There is a depressing new article over at The Guardian today by James Ball, Julian Borger, and Glenn Greenwald, US and UK Spy Agencies Defeat Privacy and Security on the Internet. It contains more revelations from the Edward Snowden files. I’ll be writing about it more, but basically it means that the NSA can break most forms of encryption, but they don’t even have to do that because they work with high tech companies to put weaknesses in products. I assume these weaknesses are things like back doors where the NSA and other spying agencies can just reach in and grab the data as easily as if they had the user’s password.

I already know what the reaction is going to be to all of this. The government will claim that this information should never have been leaked and that it puts American (UK, whatever) lives at risk. The high tech companies will claim that certainly they have never worked with the NSA—at least not when they weren’t forced to by law. And the media will claim that there is nothing new in this report. They will all be lying for their own selfish reasons.

None of this information ever puts lives at risk because to a very large extent: it can’t. The vast majority of documents are classified because they embarrass the government. The purpose is not to keep them away from our enemies but to keep them away from us. We see this again and again. Declassified documents from decades ago always turn out to be the most pathetic things that never should have been classified in the first place. And one of the good things that Clinton did while president was open things up a bit and declassify a lot of documents. When Bush came into office, the administration immediately started reclassifying documents. That shows how foolish the whole thing is.

I know the high tech mindset very well. And it is true that small young companies really do have high ideals. Most of them are also fairly anarchic in their thinking and don’t like the idea of government spying. It is all part of the internet mindset. But after these little startups become real companies, everything changes. Then they only care about such ideals as a branding issue. There are lots of economic reasons for these companies to play nice with the NSA and other questionable parts of the government. So of course they are providing the keys to all their customers’ data. And they don’t care about this at all—as long as their customers never find out.

The media obsession with claiming that none of this information is new is particularly interesting. It depends upon a kind of urbane cynicism that just assumes that the government is doing all kinds of bad stuff. So: of course the government is spying on all of us; only a rube thought anything else! There are two problems with this. First, there is a difference between suspecting and knowing. Second, by that logic, we don’t need journalists at all. Why do we hold up Woodward and Bernstein as heroes? After all, many people suspected that Nixon was up to no good. All they did was tell us that politicians are corrupt. Big deal!

So expect all of these very predictable reactions. But don’t buy them for a minute. The government, business community, and media are not our friends. They are doing everything they can to keep us in the weak, poor, and blind.

Senator Boxer / Senator Feinstein / Representative Thompson:

Thanks,
Frank Moraes

Short and sweet. It doesn’t take much.

Sy Mukherjee wrote one of the funniest headlines I think I’ve ever read, Major New Study on Obamacare Premiums Should End the “Rate Shock” Hysteria Once and for All. Let me provide some background here, because I don’t cover it much. On the right, people have been fear mongering that because of Obamacare, there will be “rate shock”: everyone who currently buys their own insurance (a fairly same percentage of the people anyway) will see their rates go up—way up.

Part of the problem is that the same insurance for different people costs different amounts. For example, as I rush toward the fifty year line, I will pay more than some twenty-something. Similarly, not all insurance plans are the same. Some cover more. Some have more co-payments. This has allowed conservative supposed wonks like Avik Roy to claim that prices are exploding under Obamacare. Roy has also argued that we should make Obamacare more like the Swiss system without actually understanding that it is even more liberal than our system. The point is that conservatives will continue to find reasons to claim that Obamacare is just no good.

That’s why I thought the headline was so funny. Facts will never stop conservative hysteria about anything. Look: Avik Roy isn’t stupid. Not at all. But what he is is an apologist for conservative policy and against liberal policy. I’m sure he sees it as his job to attack Obamacare in any way that he can. That’s true of the whole right wing establishment. Even the head of the CATO institute—the only remaining conservative think thank (all the others have become propaganda mills)—said that if one of their studies found something he disagreed with ideologically, he would kill it. That’s the kind of thing we are dealing with on the right, so no study will change what they are saying.

This new study is from the The Kaiser Family Foundation and it is large: spanning 17 states (plus DC) where data are available. And the results are quite good. They indicate that the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office have tended to be a bit higher than things are turning out. “Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.” This is good news, but hardly surprising. Earlier, more limited studies have found exactly the same thing.

