A good example of our differences is the infamous Healthcare Act , which while it originally was made into law, is now on life support, as the Supreme Court addresses whether it is or ever was constitutional. Only 30 % of Americans are in favor of this very controversial bill, which while it may have been an effort to stem the nation's troubling health costs, appears to be more expensive to implement and sustain than what we already live with---soaring costs and 40 million uninsured. Again, there are no quick answers, and even though it was the centerpiece of Obama's first year in office, it was pushed through too hastily and without bi-partisan support---get it done and damn the consequences seemed to be the word from the Oval office. The consequences were loud outcries from those who felt it was a major assault on our individual liberties and impossible to insure 40 million extra people without someone paying for it somehow. Insurance companies aren't known to give away freebies. Medicare, the one piggy bank Obama said he'd use to pay for the extra costs, can hardly afford to be stretched any further----so who does that leave? Contrary to what we were led to believe, turns out, it was us all along---in the form of higher premiums, almost guaranteed higher taxes, and very likely, diminished quality of medical care.
It didn't help that that few people understood or even today, understand what's in it and how it's all supposed to work---- a major breakdown in communication. Odd, for a president whose communication skills are some of the best. Whether it will stand or fall remains to be heard, but the battle will grind on, regardless. Never a small thing, this issue of a forced purchase is not sitting well with most of us---we don't like forced anything. Yes, we understand the necessity of a certain amount of taxes, but not this---this is over the top, government over reach, and a direct assault on our sense of freedom.
Who told Obama he and a one sided Senate could institute this new law and get away with it, anyway? Obviously, his inner circle---but really? What planet were they living on to think there would not be resistance, heavy criticism, and scrutiny? Or did they think all of us were willing to accept anything at all that gets passed by the President and a partisan Senate? Is it possible that they didn't care, that they actually felt their opinions were unassailable, and their power absolute? Unbelievable, yet a sign of arrogance by the President and his cronies. Perhaps now, he and they are finally getting the message that we like our laws fairly created, less sneaky, and if not straight down the middle, not listing way to the left, so as to drown out the right of a heretofore free country. It's also imperative that they are clearly constitutional, which this one apparently is not.----or it would have not been so questionable as to end up in the highest court of the land. One can only hope this group of judges will rise above their partisan feelings and uphold our sacred right to choose if and from whom we insure ourselves.
What of those people who choose not to---or cannot afford to? They and that issue must be dealt with---but at the forced expense of all of us and our freedom to choose? Perhaps, but at least now, we're getting a good look and an education on what we were told we must buy and never mind the details. Don't be surprised if even the Supreme Court decides to punt on this one---lots of punting going on these days, and the Justices may not be an exception, when they consider the implications of a riled up left wing and the tongue lashing they will receive at the hands of Obama. He is not known to take his losses well and without publicly humiliating his foes. Leaks not withstanding, we may not know the outcome until June, and it is highly likely that this is an issue that will burn far longer, for it lies at our constitutional core and opens the door to further encroachment of a government seemingly intent of taking care of us, rather than allowing us to be strong, independent, and free enough to care for ourselves.
Before closing, I would like to make clear that I, like many Americans, had hopes for this president in spite of our different party affiliations---he has shattered them. Though I did not vote for him, I was proud of him and sincerely hoped that the office would make the man, that he could possibly rise above party politics and lead this country in a new and strengthened direction. He has done neither. In fact, many feel he has worsened our economy , weakened our military, and embarrassed our international status. In spite of my doubts, he had me for a while with his great intellect, cool manner, and his seemingly good will for all, but he lost me along the way. The final straws are his obvious efforts to be re-elected by his followers by incurring class and even racial warfare. I find this distasteful, disturbing, dangerous, and unacceptable in a leader, who should be above such tactics and self/party centered concerns. It is heavy handed and even bully-ish to use his position to persuade by pitting one group against the other, be it race, creed, or income. It reeks of Chicago politics---and this is not the United States of Chicago.
