See what started this at: http://ianmcgibboney.blogspot.com/2009/11/blending-sports-and-politicssomething.html
You're an angry fella Tom, but you do have a point about me portraying some of the same divisiveness and adversity in much of my own contributions and commentary. So, I'm not going to mark arguments for such or justify such.
Unemployment is a huge problem. It seems to be your sticking point, much like many others in your quest to paint the current President along with Democratic policy and implementation as the source for all of our woes. You are absolutely right: Obama initially stated that he could hold unemployment to 8% or less. He was absolutely wrong.
This is the source of my point. It's not about supporting the plans of Democrats, but rather supporting truly progressive plans that will have the desired impact, not half-measures watered down by compromise ceded to opposing political organizations. Krugman and a plethera of economists screamed at the top of their lungs about the E.R.A. not being nearly large enough to be fully effective. They even went so far as to state that while the proposed investment would slow down and reverse quite a few key economic indicators, it wouldn't have the desired effect on unemployment rates as they are usually one of the last indicators to turn around. Further, they are still stating unless more investment is made specifically in the areas of job creation several years of inflated unemployment rates are likely.
You see my point is not loyalty to party, but to good ideas. We've run higher defecits as a percentage of GDP in the past, and specifically when that money was used to strengthen the economy and production at home, it was very successful. I don't care about Obama or the particular individuals who tout ideas. I just care about the ideas.
I think Obama has come up short on some of his campaign promises, and delivered on others. I never expected any different when I cast my ballot for him. I simply saw and still see him as the best possibility for Progressive reform.
Tom, anyone who can look at the lack of support shown to health care reform by the Republican party and not say they would rather play politics, is either clinically insane or completely apathetic. Even the extremely ridiculous farce of a bill that they slapped together after much criticism for not bringing a viable alternative to the table, doesn't guarantee an exemption to preexisting condition exclusions.
You are right again on the universal mandate (although no one is going to be thrown in jail). It is a bad idea to provide more of a monopoly to the insurance companies who already are raping the American citizens. That is exactly why a strong and comprehensive public option is necessary. Contrary to what is said so frequently, a public option doesn't automatically equal a single payer government plan in a few years. There are other nations who still have private businesses providing highly regulated health insurance to customers, and they have achieved universal coverage.
Further, don't label me with the nothing but hatred mark. Much of what I write is simply commentary. Have I been inflammatory in my language? Yes, certainly, but there is not a pervasiveness to it as to warrant hatred. Frustration, sure. Anger, maybe, but not hatred.
Also, don't twist my words sir. I was referencing the Evangelical base of the GOP as "wholly equipped with condemnation..." not the party in total.
Finally, in reference to all of your talk about the Obama/racism issue. I have never said that political ideaology doesn't play some role along with other factors, but I have emphatically stated that when you have a President doing many of the same things that other Republican and Democratic Presidents have done; the only difference being the color of his skin, and the dark fellow takes the "Hitler" cat calls, racism is present.
Does that mean that every Republican is racist? Of course not. Does that mean that racism is stronger in the Republican party than the Democratic party? Maybe. However, it certainly does mean it exists, and as such, should be discussed.
Will Obama and the Democrats get trounced in the upcoming elections? I have no idea, and it certainly remains to be seen. To quote Ian, "That is why they play the games". I will say this though. If they are trounced, it will not be because a couple of Governor's races went their way early on. Those two races do not a national referendum make. I believe if Obama stops pandering to more middle of the road Democrats and Conservative Republicans, his success will be much larger, but that isn't likely. It's the nature of politics, and it's the system we have. I think the system we have sucks overall, but I can't think of a better one either.
So, I'm not here to get in a pissing match with you. I'm not here to discuss who's the bigger hypocrite, or what party did what to who'm now or in the past. I'm hear to discuss ideas, and how to bring the good ones to fruition. I haven't always done a good job of doing that, as you have pointed out, but that is my goal.
Now would you care to discuss ideas? Would you care to explain what you think would help our country and why? Would you care to listen to other's viewpoints as well? If you would, I'm in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First off, I'm not angry. If you knew me in person you would probably think I'm the nicest guy you've ever met. My comments may come off as acidic and biting, but it usually has more to do with simple sarcasm than anger. I grew with a family of sarcastic assholes and a lot of it rubbed off on me, even my wife gets annoyed with it.
ReplyDeleteYour points about the unemployment rate and the size of the stimulus is odd, and not just because you reference the opinion of Paul Krugman as if he is some kind of valid economic scholar. Saying the stimulus wasn't big enough is strange, mostly because they haven't even spent a third of it, yet we need it bigger or maybe even a second one? Let's make sure we waste all of the first one before we talk about stealing even more money from tax payers to fund another round of auto union bailouts. The well worn meme of "unemployment is a lagging indicator" is all well and good...if the rate stays stagnant for a few months I would even be inclined to believe it, but when every month it steadily dips farther and farther down I start to have doubts.
You newfound belief of supporting good ideas and not parties, if honest and true, is excellent and I whole heartedly support you in it. I only voted in state elections last year because I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain and I didn't just want to vote AGAINST Obama. Voting is a sacred right to me and people that vote the "Anybody but X" ticket are the worst because you're not voting for something, just against something else and that's just so wrong I can't wrap my head around it. Has this stance led me to voting for Democrats? Yeah, I voted for Clinton in '96 and before I moved out of FL I voted for a Dem for Governor. It's not common but it happens.
concerning health care - Does something need to be done? Sure, but I don't think the government being in charge of it will make it better, hell they can't even effectively manage H1N1 vaccinations. Name one public service operation run by the government that is even close to efficient, or even solvent! Amtrak blows, the USPS hemorrhages money every quarter with no fix in sight. The private sector, when properly regulated to protect consumers beats the government run option every day.