As I said, I don’t cover this stuff very much. The truth is, I see very clearly what is happening. Conservatives hate Obamacare. But they don’t much know why. When I talk to people about the program—on the left or right—they usually don’t understand it at all. But while those on the left just have a wait and see attitude, those on the right think that the program is going to take away their current insurance and replace it with something else. And generally, there is no convincing them otherwise. But the real reason conservatives are against it is because their elites have told them to be. And the elites hate it because it takes away from the “right” kind of people (it taxes the rich) and gives to the “wrong” kind of people (it give the poor healthcare). And no amount of good news about the program is going to change this dynamic for these hateful people.

On this day back in 1667, the Italian monk and non-Euclidean geometrist Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri was born. The great composer, Johann Christian Bach was born in 1735. He was the only clearly Classical of the Bach boys. Here is his Concerto for Flute in D Major:

Scottish poet Robert Fergusson was born in 1750. Romantic landscape painter Caspar David Friedrich was born in 1774. Composer Anton Diabelli was born in 1781. (He’s important but not enough so to quote.) Opera composer Giacomo Meyerbeer was born in 1791. Here is a bit from his opera Le Prophete:

One of the three great Russian novelist with the last name Tolstoy, Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy was born in 1817. The very famous French playwright who Shaw hated, Victorien Sardou was born in 1831. Jack Daniel was born in 1846. Guess what he did for a living. Outlaw Jesse James was born in 1847.

Producer Darryl F. Zanuck was born in 1902. The great composer John Cage was born in 1912. Here is one of his many wonderful pieces for prepared piano:

Check out my article Cage Does Cage!

Historical novelist Frank Yerby was born in 1916. The great songwriter John Stewart was born in 1939. Here he is doing his hit “Gold”:

And Freddie Mercury was born in 1946. Here is “Bohemian Rhapsody” sort of live:

Economist Paul Volcker is 86 today. Comedian Bob Newhart is 84. The ur-Rosa Parks, Claudette Colvin is 74. Actor Raquel Welch is 73. The great director Werner Herzog is 71. The singer-songwriter Al Stewart is 68. Here he is performing “Year of the Cat”:

And comedian Michael Keaton is 62.

The day, however, belongs to singer-songwriter Loudon Wainwright III who is 67. Truly, I could have picked 10 people with birthdays today. But I picked Wainwright for my friend Will who really likes him and really hates these birthday posts. Here he is (Wainwright, not Will) doing “Something’s Out to Get Me”:

Happy birthday Loudon Wainwright III!

It is clear that John McCain wants a full out war in Syria with ground troops and the like because he wants a war with Iran. He is not alone in this. I believe that this is largely why most conservatives favor the war. And it is most certainly why all the neocons are on board with this. All of the Americans who claim to be such supporters of Israel are always for attacking Iran because the current conservative Israeli government wants that. But I think this goes deeper than just “protection of Israel.” For one thing, it is not at all clear that attacking Iran is good for Israel.

I think this all goes back to 4 November 1979: the Iranian hostage crisis. Conservatives in America hold remarkably long grudges. We haven’t had official relations with Cuba for over 50 years. Why? I really don’t know. Certainly, we didn’t have any more of a problem with them than we had with the Soviet Union. What is the big deal? Well, I suppose I know what the big deal is. Cuba is a small enough country that we could get away with our childish behavior. The Soviet Union was not.

The same thing is going on with Iran. As “evil” governments go, Iran is quite good. It has created great stability in the region. And if we want the country to liberalize, we ought to, you know, open up the lines of communication. Word is that the people of Iran are quite positive towards us. I am well aware that liberals as well as conservatives use the same trilogy of terror (“axis of evil”) rhetoric. But I really think that if the conservatives like John McCain could just get over their ego hits about the embassy attack, we might be able to have a reasonable relationship with that country and do actual good for its people.

This is all speculation, of course. But we really seem to be focused on Syria. And I understand why liberals are focused on it: Obama blew it. He backed himself into a corner with his talk of “red lines.” Advice to the president: never talk about red lines. The conservatives, however, are interested in Syria in a larger sense. It is part of the bigger reshaping of the Middle East. That Iraq War went so well, maybe they think they can install a Syrian government that is even more allied with Iran. Just kidding. War with Syria is just one step away from war with Iran. And if these conservatives are really lucky, maybe they can get a third world war with Russia!

