Unfortunately, the alternatives are are worse than what we have now. People fail to see that the change for change's sake is rarely a good strategy. The republicans would certainly see Obama's 2008 election in this light. The current Republican slate is full of crazy people, opportunists, and corporate puppets. Much like the democratic slate in the last election.
Chances are pretty good that we're going to get four more years of hope we can't count on. And the best that we can count on from another Obama administration is that nothing will get worse.
So what does one do? When the eastern block countries became democracies, some of them allowed the option of voting for none of the above. While satisfying, this never worked. The real problem, as Douglas Adams put it, is that those who want to rule aren't the ones you want to be ruled by.
So again, what does one do? The last few years have shown that the small group on congress can bring things to a complete standstill. No one is really talking about it now, but keeping and gaining seats in congress is going to be far more important than who resides in the White House. I'm going to focus my efforts there.
9 comments:
I'm just not sure I buy the attacks on Obama from the left. I think the guy did everything he could until he just ran out of political capital. He spent it all doing just what the progressives said they wanted - stimuli, monster banking regulations, EPA power expansions and health care. How much did you expect from him?
We seem to live in different realities. You see him as this socialist Marxist. I, and many progressives, see him as right of Mitt Romney.
You say he's expanded the scope of the EPA, but he just suspended import clean air regulations last week.
He's embraced the national security and domestic spying programs of the last administration. In fact, in many ways he's taken it further. He's accelerated the use of drone attacks far beyond what Bush did. He's lowered our standing in the Arab further than Bush.
He refuses to hold anyone responsible for just about anything. Be it illegal banking activities, or those engaged in domestic spying.
Not only did he keep us in Bush's two wars, but he has gotten us in yet another.
His negotiation strategy is to start where he things the other side is and then give up more. The so called Obama care is exactly what previous Republicans have proposed.
He caved in on the Bush tax cuts after pledging not to.
Frankly he would have made a great moderate Republican from previous decades.
Almost all of your criticisms of Obama can be eliminated with one simple change of thought: Bush wasn't evil or stupid. When Obama got into the White House and finally got the daily security briefings, he realized that what had been done was what had to be done. Hence the change. Once you accept that, almost all of your objections go away.
After that, you've got to realize that there's a limit to what one man can accomplish as president. As little as I agree with him, I have to hand it to him - he has remade the US in a big way.
By the way, I don't seem him as either socialist or Marxist - he's much more of a Peronist.
... he's much more of a Peronist.
He's too much of a wimp to be a Peronist.
Reality is that Carebear isn't that much different from most of the previous presidents from our life time. He's friends with the ruling class, just like the Bushes and the Clintons, and sees the world through their eyes.
It wasn't that long ago that Republicans supported some sort of national health care. RR raised taxes. So did George Bush the first. The country prospered under the high taxes of Clinton and RR. Just because the Tea Part wants reality to be a certain way doesn't make it true.
After my wife's illness, I have a very strong opinion about health care. The current system is a mess, and despite what folks want to think it isn't the best in the world. It has the potential to be the best for those with enough money. If you're working class and don't have union benefits, your shit out of luck.
As much as you like to compare health insurance to luxuries such as yachts, you are talking about lives here, not play things. And while the yacht industry is pretty much a free market, health care is not! Have you ever tried to compare costs of a doctor, its impossible! Mostly because the amount you get charged depends on what the insurance will pay. Ever try to get a cost estimate prior to a procedure. Good luck, the insurance company refuses to commit to a number. And its not like you can say we'll I'll just wait on this heart surgery until the insurance company will answer my questions. Not the way the world works.
Yes national health care is big government and it isn't perfect, but if you've dealt with an HMO lately it isn't any different from the Canadian system. Long waits and rationing. Tendency to use drugs rather than treatment.
There is so much hysteria about the ObamaCare. In reality is does very little. Forces companies to let you insure your unemployed children living in your basement for a few more years, and provides a mechanism for high risk uninsurable folks. It was widely embraced by the insurance industry - so that tells you it is friendly to capitalism. Unfortunately the cost of the high risk policies will price most folks out. You don't have to ban it, when you can make it unaffordable. So why should the left be happy with this?
What we needed was a single payer system. It is the only way to control costs. I'm not talking about the British or Canadian model, but the German model. Insurance is handled by corporations, but they must meet certain guidelines and cost restrictions. The companies are still making money and it isn't completely government run.
They on top of the safety net insurance, you allow supplemental coverage. You end up with a two tiered system, but we have that now. And lastly, we already pay for people's major medical through medicaid. Almost half of the women getting cancer treatment with my wife were either uninsured because they were laid off when the got sick, or were at retirement age. Either way, what they couldn't pay ended up being covered by medicaid. So we're going to pay for it either way. We might as well try to build in some cost control.
So what would you think about Ron Paul or Gary Johnson? They are both anti-war candidates. I don't think either will win the GOP nomination, but I agree with more of their positions than any of the other Republicans.
B-daddy,
I honestly don't know anything about Gary Johnson, so I can't offer an opinion about him. There are both positive and negatives things about Ron Paul. He sounds a bit too much like a John Bircher much of the time for me.
While While I've always had a leaning toward civil libertarian, I don't see minimal federal government as a valid option in a modern global world.
Even if you want to move toward a minimal Federal role in the country, tactics like starving the beast are very disruptive in the economy. The devil is in the details. What do you keep and what do you leave up to the states. Ron wants to go back to the gold standard and does see a reason for FEMA.
I've lived on the Gulf coast and dealt with Hurricanes, and earth quakes in California. States aren't often up to the task of responding. I'd be more supportive of a complete restructuring of something like FEMA than its elimination.
were I really like Paul is he disdain for corporate welfare and sweetheart deals for large corporate interests.
For instance why not punish BP for polluting the Gulf and destroying the livelihood of local fisherman. If you really believed in the market, why reward a corporation that commonly cuts corners at the expense of everyone else. Its outrageous that some Republican members of congress felt BP should get an apology. Its just as outrageous that the current administration refused to punish BP for their reckless behavior.
Kelly, thanks for the explanation. I think that the average person on the right or left can agree that corporate welfare is bad for America. This is my beef with Rick Perry. I don't know the actual liability of BP for the Gulf Oil spill, but to the extent that they are responsible, they should be held liable. But part of my complaint against Obama has been the direction of government largesse to favored corporations such as GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, and Solyndra.
B-daddy,
I can agree with you there. But in the case of GM it was either pay now or pay later. The jury still out, but I'm hoping that in the long run the bailout will cost us less than letting it fail.
Although GM certainly deserved to implode. Their management consistently made poor decisions. Ford made that crystal clear by turning themselves completely around. I think if we saw how the last few years were going to turn out, letting the too big to fail corporations go might have seemed like a lesser of the two evils.
Unfortunately both parties reward their own. Under the previous eight years of Bush it was oil companies and bankers that reaped the greatest rewards. Either way normal folks get nothing but the bill. With supreme court decisions like Citizens United, it has become even harder to keep powerful interests from messing with the political process.
As for BP, they have a reputation with in the oil industry for taking excessive risks to maximize profits. Everyone forgets that a whole drilling crew was killed in the explosion. Actions have consequences and far too often the powerful don't pay any price.
Post a Comment