Will this president, his style, and his record survive through the next election? There are pundits who say that win, lose, or draw, Obama's political fortunes will rest on the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding his main accomplishment, the Health Care Act. But in reality, the court of public opinion will have the last say. On a recent trip to Russia, Obama once again spoke indiscreetly into a "hot mic"This makes twice now---is he trying to mimic Joe Biden, or was this somehow as some have suggested, a deliberate faux pas and a leak to his party doves?? Speaking to Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev, he whispered that he would have "more flexibility" after the election, referring to the topic of negotiating our defense system. Really, Mr. President? That's not only presumptive on your part, but very scary. Write this down---flexibility works both ways. It may be April, but I hear some Novembers hold great opportunity for hope and change---.
It didn't help that that few people understood or even today, understand what's in it and how it's all supposed to work---- a major breakdown in communication. Odd, for a president whose communication skills are some of the best. Whether it will stand or fall remains to be heard, but the battle will grind on, regardless. Never a small thing, this issue of a forced purchase is not sitting well with most of us---we don't like forced anything. Yes, we understand the necessity of a certain amount of taxes, but not this---this is over the top, government over reach, and a direct assault on our sense of freedom.
Who told Obama he and a one sided Senate could institute this new law and get away with it, anyway? Obviously, his inner circle---but really? What planet were they living on to think there would not be resistance, heavy criticism, and scrutiny? Or did they think all of us were willing to accept anything at all that gets passed by the President and a partisan Senate? Is it possible that they didn't care, that they actually felt their opinions were unassailable, and their power absolute? Unbelievable, yet a sign of arrogance by the President and his cronies. Perhaps now, he and they are finally getting the message that we like our laws fairly created, less sneaky, and if not straight down the middle, not listing way to the left, so as to drown out the right of a heretofore free country. It's also imperative that they are clearly constitutional, which this one apparently is not.----or it would have not been so questionable as to end up in the highest court of the land. One can only hope this group of judges will rise above their partisan feelings and uphold our sacred right to choose if and from whom we insure ourselves.
What of those people who choose not to---or cannot afford to? They and that issue must be dealt with---but at the forced expense of all of us and our freedom to choose? Perhaps, but at least now, we're getting a good look and an education on what we were told we must buy and never mind the details. Don't be surprised if even the Supreme Court decides to punt on this one---lots of punting going on these days, and the Justices may not be an exception, when they consider the implications of a riled up left wing and the tongue lashing they will receive at the hands of Obama. He is not known to take his losses well and without publicly humiliating his foes. Leaks not withstanding, we may not know the outcome until June, and it is highly likely that this is an issue that will burn far longer, for it lies at our constitutional core and opens the door to further encroachment of a government seemingly intent of taking care of us, rather than allowing us to be strong, independent, and free enough to care for ourselves.
Before closing, I would like to make clear that I, like many Americans, had hopes for this president in spite of our different party affiliations---he has shattered them. Though I did not vote for him, I was proud of him and sincerely hoped that the office would make the man, that he could possibly rise above party politics and lead this country in a new and strengthened direction. He has done neither. In fact, many feel he has worsened our economy , weakened our military, and embarrassed our international status. In spite of my doubts, he had me for a while with his great intellect, cool manner, and his seemingly good will for all, but he lost me along the way. The final straws are his obvious efforts to be re-elected by his followers by incurring class and even racial warfare. I find this distasteful, disturbing, dangerous, and unacceptable in a leader, who should be above such tactics and self/party centered concerns. It is heavy handed and even bully-ish to use his position to persuade by pitting one group against the other, be it race, creed, or income. It reeks of Chicago politics---and this is not the United States of Chicago.
Will this president, his style, and his record survive through the next election? There are pundits who say that win, lose, or draw, Obama's political fortunes will rest on the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding his main accomplishment, the Health Care Act. But in reality, the court of public opinion will have the last say. On a recent trip to Russia, Obama once again spoke indiscreetly into a "hot mic"This makes twice now---is he trying to mimic Joe Biden, or was this somehow as some have suggested, a deliberate faux pas and a leak to his party doves?? Speaking to Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev, he whispered that he would have "more flexibility" after the election, referring to the topic of negotiating our defense system. Really, Mr. President? That's not only presumptive on your part, but very scary. Write this down---flexibility works both ways. It may be April, but I hear some Novembers hold great opportunity for hope and change---.
The national debt is nowhere near $16 million. Is that what FOX "news" is telling you? If so, they're wrong! The national debt, in fact, is less than $16 trillion!!! Slightly more than 15.6 trillion, to be more exact.