The real question now is whether or not we are going to go to war with Syria for silly reasons. Are we going to attack them because the president can’t admit to a mistake? Are we going to because conservatives hope to start a regional war? Because that’s the coalition. Once again, the American people are too smart to buy any of it. Like most people the world over, we just want to get on with our lives. We may be horrified about what’s happening in Syria. (I certainly hope so!) But we know starting a new war isn’t the way to help. And those who are for war have different agendas entirely.

A good person never bargains with his kindness. We are all rightly disgusted by quid pro quo corruption. “If you’re nice to me, maybe I’ll approve that zoning change you’ve been asking for.” Such behavior, though common, is reprehensible. That’s why when it goes on, it does so in private. Even the corrupt know that it is wrong.

So what are we to make of the rich folks I wrote about yesterday? These are the people who publicly and proudly tell us that we’d better keep their taxes low or they won’t create any more jobs. This isn’t even corruption; this is outright extortion. Even with all my cynicism, it is amazing that our society puts up with such things. After all, such statements are made by people who are doing very well. And far from public excoriation, most of our society simply cowers in fear while the minions of the rich dutifully lower their taxes.

I recently came upon a great article from two years ago, Understanding Our National Empathy Deficit. It discusses the fact that the rich are less empathetic than the poor. Of course, the public perception is just the opposite. This is because the rich get so much credit for the opera houses they build—they demand it! But let’s be clear: my occasional donation of a dollar to a stranded high school student sets me about a proportionally to a billionaires million dollar gift to his alma mater.

Three social scientists are the University of California tested whether the rich really do have less empathy than the poor. They had groups of rich and poor people play games that involved giving away real money. And regardless of the format of the games, the rich always gave away notably less. It’s all about learned behavior:

I really like that take on it because it shows that the rich are not necessarily bad people,[1] but the social environments affect how they behave. And the scientists understand what this means to public policy. “This dynamic, observes [co-author] Keltner, has clear implications for trickle-down public policy approaches that expect the rich to demonstrate a hefty dose of nobless oblige. That expectation, he notes bluntly, rates as ‘improbable, psychologically.'”

What I think is that all the self-congratulations and extortion of the rich when calling themselves “job creators” was enough to demonstrate their lack of empathy. But I’m glad to see that actual lab evidence backs it up. Now if we could just get policy makers to act on this information. Or at least get the public to understand the myth of the job creator.

[1] I still believe that lacking empathy helps in business success, so I don’t think this is entirely environmental.

This morning at Political Animal, Ed Kilgore wrote an excellent article, Rand Paul’s “Bible-Thumping” Nothing New. It discusses perhaps my biggest problem with Rand Paul and to a lesser extent his father Ron. Rand Paul is a social conservative. So how is it that also has this reputation as the libertarian white knight?

As I am fond of pointing out, it used to drive me crazy that at libertarian events, 95% of the people were really Republicans. In fact, a clear majority of these people were Rush Limbaugh fans. What distinguished them from ordinary conservatives was that they had systematized their ideology. But that didn’t generally turn them into libertarians. They were instead, conservatives with a libertarian gloss. And this is why, for example, you find “libertarians” who are anti-choice. Sure, they can make a libertarian argument: they just make the totally unreasonable assumption that full citizen rights apply to zygotes. No real libertarian who hold such a belief and indeed, the Libertarian Party has generally been pro-choice, even if their candidates and much of their rank-and-file are not.

An even better example is racism. It’s amazing how Paul will claim that he absolutely, positively is not a racist. But somehow his biggest policy positions feed right into the desires of bigots throughout the nation. When there was news that Ron Paul’s newsletter editorials were filled with explicit and implicit racism, the nation was shocked. But it shouldn’t have been. The very basis of libertarian thinking is that everyone gets what they deserve and when that isn’t so it is just because of government interference. So if dark skinned people are poor, it must be in their genes. Jason Richwine isn’t an aberration: he is what the movement is all about.

And it isn’t just people on the margins. Remember Ayn Rand’s apologia for the theft of the land of the native peoples in America:

This isn’t even a libertarian argument; it is fascism, pure and simple. Our culture is better than theirs so we have a right to do whatever we want. But notice how Biblical the argument is: the land is given to us to developed. And there is this strange anti-evolutionary notion that somehow we aren’t animals. Even if Ayn Rand was an atheist, there is a lot of religion in her work. And that’s true of most libertarians, most especially Rand Paul.

