The economic stimulus plan is being opposed based on the logic that it must not look like the agenda of democrats, it must look like the agenda of republicans. Isn't that what democrats were elected for—to promote the agenda of republicans? After all, shouldn't the agenda which created the problem be the agenda which fixes the problem—maybe an extension of Reagan's ultimate ethic of fighting fire with fire?

But that's just the introduction. The point is the basic underlying logic which pushes through to the surface. There is an ethic involved. That ethic needs to be evaluated more openly and accountably. The ethic is a self-righteous social Darwinism.

Around the periphery of that ethic is the claim that tax give-aways must be the answer to everything. There is no real logic to that claim, which means there is an ulterior motive involved.

The truth of tax give-away is that it increases government debt the same as increased spending does and it takes money out of circulation. It's not the thing to do during a recession, let alone a depression. But conservatives (or republicans) have been pretending the opposite—that it puts money into circulation, as if the tax payers were going to use it to stimulate the economy. Most of a tax give-away goes to upper class persons who stash it instead of spend it.

This point (tax give-away) shows where the motive is and how absurdly it is promoted. Conservatives are on a fraud binge contradicting all previous assumptions of society.

One of the absurdities of a tax give-away is that it is so miniscule for the public and so monumental for the government. The people get a few hundred dollars. What's a few hundred dollars in the midst of economic ruin.

The real essence of the motive is shown by another claim. Conservatives are claiming that a program to weatherize houses is not the way to stimulate the economy. And what is the way besides tax give-aways? Spending more on the military is the only thing conservatives have come up with.

So the real motive is visible when comparing the difference between spending money to weatherize houses and giving more money to the military. First of all, they are both methods of spending money. Both result in hiring someone to do something. So the difference is in who is hired to do what.

A large part of military expenses occur overseas on hundreds of military bases. Spending money overseas is obviously not going to stimulate the economy. So the military part is just a bluff. Why then is the money not supposed to be spend on weatherizing houses? Obviously, because low classes persons would be hired to weatherize low class houses.

And this is the essence of the ethic which conservatives promote. The world belongs to the rich and the thieves, not the lower classes. When conservatives were dismantling the welfare system, they said the nobodies were supposed to work for a living instead of getting a free handout. But the nobodies are not supposed to get paid for their work—the minimum wage is still stuck at $5.35 per hour—and taxpayer money is not supposed to be used to create jobs for the lower classes.

This ethic says the world belongs to the rich, the powerful, the somebodies and the thieves. Voters are supposed to elect conservatives to promote this ethic, because there is supposedly something self-evident, necessary and righteous about it.

Where does this necessity come from? The two ultimate sources are God and the big bang. God does not promote thievery, fraud, power mongering and social Darwinism. The big bang does by default.

Frauds indicate that there is something inherent in social interactions that yields social Darwinism. The fake logic goes like this: (Fake logic is based on mindless slogans.) First, "the proof is in the pudding." This means that the persons who have power and wealth must be worth more and deserving of power and wealth, or they would not have power and wealth. Them having it proves that they deserve having it. Notice that having it slides into "deserve having it." This is what fake slogans do—they slide the logic around.

Social Darwinism is supposedly the scientific proof that worthies control the power. There was supposedly a selection process where the fittest rose to the top, and the misfits died in the gutters. To try to change that social arrangement would be like trying to reverse evolution. The inevitability is supposedly a law of existence.

If social Darwinism were really the basis of human interactions, then terrorism would be as valid as paying taxes. Why should voters elect the fittest to prevail over them and rip them off?

There is nothing in the science of evolution, with or without Darwin, which says the prey must promote the interests of the predators. Why not throw the predators in jail and call it survival of the fittest.

In this country, the decision makers have to get elected due to the requirements of a vanishing constitution. This means instead of making decisions at the point of a gun, like the Nazis, they have to convince the voters of their noble and righteous purposes. Supposedly, there is some righteous purpose to social Darwinism which voters are supposed to support. What the dregs at the bottom of society think about it, nobody cares.

So to convince the voters to support social Darwinism, it is portrayed as the only responsible way to run a society. Who says so? Fake Christianity is always the bottom line in politics, as if God were a power mongering, lying thief. Fundamentalists (now called "evangelicals," since the public became aware of the menace of fundamentalism) contrived a version of Christianity based on Paul's theology in total contempt for everything Christ taught which is being used to promote the social Darwinism of conservatives.

God supposedly wants lying thieves to run the country, because they stop terrorism, lower taxes and create small government. Notice the because. We know what God wants on the basis of a fake logic. God and fake logic are one and the same thing to conservatives.