ReplyDeleteMy error---but don't hold your breath. There are no brakes and no budget at this time. Drag your feet---
ReplyDeleteDuring a political campaign all sides have no choice but to measure every word by how it will influence those most likely to vote. People are naive if they expect the winner to hold him/herself rigidly to campaign slogans. S/he must govern, and that means negotiate, exercising the art of the possible. The President wasn't telling Medvedev something he didn't already know, nor should we be surprised.
ReplyDeleteObama's advisers should be telling him to measure his words more carefully---particularly when speaking to the Supreme Court guys. They apparently didn't care for his "exercising the art of the possible" with them--and have asked for an explanation (apology).
ReplyDeleteAre you still ruminating about that State of the Union remark? You should consider getting current and recognize the devastating effect "Citizens United" is already having on our democracy. It is hardly in your own best interest that corporations are now given the same rights as people and that money is the same as free speech.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not referring to the State of the Union remark. The very current and inapproriate remarks he addressed to the Supreme Court this week trumps all--even the Supreme judges took great offense and requested an explanation from the White House--i.e. an apology, which they got the next day, sort of, from Eric Holder, who tap danced around the issue of a president trying to intimidate the Supreme Court---with a veiled threat to do his bidding, or suffer setting a "precedent" , and being seen as an "activist' court---he was wrong, of course, on both counts. The court has overturned congress before, and the term "acitivist" would only apply if the court chose to go against the consitution. In this case, the issue at hand is whether the health care act is itself unconstitutional. There, now you are current---
ReplyDeleteYes, I confirmed that in this morning's paper. Thanks for the correction!
ReplyDeleteRe. the Affordable Health Care Act and your fear of losing your right to choose: We're talking about people's lives here. You can't "choose" which side of the road to drive on, either. It is a scandle the number of uninsured people in this country, and we all end up paying for their care, anyway--no choice there! Not only is their "emergency" care the most expensive possible, last minute treatment is no substitute for ongoing care. These people have shorter lives, period. It's not right.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty much agreed upon that we need to do something re those who either afford insurance, or those who refuse to. But this plan we've been commanded to be law was not the right one--as shown by all the states and corps. who have been exempted, and the outcry across the land for what smells too socialistic for this country. Whether you like it or not, this is still a free country, and that means we like to choose,even whether we buy insurance. Your presumption/statement that the expense to cover everyone via the health care currently in debate, is up for scrutiny as well. It's pretty well known that the bill had not been thoroughly studied and analyzed and further, that the budget committee approved and came up with less than realistic figures, under pressure from the administration. It is very possible and many believe that we will be paying far more with Obamacare, than if we had left the staus quo---imperfect as it may be.Bottom line for me is the quality of medical care which I feel will sure suffer under this policy--already many doctors are refusing to take patients under medicare---what if they all revolt against this system? Will we then force them to be government employees? And what of those who can't afford the required insurance or even the penalty?? We'll be paying even more and still not solving the problem---the Supreme Court is now left to decide our fate---if they put it up for the people to vote, it would lose, as only a third of Americans approve or think it effective enough.
ReplyDeleteNote that even Obama, and any Democrat running for office rarely mention the Health Care Act as plus or reason to re-elect.
Make that "those who CANNOT afford---error in first sentence of above comment.
ReplyDeleteOf course I like living in a free country and would live nowhere else (permanently), but it may be new to you that "socialism" is not a four letter word and is not incompatible with freedom. There will always be tension between the common good and individual freedom, and that's why this debate is so healthy, so American. Hopefully, we can strike a balance. I don't claim to have read the two thousand pages of the Affordable Health Care Act. It can always be tweaked, and it certainly will be as time goes by. But to reject it wholesale would be unconscionable at this late date in history when the USA's health care has fallen way behind the rest of the free world. Regarding Medicare: It has been spectacularly successful, even with the resistence of some die hard, ideologically driven physicians. I would agree that the USA is ahead in exotic, very expensive medical procedures. Hopefully it will remain so. But infant mortality, for example, is embarrassingly high here (last I heard, the USA was number 17 in the developed world!)and infant mortality is a reliable indicator of the overall health of the general population. If people have the "freedom" to choose whether or not to have insurance, the sick end up spending a disproportionate number of dollars for health insurance, because, like it or not, under any viable insurance plan, it is the well who cover the costs of the ill. That's just how it works. This Act was approved by a simple majority in both houses of Congress and signed by the President, in accordance with the law of this representative government. If the Supreme Court thwarts it, I shall be disappointed, but that's the law, too. Thank goodness we live in a land of law! You make some interesting points, but the unintended consequences or your preferred policies would lead from civilization into barbarism--every man (and woman, especially) for himself. Ugh!
