A seasoned sales person once said, "A sale is made every time"--- meaning that either the customer buys the presented product from you, or someone else----or perhaps not at all. Either way, a sale, a decision, is made every time. In less than a week, the biggest sale in the country will be made--ka-ching, and presto, with millions of clicks in voting booths all over the country. At least half of us will buy with our votes the next president of the USA.
So, who's the better salesman, President Obama, or Governor Romney? Both have spent millions, untold hours, and not just a little sweat on the campaign trail, trying to sell us on their way, their vision, their ability to lead and protect this nation into the next four years. It's a tough sale and we're a tough crowd this time around, with both men still running neck and neck, and passions on both sides at a boiling point. Don't think so? Try bringing up either Obama or Romney's name anywhere, anytime, then watch the red warning lights flash across the eyes of those present---this social taboo could be called the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not discuss politics---in fact, we dare not mention thy name. It is the holiest of grails in polite conversation, and this election is pregnant with potential for explosiveness and less than cordial conversation. Speak at your own risk, or stay safely silent---- but forever wonder if you should have spoken your truth, and removed the mask of nuetrality and harmless bystander.
The differences are stark, so the choice should be easy, but it isn't simply and only a question of who, but which---which kind of governance do we want? Is bigger better? Or is less more? Obama represents the former, and Romney the latter---but there's much more to consider, and within the mix and the decision we must make, lay the seeds of our polarization, the dichotomy of two kinds of America. Will we raise taxes on a few for the many, hoping that that's the fix, or will we cut back on spending, re-structure, and subscribe to the philosophy of jobs creating revenue, rather than vice versa? Conservatives might say, we must decide to buy either the farm, or the farmer---the farm will feed folks for a while, but the farmer will keep things growing for a long time. The Liberal will claim the farmer can't grow at all without a proper and fair farm. You decide.
Whatever, the "cliff" is looming soon if we don't come up with a sustainable budget and how we plan to improve our financial situation---or become another broken country, a la Greece or Spain. It's budget decision time, but none will be made until after the election----we're on hold, and one would be more than naive not to suspect that getting elected is the only real priority. We're watching ourselves burn, as the politicians play politics, then laugh among themselves, like old pals at a recent annual bi-partisan party held at the Waldorf Astoria in New York. How dare they? We're not even smiling---and some of us consider their attempted display of playfulness inappropriate and disingenuous---as though all their words of passionate persuasion and claims to be "fighting" for us, are just a game called politics, and we are the captive audience to their play acting. Will the real leader please stand up and refuse the next party and/or talk show invitation?? And will we learn to bridge our differences before we self destruct?
Aiding and abetting the final attempts to close the sale are unpredictable world and weather events. We didn't even have to wait for the famous "November Surprise". First, in October, we had the hot little mess in Libya, where four of our people, including our ambassador, who had previously pleaded for and was denied more protection, were killed during "an act of terror", not terrorism, mind you, according to Obama--and an incredible back story in which help was requested numerous times. Stunningly, each time the reply and order came back from Washington "to stand down"! This strains the imagination, not to mention credibility, not to further mention faith in our leaders. So much so, that an official investigation is underway, but nobody seems to know from whom the order came---not even the president who likes to say the buck stops with him. Really?? Well, excuse me, but where's the buck, and what the Sam Hill is going on? If that doesn't shake your confidence, then you have already been sold. Obama is your guy, and you feel he must have had his reasons. Perhaps so, ---we can't know everything, but his silence on this matter is mind boggling. Likewise, the polls were reflecting badly for Obama after this incident. Romney was quick to criticize Obama's handling of the situation, and perhaps make political hay, but his numbers were surging. A done deal? Introducing President Romney? Not so fast---.
For, now we have a possible game changer, the predicted November surprise. It's called "Sandy", the horrifically damaging hurricane, and she may well become Obama's newest, best friend. We are now watching a very caring, supposedly prepared, and leaderly president step up to the plate, promising help and money to a very deserving and suffering east coast, but wouldn't any president do the same? Still it was a great photo opp. for Obama, and one he used to his advantage, showing us that he knows well how to do such things, at least here at home. Even Chris Christy, Gov of New Jersey was seen arm in arm with Obama, and praising his help and generosity, proving that Republicans and Democrats really can get along if absolutely necessary---and that presidents can rise to the occasion, on occasion.
