He looked elegantly relaxed and supremely confident as he walked through the majestic White House hallway to the podium to proffer his remarks after the Supreme court had made their historical decision regarding the Affordable Healthcare law. No doubt wisely counseled, Obama did not gloat, preach, nor look smug, as he delivered his comments which said, in effect, that the highest court in the land had not struck down this controversial law, but had put their stamp of approval on it. Well, that may have been a stretch, but the law had been upheld, even though the judges had to revise it, reword it to make it so. Chalk one up for Obama---he desperately needed a win, and he got it---but was it a victory or fuel for his adversaries. And what did we lose in the process?
It was a hugely significant moment in time, and one which will mark a distinct turning point in our nation's history. This country, which was born from a passionate desire to be free of oppression and over reaching tax dictates by the British monarchy---had just been told that we weren't so free after all. Against all odds, political arm twisting and chicanery, backroom deals, many law suits, and 35% of the voting population, Obamacare struck at the heart of our hard fought legacy, and will force everyone to purchase health insurance--or pay a fine.
The Supreme Court,in a confounding, convoluted decision, which will keep analysts guessing for a long time, declared the health care law a tax---a term Obama, himself had vociferously denied while pushing it through congress---most obviously, because he had promised no new taxes on the middle class, and this law will surely cost the middle class, if nothing else, in terms of implementation. But it apparently was the only way the judges could curiously uphold this very revolutionary, cobbled together law, which seems antithetical to our basic principles of freedom. They could not allow it to be part of our commerce laws, which would mean we were being, uh, forced to buy a product---so they would simply call this mandated purchase, a " tax", thereby recusing themselves from this sticky wicket---what? Yes, for you see, a tax by any other name in this case a "fine", would be unconstitutional, according to the judges. Brilliant, said some. Mind boggling said others. Parsing of words was what it was---
But, isn't that taxation without representation? Well, not really. This law did pass, albeit a very partisan, legal congress. As one of the judges cryptically wrote, they could not be responsible for our political choices, or try to undo what has already been done. It was as though they were saying, "you made your bed, now you must lie in it, and all we can do is try to make the sheets fit the bed."
Still, it was a surprising decision---and a close one. The vote came down 5-4 with Judge John Roberts, appointed and known as a conservative judge, showing up as the swing "decider", and who disappointed many a conservative with his vote to uphold this controversial law. What was he thinking? Was it some clever move to set up a future repeal, should the Republicans win in November? Or an even more sinister ploy to draw more ire and dis-satisfaction against Obama? Or did he fold under pressure and possible intimidation by the administration? Perhaps he was still smarting from the verbal spanking he received by Obama in front of the entire congress regarding the Corporate Financing Campaign law, which Roberts had greatly influenced on another 5-4 decision. Had the public chastisement humbled him into submission? We will never know, but his vote this time was a stunning betrayal of conservative values, and played a major role in determing this country's future ideological path. We turned left in a big way, and Roberts helped twist the wheel. A Judge or a Judas?
And so, we move on---one step closer to a welfare/entitlement state, and one step further from the America we used to be, when insurance for the indidual was an individual choice, and healthcare was not another government run program. President Obama had his day in court, and it was a good one ---for him. This one man had indeed changed the way we choose to manage our private lives, by taking one of our very personal choices away. It was and is a striking accomplishment, and testament to the power of a few over many.
All of us want good things for this country, but many instinctively know that there is a price for freedom---and all things cannot be free. Someone has to pay either in dollars, quality of goods rendered, or services performed. Our healthcare is still considered the best in the world. Whether it remains so, remains to be seen. If Obama is a praying man, one wonders if he murmers into his pillow at night---dear God, I hope this works. We hope so, too. For while Obama and followers may believe that his version of a required health insurance for all is the only way to go, this particular bill, now law, was fraught with flaws , unacceptable financial burdens, and loss of quality care, from which we may never recover--- employers who will close or never open, because they cannot afford employee insurance, higher premiums resulting in thousands of dollars per household, a predicted shortage of doctors, and a lowered standard of care, due to an inevitable connection not to what the doctor thinks best, but to what can actually be afforded under the new Affordable Healthcare law. There will still be those who cannot afford any insurance, but many more of us will be covered---to an extent, and at what cost and sacrifice?
The Supreme Court has spoken, but law or not, the jury of public opinion has not reached a final verdict ----that court convenes in November. Now is the time for us, the many, to decide which few we will choose to make our future decisions.