Kilgore lays it out perfectly:

Of course, the reason we have the likes of Rand Paul is that “actual libertarians” are extremely rare. It is not only an extremely hard philosophy, it is an extremely naive one. And Paul’s position on war only indicates that he doesn’t care about anyone else; it isn’t a principled stand. It goes right along with the conservative belief that the US Constitution only applies to citizens. We Americans are good and the rest of you can go to hell. (The fact that Paul reaches the right conclusion with the wrong thinking doesn’t matter.)

So when you hear Rand Paul pontificating as he is wont to do, just remember: he’s a conservative with a libertarian gloss. Or if you prefer: a conservative in libertarian clothing.

Matt Yglesias brought my attention to this really bizarre article at Bloomberg, Wealthy New Yorkers Call De Blasio’s Tax Plan Offensive. Yglesias says much of what needs to be said, but I wanted to add a couple of things.

In New York, Bill de Blasio wants to raise taxes on incomes over a half million dollars per year in order to pay for universal preschool. That was all well and fine when de Blasio wasn’t going to become mayor. But now that this is almost certain, the rich are shocked—Shocked I tell you!—that he would treat them so ill. Kathryn Wylde, for example, said, “It shows lack of sensitivity to the city’s biggest revenue providers and job creators.” Right there, you know you are talking to someone with her head up her ass. “Job creators”? Really?! Are we really still on that, because as I’ve written before, the job creator is a myth.

But this isn’t just about protecting the mythical job creators. The rich are attacking from all sides. They also claim that de Blasio shouldn’t even be talking about it because it will never get through the legislature. So taxing the rich lacks sensitivity but also will never happen. But wait, there’s more! Michael Steinhardt, while agreeing that income inequality is “troubling,” says, “perhaps even more so is the thought that more government spending is the way out of our problems.” So that lacks sensitivity, will never happen, but really shouldn’t happen.

So how big a tax increase is this? Well, as you can imagine, it’s enormous. It is the kind of thing that will likely shut down the whole New York Stock Exchange. Currently, income over $500,000 is taxed at 3.9%. De Blosio wants to change it to 44%! Wait, that’s not right. It’s 4.4%. Hold on there! That’s not much of a tax increase. That’s a 0.4 percentage point change, or a 12% increase that doesn’t apply to a whole bunch of money. But I can see why billionaire hedge fund managers would be upset. What I can’t see is why the rest of us should give a shit.

But don’t worry! Bloomberg tells us why this is unwise and unfair. You see, the rich already pay a large share of the taxes. They don’t explain that this is yet another example of just how unequal and unfair our economic system is. These people pay so much in taxes because they earn such unreasonable salaries. And this is understood by George Soros at least. He said that the idea “is sound public policy and will have a powerful impact on reducing inequality.” But some rich supporters are not so unreserved:

I have a couple of problems with this. First, is he saying that his support is only if the money goes to this cause? That sounds awfully elitist to me. I just pay my taxes every year. They go to all kinds of stuff I don’t agree with. That’s the deal, although I suspect that Parsons is correct to think that he can negotiate about this stuff. The rest of it is “job creator” bullshit. Oh yes, we all have to get down on our knees for these business people or they won’t “create” jobs for us.

Matt Yglesias points out that this goes right along with the needs hierarchy. The rich already have all the material things they could want. What’s left? Respect! They want everyone fawning all over them telling them how great they are. The problem from my perspective is that I’m a lot more concerned about people who are having troubling getting by than I am about the very tender feelings of the rich. And I have a solution for the problems of the rich: they could do things that would make the rest of us respect them. But I’m not holding my breath. (Most likely, tomorrow, I will have an article on that very subject!)

You may have heard about the video of the Long Beach police officers beating a prone man. Well, last night, NBC Los Angeles came to the rescue… of the police department. In a story that is shocking in its bias toward the LBPD, reporter Kim Baldonado does everything but accuse the victim, Porfirio Santos Lopez, of pedophilia.

We learn for example, that Lopez was drunk and, according the the police, admitted to being on methamphetamine. I don’t doubt that this is all quite true, but it bugs that such information would normally not be publicly available. But when the police department needs a cover, well, any information can be released. But the main thing is that this information doesn’t matter. I think everyone that sees the video assumes that the police were at least somewhat justified in starting their beating. The question is why did they continue to beat him when he wasn’t resisting.