At this posting, we have three more days to go, before the election. It's not a done deal yet, and anything could still happen, but what we have learned so far is that while there may be such a thing as the "perfect storm", there is no perfection to be found in presidents or candidates for the highest office in the land--both are flawed in one way or another. Both have fallen short and deserve our scrutiny, ---and perhaps a little forgiveness. What we need now is our collective wisdom and radar perceptiveness to see through the political dialogue, sales tricks and gimmicks--- and discern finally who can best serve our needs at this critical time in our history. There are those who feel our very survival as a viable country rides on this election. The unrest and undertow of fear and discontent is unlike any we've seen in modern times.
It's been a hard fought campaign season for both men and parties---down and dirty, filled with lies, secrets and scandals, enough to have some people opt for choice number 3---no sale, no vote, sitting this one out. That's bailing, wrong, and a cop out, leaving others to to row the boat we're all in. Love it or leave it, it is our process, the way we do things, and through it all we learn a lot about our choices and even ourselves.
Vote on November 6th, exercise your right as an engaged citizen, and help close perhaps the biggest deal in our lifetime. May the best man win, and may he, whoever he is, remember that it is we whom he serves, all of us, not his own ambitions or extreme agendas. Soon we will know who and what we have bought----a sale will have been struck. Ka-ching and good luck. Too bad there isn't a warranty that comes with the deal---and the promises.
God bless us all---especially those affected by "Sandy", who instructs that we and our differences, political and otherwise, are tiny in comparison to the power and strength of apocalypic events that render us helpless and in desperate need of each other, no matter our differences---is someone trying to tell us something?? And does it have nothing at all to do with politics, large or small government, farms or farmers---but a much bigger picture, one that begs for a people to search inwardly for things other than those which continue to divide us? The greatest salesman whoever lived once said---"love ye one another"---are we buying?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Vote!
ReplyDeleteThe first results are in. Dixville Notch, New Hampshire voted at midnight and they are:
ReplyDeletePresident Obama 6 - Governor Romney 6
Did they do that on purpose? ? ?
I was going to say "go big or go home, but it may be that the win will be very small---but the winner will take all. May the force be with us---
ReplyDeleteK.L.
No, the winner won't take all. ...Not this time, anyway. In this constitutional republic we have a balance of power, and the Republicans retained their majority in the House. The question is: Will they be willing to deal rather than obstruct or lose their majority in two years? They've got a contribution to make. They come with an important point of view. But they must be willing to entertain the idea that their political opponents' priorities have merit, too.
ReplyDeleteIt is not, as you seem to imply, along with the president and his party line, that the Republicans must be more willing and less obstructive---but rather that the the president and his party brokers must realize that the center is now so completely removed from their vision, that it has rendered them lost in their wonderland of leftist ideologogy, and left the Republicans no choice but to try and hold the line against this tide of creeping socialism. To compromise, in their view, is to be pushed even further away from their constituents' core values and principles, which they feel have already have been compromised beyond return and acceptability.
ReplyDeleteThe American voters, themselves, manifested this by refusing Obama a mandate, and by re-instating at the same time, all the same actors in this divided congress--thereby saying in effect, you may have a second term, but it is you who must change, reach out, compromise, and move towards a real center. If he does that, the Republicans will be willing to come to the party--up until now, they have been made to feel more like party crashers, uninvited guests at a table filled with disrespect and animosity. If the prez does not do that, he will have won only the battle, not the war---
"Creeping socialism" is such a worn out anachronism, I'm astonished to realize it's still in the lexicon of some bloggers like yourself. Let's be pragmatic and simply do what must be done, without reference to archaic fears. It's like the dog and cat fighting over which one was a rat. Both sides are talking of working together this presidential term. Let's support them.
ReplyDeleteSorry to offend you with worn out anachronisms---and I thought I had made it up!
