would use that money to exponentially grow his business, and create millions dollars more wealth, donate loads of money to charity. Don’t that sound unfair to you? He got that money by helping people, and he would only use it to help more people, but they punish him for being “greedy”. How you can tell if someone is creating wealth is by imagining a world where they didn’t exist, and see if people are better off without their ideas. People choose to get hired by someone, so that means they know that they’ll benefit from it. The more you leave people alone, the more wealth there will be created, and the more people will be lifted out of poverty by charity and work.

        • Jesus… okay, how old are you, for real? Your Dad works hard… and that’s great. I have no idea how much he makes as opposed to how much he actually deserves, but it’s becoming more clear to me where you are getting your ideas. Your Dad may indeed work hard and not be greedy but most companies don’t work that way. Please tell me how a CEO of a company deserves to make six fugurs while his employees are just living at the poverty level… because that is the reality of the situation more often than not. Now if you’re asking me to feel sorry for him making so much money he has to pay more taxes, that won’t happen, but, it’s now clear to me why you don’t believe in “redistribution of wealth.” Most wealthy people feel that way. You have this idealistic, optimistic, rose colored idea of how capitalism works and I’m guessing you work for your Dad right? That’s great to have a good employer, but you should realize how lucky you are. It’s not the norm. Your Dad may in fact be an awesome guy who does only want to grow his business and “create wealth” as you say. However, the idea that that’s how all or even MOST businesses are run now, is not grounded in reality. Many business don’t give a damn about creating jobs, wealth, or anything else unless it increases their bottom line as well.

          • I am 14 and do not have a job yet enough to be employed, and I would have to have a degree to get hired as a PT for my dad. I know that all of my talk about charity is just that, talk, because I don’t have my own personal money yet (minus birthday presents and odd jobs, which I am saving to start my own business, but I still give 10% to my church) but I will follow through with it. I know that there are many less fortunate than I, and I will help them. I just don’t want to make people keep an employee that they don’t want to keep.

          • What on earth made you think I was saying that. There is a big difference between letting an employee go because they aren’t working out and shady business practices. The scenario I mentioned is real, it happened to someone close to me, and the only reason they “didn’t want him” is because they wanted to pay someone less to do his job and that was the only way they could get away with it. I’m not suggestung interfering in hiring or firing at all. I was merely giving you an example of how the old idea of the “American dream” as it was a few decades ago, what real free enterprise used to be, where you get educated, and work hard, and, voila! you get success is extinct. Free enterprise and laisse faire is great for small businesses, but big corporations are out of control and it’s the majority of the people that suffer. You have a lot of idealism and that’s great, and I hope the world doesn’t crush it out of you. Just keep an open mind and an open ear.

          • You’re right. You don’t get it. It looks like free will doesn’t it. Taking away other options to force a choice isn’t really a choice is it? Honestly, I’ve been trying to figure you out which is why I finally asked how old you are. You have book smarts, but you have no real world experience.

          • Okay, well, this was interesting, but you have literally NO frame of reference for half the stuff I’m talking about, so I don’t see this converation being productive. It’s hard to have a conversation about life struggles with someone who literally has no idea what I’m talking about or had to deal with any of that stuff. I don’t blame you. At fourteen, that’s how it should be, but as such you have little place speaking authoritatively about a subject where you don’t have all the facts. Put plainly, you probably know what your father has told you as a “beleaguered rich person.” You have health.coverage courtesy of your parents, education, you’ve already admitted your father is wealthy, you’ve never been needy, so you can’t tell me about what “options” are out there because you’re just guessing. You’ve never been out there. Businesses aren’t there to provide us with “options.” They are there to make money, period. They just need employees to do it, and sadly, many employees just need jobs, even if they are treated unfairly. If it’s a “choice” between a job where you are underpaid and under appreciated, or starving because you have NO job, that’s not really a choice, is it?