Similarly, the story goes on to show a confrontation between Lopez and two other men before the police arrived. This is even worse. I suspect that the police wouldn’t have even collected this information if they hadn’t been covering their asses. And so they’ve used the footage for its primary purpose: to release it to the TV news to try to justify their actions. But again: it is irrelevant. We get it: Lopez should have been arrested. The question is whether he should have had bones broken and teeth knocked out.

These kinds of situations are typical and I doubt these cops are any worse than any other cops. Yesterday, while waiting for a bus, I was nearby when a woman was hit by a car. Witnesses quickly called 911, and very quickly a police car and fire truck arrived and tended to the injured woman. I was sitting on the curb behind the bus shelter in the parking lot. Another police car was coming to the scene through the parking lot. Another car was in front of it. The officer got impatient and raced past the car going roughly 40 miles per hour. I thought, “That’s just what we need: another pedestrian hit by a car.”

The point is that there was no rush for that particular cop to get to the scene. He was just keyed up with adrenaline (Which is much like methamphetamine, right?) and thus behaving irresponsibly. I’m sure that was what was going on with these cops in Long Beach. So I have no problem with reporting that explains the situation that these officers found themselves in. Generally, being a cop is a very boring but easy job. Situations like this one are hard and it isn’t surprising that cops sometimes screw up. But blaming the victim for the bad behavior as if of course they should have beat him to death is wrong. That isn’t journalism; that’s propaganda.

Afterword

If I’m very lucky, this embed will work:

Chris Hayes asked a question. Am I a liberal who just throws up the possibility of a negotiated settlement to the Syrian civil war so that I don’t have to deal with it? It is a good question that I’m sure Hayes is asking of himself as much as liberals in general. I can’t speak for him or any other liberal, but I can speak for myself. I don’t think it is true. There are a few issues here.

The first issue is that fundamentally, I’m with Alan Grayson. This isn’t our fight. It is horrible. It is a tragedy. But there are all kinds of those all the time and there is no reason why we ought to involve ourselves in this one especially. I just absolutely, positively don’t believe it when politicians claim that this thing has crossed the line. Pain does matter. I care how people die. But in this case, there is a 1 to 100 ratio of the deaths we are supposed to care about versus of the deaths we apparently don’t give a shit about.

The second issue is that if we really care about relieving suffering, there are much better things we can do. As Matt Yglesias has pointed out, we could do something about malaria. Money alone would do wonders, but I always wonder what we could do if we spent as much money developing malaria drugs as we do developing them for erectile dysfunction. We could also—and Chris Hayes mentioned this—allow more Syrians to move to the United States. But it appears that we don’t so much want to do anything for the Syrians as to the Syrians.

The third, and most important, reason for not bombing Syria is that it will make a negotiated settlement less likely. If we actually succeed at doing damage to the Assad regime, it will make a negotiated settlement less likely. Look: I don’t like Assad, but I have no problem with him staying in power if it will put an end to the killing and chaos. As it is, if the rebels won, Syria would just start another civil war as the various factions fought for control. And it seems to me especially probable that the groups most likely to win that conflict would be even worse than Assad.

So that is my answer to Chris Hayes. I don’t think by not going to war in Syria that everything will be wonderful. But I think it is (1) not our problem; (2) not a good use of our resources; and (3) likely to make a good resolution less likely. This is no liberal happy horseshit. I hope for a negotiated settlement. But even without that, our bombing will only make the situation worse.

Afterword

Rachel Maddow asked her own question. Basically: if all the people in the world who are against Assad are not for this bombing campaign, why are we? That’s an easy one: this is all about internal American politics. I still don’t think that Obama especially wants to attack Syria. He just backed himself into a corner. This is only an issue in the US because we are the only people who care if Obama is seen as “weak.”

On this day in 1824, the Austrian Romantic composer Anton Bruckner was born. Here is a bit from his Symphony Number 8, which is quite powerful and pleasant compared to most work of that period:

Inventor Lewis Howard Latimer was born in 1848. Horror film director Roy William Neill was born in 1887. The great French composer and one of Les Six, Darius Milhaud was born in 1892. Here is his absolutely delightful Suite per Violino, Clarinetto e Pianoforte. Really, you should listen to it; it charming in the way that seems to have been limited to French composers of the first half of the 20th century. It really was a wonderful period. But enough reading, listen!