ReplyDeleteDoing what needs to be done has very little to do with pragmatism or archaic fears---and much to do with President Obama eliminating words like " obstructionists", "rich can pay a little more", "the mess I inherited", "Bush, Bush, Bush"----talk about over used words. The pragmatic thing for Obama to do is to say to the American people, as he did in his acceptance speech---"I've been listening"---he preceded that by saying he would be a president of all the people. I liked that. I hope he meant it and that his actions reflect his words---the burden of bringing the two parties together rests mostly on his shoulders, and perphaps he finally feels it. He has been disappointingly more dividing than uniting, and I hope this narrow victory awakens a new inner voice--one that speaks to the responsibility he holds to bind and lead this country, not to his will, but to whatever both sides can agree on in a fair and balanced way.
If you were satisfied that the money would be spent wisely, would you still object to the rich paying a little bit higher tax?
ReplyDeleteThe rich are already paying much more than a little bit higher---I would like to see the regulations loosened, (not at the expense of oversight), some loopholes eliminated--- and try cutting expenses first before enacting any more tax hikes, which will only exacerbate and discourage non-tax revenue, and possibly be the final nail in the coffin of our fragile economy at this point.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that,that's probably not going to happen, but that could be called a reasonable compromise, and one which Obama could concede as a transformative and newly inspired leader, willing to break grid lock ---both parties would have won, and it would be worth a try. I won't be holding my breath----but the banks, business and big job providers are,which should be a major clue to Obama.
I'm glad you approve of oversight! I had guessed you were advocating anarchy.
ReplyDeleteEliminating loopholes has been tried before and doesn't work. It takes about three years before all the loopholes are re-written back into the tax code.
what expenses would you cut that haven't already been eliminated?
Your proposals sound like repeats of Mitt Romney's, the loser's, and just as vague. They are not the reason the other guy won?
And why make proposals you yourself admit will probably not fly?
I believe gridlock will give way to compromise before the December 31 deadline, because well intended and newly courageous players from both sides don't want great harm to come to this precious country.
Now, now---I could say that your comments seem taken right out of the liberals'handbook on how to counter anything foreign to your way of thinking, i.e. put down and ridicule as unworkable, vague, and unworthy of discussion ---pretty much Obama's mantra and what won him the election. But it leaves no room for compromise or civil conversation. But I won't. Suffice to say that this country is still in very deep crisis, and the problems may be too deep for the present congress and president to unravel. Too much bad blood under the bridge, and too such starkly different ways of thinking. There is even talk of a third party perhaps breaking through the fray. Bottom line is we are we are, and time will tell whether we have chosen the right course.
ReplyDeleteP.S.---Re what expenses need cutting--it's pretty obvious that medicare and social security are the biggest drain, and are losing ground faster than we can run---but nobody wants to do anything about it, since it could be career suicide. Govt. was never meant to be "Santa Claus", as one pundit puts it---but unfortunately, too many view it as such--and it may be too late too remove the bag of goodies---
ReplyDeleteHealth care and a dignified retirement are hardly "goodies". Rather, they are hallmarks of a civilized society. Govt may never have been meant to be anything in particular, as man was never meant to fly. It's what we make it to be. But Govt has been handing out goodies to the wealthiest of us for over thirty years now, and you still seem not to have noticed. There is a basis for the accelerating rift between haves and have nots in this country of late, and it's called govt policy, deliberately slanted to benefit those who don't even need more benefits, who aren't even being asked to sacrifice what most of us would call luxuries. The transfer of wealth from the middle clss to the upper class during the last three decades is shocking to anyone who cares to take the time to track the trend. Look at this title by J. Hacker and P. Pierson (2011): WINNER-TAKE-ALL POLITICS: HOW WASHINGTON MADE THE RICH RICHER--AND TURNED ITS BACK ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.
ReplyDeleteYour focus and emphasis on the rich being the culprit of all our problems is puzzling, when the facts show that they and their wealth combined cannot possibly solve our gigantic economic woes. The problems and causes are much more complex. True enough, there is collusion and chicanery going on between the big money movers and Washington politicians who play unsavory games together, and hopefully we can change that eventually---but the fact that some make more money than others has always been and always will be in a free market system---unless you wish to enact laws that prohibit too much wealth and dole out to others as a dictator would see fit. So,if not that, how would you re-create or design a more fair and equitable system, more to your liking? Raise minimum wages?? Limit the amount of money one can make, before having to give back?? These are sincere questions---please try to answer without sincerely, without ducking, dodging or attacking back. Health care, btw, may not be considered goodies, but the fact is medicare and social security cannot sustain in its present form---proven fact.
