Thursday, December 21, 2017

Note on Tax Scam

Republican point man talking head on CBS This morning, this morning, saying that we will see very quickly if people get more money in their pay check That's their line. yes you will get some more money maybe as much as 2000$ for the year, That's going to make everyone say it worked,it was good it;s success, Trump is great! But is that really any thing more then selling your birth right for one meal?

Like Jacob and Essay in the Bible they expect the Americanv voter to tell their birthright for one bowl of protege then be forever slaves to Trump's fascism For 2000$! While the gulf between rich and poor grows exponentially, The Republicans and other expositors have stated the personal tax rates will go back after a few years, The corporate rates wont, So it;/skusta small rarebit in a sense but it creates the sense that it proves Trump is true.

Getting some money back in pay checks us not going to prove that companies are investing labor intensive industry or updating their operations., That is the real test, Without that all all they've done is massively increase the deficit gut social programs and give the rich the greatest rip off of the average person in history,

GOP propaganda shows they still rely on trickle down to fix the deficient caused by the tax scam. Trickle down does not work. They will not invest in labor intensive areas, Surveys indicate CEO's already contemplating how to spend the tax money are not planning on investigating in labor,
Republicans are liars. they are liars they have no regard for the people.

Tillich and Theological method

Athesits are always talking about how stupid theology is. "I don't have to read the theology because I know it's stupid." I hear various ones (not all but many) say that all the time. I would like them to actually read some theology and tell me why it's stupid. Here is some theology for them to read. They are always saying "what else would you use but scinece?" What that really means is their self selected set of facts form scinece that back their ideology, excluding those that disprove their ideology. My answer to them is "phenomenology." But you have to read this to know how it works.

Tillich was born August 20, 1886, in Starzeddel, then a province of Brandenberg, Germany (now part of Poland), family moved to Berlin 1900. His father was a Luthern Pastor. He was ordained as a Luthern Pastor in 1912 and kicked around giving lectures at various universities: Berlin, Dresden and Frankfurt.[1]

His liberalism and opposition to the Nazi movement led to his dismissal in 1933. Fortunately, Reinhold Niebuhr, whom he had met in Germany, offered him a position at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. Tillich became a U.S. citizen in 1940, then took up a position at Harvard in 1954, followed by one at the University of Chicago in 1962, where he was to remain until the end of his life.[2]

