Rusty Inman 
Member since Sep 11, 2012



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Could South Carolina be a desert?

@IPY: The guy sets you up and you blow it completely by offering up fiction (worse than his) as fact. If you knew your facts or possessed the faculty for critical thinking, you would know that...

(1) Millions of Americans do go hungry every day---in 2010, 17.2 million U.S. households (one in seven) were "food insecure" and 3.9 million of those households had children in them. There were 48.8 million people who lived in those households. The number of people who experienced significant food shortages on a daily basis has risen 30% since the Bush Recession began in 2008---in other words, your statement that "never has food been more abundant" is patently false. And any idiot knows that obesity among the poor typically has nothing to do with an abundance of food---I'd be embarrassed to say that in public, if I were you. Study up before you make visceral and reflexive instead of reflective statements.

(2) Our healthcare system is broken, failing and unsustainable---and the facts back this up. The U.S. spends, per capita, ten times more on healthcare than the next ten highest-spending countries combined and yet does not come close to any of them per healthcare outcomes. Healthcare spending is 17.6% of GDP, which is one-and-a-half times more than any other country and twice as much as the average of the 33 countries of the OECD. The U.S. spends $8,233/yr per person on healthcare, which is two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average. Yet, again, outcomes don't come close to those found in the other nine most-developed nations. In other words, our healthcare system is far from "the finest in the world." And you offer no factual basis for your reflexive, unsubstantiated comments about the ACA---none.

(3) As to housing, you are right about housing prices and interest rates being low. But that means nothing for the millions of people who cannot get mortgage financing from the banks. Until we re-regulate, break up the consolidation of the banking industry and force banks to actually be banks---i.e., lending institutions---as opposed to investment houses gambling their and our assets on paper trades in the financial sector, that will not change. Furthermore, as middle- and working-class people continue to work harder and longer for an ever-decreasing share of the economic pie, their ability to afford privately-held housing will continue to decline. What we have is Mitt Romney's fantasy: Foreclosed houses are being bundled into packages of rental houses and sold to rich investors, so that a family that once built equity in their privately-owned home (which was the middle-class's primary savings account/retirement fund) is now having to rent that same home from wealthy investors (hence, the investors build equity, not the family). Mittens thought it was the answer to the foreclosure crisis---well, of course he did, given that the rich take over another huge chunk of the country's private equity.

(4) The OP is right per the upward distribution of wealth/capital and you are "flat wrong." The wealth/capital/income/opportunity gap between the top 1% and the other 99% began in the 1970's and has been accelerating ever since. No economist doubts this and no politician will say that this isn't so. It's a fact, Jack, and you can't produce any factual evidence that it isn't so---no one has or can. The game is rigged and the middle- and working-classes are, again, working harder and longer for an ever-shrinking piece of the economic pie. For you to imply that such is not the case is for you to admit that you don't know the facts and are just running your mouth.

Study up, Sport.

0 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Rusty Inman on August 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Re: “Should churches be prohibited from political speech?

It is from being a committed Christian and churchgoer that I have come to the belief that the church, in order to maintain its critical distance from the powers-that-be and in order to maintain its true identity which sets it apart from and over-against the powers-that-be, should pay the same taxes as any other institutional property owner.

To accept any favor from the rulers of "this city" is for the church to inevitably compromise its absolute commitment to the ruler of and its citizenship in "that city which is to come." Indeed, the history of the church has been partly shaped by the distortion of its identity that proceeds from the abdication of its role as that community which by its very existence stands in judgment of "the way things are."

This is an easy issue to resolve. The church should not wait on the state to resolve that it should pay taxes. It should simply ask the state what its tax bill is and, in every instance, pay it.

8 of 8 people like this.
Posted by Rusty Inman on October 17, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Re: “S.C. GOP chair says that Dems view abortions as a rite of passage for teen girls

Connelly's statement about Democrats believing that "abortions and taxpayer-funded birth-control" being "rites of passage for every teenage girl" pretty much speaks for itself. Issues of real social/religious/philosophical import that are so complex and nuanced as to demand what amounts to "prayerful consideration" and sincere dialogue are reduced by Connelly to a piece of demagogic comedy rating nothing more than inclusion in an "email blast."

Having unapologetically dismissed that portion of his remarks, however, I do admit to some amazement at the ugly, mean-spirited way in which the GOP/Tea Party/Christian Right has demonized Sandra Fluke---Connelly, of course, being part of that effort.

Sandra Fluke is the kind of daughter any father would be proud to have. Smart, compassionate, disciplined, focused, ambitious, high-minded, ethically-minded and courageous, this young woman's personal resume' is the equal of her professional resume'.

Of course, it could be that, for folks like Nikki Haley and Chad Connelly, a smart, compassionate, disciplined, focused, ambitious, high-minded, ethically-minded and courageous young woman whose personal character is the equal of her unquestionably impressive intellectual ability but who, on personal as well as intellectual grounds, disagrees with them, is just plain "uppity."

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Rusty Inman on September 11, 2012 at 10:53 PM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2018, Charleston City Paper   RSS