ReplyDeleteYOur focus on the rich and their lack of contribution ( for some, will go up to approx. 65%, I hear,) is puzzling, given that they alone, cannot cure this country's economic woes--would hardly make a dent. The causes and effects of our problems go much deeper and have been going on for many years--more money going out than we are taking in, and social welfare generosity to the point of breaking the bank. But yes, the big money movers on Wall Street, etc., are in collusion with Washington--that's politics, and that's not always right, but the Unions are just as guilty. Money follows money.
ReplyDeleteThere is much unrest now, over 40 states requesting to seccede the union! And others are talking of a 3rd party rising. Nobody's happy. Perhaps out of the ashes will come some real answers. But there will always be more money made by some, and not so much by others--so what's your answer?? Would uou propose a mandatory higher wage? Or a limited maximum profit??
BTW, health care may not be a goodie, but if we don't do something to correct the unsustainable present medicare and s.s. security programs, we eventually won't have anthing for anybody.
Tell us how you would suggest addressing the 'unfair" imbalance of wealth?? I will look into the book--but give us a hint----
You are so right: The solutions are complex, but outside of writing my own book, and can only answer in over-simplified, broad stokes. I would double the minimum wage. I would resume the progressive income tax which was part of our system prior to 1981. I am not asking for radical change. I am trying to draw attention to the radical changes that have been made during the last three decades. Your declaring that such would not help the financial problems of the country, including Medicare and Social Security, are unconvincing. You claim you have proof. I've seen "proof" to the contrary. I offered a title which would help support what I have observed on my own. Do you have one for me?
ReplyDeleteThe proof is in the history of similarly tried economic theories such as you espouse. They have not worked, and even if you argue that they have or do work for some countries, such as Sweden or Denmark, they do not fit the American template or original American mind set, which is that capitalism works better for us and socialism does not. Further, to raise the minimum wage sounds great, until we realize that the natural and inevitable consequence is to raise consumer prices--net sum, zero. Tax overhaul may be, however, an answer of sorts, but never seems to be considered very seriously. Re books,"Atlas Shrugged" is a cautionary tale of economic practices based on what's fair---and what happens if taken too far. No free lunches, my friend, no free lunches---
ReplyDeleteATLAS SHRUGGED is a "cult classic" from 1957 in a decade noted for its McCarthyist anti-communist hysteria by a bitter Russian-born woman who's been dead now for thirty years (recently made into a slick hollywood movie). Although espoused by Paul Ryan (remember him?), who forced everyone on his staff to read it, it is hardly relevant in a discussion about those very thirty years. It is a cautionary tale alright, but the book I recommended is not a work of fiction, but a commentary on the real America beginning in 1981 to the present based on actual data. We were not a socialist country in 1980. Why do you keep bringing up the scare word "socialist"? But we don't even have laissez-faire capitalism in 2012. We have welfare for the rich and for international coorporations. What I advocate is a level playing field, where opportunity is alive for everyone who is willing to take advantage of it. That's the American dream, isn't it? No one is advocating taking even fairness too far. In the coming weeks I think we will witness some real compromise. Your right wing opinions have their place in American political discourse, but this country just voted not to take them too far.
ReplyDeleteSince you do not care for the word "socialism", what would you call your preferred system of government as it applies to society? As I understand the term, it has many different levels of definition from one extreme to the other, but all encompass some form of government law, ownership, and regulation ranging from one's income to one's property and including private and public rights. We already have some of these things, but the fear is that eventually we will have more than our system can bear, which possibly is what's happening now to our economy. The only "scary" thing about the word "socialism" is that it might alert people to what we are becoming---but perhaps not---because you're right "the country" voted in more of the same. It is what it is--so let's call it by it's name----
ReplyDeleteThe only idea I have advocated on this blog is a "mixed economy" with government and private sectors each playing the role most appropriate to it. Commerce in most of its forms fits the private sector. Protection from crime and fire fit the governmenet. The latter isn't socialism, is it? The question asked today is: Should protection from disease, health care, be part of the private or the public sectors? We have a mixed system now, but which way will the pendulum swing next? It's up to us, the people, through our democratic institutions, to decide. I hear certain neighborhoods in Chicago have been surrendered by the police to gangs. Does it take a socialist to cry foul? I think not. I think it takes a patriot.
