Take the issue of austerity. Yeah, Republicans want a savage austerity package that should be expected to collapse our economy like was done in Europe. But could they do that effectively like Obama can if he chooses to? Obama himself picked the heads of his Deficit Commission which is proposing a harmful austerity package.
In health care we need single payer. The deficit would be gone. 40-50 million people get some respectable options. It's win-win. Well sort of. It's not a win for profit seeking owners that will no longer make millions doing nothing. So they oppose it. The right wing Heritage Foundation crafted a plan that placates the masses but keeps the owners in the profit stream. Obama had a chance at bringing single payer, but instead he gave corporations their profitable solution, and the result will be continued high prices. It's not terribly surprising that Romney is now expressing support for some portions of Obama Care. It's a right wing plan.
Then of course you have all this war expansion and surveillance state expansion. All of this has come about virtually without opposition from the left. The argument is that while Romney is evil Obama is the more effective evil. It's a strong argument. I can respect that good people may come down on either side of this debate. This is a very hard question.
I like Austerity measures.
Just do me a favor sir, when your elected and attempt to pass the single payer plan, please allow for an opt out option for all of us crazies.
I promise to not use your resources as long as you promise not to use ours.
This is a standard argument between a pragmatist and an ideologue.
The same dumb assed argument about optional voting and the obscenity that is masquerades as democratic(sic) franchise in the USA.
I.e. do we stay ideologically pure (sic)not vote because the system is corrupted... we may be facilitating the corruption... Change by revolution.
Or We vote for the lessor of two evils because by engaging in the process we have a chance of change ...by evolution.
Personally I'm with evolutionary changes. Put simply nature abhors revolutionary changes.As humans are part of nature we aren't geared for revolutionary change.
I would argue against the ideologue...What about the victims while waiting for the 'revolution'?
How can he guarantee a perfect revolution outcome? History confirms that it has NEVER happened in the past. You pick the revolution 'battle of Runymede, the British Civil war, the French, The American, the Russian, Chinese ? All finished up a poor achievement to what was intended!
Would he and is fellow ideologues refuse to participate spoiling for yet another revolution and another et al. Each with horrendous collateral damage...victims.
I am deeply disquieted by the acceptance of 'collateral damage' in the cause of the 'greater good' (hmmm whose).
Which brings me to Chad's thought lite response.
He and his fellow myopics need to come to grips with the way a country runs the macro economic rationale.
The US treasury's funds aren't in discrete little bundles base on user pays ...that is a inane concept it negated economies of scale and need.
Some local to me examples.
The myopic boaties are demanding more boat ramps , parking etc at extraordinary costs something approaching $1.5 million.
To help pay for it they want to stop a traffic free pathway/cycle through parks that would serve 2.5k children daily, oldies for walks and walking access to shops avoiding 2.5 kilometres along arterial roads.(The cost $500k)
All because they pay rates and there's more of them (including out of towners) than Children who don't.
Or Perhaps the 4k 'Islanders' who want the City (160K people) to pay $300mill +interest ...but they don't want to pay any more than their lower rates(access affects the valuation).
Their argument...their rates over 38 years would have paid for the bridge...They don't factor in all the services the city supplied(s) to them including a subsidised speedy ferry and hourly Barges.
( they argue that if the bridge was built the increase in property values would justify the cost)...for them perhaps but the numbers simply don't add up for the city and the other residents of the city.
The ($million house with personal peirs)restricted canal residents are up in arms because they are now being forced to pay for the dredging of those canals....their argument its that their rates have soared 38% above the average rates of other homes not in the estate. Some older resident now retired can't manage the new rates therefore they demand extra subsidies so they can stay in their
$multi million properties to leave them to their children.
The real reason Chad and ilk like Austerity Programs is Because they won't be substantially affected.
And stuff those who haven't had the access to opportunities they have.
We have a billionairess who publicly castigated the average person telling them that if they wanted to be as rich her they should work harder/ longer and give up the pub.
What she doesn't tell any one that she inherited $800million and an exclusive licence over a mountain of iron ore from Daddy.
PS she is the size of a small car and drinks $1000 bottle champers. Did I mention she tried to stop her children from their inheritance from Grand dad.
And she wants to hire cheaper Asian workers without access to pay and conditions
Ex, the reason I think the argument is more effective in this case is because it is not ideological. It doesn't say don't vote for Obama because we want to remain ideological pure and the system is corrupted. It says don't vote for Obama because he is the "more effective evil." He can accomplish austerity. He can accomplish war expansion. He can dismantle Social Security. Romney wouldn't be able to do it. He'd try. But when he tries he actually gets opposition from Democrats. On the other hand when Obama tries the Democrats sit back and let it happen.
Both arguments are pragmatic. Which produces the better outcome? He may be wrong. Perhaps Romney may accomplish similar things and more. But if he's right then he's offered a good reason not to support Obama.
Thank you for your view.
I would then argue that both men are arguing TWO different topics.The second then becomes a subset of the first.
I.e. both men are saying that Obama is a flawed prez (not ideologically pure). Where's the point of contention/ disagreement?
I would suggest that the latter is arguing that Romney is 'controllable' and vote for Obama encourages him to wander further away from the pure 'left?' ideology. To support the latter argument one needs to be ideological bound to the left (uncompromisingly so).
In is a myth that a Romney/Ryan would be any more “controllable” than the proverbial runaway freight train.
Mr Ford's argument has a fatal flaw that of changed circumstances..comparing Bush's congress with that which is facing Obama, unless you deny the 'freight train” driven by (the OVER hyped Mental Midgets)Tea party extremes that is fuelled by unfettered amounts of Corporate $, superpacs.(read unAmerican, undemocratic, megalomaniacal, sociopaths or Astronomically human/political inept, you choose the descriptors all definitions aptly apply to particularly Adeston whose words “he is prepared to spend what it takes to ensure US unconditional support for the Israel. The Koch Bros have the same societal disregard dysfunctionality too . There are other less high profile but just as insidious look up the words if you don't believe me.). What the thought challenged right/Libertarians don't see (don't want to see are how the *extremes * behaviour to enforce their perceptions/goals of what is best is by definition undemocratic , unAmerican interests etc.
Not to mention the new (since Bush) disenfranchising state laws.
Back to the topic Ryan's presence on the ticket is a very deep bow to the above forces. It is hard to see how Romney /republican extremes aren't more in debt to/ under more influence of the above. Keep in mind Ryan is touted as the intellectual Poster boy for the extreme right and as such I wouldn't see him other than a junior version of Chenney. You need to worry about who else will be promoted to power in R/R white house as a result of the horse trading for the spoils. Chenney was only the figure head of the neocon power bloc in Bush's White house. Any bets on where R/R 'advisors' (the everyday source of power) will come from? See above. The key question here is how many and who are the potential collateral damage from this unholy alliance ...will it be sufficiently controlled by non republicans ? Not in my mind.
Obama was if anything a little naïve believing that he could negotiate with the republicans and the real powers. I would suggest that even his White house has party appointees negotiated with the Democrat backers. The secretary of the Treasury is probably one such compromise. The prez doesn't have control over the key positions...at best he gets to choose from an 'acceptable' list. Otherwise the D from Mass(?)(her name escapes me at the moment) would have been in Cabinet.
To assume that the prez does have absolute control is fanciful, naive and counter to human/group (party reason d'etre) psychology evidence.
Post a Comment