Friday, January 18, 2013

TELL ME A STORY

Do you ever imagine that hundreds of years from now people will be reading about us? We're living our story, and it's a real cliff hanger, wouldn't you say? Well, we got there , to the very edge ----brakes squeeling, stock markets teetering, the American people joking about what a sick joke this all was--- congressmen looking ever so important with the weight of the world on their shoulders as they filed past the reporters to announce the long awaited decision---financial  crisis averted for now. Ah, c'mon, you knew it all along, it was just a matter of time, of Obama refusing to deal, then flexing his presidential muscles at Boehner, and finally taunting him and the Republicans into caving to the inevitable It was a circus, a show, a shameless example of our leaders at work and political theatre enough to make you want to gag.  But they got 'er done, and uh,---what exactly was that?? Very little, unless you consider power plays and ideological gamesmanship more important than the actual underwhelming "compromise" hammered out at the 11th hour by none other our favorite uncle,Vice Pres. Joe Biden and John Boehner, the beleagured Republican Speaker of the House . Our story continues, but who's doing the telling?  And are we merely characters in the story, or are we helping to write it??  President Obama is fond of saying he just needs to tell the story better, improve the narrative.
How very patronizing---as if we are merely onlookers, incapable of perception-- and need his spinning tale to be captivated.

What does it say about our president that he had to call in his v.p. to do his last ditch cliff negotiating?   It screams that Obama doesn't negotiate, never had any intention of doing so---he negotiates by not negotiating, because he didn't have to, obviously doesn't know how to, and genuinely doesn't like compromise. He takes on all comers pretty much the same--- petulant and angry if he doesn't get his way, and mean and threatening even as he's winning.  It 's my way of the highway, guys, 'cause I'm right, and not only are you wrong, you are losers. You and your party are going down---the election told me so, I've got the wind at my back, and have no intention of serving down the middle and catering to anyone who disagrees with me---transformational, isn't it? Never did like the two party system---it gets in my way, and then I have to use my excecutive privilege, which is pretty cool, and much less messy. But hey, I'm the main character here, in fact I'm writing much of the story, and I shall do what I please---turn the page.

What you say?  Obama gave a little---yes, he did---he raised his stretch-ey definition of"millionaire" to those making $500,000 a year, instead of $250,000.00 ----but the Republicans sold their souls, caved on he one thing they promised never to do, and got very little in return.  The point is, this was more of a philosphocal fight than a solution, and Obama wins that one, based on sheer numbers of an electorate that was either conned or prefers to believe in a fairy tale. It goes like this--   The rich should pay more, even if it doesn't help all that much---they have much too much, makes us all feel better to take some, gotta help a little, and relieves us of having to tackle the harder issue. The real problem, spending, was hardly debated, let a lone a few entitlements that may not even get enacted.  But on that point, Obama balked, and warned that any further talks re entitlement spending will not sit well with him--- "that's not the way it's going to work"---not only did he sound once again like the  stern patriarch in charge, but he seems unconcerned about spending money till the cows come home as long as it contributes to his idea of re-tailoring this country to his view, which is looking more and more like a welfare state. But never mind---he wins for now. He is a great story teller and has a gift for persuading readers to see things his way---to lull, charm, and believe. The plot thickens---

Now, as people are realizing that their payroll checks are a bit less, due to the fact that Obama did not extend the cut he had instigated in 2010, they are wondering what happened---there wasn't much mention of that during all the cliff talks.  There will surely be more little surprises as Obamacare kicks in. Insurance companies are already raising premium prices. The whole picture is  not looking that much better.  Yes, these things take time, but transformation can happen very quickly under a president that does not value the role of a two party system, balance, and due process of legislation. How much time do we have before we look up one day, and realize that where we were wasn't so bad---and where we are isn't so good.  Already we are hearing that the middle class will surely feel the pain and perhaps the brunt of our economic load---tax the rich more?? That's the fairy tale part---sorry, but when we're spending more than we make, there simply isn't enough to
go around anymore. But never mind, we are moving forward to the next exciting chapter---