It is noteworthy to remember that 236 years ago, this very month of July, a group of very bright, passionate and articulate men met in Boston and wept after signing a document forever known as the "Declaration of Independence". They knew and appreciated the precious value of freedom of choice---may we think carefully before we dismantle piece by piece any more of it. Or like the Supreme Court's recent action, attempt to revise and re-do words to fit a few in power.
As Obama stood basking in the light of victory, and the country was slowly learning the momentous, history making news, there was no celebration in the streets or sounds of triumph and joy anywhere. All was quiet--except perhaps for a few tears. Breaking up is hard to do-----
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Note the difference the Corporate Finance Campaign law has already made in favor of Mitt Romney. Can you blame Obama for shaking his finger at the Supreme Court?
ReplyDeleteYes---it was inappropriate, as I think so many of Obama's remarks are. When the labor unions stop contributing their huge amounts of cash to the democrats, I believe I heard it's 4.4 billion at last count, then we can talk more about the fairness and "difference--made" of the Corporate Finance Campaign law.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOops! I accidentally removed our last 2 comments in trying to edit mine. I apologize. I think you were saying that my figure of 4.4. bill. spent by the labor unions on Democrat election campaigns was misleading due to no time frame---agreed. I had responded that the dates for such expenditures were between 2005 and 2011. These figures were the result of a study done by the Wall Street Journal. And it is also interesting to note that the unions are not subject to as strict a disclosure rules as are all other groups of contributors. The Citizen United ruling, as approved by the Supreme Court, may actually have leveled the playing field somewhat, but as usual, the Dems want it all their way. We still live in a "free" country with free speech a cornerstone of our freedoms. Elections will be won or lost on a variety of variables---not necessarily who's the best, or even who has the most money to spend on TV ads, appearances, etc. It is the American people who will decide based on an almost uncanny radar for sincerity, intelligence, experience, and who's best fit to to lead and represent us at any given time in history. Yes, money helps, but there is an almost intangible element that guides the electorate choice---not always the wisest, but a sort of boiling down of people's judjement,after much thought and weeding out of information. So far, we have survived even poor presidents---but this time many of us are looking for someone to stop our slide into further despair and ruin, someone who gets us, who still believes in American exceptionalism, who cares for the welfare of everyone, but isn't willing to use those who excell and succeed as objects of disdain and reasons for our economic problems, but who recognizes that our true strength and revenue come not from taxes, but from a people who are unshackled by the constraints of too much government and the constant hammering of a president who seems hell bent on changing, rather than fixing. And finally we dream of someone who would be once again our cheer leader,not an apologist to those who would love to see us fail. Finally we yearn for someone who believes in us as a people who once built this great country on blood, sweat, and tears, and a mighty thirst for independence and freedom to fly as far as their abilities and opportunities would take them--- without an over bearing government. It was called the American Dream, and we are not willing to give it up for someone else's watered down version--once again we thirst for the freedom to thrive ,for our country to succeed, and for a leader who will lead and guide, but not dictate. We will soon see--may the "force" be with us.
ReplyDeleteGreat speech! You should take up writing for Mitt! Did you see the Olympics openning program last night? Their showcasing their NHS may have turned lots of Americans who were ambivalent about Obamacare. I'll be interested to see what the polsters come up with next week. Anyway, you must have noticed that the "American Dream" has already been shut by big, corporate money drying up the middle class. This morning I heard John Stossel (Fox News) suggesting that unemployment insurance is a disinsentive for people looking for work. He was suggesting that formerly middle class workers take jobs at fast food joints or accept charity from church sponsored organizations. This is what I call downward mobility and a return to the unenlightened past. But you call it the "American Dream"? Really: Who do you expect to benefit by the policies you're advocating?
ReplyDeleteThe American Dream, admittedly an over used cliche, was very real at one time. It was and is the reason for legends upon legends of people swarming to our shores for opportunities not found elsewhere, and it wasn't due to "downward mobility". Capitalism was the motor that drove the material part of that dream--people who worked hard and achieved great things naturally spread the wealth through virtue of needed product and jobs to produce. It's simple supply and demand, and it can't work in reverse---government can't supply enough revenue or jobs without the private sector doing well enough in the first place to generate wealth enough to fund taxes, from which the government takes its funds---it never creates, just takes. We are seeing the results now of our economy stuck, due in large part to the private sector, yes, the corporations, and big and small business pulling back and refusing to hire or expand due to too much uncertainty, the threat of higher taxes, further government interference, and further erosion to the progressive, Obama promoted message that capitalism is evil and must be trimmed down to size. Look around you---it has happened ,and it is the middle class who is now suffering, more now than in a very long time. I submit to you that while our system and the trickle down theory may not be perfect, it wasn't the concept that failed---it's the only concept that actually works---it was the people within the system that caused the failure--big time, this time. Unfortunately, bad people and greed are ever present and certainly not absent in the power brokers of government. We are living through a cleansing and correction to our system---hopefully the punishment won't be worse than our faults. let's be patient and choose freedom with flaws over tyranny and dictatorship---vote for it this November.