Paul Tillich is the central figure in the current effort; Heidegger is definitely a major influence upon Tillich. Be that as it may the great Theologian did not merely copy off the philosopher’s understanding of being. Tillich was a influenced by Heidegger philosophically, but was also his political enemy. The former was a leftist and a socialist, the latter a right-winger and Nazi. Tillich was coming from the perspective of a larger tradition; Christian theology is not all Aristotelian, there’s a whole Platonic wing that produced centuries of complex and brilliant ferment form which the average communicant is totally cut off. That tradition also has it’s own take on being. Tillich lived in that tradition like a fish lives in water. Perhaps it was Heidegger’s connection with the “life world” that gave him his connection to Nazism through the notion of the folks, the soil, the people and their traditions.[3] It’s easy for us to judge looking back on Nazism as the emblematic evil, while we forget many intelligent people were duped by it. Perhaps it was Tillich’s connection with the medievalists and his love of the Platonic that enabled him to see the valuable connections in Heidegger’s ties to the past. Tillich was not a dusty scholar, however, stuck in the library with no connection to the life of the day. He was a vibrant intellectual of modernity and he constantly tried to bring his medievalism into the present and understand it in a modern light. He used Heidegger to modernize. Nevertheless, in the world of their present, however, Germany of the 1930’s these arid philosophical issues took on a concrescence of life and death.
Tillich’s response to the political situation of his day was a proving ground for his theological method, and he responded to the crisis of Germany in the twenties and thirties the same way he responded to modern theology; by relating the human situation in which he lived to the larger picture of faith and the Christian and seeking the psychological points of contact where the human perception of God manifested it in symbolic terms pointing to our ultimate concerns. Tillich contrasts “Kerygmatic” theology with “apologetics.” Kerygma refers to the unchanging truth, and this contrasted with the temporal situation, always in flux.[4] Tillich’s concept of “the situation” includes the cultural context of time and place. Tillich is the embodiment of his own concerns. He more than any other theologian of the twentieth century, personified liberal theological credo; translating the timeless truth of the Gospel into the moment in one’s own cultural context, as he advocated doing.
Tillich’s major methodological move is called “correlation.” In a nut shell, he correlates the great truths of Christian doctrine, though an understanding of the symbols it uses, with the existential apprehensions within the current situation, when the two stack up in some way, he lined them up.[5] Tillich understood this as a philosophical task, even for theologians. The task of the philosopher must draw upon material from all realms of culture.[6] One central question give focus to the entire inquiry: what does it mean to exist? Tillich understood this as an “existential” analysis. The cultural context of this term as used in that era meant that the question was central to human understanding.[7The term “existential” is closely related to phenomenology. Both deal with allowing the sense data to suggest the categories into which we organize the data. Both deal with human understanding as rooted in its own immediate life situation. It begins with the perspective of the individual in the concrete situation. One immediate implication of this aspect is that it might suggest that we ignore the phony Aristotelian perspective of which atheists try to hard to root themselves, the “rational man,” the “scientist” (meaning “reductionist”) who decides before the tally is ever made that there can’t be anything beyond the material. This “rational man” is a phony place to start because it automatically rules out the transcendent, the sacred, the aspects of human existence that have always meant the most to people. It assumes form the beginning that there’s “nothing there” and reality must be defined by pre set ideology involving the wearing of white lab coats.
As the term “existential” implies, the perspective is concerned with the meaning of existence. According to Tillich’s perspective of the existential self understanding rooted in the standard point of the meaning of existence was the primary issue and fundamental problem around which all of human understanding orbits. “Existence is the question which underlies all other questions.”[8] Yet Tillich did not pin the answer upon existentialist dogma. Nor did he root the answer in the situation itself. The answer would not come from the situation but from the universal and timeless message brought by the symbols of the Christian faith. This is no retreat to the ivory tower; it’s an attempt to bring the truth of the message to the place where it is needed, the actual concrete situation of life, and to apply in a relevant way. Tillich said “the method of correlation explains the content of the Christian faith through existential questions and theological answers in mutual interdependence.”[9]
The term “correlation” Tillich uses in three different ways. It can indicate the correspondence of a series of different sets of data; it can designate the interdependence of concepts; or it can designate the real interdependence of things in structural wholes.[10

There is a correlation in the sense of correspondence between religious symbols and that which is symbolized by them. There is a correlation in the sense between concepts denoting the human and those denoting the divine. There is a correlation in the factual sense between man’s ultimate concern and that about which he is ultimately concerned. The first meaning of correlation refers to the central problem of religious knowledge…the second meaning of correlation determines the statements about God and the world, for example the correlation of infinite and finite. The third meaning of correlation qualifies the divine human relation within religious experience…[11]

This is a crucial passage in Tillich, because these concepts, his take on symbols and their participation in what they symbolize, the use of symbols as the delivery system for revelation, meaning, answers, as well as the religion of the eternal and the temporal, these are the concepts which form the basic engine of his ontotheology. [12] In the next chapter these concepts will be crucial in formulating the meaning of “being itself, “ or “the ground of being.” There has been a certain degree of fear expressed by various theological concerns that correlation relativizes the divine or makes God dependent upon man. Tillich argues that God is not dependent upon man but our understanding of God’s revelation to us is dependent upon our willingness to understand. Solidarity between humans and the divine is dependent upon our willingness to be in solidarity.[13] Thus it is also dependent upon our wiliness to seek correlation.
The methodology of correlation proceeds as follows: In analyzing the human situation the theologian demonstrates that symbols used in the Christian message offer answers to the existential questions that arise. The answers are much older than existentialism. Tillich points out that they are as old as humanity and they have been expressed in many ways since humans began to think philosophically.[14 In pondering our existential condition we realize that we are strangers in the world and we can’t penetrate beyond the surface level of science. In coming to grasp this realization we also realize that we ourselves are the answer to this problem. Because we are human, because we are trapped in an existential dilemma we automatically have the credentials and the method for moving beyond the surface level, which is the level of science, and penetrating the nature of being. Though our state as examples of being for itself we are able to understand the nature of existence. This is where we can employ philosophical thinking in understanding our own being. “whoever has penetrated into the nature of his own finitude can find the traces finitude in everything that exists. And he can ask the questions implied in his finitude as the question implied in finitude universally.”[15]