 The really big issue of the national debt, its ceiling and whether to raise it looms large and the two sides are squaring off again---- the Republicans demanding that entitlement cuts be part of the final deal, and the president stating unequivocally that will not be the case. Adding fuel to the fire, President O. made his usual TV appearance, using his bully pulpit to shame and bully the Republicans into submission by warning that not to raise the ceiling his way, i.e. without major cuts, will be irresponsible and absurd, never mind that he is responsible for the largest debt increase in history and seems oblivious to addressing our economic free fall---and well, you get it boys,  I'm wearing the white hat, here, and you might as well ride on outta town---don't forget your hats, the black ones. Does this kind of blatant partisanship make anyone else squirm just a little??  What next? An executive order to raise the debt ceiling? It would be nice, even leader- like, and certainly legacy engendering if perhaps just this once President Obama would choose to act as a mediator between two differing philosophies, instead of the benign, but intractable dictator he seems to favor---and to back off just a bit. Sometimes being "right" isn't always the right way to lead--it begets resentment and smacks of assumed omnipotence. Trust me, says the story teller, I was sent here to write big things---go big, or go home is my motto. But does he have to paint everyone else as small???

So what's the answer to our disappearing two party system, our bulwark against the power of one philosophy radically changing the country? It would  be nice if conservatives/Republicans could be counted on to stand firm against the crumbling walls of a once sustainable economy and a country envied far and wide for its opportunity for all who were willing to work for it, and a beacon of freedom. But they won't because they can't---the media/public pressure too great, the fairy tale too seductive, the people too willing, and the price too politically high. No, unless Mr. Boehner and posse become Braveheart and decide to speak their party's truth to power, we are witnessing the dissolution of the Republican party---and more, the possible transformation of our country into a welfare state faster than you can say" constitution". Don't even think about the constitution, says the yarn master---my story is much more relevant to today---follow me, we're almost there.

 Perhaps the GOP must, as some suggest, transform themselves---maybe their story simply doesn't click anymore. The country has turned left, and right isn't right anymore.  But wait!!??---stop the press, the story we're being told, the narrative being spun----could it be possible that we're being more misled than enlightened and progressful? Has the great and clever Democrat machine and the mostly biased media managed to mischaracterize and misconstrue the Republican party's values, done a phenomenal job of telling us a story that is based more on emotion and spin than fact? "Look", as the politicians like to say, look at it clearly, or at least differently,-- could this be a case of mistaken or perverted identity, even in fact, not the real story??

 But meanwhile, as a back story, suppose for a moment that the Republican party in actuality is the one who: Has the  bigger, more inclusive tent, who respects all men/women regardless of  background, lineage, creed or faith, NOT the party who succeeds by keeping people down instead of encouraging them to get up; Promotes self reliance and belief in the individual, so that everyone can find their own strength, NOT the nanny government as a crutch and panacea for all ills; Is not devoid of compassion, but is convinced that a conservative approach to government that exists to help, but not hinder, is truly for the larger good, NOT one which dominates and weakens it's people and its economy by its emphasis on taxes, recipiency and entitlement; They are not all gun crazy enthusiasts and anti-abortionists, BUT they do believe in the second amendment, and the sacredness of life. They are not all Christians, Jews, Muslims, or atheists---they are all those things, and more, BUT they do not mock or disrespect anyone, while pretending to be the party of tolerance. And finally that this is a  party who still believes in the American Dream, where all who wish and work hard can be part of the success story, NOT the seductive fairy tale of an Utopia where everyone has their fair share, but no one has too much---except of course, those in power, the ones who weave the tale of class warfare, they vs. us, and a government  so big and so caring that nobody has to worry about anything---and they all lived happily ever after. End of story.

