|
I personally am counting down to election day here in the lovely state of Minnesota. For those who might not be so familiar with my state, here we are in the 1980 election map when Reagan swept the nation.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L3Iwy.png)
Minnesota has an interesting tradition in the US election, voting blue in every election with the exception of three in the latter half of the 20th century (Eisenhower twice, and Nixon in 1972). I'll come out right and say that I am hoping to continue that tradition by voting for Obama.
Taxing those who make more is not tantamount to, "punishing the successful," I want healthcare and am willing to share the cost so that others can too, and I don't recognize arguments derived from Biblical morality as being remotely valid in the political sphere.
It is time that the US recognize some things that have changed since 1989. Unilateralism is not an option; to loosely quote Carl Sagan a significant number of Americans have a,"..delusion that we have some privileged position..." among the international community. In reality America is not so much in decline as it is normalizing into a more, albeit not completely, equitable international climate. This in comparison to the largely bipolar power structure of the Cold War.
The idea of "a best country on Earth," is ridiculous to begin with. I don't subscribe to American exceptionalism or *insert ethnicity exceptionalism* for a moment. We do well at turning, or creating favorable opportunities at questionable expenses and that has translated into immense wealth and delusions of grandeur.
What matters this election season, is a continuation of economic policy that makes sense. I understand austerity and the need to cut back, but the Romney ticket is backing a policy that is as ill advised as it is illogical. You cannot account for a deficit by cutting tax alone, and saying that by waving a wand you'll increase the number of jobs and thus your tax base to cover it is asinine.
If you go under financially as an individual, they don't say, "enjoy ramen for the next 30 years until you pay it off." You have to wean away from the excess, rather than cut it straight away with an exacto knife. The US economy will go into shock, we all know how well that works out.
There is such a thing as necessary spending and as far as America and its efforts in the world are concerned. We don't need all the military spending we have, and despite what some like to think the entire world is not out to kill us. Though I would be willing to bet we've increased the number of less favorable ratings in the last ten years
On the last note of this rant, I worry most about our global image and the notion of being apologetically American. Obama bending when meeting heads of state is not a sign of weakness, or deferral, That not visiting Israel even though you happened to be in the region is not abandoning an ally, and that America is capable of erring (we do it a lot). It is time for portions of the US to recognize that global perspectives cannot be static but necessarily must evolve with state of geo-political affairs.
I have no misguided notions of immediate change, sweeping social progression or of some egalitarian redrawing of American or global social change. What I have is an idea that public policy consistently moves in a left leaning direction; it may move backwards occasionally, but on the whole policy shifts to the liberal end of the political sphere. If you flashed back 60 years and said a black man will be president of the US, people would openly laugh at you. Here we are though, facing similar struggles with similar rationalizations in terms of economics, civil rights, our role in the world, and government in society; just as they were 60 years ago in this country. We will move past it, it is just a question of when; as today's left becomes tomorrow's right the world turns and we are still here. I'll see you all at the polls.
  
|
I disagree with your characterization of historical movements from left to right or right to left. and also with the assertion that a Head of State of the most powerful country in the world bowing to another Head of State is not a sign of weakness or deference.
|
The thing is, cutting on military/defense spending is hard because of the large number of veterans, both Republican and Democrat alike, in Congress. It's like congressional term limits - they won't do it because it goes against their direct interests.
Voting for Obama might put more pressure on the Democrat side of the house and senate but won't really do much else.
I agree with your point about the world becoming more and more liberal, but it's not a matter of "if it is", but "how fast it is". Being liberal is great, but only when everyone else is a liberal as well. I'm a moderate conservative not because I reject a lot of liberal policies, but because I think they're either too overbearing and need more time or they're just going too far. I like some of the ideas on the social liberal (by modern standards) scale - gay marriage is great change, maybe one day polygamy as well. Some I don't like - affirmative action is a smelly pile of shit that needs to be done away with. I'll get back to that later.
If you flashed back 60 years and introduced men marrying men, there wouldn't just be a load of complaints about the law, I'm guessing they'd pass a law just to ban it again. Not ready for it yet. Maybe someday, but not yet.