[1] Sam Addision, Website for Gifford Lectures. “Authors, Paul Tillich.” URL visited 10/20/10.
[2] Ibid
[3] find
[4] Michael Gleghorn. “Paul Tillich’s Theological Method: A Summary Evaluation.” Online PDF file, URL:
visited 10/28/10. no pagination.
Gleghorn is a conservative from Dallas Theological Seminary so his ultimate evaluation of Tillich’s theology is negative. He finds that Tillich is prone to error due to his method. Yet his summary of Tillich’s view is cogent.
[5] Gayton B. Hammond, “An Examination of Tillich’s Method of Correlation.” OxfordJournals: Journal of The American Academy of Religion Vol XXXII, Issue 3, 248-251. On line version URL: .Visited 11/8/10, Hammon is professor of Philosophy and Religion at Virginia Polythechnic Institute in Blacksberg Va. Ph.D. Vanderbilt, Yale Divinity School.
[6 Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Paul Tillich quoted in Alistter E. McGrath, “Paul Tillich: Method of Corroletion,” The Christian Theology Reader. (online page 53) Maldan Ma, USA: Blackwell Publishing, Alister E. McGrath ed. first published 1995, second edition 2001-2004 Google books online version URL: visited 11/8/10.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ontotheology, I understand that this term is used mockingly of thinkers such as Tillich. It’s like the term “phalologocentric” it’s a means of saying “this is out of date,” ‘this is opposed to our truth regime.” I therefore use it proudly and defiantly.
[13] Tillich in McGrath, Ibid.
[14] Ibid. 54
[15] Ibid.


Monday, December 18, 2017

my own intro to Tillich

This will be in several parts, an introduction and a couple of explaintory installments then some arguments.

Paul Tillich (1866-1965) was one of the most influential Christian theologians of the twentieth century. Tillich spoke to the times. He was painfully aware of the collapse of modernity (the beginning of which he traced from the enlightenment), and tried to formulate a concept of Christian theology for the dawning Postmodern era. In so setting up the dialogue with post modernity he forged the central concept with which this essay will concern itself: God as being itself, or The Ground of Being. Tillich was not the first theologian to think of this idea, nor the last to embrace it, he was probably its most famous supporter. He was born in Strazeddel, Brandenburg (Germany—now part of Poland). His father was a Lutheran minister and the family moved to Berlin in 1900. He studied at three universities, Berlin, Tübingen and Breslau, taking his doctorate in philosophy from the latter in 1911. He was ordained as a Lutheran minister in the following year. He served as Army Chaplin in World War I, after which he spent several years lecturing at several major universities in Germany. In 1933 he came to America to escape the Nazi movement. Reinhold Neibuhr, another major theologian of the century, had met Tillich in Germany and offered him a post at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He also moved to Harvard in 1954 and to University of Chicago in 1962, where he remained until his death.