Obama/racism - Do you remember the Clinton years? The guy was hounded and brought to trial by Republicans, Bush was compared to Hitler daily, effigies were burned and he was called every name in the book. Don't act like Obama being attacked and mocked is some kind of unheard of thing. If he, or you, can't take him being called mean names and saying his policies suck then maybe you're all in the wrong business. Politics are nasty and over the last decade they've only gotten worse, thanks in large part to liberal actions during the Bush years. You reap what you sow.
As far as the elections a few weeks ago not being a harbinger of things to come I'd have to disagree. In the run up to mid-terms 2006 the GOP lost several local elections that proved to be a bellwether for things to come in 2006. To say suddenly now when the same thing happens to Obama that it's not indicative of something on the horizon can only be explained by blind ideological adherence or sheer stupidity. In the span of 9 months he lost 2 states that voted him into office, one of them traditionally blue and the other more of a purple. That's a sign of a problem, and Democrats know it that's why Senators are running scared of things in the health care bill that are too far left and dropping their cap and trade plans totally. A Gallup poll out today shows an electorate that is strikingly similar to 1994. Obama is shedding independents and it's not because he's not left enough like you and Ian think, it's because they feel he's already too far left.
Overall I applaud your effort here.
O.K. see, we can talk. I can definitely see eye to eye with you on several points. First and foremost, I do agree that the government has done a poor job managing multiple agencies and programs. No doubt. I also think private enterprise has done much of the same, especially via Wall Street. I do think that government can be made to administer to the public effectively, but we have to insure that is more accountable to us. However, I would be fine with a healthcare plan that strictly used private insurers as long as certain caveats were met. These being: universal coverage, absolutely no exclusion or price gouging for preexisting conditions, complete portability, price ceilings (perhaps this isn't the best term, but I’m not sure exactly what is the appropriate moniker) that guarantee some sort of cost control to the consumer, and a comprehensive overhaul of record keeping and billing. There are similar systems, which exist throughout the world which function, extremely well. I am not hung up on it absolutely having to be the government who administers this program. I just see them as the only option being offered at the moment.
ReplyDeletePart 2
ReplyDeleteRegarding unemployment and stimulus size, I do realize that the funds already approved have not been spent in their entirety or even in the majority at this moment. Also, I do respect Krugman as a competent authority if for no other reason that he has called the majority of the economic occurrences right and almost always in advance. I respect the fact that you are hesitant or resistant to him on the basis of his overtly liberal ideology. What I am saying, is that in order to address all of the points the E.R.A intended to address more money is needed (at least if you lend credibility to Krugman's claims). Many different aspects of the country's economy are being addressed through this act. So to clarify a bit more, the initial dollars should have been much higher and the longer term dollars are also necessary. I agree with the viewpoint that if these dollars are used correctly (e.g. rebuilding infrastructure, investing in alternative and renewable energy production, fully funding education initiatives, and helping the states through these times to name a few) they may not pay for themselves in the long term, but will certainly defray much of deficit concern that they generate. This is a very similar situation to what transpired following the Great Depression.
I truly believe unemployment is a lagging indicator historically, and there is improvement in that genre. The problem is that it is only a reduction in the numbers of job losses each month and not a reduction in the overall percentage of unemployment. It is a huge concern, but I just don't see eye to eye with your view that Obama and Congress are uncaring to the issue because of their focus on health care reform.
Finally the politics and race issue. I agree politics is nasty, but I would venture to say it is thanks, in just as large a part, to the Republicans impeaching a decent performing President over getting a blowjob, as well. You see my point again stands. That sort of blame game, from either of us is just self-substantiating. I do think that the reaction to Obama by many though is more vitriolic, although I have never made the argument that it is solely based on race. I don't subscribe the Janeane Garofolo theory of being nothing but a race issue. That being said, I do think it is an issue.
Overall I think you and I could probably come to a much better compromise than anyone in D.C. I would be more than willing to adapt a system of private run industry that is just held to reasonable but stringent regulations. I think that you can at least see that unfettered corporations can be every bit as inept and destructive as any government agency or initiative as well. The same corporation subjected to some "ground rules" can be tremendously effective, however.
So, I guess I get the sarcasm bleeding out into your words as I think much of the same has done so in mine. I do get angry by what I perceive to be very backwater ideas and rhetoric from the Republican party (again I’m primarily referring to its vocal Evangelical wing here). I do also concede that there is plenty of rhetoric to go along with my Democratic brethren. I do see the Democrats offering far more candidates with whom I can respect and follow, but so much of that is personal ethos and outlook on life.
Your alternative idea for health care is great and I'd back something like that in a heart beat. The only problem I see with it is requiring universal coverage. Something like that is an impossibility if you want to keep costs down, no viable business can sustain itself if it's forced to take on high risk clientele. I think a good alternative is that people deemed too risky by insurance agencies can somehow be fast tracked by the government to be approved for Medicare or some other newly created "risky persons" health care package. Actually now that I think about it that might create a beast in a few years when politicians would try to lump everyone into this "risky persons" category, much like they're doing with SCHIP, where "children" now includes people in their mid to late 20's. So it would have to be tightly controlled.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Clinton - I'll just say this, he was impeached for perjuring himself and witness tampering, not getting head. I know it seems like a flippant way to explain away his crime and make it seem irrelevant, but he did commit a crime that would land you or I in jail.
I'm with you on the "crime that would land you or I in jail" piece in and of itself. My beef (with the impeachment, not your take) is that these types of things are rarely taken to the level of impeachment. I see it as prosecution motivated by political ill will.
ReplyDelete