          • I don’t need to have facts when we are discussing principle. Since the employees need jobs, how will they not need jobs if those bad businesses aren’t there? If a business can survive paying more than is required for comfortably living to masses (which I don’t know if it can), then I am going to make one, and then I will get all of the exploited people to quit their jobs and work for me, and so I will have as many employees as I need, and I can appoint supervisors, and run the biggest business in the world, and get super-rich. Unless, like I already said, it can’t be done. Why do you expect people running big businesses to provide good jobs? Providing no job is worse than providing a lousy one. Frankly, if people aren’t charitable (like you say) then there will always be poor people, because socialism, and communism don’t work. But I think people are charitable, and we can end poverty if we get everyone to realize that it is PRIVATE donations that count.

          • Oh, wow. Are you ever brainwashed. What I want is for you to admit your Dad and other business men are not running businesses out of the kindness of their hearts. They would not be tithing away all that money if it didn’t go to taxes. It sounds like you think your Dad should get a cheap ride with taxes because he’s such a “stand-up guy,” doing “so much” for his community. You act like he’s doing people favors.

          • He would create wealth for other people. Cash does not equal value. I am not brainwashed, the only people who ever brainwashed me were liberals, and I washed off their washing. My dad never talks to me a out politics, he just says things like, “yeah” and, “I agree” whenever I start talking about it. If I somehow AM brainwashed, then I brainwashed myself, which I don’t think is likely.

          • MY dad started out very poor, and his parents were in debt. He found a service he could give that people wanted, and they gave him money to do it. That is how you get rich, and there would be a lot less poor people if the government would leave them alone so they could get out of poverty. The government is hurting everyone, not just the rich.

        • People ‘choose’ to be hired? No.
          No no no. People beg any place that is hiring for a them to take the chance to hire them, and take the first offer that means they can continue to eat, pay rent, health isurance, previous bills, electric, heat, water, sewer, trash removal, phone, and car payments/insurance/gas (if the even have a car). How is that a ‘choice?’ I have no pity for someone who has enough money for half of it to go to taxes. The ones who need ‘fair’ treatment are the ones working three shitty jobs and still can’t afford to fix that ancient car that is their only way to get to those jobs. That charity he is giving to is a drop in the bucket to real problems for real people.

          • I find it offensive that so many people think a CEO who makes 6 figures somehow “earned” it by dint of starting the business. Having an idea and then foisting the legwork off on underlings who barely make enough to make ends-meet is not “earning.”

          • why do you think I pity the rich? Government regulations don’t help anyone, the just destroy wealth, and move some of it to other people, with almost no discretion, so most of it gets wasted. The answer must be to do it more! Then what happens when everybody just starts trying to work a regular job instead of running a business, because it is easy to get a well-paying job? Oh, no! No more businesses to provide those jobs! There goes the economy.

      • What if that greedy employer decided to never be greedy enough to start t hat business, and instead earn only the amount he needed to live. Then the person who got hired would never get hired, or have to get a worse job instead. I don’t see why you call a win-win situation “greed”.

        • What if unicorns farted dollar bills? What if you got hit by a bus and were paralyzed but got 1 million is compensation? Is that win-win too?Greed and ambition are two different things. As to that hypothetical, maybe the employee would have been at an even better job where they appreciated him, and been living comfortably instead of losing his home. That sort of speculation does nothing to help; there are too many variables. I don’t see why you can’t call greed what it is. I have my own business. I didn’t need to be greedy to start it it. And in the above case, the people who were responsible for that man’s firing did not “start” the business either.

          • I’m not worried about charity at all. I’m worried about equalizing a crooked playing field. You are the one focused on charity. You seem to see equality as a type of charity.

          • My dad fires people that are holding his business back from inspiring and helping people. It would be an inefficient welfare program to make people keep employees that they wanted to fire. What about the guy who can do it for half the price. Should you force them to not make a space for him, just because you want to “level the playing field” for the other guy? That doesn’t sound level.

          • Are you even reading what I wrote. I said this is not about businesses hiring and firing. This is about legislation to keep big business from taking advantage of consumers and the insurance from taking advantage or patients. When you are actually out in the real world, and have to pay your own bills, fight with your own insurance companies, and or try to get any job not handed to you by a relative, maybe you’ll change your mind.

Message for the Queen?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s