Tillich was a modern thinker, aware of the breaking down of modernity into Post modernity. He was concerned with translating the Gospel into modern terms, and he felt keenly the issues of the mid twentieth century concerning socialism, cold war, existentialism, the growth of science and the shrinking of faith. He was engaged with secular society and the interplay between the Church and the world. This modernist cosmopolitan nature of Tillich’s gave him the reputation and image of a radical, an invocative speculative theologian. He put things in terms of the existentialist concerns of the era; he doesn’t talk about “God,” when he can talk about, “the object of ultimate concern.” He doesn’t talk about “that which nothing greater than can be conceived” when he can talk about “the ground of being,“ or better yet, “being itself.” For this reason it’s easy to overlook Tillich’s Orthodox nature. It’s easy to be carried away with the radical image of a theologian who contributed to the “death of God movement” (although without meaning to) and to assume he is shedding everything of the Christian past. It’s easy to hear him speak of “the God beyond God” and assume that that means he’s an atheist, and then to overlook the fact that Tillich never lost concern for the debates of the Christian Middle Ages. He was always influenced by Augustine, his concern over “ground of being” was a continuation of his Augustinian based neo Platonist assumptions and his concern for the break down of Augustinian synthesis after the onslaught of Thomism. “The key to an understanding of Tillich’s handling of the tradition is his fundamental proposition that every interpretation is a creative union of the interpreter and the interpreted in a third beyond both of them.” He called “questionable” the idea of an impartial reading of “just the facts” yielding a clean unambiguous or unbiased “objective truth.” Tillich was too Hegelian and too Marxist to think that one could, as Carl Braaten puts it “survey the past in cool detachment.”

Such was the perspective that Tillich brought to History. He was not interested in history as a string of facts, or merely as an “objective” recitation of “what happened.” He saw history as a interpretation of where humanity has been and what humanity has understood. He saw that interpretation as a synthesis. Tillich transcended “church” history and “sacred history” he saw human history as happening together to all people, beyond the boarders of the church. He also saw the Spirit working beyond the boarders of the church, he saw God working beyond the boundaries of “sacred history” so that all of history was united. In this regard one of his interests was the use of the Logos in the church fathers. He was taken with Justin Martyr’s understanding of the Logos as working outside the church in all of humanity.

The common ground for both Tillich and Justin was the presence of the Logos beyond the boundaries of the church, making it possible for men in all religions to have a partial grasp of the truth, a love of beauty and a moral sensitivity. Tillich could stand ‘on the boundary’ between theology and philosophy, church and society, religion and culture, because the Logos who became flesh was the same Logos who was universally at work in the structures of human existence. Tillich’s apologetic writing demonstrates how he shared the conviction of the apologists that Christians by no means have a monopoly on the truth, and that truth, wherever it may be found, essentially belongs to us Christians.

Thus the Logos influence gives Tillich a seeming universalism but it’s easy to miss the fact that he is coming from a totally Orthodox Christian perceptive in the traditional apologists. The modern secular thought categories he employs make him seem radical and unconcerned with the Christian belief of the past, whereas in reality he is really concerned with translating into those categories the doctrines of the church both reformed and primitive which he held sacred implicitly. The Christian thought categories were his true mode of thought, so much so that the middle ages were alive for him. It’s from this perspective and out the concern for the truth of the Gospel that he sought to translate those Christian ideas into modern secular categories.

One of Tillich’s major signature moves is to translate the Gospel into categories that summarize the secular nature of society and speak to its relationship to God. He does this in the Tillichian terminology: autonomy, heteronomy, and Theonomy. Autonomy is the independence of modern society from God. The enlightenment, the rise of modern science, LaPlace’s statement “I have no need of that [God] hypothesis,” these are all examples of the autonomous nature of modern humans. The term applies specifically to forms of culture. Tillich’s concern for the role of Spirit in the Creation of culture came to him from his study with Ernst Troeltsch; Examples of this historical autonomy the era of Greek Philosophy, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment and modern secularism. Bonehoeffer spelled it out well enough in his phrase “man come of age.” Heteronomy is an imposed alien sense forced upon the masses. This is a view point that in Postmodern parlance is called “totalizing,” the view of the dreaded “metanarrative.” That is to say, a “totalizing view” is an overarching view that overshadows all else, an ideology. Heteronomy can be religious and often has been religious. Heteronomy the attempt of humans to take the place of the divine, it comes right out of the Augustinian concerns of Tillich. Augustine said that the City of Man can never be the City of God. No aspect of temporal power can ever claim to be the expressions of divine will, no human construct can ever claim to be the City of God. These two cities, that of God and that of “man” have different origins and different ends and though they live one inside the other, they can never claim to be the same or to subsume each others functions. Though Tillich was concerned with the secular though he did see the Logos as working beyond the boundaries of the church, he did not become confused and think that the church could impose the logos or that the state could subsume the divine will. In fact he remained ever vigilant against the proud claims of others toward heteronomy. Theonomy was the culture in which “inner potentialities of man are being fulfilled through the diving presence of the Spirit, giving powers, meaning and direction to the autonomous forms of life.” Tillich was adamant that a true situation of theonomy could never really be achieved. Theonomy does seem to be so much a matter of a theistic society as a society in which the Logos is at work and is allowed to freely interact with culture. The attempt to force this interaction would be heteronomy.