ReplyDeletePlease read carefully before mis-stating what I wrote---I do not have a "preferred policy" at this point. Rather, I don't think this one is the right one--and neither do many other people. Yes, it was approved by both the Senate and the Congress---but only because both houses were completely controlled by the Democrats. The Republicans were virtually shut out of any serious conversations or negotiations---and what we see now is the result of that lop sided, misrepresentation of the American. people.If this Act is thrown completely out, it will be because those in charge of it deemed it should either be accepted in its whole, or not at all. The Supreme Court has a difficult job, but the main issue is: Is it constitutional? If not, is it now for them to decide that this issue justifies the redefinition or revising the constitution? A very thorny decision, this one, but I think we will eventually come to terms with it. Americans are not barbaric, nor are her people. But a good many are passionate about not becoming subjects of a government which dictates too much of our lives. Much of our freedoms are being slowly usurped under the idealistic notion that we all must pay for everybody who choose not to care for themselves. The original concept was to care for those who cannot care for themselves--- the disadvantaged yes, but not those who take advantage of the system, which is quickly becoming overloaded. The healthcare act, as it stands now is simply throwing more, but not necessarily enough money at the problem, regulating and controlling our doctors and who and how they will treat, and eventually taxing the great middle class as well as the rich for the inevitable extra expense of insuring 40 million more people. Small businesses will very probably go out of business as they will not be able to afford the insurance requirements for their employees, and
ReplyDeleteit's entirely possible that many of the insurance companies will eventually go out of business, rather than be forced to pay for the extra mandated services, leaving ultimately the government in charge of our medical needs----a single payer system?? Socialism at work---no, no, and no.
Well said! I think you have eloquently laid out the conservatives' fears regarding this Act. I only have three caveats: (1) Some might infer from your comments that a disproportionate number of recipients of government assistance already "manipulate the system". A great amount of regulation and money have been engaged to prevent this very thing. Yet, many conservatives continue to believe it's inadequate, which causes great suffering to the truly disadvantaged and saving few net tax dollars. Regarding this particular Act, The individual mandate cuts off the possibility of playing the system, which is the problem we have now with our anarchic health "system". (2) As to how this Act became law: The people had voted for a Democratic House and Senate. In this democracy, the majority rules. Thank goodness the Constitution did not tie us to unanimity! Nothing would ever get done. The "loyal opposition" always has the right to petition for change, but when they lose they lose. And that's how the people's will is expressed in representative government. It's not unfair. It's Constitutional and it's just. (3) Socialism vs. capitalism is not in the Constitution. One or the other is not a sign of patriotism. Nevertheless, individualism is so entrenched in the American psyche that it is unlikely we should ever become less than capitalist where capitalism is the more efficient, as it is in many, many fields of the market. Panacea thinking will never get us anywhere.
ReplyDeleteAny parting words to say regarding Rick Santorum?
ReplyDeleteNot many---it was just a matter of time for his campaign to end. He had neither the capitol nor quite the right tone to speak for the majority of Conservatives at this time. Contrary to what some think, most of us are not rigid when it comes to matters of religion and morals and how they apply to our government. Good character and values do matter in a leader, but more importantly is an appreciation and love of America, a vision of sustaining our greatness, not through taking more from the people, but through helping to create an economy that will benefit everyone with jobs and the resulting income earned tax revenue. We also hunger for a more mature leadership attitude, based on respect, not disdain, for those he works with and serves--- and actual business experience-things sorely lacking with the present administration. Mitt Romney possesses all those qualities, and unless Obama and machine convinces otherwise, he will be the next president of the U.S. God speed---
ReplyDeleteBy "income earned tax revenue" may I infer you oppose taxing income not technically "earned", as in dividends, capital gains, etc.? If so, can you defend your stand?