ReplyDeleteI can hardly believe your saying Obama thinks capitalism is evil. Your overstatement only betrays your uncertainty. Neither this administration nor I personally think that about capitalism, but anarchy, in whatever sector, is just that--anarchy. There must be rules to any game. And that you would write approvingly of "trickle down"--that's not even
ReplyDeletethe way it happened when times were better. Workers had the clout and government had the good sense to demand fair wages. Now, the worst flaw in our national economy is outsourcing, and the closing of factory after factory until only the service industry survives, cutting average wages by two thirds. And so we have a "trickle UP" economy where multinational corporations rake in a disproportionate amount of available wealth while impoverishing the rest of us--including you and your friends. And why use extremist words like "tyranny" and "dictatorship"? Again, your overstatement betrays your uncertainty. A nation under the heal of uncontroled multimational corporations is not a free nation. People with too little to live on are not free. People who can't afford health care are not free. I don't expect the US system to imitate the UK's NHS, but you can't tell me that the Brits don't enjoy freedom. You're trying to compare us with the failed USSR, and that's a good cautionary tale, but it's not an either/or situation. There are other ways of construing a fair society, and I trust the American people will make that choice this November.
As usual, you take my comments to the extreme---and fail to debate my points---which lead me to think you logically and historically cannot, without falling back on your core ideology which is that big government is good, and the ultimate answer to a society's rightful existence. It is obvious that we need some government and labor unions (all the same in many cases), but my view is that it should not be "the tail that wags the dog". Again, I repeat, the problems with our system today have been the result, not of the system itself, but of the people in charge---which included many in the government at the time, who were not free of greed, collusion, and illegal activities, not to mention the insistence of mortgages being granted to those who could not afford them. We agree--corporate greed is a disgrace and partly to blame, but do not try to argue that government can cure human nature, or be the panacea for a healthy society. We, the people simply have to demand better stewards of our system.
ReplyDeleteOUtsourcing, is the result, not so much of greed, but simple economics---profit after expenses. High corporate taxes and union demands drive business where it can thrive best-that is its inherent nature, and you can't change that. Nor should you want to---it's counter to the very essence of business and capitalism, which you say you still espouse. The health care law? The argument is not whether we need one---we do, but not this one. It was born more from a political need,rather than one that was sincerely addressing the desires and needs of all of us, or at least most of us.
The enemy, dear reader, is not those who make big money---it is human nature, found in all of us, whether those in government or banks, or corporations. But I still believe that given time ,balance, and correction---a free society stays free not by handing over the reigns to its government.
We have so much in common, but trust such different people!
ReplyDeleteHow much you wanna bet that Mitt Romney paid no taxes at all during those years he refuses to make public? That doesn't mean he's a bad man. As his aides say, everything he did was legal, and don't we all take advantage of every legal tax shelter available to us? But it's a glaring example of what's been happening in general: a system designed to benefit the rich at the expense of society as a whole. And it's a system disigned by the very people who benefit from it most, a problem that has grown enormously since "citizens united". Yes, Harry Reid is targetting Romney for political ends, but he is still doing us the favor of highlighting a systemic problem in our tax code. Romney's tax returns will be made public at some time, but not until his campaign has so much momentum it won't significantly alter the outcome of the election. Watergate didn't stop Nixon's re-election because it became known too late. People don't change their minds once they're made up no matter what the facts may show. Besides, people, even middle class people, may cheer on a candidate who has beaten the feared IRS.
ReplyDeleteFew understand the power of the tax code to funnel wealth upward or downward, nor how unenlightened distribution of wealth eats away at a civilization. It doesn't have to be this way. The USA is exceptional in ways not flattering to its collective intelligence. Other materially advanced nations don't have the income disparity to the same extreme. It does come down to willful human decisions. But now that the elete control the information doled out to the average citizen, there's little hope this country will change course in time to avoid economic collapse, which, for a growing proportion of citizens, has already occured. On that breezy note, I yield the floor to you, dear blogger.