In the working out of these idioms we see a very Orthodox set of concepts, a very Christian set of concepts. These concepts are probably closer to the reformed movement but are not exclusive of the Orthodox of the East or the Roman Catholic. The three aspects of culture, autonomy, heteronomy, and theonomy are basically related to the Gospel. We see fall, the attempt of humanity to impose an answer in the type of priest craft, and in spirte the human institution, redemption through the spirit. This tripartite understanding of culture is Augustinian to the extent that we have the city of God and the City of man in relation to each other. The City of man is autonomous, the city of God is theonomy in that it allows the Spirit to move out and affect culture (autonomy) without trying to impose it’s own will or bend the City of Man to the ends of the City of God. The Divine city is located in the human city. The attempt to take over the human city and bend its ends and means to the purpose of the divine is the heteronominous or an er zots city of God. Thus Tillich’s seeming secularism, his radical nature, his Marxism, are actually means to the end of interpretation, they are the tools with which Tillich hoped to translate the Reformed understanding of the Gospel into modern categories of thought. When I say “Reformed” I am aware that Tillich was not Calvinist but Lutheran. I am using this term to mean “Reformational—of the Reformation” in a general sense. In so doing his aim was not to change the Gospel but to relate to modern people. He understood the changing of the maze ways and he sought to give the church a map with which it could following the shifting of the maze ways and to give secular society a means of continuity with the Christian tradition. In this sense he was striving to enable modern society to open to the possibility of theonomy. This same concern leads him into his definition of God as “being itself” or “the ground of being. These are terms that tie in specifically with issues that were important in the mid twentieth century. One thinks of Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, as well as its influence in Heidegger This terminology is coming right of modern mid twentieth century existentialism and yet at the same time it is also coming out of a much more ancient tradition of the church stretching back to the seventh century. At one and the same time Tillich both speaks the concept of “God” into modernity and gives it a currency of that day, and also in so doing connects it to the tradition of the church and brings back a concept the church had basically vacated.

Tillich is often mistaken for an atheist but it’s really his own fault. He seemed to have cultivated and cherished the confusing image of a radical innovator who purposely (so it seems) obscured his orthodox ideas and motives lurking underneath the surface. One of his most confusing moves was to state that “God does not exist.” It seems pretty obvious on a surface level that he was an atheist. But only the unwary who are not steeped in Tillich buy his statements at face value. Of course he does not mean there is no God. He’s using the term “exist” in a highly technical sense one that could be misleading. To understand this statement we have to plug in the second half of it: “God does not exist, he is being itself.” This seems contradictory, God doesn’t exist but God is being. So he’s juxtaposing being and existence. The meaning of that move is rooted in a whole systemic way of thinking that is pure Tillichian, which John MacQuarrie calls “Tillich’s Existential Ontology. “ One cannot understand Tillich without understanding his ontology. For Tillich existence (as a term) is for contingency. “Existing things” are contingent things. The term “Being” he reserves for necessary things. Here both ontologically as well as logically necessary are implied. Being itself is necessary in the modal sense, it is not dependent upon prior conditions, nor can it cease or fail. Thus, when he says “God does not exist” he Is not saying there is no God. He’s actually saying that God is not classified among existing things in creation. God is not a thing in creation along side other things. We can’t say “the universe contains rocks, trees, air, automobiles, penguins, sandwiches, junk yards, can openers, tooth brushes, swizzle sticks, and God.” God is a priori at a higher level, in a class by “him/herself.” God is the foundation of all that is. This is the meaning of the term “ground of being.” God is the basis of all that is and as such is not on a par with existing things, because existence is the level of contingent things. God is necessary in the sense of modal logic, and not contingent. The distinction between being and existence goes back to the distinction that Tillich draws between essence and existence. Essence is the potential of a thing, or the basis upon that thing rests and toward which is seeks to fulfill. Existence is its actuality. It is necessary for Tillich to make this kind of distinction between existence and essence, if God was on the level of existing things he would be subject to being, he would be just another thing in creation.