Historical novelist Mary Renault was born in 1905. Biologist Max Delbruck was born in 1906. He determined that bacteria developed resistance to viruses as a result of advantageous genetic mutations. The great novelist Richard Wright was born in 1908. Really annoying radio personality Paul Harvey was born in 1918. Now we are stuck with his even more annoying son. Artificial intelligence pioneer John McCarthy was born in 1927. The great National Park Service photographer Jack Boucher was born in 1931.

Comedian Damon Wayans is 53 today. And Beyonce is 32.

The day, however, belongs to the great film director Edward Dmytryk who was born in 1908. There are many things to like about him. One is that he made wonderful films. Crossfire and The Caine Mutiny stand out, but there are many others. He also did prison time because of the Hollywood blacklisting for contempt of Congress. What I most remember him for is the books he wrote on filmmaking that taught me most of what I know about the art. They are really good books. You can get them all together (but I think it is out of print) as On Filmmaking. Here is the trailer for Caine:

Happy birthday Edward Dmytryk!

There is a point at which villainy becomes humorous and that happened today with a report at Huffington Post, Food Stamp Fliers Threaten To Name People On Government Benefits. According to the article, someone in Portland, Oregon has put up fliers that read, “There are twenty seven people in this neighborhood who vote and receive food stamps. The names of these people are being posted where they can be seen by taxpayers and the neighborhood can decide who is truly in need of food.” Ah yes, the defenders of tax payer money!

If you aren’t clear what these people are getting at, last month, there were similar fliers that read, “Benjamin Franklin said ‘when the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.’ Some of us in the neighborhood wish to save this democracy and to stand in the way of those who would destroy it.” So the problem is that those who are getting public assistance are able to vote themselves money. Therefore: we must stop the poor from voting!

Note how this is exactly the same argument that Dave Rubin made about drug testing the poor. “Well, I guess if they’re getting government money it isn’t asking too much to make them pee in a cup!” Or just not be allowed to vote. The thing about people who make these arguments is that they never want to go after the rich who get public funding. They might grouse a bit when they hear about some corporate boondoggle of a government contract on the TV box. But it takes the outrage of a family of four getting a hundred bucks a week in food to get them out on the street with their fliers.

We don’t know exactly who the people are who are putting out these fliers. But clearly this is the Tea Party mentality—right down to the founding father quote.[1] It goes deeper than that, however. Remember: the Tea Party did not burst on the scene after all our military interventions. It did not burst on the scene after the financial crisis and the huge TARP bailout of the banks. No, no, no! It burst on the scene after Rick Santelli’s CNBC rant. And what was that about? A homeowner refinance program that was a fraction of the cost of TARP. That’s the Tea Party mentality. It’s basically “Get the poor!” in a tricorne hat. (“Poor,” of course, can be replaced by whatever racist epithet the person likes.)

Of course, one thing we know about the Tea Party is that its membership is old. That is most likely due to the demographics of Fox News, which was singularly important in publicizing the movement. All the news that’s fit to create! But that means that the people in the Tea Party are much more likely to be on various kinds of subsidies like Social Security, Medicare, and even Disability. What’s more, as a more wealthy group, they are far more likely to have had their homes subsidized with the enormous mortgage interest deduction. None of these handouts are considered handouts by the Tea Party members.

There is a tendency to portray the Tea Party as a well educated group. The demographics do bear this out. But education in this country is more something you are born with. For example, you are more likely to graduate from college if you are born stupid and rich than if you are born smart and poor. Regardless, I know lots of smart and educated people who simply cannot see past their petty prejudices and generalized rage. And that’s what leads to people putting up fliers complaining that people who get food stamps shouldn’t be able to vote.

Afterword

A common apologia of conservatives who are on welfare is that “they paid into” whatever program it is: Social Security, Medicare, and so on. But these fliers mention SSI, the disability program. People paid into those as well. In fact, anytime any of us pays any taxes, we are paying into all of these programs. That’s how a society works. But this all shows the lie of the “we paid into it” defense. That isn’t what they mean. What they mean is “we are different.” The programs that benefit them are programs that “good” people take advantage of and programs that don’t are those for “bad” people. It’s as simple as that: in and out group. They are in and those people on food stamps and disability are out.

[1] For the record, I cannot find this quote anywhere. It seems to be apocryphal. It is however, huge with Tea Party people. Just google the phrase.