Basically, social change is like a jet plane. If you want to get from point A to point B, you can strap on a huge-ass engine to it, the biggest such a jet plane can carry. You might get to point B faster, but you also have a high chance of missing because the engine can't be controlled effectively or the plane might just break under stress. A smaller engine but a more controllable one will get you there later, but it'll be a more stable journey and you won't have any nasty detours or aversions.
|
On October 28 2012 08:35 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
The thing is, cutting on military/defense spending is hard because of the large number of veterans, both Republican and Democrat alike, in Congress. It's like congressional term limits - they won't do it because it goes against their direct interests.
Voting for Obama might put more pressure on the Democrat side of the house and senate but won't really do much else.
I agree with your point about the world becoming more and more liberal, but it's not a matter of "if it is", but "how fast it is". Being liberal is great, but only when everyone else is a liberal as well. I'm a moderate conservative not because I reject a lot of liberal policies, but because I think they're either too overbearing and need more time or they're just going too far. I like some of the ideas on the social liberal (by modern standards) scale - gay marriage is great change, maybe one day polygamy as well. Some I don't like - affirmative action is a smelly pile of shit that needs to be done away with. I'll get back to that later.
If you flashed back 60 years and introduced men marrying men, there wouldn't just be a load of complaints about the law, I'm guessing they'd pass a law just to ban it again. Not ready for it yet. Maybe someday, but not yet.
Basically, social change is like a jet plane. If you want to get from point A to point B, you can strap on a huge-ass engine to it, the biggest such a jet plane can carry. You might get to point B faster, but you also have a high chance of missing because the engine can't be controlled effectively or the plane might just break under stress. A smaller engine but a more controllable one will get you there later, but it'll be a more stable journey and you won't have any nasty detours or aversions.
You never got back to affirmative action and I would like to hear why you think it's a "pile of shit."
|
On October 28 2012 08:02 ThomasjServo wrote:
What matters this election season, is a continuation of economic policy that makes sense. I understand austerity and the need to cut back, but the Romney ticket is backing a policy that is as ill advised as it is illogical. You cannot account for a deficit by cutting tax alone, and saying that by waving a wand you'll increase the number of jobs and thus your tax base to cover it is asinine.
Interesting. So what makes Romney's plan clearly illogical and Obama's plan not? I'm also not really sure where you've gotten the notion that Romney is just going to cut taxes. I don't think either candidate is the right choice for this particular issue but I am curious as to why you believe Obama can do it better.
|
On October 28 2012 08:45 Dknight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 08:35 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
The thing is, cutting on military/defense spending is hard because of the large number of veterans, both Republican and Democrat alike, in Congress. It's like congressional term limits - they won't do it because it goes against their direct interests.
Voting for Obama might put more pressure on the Democrat side of the house and senate but won't really do much else.
I agree with your point about the world becoming more and more liberal, but it's not a matter of "if it is", but "how fast it is". Being liberal is great, but only when everyone else is a liberal as well. I'm a moderate conservative not because I reject a lot of liberal policies, but because I think they're either too overbearing and need more time or they're just going too far. I like some of the ideas on the social liberal (by modern standards) scale - gay marriage is great change, maybe one day polygamy as well. Some I don't like - affirmative action is a smelly pile of shit that needs to be done away with. I'll get back to that later.
If you flashed back 60 years and introduced men marrying men, there wouldn't just be a load of complaints about the law, I'm guessing they'd pass a law just to ban it again. Not ready for it yet. Maybe someday, but not yet.
Basically, social change is like a jet plane. If you want to get from point A to point B, you can strap on a huge-ass engine to it, the biggest such a jet plane can carry. You might get to point B faster, but you also have a high chance of missing because the engine can't be controlled effectively or the plane might just break under stress. A smaller engine but a more controllable one will get you there later, but it'll be a more stable journey and you won't have any nasty detours or aversions. You never got back to affirmative action and I would like to hear why you think it's a "pile of shit."
Oh yeah forgot to add in that comparison back. Basically affirmative action was going to lead to the whole "jet engine" thing about one of the "detours" on the trip to progress.