[1] Sam Addison,  “Paul Tillich Bibliogrophy,” Gilford Lectures, website: URL visited 8/3/2009Addison is at University of Aberdeen.
[1] Carl E. Braaten, “Paul Tillich and The Classical Christian Tradition,” in A History of Christian Thought: From the Judaic and Hellenistic origins to Existentialism, Lectures by Paul Tillich. Carl E. Braaten ed. New York, a Touchstone book; Simon and Schuster, 1968. xxiv.
[1] Ibid, xvi
[1] Ibid., xvii
[1] Ibid, xix-xx
[1] Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought: From the Judaic and Hellenistic origins to Existentialism, Lectures by Paul Tillich. Carl E. Braaten ed. New York, a Touchstone book; Simon and Schuster, 1968. 528-30.
[1] Ibid., xxiii Oddly enough, because I know of no real connection, the elements of Tillich’s view on this point are strikingly similar to those of Albert Schweitzer in his understanding of the definition of civilization. Tillich’s Theonomous society would be Schweitzer’s ideal civilization.
[1] John MacQuarrie Principles of Christian Theology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966.
[1] Paul Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations. New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948.
[1] This was raised in a private discussion when one of my former professors was told I was working on this project.
[1] Paul Tillich, The Courage to BeLondon and Glasgow: Collins, the Fontana Library, 1952-74.175
[1] Tillich, History, 247
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid
[1] That is according to my friend Scott Gross who studied process theology at Claremont with Hartshorne, D.Z. Phillips.
[1] Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology volume IIChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press, 1957, 10-11.
[1] Ibid
[1] John MacQuarrie, Principles of Christian Theology,  op cit (find where he says being and the beings)
[1] find
[1] Tillich, ST I, 163.
[1]  Ibid.
[1] Ibid., 163-64
[1] Ibid, 164
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Tillich, History…, op cit, 541.
[1] Tillich, ST 1, 166
[1] Tillich, ST I,  164.
[1] Ibid, 166
[1] Ibid, 168
[1]  Ibid., 169-170.
[1] Tillich, Courage…, op cit, find
[1] Tillich ST I 169.
[1]  Ibid., 171
[1] Ibid, 172
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.

Great lecture on Tillich

Image result for metacrock's blog Paul Tillich
Tillich (d1965)

I will be back blogging soon. In mean time Hear this great lecture on Tillich by a guy named Manning, It;s real long.

Monday, December 11, 2017

we have only a week to save the internet

Trump' FCC Plans Destruction of Net Neutrality

This is a disaster, It would be bad enough if raising fees to use the net meant I can't read comic books or looking at little You Tube things,No more music,That's my  major connection to the music I love. But the move means much more than curtailment of pleasure surfing,It's the blow to the resistance,Its closing of the only sources of information for countering Trump's lies and it's the only way to fight by spreading the word, Also for me it means no more books. No more blog n o more theological research,

We only have until early December to act!