ReplyDeleteI believe the argument would go like this---Income from dividends and capital gains are incomes previously earned and taxed once already. Whether we tax the rich on those things, which by the way, was at one time structured as a tax break in order to keep the money flowing, or raise their basic income tax levels, it is still an issue of taking from the rich that which is theirs, not everyone else's. Not raising taxes on the rich is not a "tax break" for the rich, it's allowing them to keep some of their money and not keep asking for more and more, just because it isn't fair to have so much more than everyone else. It's a feel good notion, a politician's cheap appeal, and an idea which has led many a nation to ruin. It's been calculated many times that the rich cannot save us---but again, even if we confiscated all of their money, we would still be in very deep financial trouble---and we could only do it once. We can only sustain ourselves by generating our own wealth as a country ---and can start by promoting honest capitalism, not killing the goose who lays the eggs---or robbing him blind.
ReplyDeleteMy first observation is philosophical/political: Ownership of anything, including money, is a social construct, a convention of society, a legal definition of something. Nothing is ever "mine" unless tradition defines it so. It is the government (all three branches in the case of the USA) that defines who owns what and how much. During the Eisenhower administration the top tax bracket was 91%, enough to build an interstate highway system, tying the country together and creating a robust economy. My second observation: Tax equity is good for the economy. It puts dollars into the pockets of working people who spend money, create demand, and support the economy. Observation number three: There is in fact so much wealth in the top few portions of the American population that they actually COULD pull the USA out of its financial trouble--without impoverishing themselves nor crippling their job-creating activities. Rather than believing their clever sophistries, work it out for yourself on your own calculator. Three observations are enough for now. What do you think of the "Buffett Rule"?
ReplyDeleteThe Buffet Rule is hardly worth discussing as it will never pass the House, and Obama knows it. He is using it as yet another "red herring" to distract the public from far more important issues and to position himself as a champion of "fairness", and the Republicans as greedy and unfair. Buffet and his extreme wealth is the exception to the rule--his many tax shelters in the form of dividends and investments legally keep is income tax levels low. But there are only about 4000 millionaires in that extreme bracket. The others, about 99%, would have their taxes raised to 30% in addition to the soon to be expiring Bush tax cuts---and most already pay about 24% None of this would make much of a difference--according to Obama and Biden, these increases to the rich would raise about 20 billion a year, which would result to only 1.5% of last year's 1.3 trillion deficit. Obama is a master of words, but his deceit and disingenuous is becoming more apparent as he himself realizes he has little else to run on. Watch as he fashions himself the protector of the middle class, the fairest in the land---and all others who would oppose him, as villainous, unpatriotic, and evil.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with you that the Buffett Rule is mostly symbolic and I trust your figures. Much more thoroughgoing tax reform is needed. But, ouch, I hate to see the word "evil" enter political conversations. Leave that to religion!
ReplyDeleteWhat is your take on the superpac, American Crossroads? I read in the Post that it has a war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars from about seventeen billionaire doners earmarked for negative ads against Obama and especially targetting Colorado begining immediately. Have you seen the ads on TV or the social media?
Sorry--I haven't heard of the negative ads being targeted at Obama---but have certainly heard that Obama is planning the same, big time. It's election season, it's war, and negative ads are part of the arsenal, like it or not. You may not like the word, "evil", but when Obama continuously paints the Republicans as enemies of all that is good--children with autism, the homeless, education, patriotism, the environment, etc. etc.---not using the word, doesn't eliminate the deliberate implication and hopeful inference. That kind of negative campaigning is truly repugnant to thinking people who know that even Obama doesn't believe what he's saying and is bending the truth to serve his own ideological needs and re-election goals.
ReplyDeleteBut what's your opinion about American Crossroads?