Your inclination to villianize Romney for his perceived tax activities is unfair and judjmental and without proof---as is Harry Reid's, whose attacks are also without merit and so obviously meant to destroy Romnay's bid for president. If indeed, Romney did not pay his "fair share" in taxes , then it was because he was allowed not to, because he was sheltered, because he was re-investing and keeping "his" money flowing throughout the system. That's the name of the game, designed to do just that--keep revenue coming in, not by taxation, but by investments by people who had made bunches of money and could have hoarded it, or spent it foolishly,, but were incentivized to keep it moving. Romney is a successful busines man, and obvously knew how to best steward his money---hopefully, he'll have a chance to do the same as president. I believe he is a good man, an ethical man, an honest man, a man of character, a non-malicious man, aa gentleman, a shrewd entrepenuer , a very able diplomat, and a man who truly wants to help this country out of the mire of failing economic policies and downward slide to a second rate country. He believes in a different vision for America, than we have been subjected to for the last 4 years, and I believe that vision will help all Americans start to believe in themselves and their country again. Income disparity may always be with us to a degree, but I think once the market regains its footing, we will see a rise in the fortunes of the middle class. And the taxes that begin to flow into the IRS again will come from the jobs regained and a people back to work---not from robbing the coffers of the rich, which won't make much difference in the overall picture, but could simply prolong the addressing of the real problem---still 8% unemployment. Class warfare is Obama' last card to play---it's a dangerous one, and an opiate for those who believe the only road to sustaining a civilization is to milk the "cow" till she's dry. Then what?????
ReplyDeleteThe Republican "platform" seems to make poverty an unfortunate but necessary price to pay for prosperity at the top and even the middle. It's an inevitable "flaw" in an otherwise admirable system, according to them. But theirs is not a system at all. It's a free for all and the devil take the hindmost. Societies are judged by the manner in which they treat their poor. Extreme poverty is not unavoidable in a capitalist economy. It's a collective decision by human beings. Poverty can be ameliorated in a free economy. People must wake up to that fact and then act on it. "Poverty" is not having to live frugally. It is life berift of order, when problems have no viable answers and expenses cannot be met no matter how skillfully a household manages its resources. It is insecurity on steroids, unhealthy and a threat to family life and mental stability. Society can face the growing epidemic of poverty in the USA and do something about it, bringing even "the least of these" up to the possibility of ordinary dignity. The cure doesn't have to be reinvented. It's already been successfully tested. It is undeniable that the Democrats have been more successful at alleviating poverty than Republicans. Their "platform" includes the protection of the weakest among us. The Republicans shrug and observe that there must be winners and losers. The Democrats don't disagree with that, but they know that losing does not have to be so severe that lives are literally ruined, including lives of innocent children. The USA accepts that the cost of defence is "whatever it takes", but the predictable cost of poverty prevention is deamed too high by Republicans. This is a philosophy, not reality. A little less affluence at one end actually can make a huge difference at the other. Happiness at one end does not even have to suffer to eradicate economic misery at the other. Democrats can demonstrate this works. It hasn't been accomplished yet because certain Republican "spin doctors" convince voters that doing nothing is the only option open to us. It just isn't so. The Republican party's contribution to American prosperity is undeniable. They are to be commended for their successes. But they must also learn to look out for the little guy and stop sabotaging solutions just because they may have come from the other party. If they don't wish to specialize in helping the poor, they can at least let those who do so specialize fulfil their function. I know many Republicans who agree with the above, but their leadership has betrayed them, does betray them. I don't know how these "moderates" can retake the reins.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but I just cannot go along with you on this topic, which I know is near and dear to your heart. It isn't as black and white as you paint it---we have more entitlement programs than ever, more people on green stamps than ever, and while our system isn't perfect, we have less poverty than most any other country, with more immigrants trying to enter the USA than any other oountry because they know, perhaps better than we, that there is still a chancse for a better life here than elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI take offense that Republicans care not for their fellow man----that is a gross and unfair assumption largely created by the Dems and the media. The government, however was never put in place to take of people, ala nanny state, as much as to allow people to care for themselves without the government bleeding them, including the middle class, to death with higher and higher taxes. Republicans believe in fiscal responsibility and a conservative approach to government---that does not exclude being aware of the needs of others who cannot help themselves----but not those who can . But you have only to look at states like California and New York to see what happens when the liberals have their way and tip the boat over with too many entitlements. It will be the middle class who suffers, due to the over extending of benefits, pensions, and welfare programs in such places. Ask the rich for more? Maybe, but how much more before they find ways to work around such thievery, or simply stop trying to be so rich--ie curtail their job expansions, investments, move offshore, etc.