 Or pick up a different book---Once upon a time there was a country where everyone wanted to live, they came from all over, and all was good for a while, until one day, the country could no longer support everyone or pay its bills, the people began to grumble, the social safety nets began to shred, the taxes, though huge, were no longer enough to sustain the national debt, or supply for all the needs of the public good, the president and congress kept spending, and scolded anyone who disagreed with them, calling them irresponsible and absurd. Not wishing to be thought of as irresponsible and absurd, those who disagreed retreated, thinking they would live to fight another day.  But the other day never came---the country fell into disrepair,  and -----there were much fewer rich people, many more poor people, not enough jobs, poor quality and limited medical care, reduced help for the poor and sick,----the dream had died, and what was left was only a memory of what once was. Until someone, not necessarily a Republican or a Democrat, or even one person--but many  with great vision, wisdom, and courage, one day stood up and said with one voice----enough. This story isn't us, man! Our real story, the one our grandchildren will read about, belongs to all of us, not one party, a president, or even his Vice.  Listen up--we are the story, and we can write our own ending, or our new beginning.  Now is the time----get involved.    







33 comments:

  1. President O has raised the national debt less than all but one other in the century. Check your data. And the deficit is not through the roof from entitlements (as you like to call them), but due to two wars, the last of which was based "misinformation". I will not go into your claim that the USA is becoming a "nany state", since your use of such slang reveals your inability to listen to reason, but I can protest that hard working people ought to be paid a living wage with 21st century benefits. Poor wages are another way the dwindling middle class subsidises the rich. As for your loaded word "dictator", note that nearly all other presidents have used executive privelege in the last hundred years more--some much more--than Obama.

    The world is experiencing a scarcity of resources of all varieties. Overpopulation and over-industrialization are real, and "growth" is still the mantra. Economic justice under these conditions is almost too much to hope for, but you are right when you say it's time we get involoved. But even before we get involved, we must be willing to face up to the real predicament we're in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOVED the Inauguration. Aways do--regardless of who's in. ...The peaceful transfer of power....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or weblog posts in this sort of space .
    Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this web site.
    Studying this info So i'm happy to show that I have a very good uncanny feeling I came upon just what I needed. I such a lot indubitably will make sure to don?t fail to remember this web site and give it a glance on a constant basis.
    Also see my website :: home renovator near winter garden

    ReplyDelete
  4. To the reader who commented on my blog: I stand by my remarks re Obama and the national debt. My data is well established and culled from many different sources. There may be an argument that there are some good reasons for Obama's extraordinary spending, having added to the national debt a hefty 5 trillion since he took office, such as wars, but there is also evidence that the president is more concerned with his agenda than the debt crisis. I would suggest you check your data, and try looking through other prisms besides your own liberal telescope which sees only one narrow vision.

    Re the use of the term "nanny state"--I did not use that term in last blog, but have in the past---all I can say is, if the shoe fits----your protests against anything that describes what many see as a growing threat of a govt. taking over our lives, belies your own true and previous feelings of a preferred "welfare state"---and the difference between that and "nanny" is????

    ReplyDelete
  5. The difference is: "Welfare state" is descriptive; "nanny" is pejorative slang, not fit for civil discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You make me smile with your finger shaking judgments of others---phrases such as "your inability to listen to reason" again belie your discrimination , and certainly do not promote civil discourse. "Nanny state" may be slang language, but so is the implication that conservatives, Republicans, and capitalism are all the enemy of the working class and their best interests. Until we can find a balance and begin to stop attacking, posturing and pandering, and actually look at what's happening to this country, as it gets played as a political and philosophical football, we are in grave danger of losing everything for everybody. It is time we pull together---nothing is being done to correct the real problem of financial ruin. We are burning the house down rather than putting out the fires---all because of political differences, which may have a place, but not until we save ourselves from self destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can you be more specific on how we are "burning the house down?"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps I should say we are allowing the house to burn down---in that we or they are doing nothing to address the huge debt problem---i.e., neither Obama nor Dems have even come up with a budget!! And they have turned down any semblance of answers from the Republicans. The Republicans in the meantime, have caved under pressure and have now agreed to extend the debt ceiling issue for another few months. We are flying without a net, continuing to spend and ignore the real problems of S.S. and Medicare, Medicaid, not to mention numerous other programs so near and dear to Obama's agenda. In fact, some of those programs may be perfectly valid---but we simply cannot afford to spend what we don't have, just because we can keep on printing money! Ignorance is bliss, but if you are not concerned about the debt load and consequent repercussions we are burdening ourselves and our children with, you have to be kidding me---or perhaps you feel as Obama was stated---"spending is not the problem"---??????????