ReplyDeleteI feel that American Crossroads is an organization funded by those with deep pockets, intent on removing Obama from office---not much different from the DNC. also very well financed, and intent on keeping Obama in office. Whether the funds come from the wealthy or the unions and other special interest groups, it all adds up to the same thing--big money and those who have it, has and always will be part of American politics. You can't remove it, without shutting down freedom of speech via the airwaves and other media--- and somebody controlling and manipulating the system somehow. In the final analysis, I believe the American people are becoming more sophisticated and knowledgeable all the time, and will separate fact from fiction, truth from lies, and cheap politics from sincerity. That's our job--to allow everyone to have their say-- weigh it, scrutinize it, then make the wisest choice possible. It may not be perfect, but to do otherwise, to censor and control who and what is said, is---China, Russia and other countries, who like to control the flow of information because they don't trust their citizens to make the "right" choice. To be free, is to accept some of the bad with the good---negative, untrue ads, financed by large rich groups, or whatever is just part of the soup we call freedom. You may not like all of it, but you can't separate the broth from the beans.
ReplyDeleteOne final thought---not all negative ads are untruthful, and not all positive, promotional ads are truthful----but like speeches and debates, they are part of the process. Or should we eliminate those as well? After all, some are more gifted speakers than others, and some have better barbers than others, and have more resources than others. Oh, so unfair--
ReplyDeleteTHIS amount of money has not always been part of politics in the USA--not until "Citizens United" of Jan. 21, 2010. You seem to despair that fairness can ever be part of our political process, but previous generations at least tried and with some success, albeit limited. Since this Supreme Court has now equated money with free speech, a new innovation as come into being, allowing the deep pockets to MONOPOLIZE the debate.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I remind you that big unions, special interest groups, and private donor with big money, i.e., George Soros--all contribute their "fair share" to the political process. Who are you going to single out as being unfair, and unethical??
ReplyDeleteI don't despair the concept of fairness--I dismiss the idea that all things can be totally fair. Again, I remind you that big unions, which we all pay into one way or the other, influence and control much of the Democrat party, along with other huge special interest groups and private donors, such as George Soros and others. Money always will play a part in politics--there are private, under the radar groups all over, even here in Colo., and in Fort Collins who wield tremendous power with their private donations. Not fair? Would it be fair to shut them down? They may not be getting the high exposure that the Super pacs attract, but they are making huge impacts on the local scenes. I enjoy some of their donational gifts, dislike some of their monetary persuasion of community will, but celebrate their freedom to participate in the American political process. Money may not make the world go around, but it greases the wheels so that we don't get stuck in the mire of just a few spokes of those who think they know best.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your opinion of Obama's strategy of asking for campaign contributions of only $3.00 each?
ReplyDeleteInteresting and perhaps effective---also a clever appeal to his prime target, the poor and middle class. Hope they remember the many and very expensive vacations he and Michelle have enjoyed at the tax payers' expense---4 million reported for his recent Hawaii get away.
ReplyDeleteLet's not have anybody appealing to the poor and middle classes!?
ReplyDeleteOoh, you have such a contemptuous way of twisting words to suit your agenda----nothing at all wrong with Obama's catering to the poor and middle class, where most of us are. Certainly Romney is also appealing to them, but his tent of inclusion is larger in that his message of getting America back on track economically isn't based on taking in more tax base revenue from the rich, but actually paving the way to more prosperity and jobs for all, thereby creating our own wealth. What's troubling is Obama's implication that he is almost a Robin Hood type of Pres., and that bigger govt. is the answer, because it supposedly will take of us from the cradle to the grave---instead of instilling ambition and incentive to do well for oneself. Balance is the answer---not all these one sided arguments and name calling.