I submit that Republicans, not just the moderates, believe in helping the poor as much as the Democrats, perhaps more, because they believe a healthy economy begets more revenue, thusly begets more to share with others. The Dems, on the other hand, refuse to underatand, that the problem isn't so much poverty, but why? Why are there not more jobs? Why do the unions demand too much, thereby shrinking salaries and jobs? Why do we have so many broken families? Why is the divorce rate so high? Why have most all our manufacturing jobs disappeared? There are many underlying reasons--but continuing to take from those who have more isn't going to fix the problem, and will perhaps only worsen it. The flaw you speak of isn't simply the rich not giving enough---it's that almost half of our people do not pay taxes. Surely, you can admit that while greed and excess, may play a part in the human experience and our own country's dilemma, laziness and a sense of entitlement where none is due, is also part of the worm that's eating away at our apple. Keep working away at the problem, but don't kill the goose who lays the eggs---the govt. may then come after you to work for nothing, except your very basic needs.I will concede to you that that there is and has been a network of Washington greed, go along to get along attitude and a collusion of politicians from both sides working with big business to fulfill their political ambitions and line their own pockets. This is despicable and certainly found in both parties. Until we insist on better people working for us, it will continue. Unfortunately, the affairs of men will often be guided by less than altruistic motives.
Where we differ, is that I think the system works, just as it was meant to so many years ago---it is not the system, but the people running it that is rotten. Good values, ethics and honesty start not with a political idealogue----much too late by then. It starts at home as we raise our children, at school where we indoctinate, teach ,and reinforce, or not, good humane values, and in our churches where we attempt to nurture their spirits. Our culture is one of great diversity, but perhaps we have lost some of our common concern for not only the indiviual, but the sense of pulling together for one common cause---the freedom to seek our own destinies, not just exist. It seems we are, more injuriously, pulling ourselves apart in our efforts to win at all costs. .
We agree at a very deep level. Our disagreement is superficial--spiritually. Unfortunately, the superficial is the practical level, the pragmatic level, where the rubber meets the road. I have had no trouble working with politicians who think as you do. But I will submit again: They make up a smaller proportion of the Republican party than the Democrat. Those entitlement programs you mention in your first paragraph did not come from the Republican party. They came from the Democrats with the consent of moderate Republicans. But your first paragraph is full of unintended misinformation, which I shall not try to rebut here. On the other hand, your last paragraph is a beautiful American essay. At stake is the quality of life for the most American citizens as possible, and it's people like you who are willing to engage with "the other side" who may make that a reality. So, it's happening here on your blog. Perhaps it will spread.
ReplyDeleteYipes! Paul Ryan?! He's the most irresponsible congressman on the Hill! God help us if he ever succeeds to the presidency!
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to Ryan's famous proposed budget---what's irresponsible about balancing the budget?? Somebody has to! We're living in a fairyland where no one wants to talk about medicare and social security going broke in a matter of years----I give the guy kudos for having the guts to at least get the ball rolling. Romney would do well to borrow some of his "telling it like it is"---but like all politicians, he doesn't want to rock the boat, even though it's sinking faster than we can bail.
ReplyDeleteA rigid brain isn't going to solve our problems, and Ryan is a rigid as it gets. Yes, I was referring to his proposed budget and his stand of women's issues as well as social security and medicare, etc. A lot of people stand to suffer at his hands.
ReplyDeleteAnd you don't think a lot of people are going to suffer if we don't sooner or later address the fact that medicare and social security are in a crisis situation, along with the fact that many states already are unable to pay for themselves and their entitlement programs????? What do you propose as alternatives---demonizing those have the courage to try to change our race to the edge of the cliff is counter productive without offering any solutions. That's what Obama has been doing, and look at the mess we're in---what do you propose????