    ReplyDelete
  9. Would you care to provide a brief scenario of the "consequent repercussions" if the USA slashes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ah, there you go again---breaking your one rules of civility. "Slash" could certainly be called a slang word, used to paint anyone who wants to remodel and somehow save these programs from extinction or at best a system of i.o.u.'s. Ideas such as extending retirement age a bit, and offering people the opportunity to set up their own retirement savings, instead of forking it over to the govt. have been suggested. As usual, budget plans such as the Simpson Bowles plan, and Paul Ryan's plan, which would at least be a starting point for our out of control
    spending, have been summarily dismissed by the Democrats and this president----it's a hot political potato--and easier to say that the Republicans stand in the way of all progress, when if fact the over hauling of these programs may be the only viable way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Please excuse my use of slang (and your "forking"). I don't think privatizing Social Security would make anyone more secure, while it would be a gigantic windfall for our very fallible banks. Can you guess who is paying the lobbyists for promoting this idea? But the intended meaning of my question was: What do you mean by "consequent repercussions"? What is your feared scenario?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Don't know where you are quoting me from re "consequent repercussions"---but there will be plenty if we don't get our financial house in order soon. Read the last paragraph of this current blog for thoughts on very possible scenario. It is no secret that S.S., Medicare, and Medicaid are the 3 biggest drain on our budget ---so I'd like to hear what you would suggest--?? And if you don't fear a scenario, do you really think we can continue business as usual?? Kicking the can on down the road isn't the answer any more. Everyone also knows that, but the powers that be want to keep their power, and to fix the problem is to possibly lose their jobs, so we keep spending, even though we are now close to spending more than we take in----so, what's your solution??

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am quoting from your January 28 comment. Re-reading the last paragraph of your blog has answered my question, so you don't have to bother repeating it. We seem to agree what outcome to avoid, but I believe the solution lies in raising revenue, not taking essential benefits from those who can afford it least. Three unfunded wars brought this deficit on our heads. We must pledge to avoid such irresponsible acts in the future, then chip away at the deficit. It can be done. Clinton finished his presidency with a surplus. That's something to hark back to.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pres. Obama's approval rating at all time high as of January 30. Meanwhile, Fox News ratings at a 12 year low. Congress: Take note!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why all the fuss about Fox news?? As one of few news sources who aren't simply carrying water for the White House narrative, they stand out as proof that we still have differences of view points in this country, along with talk radio---and thankfully, so far are still free enough to offer them to the public. For the president of United States to constantly berate and criticize Fox and anyone else who disagrees with him at first seemed childish and churlish---now it's beginning to seem creepy and threatening.

    If by raising revenue, you mean taxes, or is that too slang a word?---good luck on relying on that alone to fix the problems. Remember the rich got that way largely on the basis of an economy that was generating its own revenue enough to allow for big business to thrive. Killing the goose isn't the answer---who will take their place?? True revenue does not come from high taxation for a few, but from a healthy economy where all participate---at what level, you can argue the merits, but it still remains the best way to generate money for all, not asking a few do so. So, with all due respect, your solution lacks depth, because it does not offer sustainability---no welfare state has ever proven to be a model of great economic success, just a gauzy guise of "fairness" and robot like contentment because nobody has more than their fair share---which smacks more of class envy than true love of one's neighbor.