ReplyDeleteMost of us love our country, and like to think we're patriots---none of us have that market cornered, nor can claim exclusive ownership by virtue of one ideology or the other. It is a matter of opinion on which way the pendulum should swing---my hope is that more people will become a more informed electorate, whether they vote Dem or Repub., left or right, instead of putting their trust in politicians who tell them "I am fighting for you"--because to vote for those who profess to be one's protector and guardian of rights, is to stay dependant, needy, and subservient. True conservatism is to allow the system to let everyone rise, to succeed without handouts, to be free of dependancy. Of course the govt. should be there to help when needed. Of course they should be a fire wall against crime, fires, weather events, and many other things for the "common good"---nobody is arguing that,and it is off message to suggest that. What we are saying is that we must not keep creeping, if you will, into more and more of a "nanny state", where all incentives to succeed financially are diminished and in some cases, squelched due to exhorbitant taxes and over zealous regulations. Do you really think the government can sustain itself without those top money/job creators?? And do you really think those same people will keep investing, building, opening up new places to work, when they must give more and more to the govt.? True revenue comes, shall I say it again, from a healthy economy where everyone is working, save those who cannot. Yes, even the playing field where you can, make sure that no one's cheating, pay everyone a little more for a good day's work,---all good things, and I applaud you for your efforts. You are a good man. But then look around---there will always be those who surge ahead of the crowd, make more, have better ideas, have more---what then? Take it all away, this time a little bit more, and start over again?? How long before we have complete socialism or worse, communism?? How about, instead, recognizing that the best way is to teach those who can that the best way to live is to help themselves and give them the tools to do so, instead of a superficial hope in a govt. that exists to care for them. It doesn't--it cares ultimately for itself---to stay in power by keeping the masses powerless.
ReplyDeleteYes, we have what you might call a mixed economy structure, and you are also right that the voters voted for more of the same--but I submit to you that there are those who are very concerned that unless we get our fiscal house in order, and manage somehow to achieve more balance, rather than swinging further to the left, that we are headed for another recession, from which we may never recover. That's scary---
We don't disagree. We don't. It's a matter where the balance point really is. That's why I compared it to a pendulum, constantly swinging; the left correcting the right; the right correcting the left, never getting it exactly right, but never to the either extreme.
ReplyDeleteIn a previous post you identified two programs you thought were inappropriately managed: Medicare and Social Security. Drawing on the drift of this more recent post, I find it hard to believe, were you the legislator, you would really expect the recipients of these programs, the elderly, to simply help themselves. This is just one example of where your thinking sometimes seems faulty. Specifically, what do you want to see changed? Who is it you believe is becoming too dependent on the government, not helping themselves enough?
And why this contempt for government, as though none of our elected officials care for the common good? Ayn Rand had an image of Russian-type Bolsheviks taking over America. Are we really so cynical? It is at least the charge of this republic that, according to the preamble of the Constitution, to care for the general welfare.
As for what makes for an healthy economy, it is for government to regulate and tax those who can afford it, not to put them out of business. Who, specifically, do you feel is being over regulated or over taxed?
And what is all this creepy stuff? It sounds paranoid to my ears. I would hope for sobriety in a civil conversation, some pragmatism.
From church class yesterday: Psalm 72 [and 73 is its obverse]. 42,200,000 people live in poverty in this country. For a family of four, $23,021 or below yearly income is considered poverty. 46,670,373 people in the USA receive SNAP (formerly called food stamps) benefits. 21.9% is the child poverty rate in the USA. The average length of time a family spends on TANF (welfare) is 3 years. 7.2% is the percentage of US population employed but still live below the poverty line. 27.6% is the poverty rate for African Americans. The percentage of SNAP money lost to fraud each years is 1%. Out of 34 developed nations only 3 have a greater income disparity than the USA. The government spent $770 billion on Medicaid and Medicare in 2011.
ReplyDelete