(NOV 21 2017, 4:51 PM ET)

Everything from the way you use banking apps to the speed of your Netflix stream could soon be changing, if all goes to plan for the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC's mission — essentially gutting the internet as we know it — would allow service providers to create so-called fast and slow lanes for subscribers.
Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, announced on Tuesday a plan to put an end to what he called the federal government's "micromanaging" of the internet. Details of the proposal will be released on Wednesday, three weeks before it will be put to a vote by the FCC on Dec. [read More]

SIGN PETITION tell congress

Republican Senators* at (844) 241-1141 

Share this on social media put it on your blog,send links, Tell everyone, this is a disaster, This will kil all resistance to Trump, this is nothing less than control of the media,



(NOV 21 2017, 4:51 PM ET)

Metacrock down

I am sick unable to post. sorry, back soon,pneumonia. was in hospital per weekend, home now still don;t feel lie posting, back soon talk among yourselves,

Monday, December 04, 2017

More about the Course of Human Events

Image result for when the government tells you who to fight it;s war when you figure it out for yourself its revolution

 It;s time to strip away the illusion that there are Republican stateswomen (Susan Collins) and statesmen (McCain) who actually care about people. Look at the overall historical record of their party:
Throughout 2017, President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have continually taken aim at the health, well-being, and independence of Americans with disabilities. From repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and end Medicaid as we know it to budget proposals that slash Social Security disability benefits, disability employment services, Meals on Wheels, and more, the agenda Trump and his colleagues in Congress are on Wheels, and more, the agenda Trump and his colleagues in Congress are pursuing would be nothing short of a disaster for people with disabilities. The latest attack comes in the form of their partisan tax plan, which passed the House on November 16 and is set to be voted on in the Senate as soon as this week.Although they have sold the plan as a Christmas present for the middle class, under the Senate bill, a staggering 87 million* middle- and working-class families would see their taxes rise by 2027. Meanwhile, the top 0.1 percent would receive an average tax cut of $208,060. Furthermore, by repealing the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate, the tax plan would also undermine the individual insurance market, driving up premiums and leaving 13 million more Americans without health insurance by 2025...[Read More][1]
Collins and McCain put on a big show, They were the saviors of the common people, They saved health care, With this bilk, whch they voted form they went around back and murdered the very innocent people they got thorough waving. I say snuck around back because voting for the tax scam is a less direct but just as effective way of taking health care away from people, Most voters may not know the connection this is taxes not health care, Also, they can say protections were written into the bill.

Make no mistake this travesty of legislation will destroy health care for the common person,The very 13 million Collins claimed to be protecting on  Obama care are going to lose medicare and medicaid, a huge short fall in revenue (1.5 Tillion dollars) means cuts to social programs. AARP has denounced the Tax Scam will resulting in huge cuts to medicare.[2]
The republicans give us an indication of hat they do with funding short fals, They ctake life saving services away from helpless people.Robert Reich :
Since September, Republicans in Congress have refused to reauthorize funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage for 9 million kids. The cost of the program is roughly $15 billion a year. By contrast, the Trump-Republican tax plan will cost the country $1.5 trillion.This is what we've come to: Trump and Republicans in Congress are willing to deprive children health care to enrich their wealthy donors. Have they absolutely no shame?[3]
Rubio admitted that after the Tax scam passes the next target at which the GOP marauders will take aim and seek to destroy are Medicaid and Medicare,[4]
The Center forAmerica Progress argues tha the tax scam is a tax on disapbility. it copies this list"

 (1) Eliminates affordable care act's individual mandate

(2) Raises Taxes on people Facing high medical bills

(3) Makes research for drugs for rare conditions more expensive

(4) Makes Disability accessibility ore expensive for small businesses

(5) raises taxes for People with student loans

(6) Ends Tax credit that spurs development in small communities

(7) Automatic cuts to medicare disability and other such programs (which means I will die)[5]

