There are "No Excuses, No Exceptions" to "The Moral Imperative to Offer Refuge," writes Joseph G. Ramsey in Counterpunch. I can think of at least two readers who might be amused to see Kant's categorical imperative put to some good use, but Mr. Ramsey's characterization of what rageheads who would ban refugees really say -- "Let these people fend for themselves. Let them suffer. Let them sink into the mud of ramshackle refugee camps. Let them be crushed and flayed against iron fences and razor wire. Let them be swallowed by the seas. Let them starve where they squat" -- hits the point head-on. Of course, the "liberal" media would never air such a notion -- it's too hardcore for them.
After Trump supporters beat up a protestor shouting "black lives matter" at a Birmingham, AL rally, the man himself says "(m)aybe he should have been roughed up," because what the protestor was doing was "disgusting" and he was "a troublemaker, looking to make trouble" (that last part, apparently, is for folks who don't know what a troublemaker is). If Jeb Bush wants to position himself as the "serious" Republican candidate, he could try bashing Mr. Trump for approving of the beating of a protestor. He might also add that "being obnoxious" and a "troublemaker" aren't grounds for getting beaten up anywhere at any time. And he might even add that the media enables Donald Trump's antics, to the point where if Mr. Trump actually snapped someone's neck with his bare hands, the media would call the event "provocative."
Kasia Tarcyznska, writing at the Good Jobs First blog, explains how Kraft Heinz stands to gobble up $20 million in welfare handouts from Iowa taxpayers even though they're planning to eliminate 900 Iowan jobs. The good news? This is actually controversial in Iowa! And the Mayor of Davenport, IA (where Kraft Heinz will rebuild its existing plant) reminds us that without jobs, there's fewer taxpayer money to give away in the first place, almost like that's the idea.
Alec MacGillis, writing in ProPublica, tries to explain why so many areas of America with so many poor folks who depend on government assistance keep electing politicians determined to slash it. Long story short: poor folks who actually get assistance aren't voting, but the folks a step above them economically, who look down on them as "moochers," are -- and "these voters are consciously opting against a Democratic economic agenda that they see as bad for them and good for other people — specifically, those undeserving benefit-recipients in their midst." It'd be nice, also, if Democrats would use their power when they get it to force corporations to create good jobs and pay workers more so they don't need government assistance as much.
Finally, speaking of the relationship between welfare and work, an MIT/Harvard study evaluates seven welfare programs for working folks (more precisely, "cash transfer" programs) and finds that precisely zero of them "discourage(d) work." Six of the seven programs were "conditional" cash transfer programs (i.e., money from the state if you get your kids vaccinated and/or send them to school), but the unconditional cash transfer program from Mexico also saw no change in employment levels or hours worked due to the program. Of course, we're talking very small amounts of money in these programs -- the kind of welfare banksters and other corporations get are huge enough that they really do discourage work.