    Obama's ratings, though I believe the same polls say, people do not approve of his performance, just his personality, reflect the unfortunate political climate of our times---love the guy no matter what, because he appears to be on our side, and wants to give us "free stuff", no matter the real problems. It's an easy sell to preach, but harder to deliver long term. Already unemployment is ticking up again, and their is very little good news out there re the economic recovery. Obamacare is going to cost the average family thousands more per year, and one gets the feeling it could be a complete disaster in terms of herding the states, medical entities, and insurance companies enough to make it all work affordably and/or effectively. No, polls not withstanding, Obama's true legacy will only be known years, perhaps not that many, from now, when we are left with the results of a president who lacked experience, which led to his leading from behind, making crowd pleasing decisions based on his ideological beliefs, which are too extreme and partisan for a country too divided to accept, much less implement or consistent with our past. He is uncannily likable, to the point of self delusion and a lack of humility--too bad, he couldn't have used these great gifts to become a great president for all--instead of a puzzling pied piper for a few, and a contentious, ineffective leader for all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Since we have come to the point of beating a dead horse, I'd like to shift to resource depletion. On several occasions you have expressed your dismay that more public lands were not being opened for oil exploration. It has now become known that some regions set aside as wilderness areas (because they were thought not to contain any valuable resources) do, indeed, pass modern criteria as possible sources of oil and other resources economically worth extracting. How protective of such areas do you think we should be, given that the resources will evenually be exhausted anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My only comment at this time is that I feel we should be doing more to mine our own resources. Fracking seems to be the technology of the future and will open many more options. Of course, we should always be mindful of protecting our wilderness areas. We all want that and want to breathe safe air and drink safe water---but we must also consider the risks vs. our ability to survive and thrive. Jobs are either lost or made, progress is gained or thwarted, and quality of lifestyle is either enhanced or driven backwards. To say that resources will eventually be exhausted anyway, is hardly a reason not to continue to harvest---all of us will be exhausted at some point, but we must continue to progress.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think sustainability must soon replace growth and "progress" for the benefit of mankind and other creatures of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're assuming that any opposing views will automatically be extreme to the point of thoughtlessness and recklessness---and therein lie the seeds of contention and not a good path to compromise and reason. Environmentalists must have opposition, or they too are subject to going overboard with their views. Balance and moderation must always lead the way---fracking is a good example of an alternative energy source---yet, it's being attacked before it's hardly gotten started.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with your comments on balance and moderation and compromise, but there has not been enough debate on fracking, and, meanwhile, fracking continiues unabated. There ought to be a moratorium until we know more about the dangers it poses.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What have you to say about the "civil war" within the Republican party?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think it's quite civil---and indicative of a party on the move, not paralyzed, or afraid to change , or marching to a hierarchy drum beat that shuts down any sign of individualism. Republicans, by their nature, are a mixed bag of individuals and will eventually sort themselves out, or morph, or splinter into something else---viva la difference!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Will the Repubs allow any of the President's proposals of last night's State of the Union speech? What can we all work together on?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Immigration is a good starting point, but it isn't a question of whether the Repubs. will "allow", but where and if they can hold the line on the waves of spending that will surely come as a result of all the president's proposals. It's not fun being called the party of "no', but somebody has to----as the Pres. is dead set on leaving a legacy of yes, yes, yes to all his do good programs with no way to pay other than tax, tax, tax.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What's your defence of Republican senators obstructing the confirmation of Chuck Hagel?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I tried to give the guy a fair look---but the closer I looked, the less comfortable I was with him----don't think he's the right man for the job, and the Republicans are doing the right thing. That's their job---and what hearings are all about.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What is the real reason(s) for the Pope's resignation?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Who Knows? Even asked Shannon---who thinks there's nothing behind the scenes going on----just a retiring Pope, but me thinks there's a little more intrigue to the story. What do you think??

    ReplyDelete
  29. According to Gianluini Nuzzi's Vatileaks book, "His Holiness", there's a lot more intrigue to the story. The Catholic Church is not made after the model of a coorporation where CEO's come and go. The Pope is the mystical Presence of Christ on earth, and this tradition had been unbroken for over 700 years, regardless of physical health. Is this just an example of post-modernism run amok?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I understand it has happened before---1940's?? But you know---the only constant in this world is change. Could it be the Pope is no longer Catholic???? My apologies to all Catholics--just trying to add a little humor----

    ReplyDelete
  31. Haven't you an updated analysis of the Sequester?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Working on it---stay tuned. I

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A pope's resignation has not happened in -600- years. I believe that it takes a tremendous amount of humility to admit that you are no longer capable of doing your job, whether it is leading 1.6 billion Catholics, teaching, etc....Whether he retired for health reasons, physical or mental, I respect the amount of discernment he must have anguished through to come to his decision to step down. There is intrigue to any story when there is so much skepticism. I take it for what it is and have faith the good Lord is leading the Church and will find a Pontiff that will lead the Catholic church for years to come.

      Delete