ReplyDeleteHaving accused me of it at least four times, I don't think I've "demonized" anyone. I save my religious mythology for the spiritual life. I have allowed that Paul Ryan is a "nice man". I have called him an ideologue after the manner of Ayn Rand. But these are political labels and easy to verify. We endanger the free expression of ideas when we mix politics and religion, I think. I don't think we should talk about Mitt Romney's Mormonism nor the conservative Catholic beliefs of Paul Ryan in public. These are areas too far beneath the surface to be evaluated by outsiders. To keep your otherwise excellent conversation civil I think we should discipline ourselves not to step over the line into the territory of good and evil. Not that it's not important, but that it's too important to be mixed with the relatively petty world of partisan politics.
ReplyDelete"A lot of people are going to suffer at his hands" sounded demonizing to me, if not terribly pre-judgemental and subjectively opinionated. Villianizing and demonizing perhaps are harsh words and may not be your intent, though the end result of communicating such can be the same without using the words, and it is exactly what the Democrats are doing to Romney, and it is shameful. I agree---"evil" is not an appropriate word for politics, and I don't believe I have used it to describe any one person---but the character destruction that is currently being waged is beneath "goodness" and qualities which should be guiding a principled politician's campaign. The liberal view is tainted by their refusal to accept any other platform or philosophy as valid ,sincere and possibly even more effective for the good of the people. Which is why they like to whine that the Republicans do nothing---they do nothing because they are not allowed to do anything other than support the current regime's agenda---the two parties have become grid locked, because they are so different in their approach to government. Neither is evil, one simply believes in bigger govt., and the other in a smaller, less controlling govt., but sometimes their conduct is bordering on cheating the American people, because of the lies and distortions of the truth, in order to retain power, with the means justifingy the end result. It is sad, and disallusioning, but the most frustrating thing for we conservatives is to be characterized as uncaring, greedy, even unenlightened (stupid?)---simply because we believe a different way is truly the best way. There is an arrogance to this unyielding "I'm right, you're misguided" attitude. We're seeing now in Romney's refusal to hit back harder than he is, and the furious onslaught aainst a fine young man who had the temerity to suggest a budget plan that could possibly save our children from a bankrupted medicare and social security safety net.
ReplyDeleteto finish my unfinished last sentence,----a man who hasn't in him the will to "fight dirty", and a democrat political machine who has no such problem. It will be an interesting election to see if the "best man" wins, and what kind of "best man" we will be left with. God bless the USA.
ReplyDeleteIt would be "enlightening" were you to provide some actual examples of Democratic campaign "character destruction" in contrast to the Republican campaign machine.
ReplyDeleteHappy to--- The Obama campaign and/or people (Harry Reid and an Obama Superpac)connected with it have accused Romnay of being a felon and a murderer recently. Even more offensive is that all 3 of the major TV networks chose to ignore the "murderer" charge. And then we have the ever colorful, entertaining, and goofy vice pres. now making racial slurs against Romney in his latest speech
ReplyDeletesalvo where he says Romney wants to "keep you in chains". Even some courageous liberals such as Wolf Blitzer, and others are expressing disapproval of this very slanderous and below the belt campaign, being waged and approved by Obama and supporters. Obama is beginning to look like a desperate man, unable to stand on his record and resorting to one of the most negative, nasty campaigns in recent memory. I don't mind negative ads, if they are based on proven fact, but not half truths, innuendos, and lies---but does it sell?? Sadly, there are people who will base their vote on these shallow accusatory ads, targeted to ill informed people---and that's why it's done, and that's politics, 2012. The stakes are high---the choice is clear---bring on the debates, where perhaps we can hear both sides without all the mud slinging.
There's negative advertising coming from both sides. Right now Romney is outspending Obama 2 to 1 in Ohio for air time, most of it on negative ads, some half-truths, some of it un-truths. Now Romney is waffling on the Ryan budget. Does he want his cake and eat it, too?
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between negative and nasty--- and outspending isn't in the same ballpark as lies and character asassination. Obama plays hardball, the Chicago way, takes no prisoners, and that's a well known fact. Romney had best fight back hard, or he'll die hard---ask John McCain. BTW---name me one "half or untruth" put out by the Romney people.
ReplyDeleteIf you want an example of "character asassination", take a look at the paragraph above. And try finding a documented example of "character destruction" in the "happy to" paragraph above that. I don't think even you would claim the Romney campaign has a monopoly on truthfulness, would you? BTW: why not get down to business and discuss issues? Why not discuss who wins and who loses from the outcome of the November election? Are you really OK with the smug satisfaction of a priveleged few "winners" over the material needs of the vast majority? Just look at the sources of the Romney campaign funds and ask yourself if they really have the interests of the common good in mind? Are these really the people you want to place in power? Be careful for that which you wish!