ReplyDeleteYes! Balance! I really believe you're sincere, as are most Republicans. But I Don't believe that about Mitt Romney, after whom Obama modeled his Affordable Health Care Act, who then waffles his way into the opposition. I don't believe that about the Koch brothers and their behind-the-scenes manipulation of the democratice processes. And I don't believe that about ALEC, responsible for "Stand Your Ground" in 17 states. Your faith in trickle-down economics has already been proven a cynical promise that never was intended for the common good. It is and always has been a sham. But your faith is sincere and more like loyalty than reason. Balance means a mixed economy with capitalism working (within bounds) where it does best while government takes care of things inappropriate for the private sector--like prisons, schools and highways. But what's really needed is sincerety and real patriotism, a sense of community and willingness to recognize injustice even when it's hiding behind slogans and tradition; and real goodwill toward fellow citizens wishing them all a decent living.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate your thoughts, but find them a little offensive and terribly biased---sincerity, compassion, sense of justice, reasonability, and patriotism are found in both parties---they are not exclusive to progressive or liberal persuasions, contrary to what your words and the Democratic party would imply. That's similar to saying all blue eyed people are fair, and all brown eyed people are not. Unfortunately, this kind of rhetoric does nothing to build bridges between two minds, but only builds walls of silence and misunderstanding. But let me try--- Conservatives believe that the common good is best served by creating optimum conditions for everyone to succeed---not to depend on a nanny government for all their needs. It is ludicrous to assume that the only men and women of good will are those who favor big government, but oh so lovely to spout words of compassion and "common good", as though the only avenues to a healthy society are such words and thoughts of some sort of idealistic world where everybody has everything they need to be happy. Let's get real--- All men and women who are enlightened and truly patriotic want what's best for this country and everyone in it---we simply see things differently on how to achieve it, which we believe is the result of a healthy economy and a well balanced, caring, and thriving society. The common good should always be remembered and addressed, but it does not belong exclusively to one way of thinking. Further, we believe it is not what turns the wheels of economic strength---in fact, until we have restored our economy, the common good is in jeopardy. Yes, that's trickle down philosophy, but so far, I haven't seen much evidence of trickle up--- i.e.California, Greece???
ReplyDeleteI agree with you absolutely that you and I share the same values and that we simply see different ways of getting to the same place. I just don't think you know where the Republican leadership is leading us and I do not think they have the common good in mind--not you--THEY! Furthermore, I don't think you appreciate the accelerating rate wealth is "trickling up" to the stratospheric wealthy. Numbers are not convincing anymore, so I won't provide the numbers I have, but look around you.... Just the heirs of Sam Wallace have more money than 30% of our population! Meanwhile, there's no place to work except Walmart. The country is changing--fast. Corporations have gone beyond the power of wealth to political power and they push for laws favorable to them while desecrating the commons, laws that reduce regulations while giving them tax breaks and subsidies. The only agency that can ameliorate this problems is government. Self-governance can't work because these companies are locked into competition with their peers and can't take idealistic positions. They'd get swallowed up! You seem to have a magical "understanding" of the free market, as though it's all we need as a society. That's why I seem to insult your reasonableness. Almost 50% of the population are under the same spell, and they are intelligent, caring, likeable people. They're my friends, just as you are. They just don't see that the Republican party has taken a few radical turns in the last 20 years and no longer stands for fiscal responsibility and upward mobility. So far they are winning--in both parties. The "bribery" they offer both parties are too huge to refuse. But I'm on a rant. I realize this comes off offensive in writing, but if we were face-to-face we would see each others mutual good will.
DeleteI was going to let you have the last word---but the words insist on being printed---what you call my "magical understanding" of the free market is no less mysterious than your belief that the government can do a better job of running the country than its own people allowed to practice their skills within the free market system. The government are people, who often don't have a clue about what they're doing, especially in terms of business. There is also much fraud , chicanery, and greed in the govt.---the dark side of human nature abounds everywhere, and you can't purge it or destroy it without replacing it with something else--like a dictatorship, or some other system peopled by other people with their own set of foibles and flaws.
ReplyDeleteYour view that the Republican party is guilty of bribery and no feeling for the common man is simply too harsh an indictment and exposes your extreme bias. Can you not see that the Democrat party is guilty of the same charges that you cast upon the Republicans? Let's face it---politics can be and is probably often a dirty game of power and money, but it is our job to keep insisting on higher standards and better people to represent us. What we will never have is perfection---what I don't want to lose are our freedoms and incentives to excell, because those are still the things that make this country great. The entitlements and safety nets come after as a result, not the first requirement, but a benefit of a rich and prosperous place where still more people wish to live than anywhere else on earth. Amen and good night! Keep talking, writing, and reading!!!
I think I said in my last post that both parties a subject to "bribery". So we agree there. You keep insisting that we will never have perfection. I hear that as a cop out for not trying for the best we can do. I read somewhere that a worthy goal for our country would be where the average person could realize her/his potential. That, I think, is different than where a few excell spectacularly. Are we not already a rich and prosperous place? Have not entitlements and safty nets already been put in place following the establishment of that prosperity? Where are you in history? Do you really want to return to a pre-FDR America? BTW: Thanks for letting me have the last word. :-)
ReplyDelete