As for this last one: 
On top of these direct attacks on people with disabilities, congressional Republicans’ tax plan would also quietly result in deep cuts to a whole range of programs that are critical to people with disabilities. Since the tax bills’ giveaways to millionaires and wealthy corporations are not fully paid for, they would jack up the deficit by about $1.5 trillion over the next decade, not including interest on the debt. And under the Statutory Pay-As-You Go Act, any legislation that increases the deficit triggers automatic cuts to various federal programs. In fiscal year 2018 alone, Medicare would see automatic cuts of $25 billion, and it would be slashed by more than $400 billion over 10 years.A host of other programs would face devastating automatic cuts or even outright elimination. They include Vocational Rehabilitation Basic State Grants, which fund state programs that help people with disabilities prepare for, secure, regain, or retain employment; the Social Services Block Grant, which funds critical services for adults and children with disabilities as well as Meals on Wheels; and affordable housing programs that subsidize low-income housing and home ownership. Certain higher education programs also could lose funding, such as those that support historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges, as well as grants that help the children of service members who lost their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan afford college.[6]
All of this treachery against the American people casts the all searching light upon two dark corners where lurk the woefullest of republican lies, First it makes a total lie of the Republican fear of deficits How may wonderful programs have been sacked on the grounds that we dare not grow deficits? The whole Reagan candidacy was predicated upon the idea that deficits were the bane of national existence. Turns out they create a huge deficient at the drop a hat. Watt they really hate is taxes and that only in so far as they touch the rich, The will tax the stuffing out of the middle class, Taxation with representation but what do you do when your representation sees you as fodder for their true masters the rich?

The second lie exposed is the heart of the whole Republican ideology: the great lie of trickle down, The whole Rep answer to any of the surmounting problems incurred by the revenue short fall is :we wills stimulate business and that will mean economic growth and we will out grow the deficit, Time and time again we should have leaned they  never put that money into employment. It's never worked that way, this time it will because these wonderful heroes like McCain are for it. But history says it never does. The Reason tax cuts, for example, did not translate to jobs. [7] A 65 year study shows tax cuts don't lead to economic growth,[8] The Republicans and Trump have provided all the explanation we need. what they have not given us and they do not have is Data backing the lies about the tax scam producing economic growth on that point the experts agree it;s a dud.[9]

Of course this invalidates the entire principle of the republican policy making. But then evren a casual observer can see this generation of GOP legislators are not serous abut policy-making They clearly don't give a damn about the consequences in terns of adverse effects upon the poor vermin who are so stupid they chose not to be rich. Look at the process, They crammed promises scrawling on paper by hand --promise anyone anything to get the vote--we'll iron it all out in committee, The problem is how do you know you will still have your special little promise after the committee is done? So most of them sold their souls for assurances they aren't going to get.

Then there was trutleman , McConnell saying "It's the losers who whine about the process." You know like wanting a fair trial, a democratic election, and no taxation without representation. They are all utter liars, and pernicious blood sucking leaches.They cannot be trusted,It is a matter of life and death,I've already documented 13,000 deaths every year from now on due to Trump's one action on coal fired plants, and now this tax scam causes suffering and death for  millions. We are fools if we don't fight back. Drop everything you live for and live to win the mid term elections.we absolutely must, We need to go back to the kind of passionate intensity the resistance had on inauguration day and when we shouted at reps in public meetings,
remember the words of that old familiar "communist" document:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[10]
I think in this revolution they will know our reasons  before we state them.


[1]  Center for American Progress (
(access 12/4/17)

[2] Staff, "The AARP Just hit the GOP a Crippling Blow"
Real Time Politics (Dec 2, 2017)
(access 12/4/17)

[3]Robert Reich face book 12/3/17
(access 12/4/17)

[5] Rebecca Vallas,et al op cit.
(access 12/4/17)

[6] Ibid.
(access 12/4/17)

[7] Derek Thompson, "Tax Cuts Did Not Pay For Themselves." The Atlantic (JUN 17, 2011
(access 12/4/17)

[8] Derek Thompson, Tax Cut's Don;t Lead To Ecnoic Growtha 65 Year Study..."
(access 12/4/17)

[9] Eric Zorn, "Actual Experts Agree GOP Tax Plan is a Dud." Chicago Tribute,(Nov 28, 2017)
(access 12/4/17)

[10]"Declaration of Independence"UShistory org
(access 12/4/17)