ReplyDeleteOh, please, don't play "turn the tables" on me---I hardly think the paragraphs and words you refer to are in the same ball park as "murderer" or "felon". As to who wins and who loses after the election, that's a hot button question, and depends on what kind of company you like to keep---I prefer to play in the company of winners, that I may learn, imitate, benefit by their successes.What can I learn from those who tell me to depend on them for my needs? Dependancy. I further believe that the common good is best served by a citizenship and a culture that has values and respect for their fellowman---it has little to do with government, which is a business, and like any other business exists and survives on the axis of income and outgo. Problem is the govt. doesn't actually make money---it only takes money from those who make the money. Eventually more money is being spent, than is can possibly be made. Game over. Everybody loses. End of story.
ReplyDeleteGovernment is not a business. One of its reasons for existence is to fill the instices that are not appropriate for business. And tell me what stock market speculators do that produces anything but taking from the commoners and giving to the rich. I haven't so far responded to the "murderers" and "felons" charges because they are too bizarre, out of context and undocumented.
ReplyDeleteIt is a business---the people's business, and it can only operate with the funding of the people's money. It can also fail with faulty and careless stewardship. Yes, it is there to to give structure, basic communal needs, and protection in some cases, but it was never meant to provide education, food, shelter, and health care to huge numbers of people---only those that truly needed it or deserved it. We have overloaded the boat, because it was never designed to be a cruise ship---only a life boat.
ReplyDeleteYOu haven't seen or heard the "murderer" or "felony" charges coming out of the mouths of the people who spoke them? Hear no evil, speak no evil---????? Yes, they were bizarre , but there was plenty of documentation and no way to take them out of context---politics at its worst.
Kellee, for the survival of democracy, the state must ensure education to huge numbers of people.
ReplyDeleteThe provision of adequate food for our population has not occured by accident, but by careful govenmental regulations and incentives to the growers. Such has saved us from famine (so far).
My major interest in charitable institutions has been in the area of affordable and subsidized housing. I have learned that insecure and sub-standard housing affects every aspect of family life. One effect is underachievement of school children. Refer to my first paragraph.
It is not acceptable to most Americans that people in this country suffer from starvation and malnutrition, which was the case before the innovation of the food stamps, a dramatically successful institution. When was it "never meant" to make sure people not go without food? Who never meant it? Our government has through the democratic process made it our business as a nation to prevent serious hunger in one of the wealthiest nations on earth.
As for health care: that's currently controversial. I try to not be ideological, and both sides have their virtues. At some point we shall decide, at least for the short term. Who knows where this nation will head for the long term? I have my opinion, of course. Do I think I'm right? Of course. But I'm not sure I'm right. Are you?
Death and txes are the only absolutes--we must depend on men of good will and good sense for a civil and just society. If there truly are large numbers of people who need food and shelter of course we must provide---but you are presuming that all who take are truly needy. Where I disagree and take offense is your stance that only Democrats are men of good will and only more entitlements than what we evidently can afford are the continued way to operate this country. What do we do when, as we are seeing now, the jobs dry up, due to the corporations and big business refusing to invest and hire, and subsequently the income tax base shrinks, and the well finally runs dry?? We are in such dire financial trouble---and even if you took all the money from all the very rich, that would not solve the problem--that's a fact. It isn't a matter of what we would all like to to do, feed, educate, etc. ---but what we can afford. If we all go down, the American experiment has failed, not because we were not compassionate enough, but because we could no longer afford ourselves. Do I think I'm right? Yes, obviously, because I've never seen a country as fine or as successful, or with as few poverty stricken people as ours. But do I think or know that the conservatives have all the right answers? No. I think we need balance and a blending of ideas from both the right and the left. I recently heard it said that America has both heart and mind, like no other country---I believe that's true, and God willing, we'll find our balance once again. BTW---I find your dedication to your ideals and your time and effort to them admirable. You are walking the talk---more than many do.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful post. Who could disagree with it? I do have a question: Why do you think the regulations and enforcement now in place are not enough to prevent the inelligible from receiving benefits, and if they're not enough, why not simply tweak them as Obama has already done to save money for Medicare from fraud and waste (Yes, the money the opposition is accusing him of snatching away from the deserving to help pay for the Affordable Health Act.)?
ReplyDeleteWe're way past "tweaking"---this country is about to go bankrupt, and the current administration, particularly Harry Reid and the Senate, hasn't had the cahones to even come up with a budget, let alone tweaking it. Yes, Obama is trying to finance his health care program by subtracting money from medicare, but he's going to need more than that. Tweaking is what you do to keep your budget balanced--overhauling would be a more appropriate term for a budget that is virtually underwater. Entitlements are only part of the problem, but we cannot go on as we are--borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and refusing to cut expenses.
ReplyDeleteOne can only hope that the focus of the country remains on the economy,not on the distracting, stupid comments made by thoughtless,stupid politicians. For, after all is said and done, a robust economy that even gives us the luxury of debating to whom and on what we will spend.
Currently we are stuck in an historically slow recovery, from which some predict we may not ever fully recover, and from which some alarmingly fear we may have already reached the point of no return. Very scary times---and not one in which we can afford to be distracted by social issues,which unfortunately will suffer exponentially if our economy doesn't rebound soon.
The "bankrupt" scare is a ruse contrived by those who would crush the social safty net while continuing to cut their own taxes. They are not suffering from this economy now and will prosper even more if it continues to faulter, middle class incomes continuing to decline (something new since the beginning of the 21st century). You are right that big changes are in the offing, but not those you have been led to believe. We are seeing the shrinking of Americana and the bloating of the privileged. It's become such a blatant strategy of those who have hijacked the Republican party that I'm amazed it isn't obvious to everyone. Your loyalty to the party you have always belonged to is admirable in many ways. This Republican ticket, however, represents neither your interests nor your conscience any longer.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments---I suppose we are all products of our upbringing to a point, but my choice of party has more to do with my own observations, study, and innate feelings that the conservative ideology is more practical, better serves the common good and is historically proven as opposed to the one in which the liberal/larger government view espouses, which in my view ultimately and inevitably encourages weakness and dependance on others. Your theory that the bankruptcy of this country is somehow a ruse, blows me away---you can't argue with the facts and figures. Also, your belief that the Republican party has been hijacked by those whom you seem to imply are deliberately shrinking the middle class for their own enhancement---is a partisan opinion on steroids, and reminds me of those who believe in conspiracy theories. The Republican party is made up of many different kinds of people, who don't always march to the same beat, unlike the Dems. But the one thing they believe in unilaterally is in smaller, not non-existant, but smaller government, so as for it not to get in the way of its citizens wishing to pursue their own ambitions, goals, and happiness. They actually believe that the free market and capitalism works the best, though not perfect. They've seen it work, cherish and know that's what our country was founded on, and have never seen anything better. To blame them and their ideology for our faltering economy and "shrinking Americana" is no more provable, much less so, than to say that under Obama and his very left leaning choices the last 4 years, we have become ever weaker, both domestically and internationally, and in worse debt, with more poverty and people on green stamps and unemployment than ever before---and ultimately hurting the middle class, not because the rich get richer. They are not the problem. Dare I say they are actually part of the solution. The sources of our crisis are complex, but can be traced in part to the fact the wheels stopped turning, due to things like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, horribly effecting our housing industry, too much entitlement, and unrealistic, uncompetetive union demands, which has lead to outsourcing. Obama's crumbling house of cards, built on nothing but inexperience, a lofty "hope and change" image, resulting in promoting his left wing agenda, the stimulus money spent on failing companies, democrat election money chests, and very few new jobs has failed us. The politicians will hammer us with both sides of the argument, and we will ultimately decide. I hope that conscience truly does have something to do with our decision, because we are deciding now not only for us, but for our grandchildren and theirs.
ReplyDeleteHistory will perhaps sort things out, but for now we must look at the evidence before us and decide---your choice is for more social safety nets and to guard those that we have. Nothing wrong with that--- fabulous, as long as we can afford it---my choice is to get the wheels of commerce moving again, so that we can. I believe the poor and middle class will prosper as a result of that, not in spite of it. If the poor, and even the middle class cannot help themselves, then who does? The government? And who helps them? Big business, entrepenuers, small businesses, bright, ambitious people with an idea do----but kill their incentives with too much regulation, (what makes you think the regulations we had in place weren't good enough, but just needed tweaking?)high taxation, and 40 cents on every dollar going to the government first, how does this work?? It doesn't, unless you wish for everyone to be an employee of the government---do you?? I rest my case--- butI think the jury is hung. Let's go to lunch----