+ Show Spoiler [rant about affirmative action] +I think it's a pile of shit because it was made to pretty much reverse the negative effects of segregation in the south 50-60 years ago. Now it no longer has a purpose. Anyone affected had 50 to 60 years to assimilate back and recover any losses they have had. I'd at least understand if it was towards just blacks, but Hispanics are, at least here where I live, treated the same way. I have nothing against Hispanics, but why them of all people? What losses did they incur? And then colleges keep following this policy to the point where biracial Asian students are persuaded not to put they're Asian on their application.The one big problem I've had with affirmative action, especially of the social variety, is that there was so much talk, in class and out, about "white privilege" in my school. It was mentioned here and there and never questioned of its validity. And that's what really pisses me off and makes me think this affirmative action is a load of manure. I'm a Russian immigrant whose family didn't touch this country until 1999 and there are people who barely hide the fact they look at me like some privileged overlord who's completely guilty for this kind of stuff and expect me to pay up for it.
|
real men would recognize the sham of the two party system and not vote for either of them
|
On October 28 2012 08:49 Gnusnu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 08:02 ThomasjServo wrote:
What matters this election season, is a continuation of economic policy that makes sense. I understand austerity and the need to cut back, but the Romney ticket is backing a policy that is as ill advised as it is illogical. You cannot account for a deficit by cutting tax alone, and saying that by waving a wand you'll increase the number of jobs and thus your tax base to cover it is asinine.
Interesting. So what makes Romney's plan clearly illogical and Obama's plan not? I'm also not really sure where you've gotten the notion that Romney is just going to cut taxes. I don't think either candidate is the right choice for this particular issue but I am curious as to why you believe Obama can do it better.
Per Romney's tax plan he states broad cuts which I feel are ill advised, similarly on spending, for his first four year the amount of cutting of federal services would do more harm than good to the American economy. Particularly in regards to unions (Davis Beacon), and cuts to family planning (aka Planned Parenthood), which make little sense to me when you look at other options in spending cuts in particular our defense budget.
If I am reading Romney's plan correctly, and I am willing to accept that I am not, his logic seems to be that cutting taxes for individual and businesses without articulating how he will be adding jobs (I don't subscribe to the idea one follows the other), that the now working tax base will cover the deficit. That to me is not much of a plan. I agree that Obama's plan is not perfect, but to me it is more equitable. People who make more should pay more; not because, "they didn't build it," or any of that, but because they can afford it plain and simple.
|
On October 28 2012 09:13 ThomasjServo wrote:
I agree that Obama's plan is not perfect, but to me it is more equitable. People who make more should pay more; not because, "they didn't build it," or any of that, but because they can afford it plain and simple.
That essentially assumes that the government is going to do a better job spending that money than the private individuals who earned it would. The opposite theory is that by lowering taxes, people have more money to spend and those people are in a better position to make intelligent uses of capital to improve their lives than the government is. It's easy to take an extreme example like "feeding 100 homeless people is a better use of money than a rich guy with a tax break buying a second yacht," but that ignores the possibilities of the government squandering the extra money or the rich guy starting a business, hiring people, giving it to charity, etc. There are lots of good things government can do with tax dollars, but overall I'm distrustful of government and much more optimistic about individuals.
|
On October 28 2012 08:02 ThomasjServo wrote:
If you go under financially as an individual, they don't say, "enjoy ramen for the next 30 years until you pay it off."
True, they only say that if you want to go to a good college.
|
On October 28 2012 11:50 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:13 ThomasjServo wrote:
I agree that Obama's plan is not perfect, but to me it is more equitable. People who make more should pay more; not because, "they didn't build it," or any of that, but because they can afford it plain and simple. That essentially assumes that the government is going to do a better job spending that money than the private individuals who earned it would. The opposite theory is that by lowering taxes, people have more money to spend and those people are in a better position to make intelligent uses of capital to improve their lives than the government is. It's easy to take an extreme example like "feeding 100 homeless people is a better use of money than a rich guy with a tax break buying a second yacht," but that ignores the possibilities of the government squandering the extra money or the rich guy starting a business, hiring people, giving it to charity, etc. There are lots of good things government can do with tax dollars, but overall I'm distrustful of government and much more optimistic about individuals.
An individual does not spend 100% of the money they earn unless they are making very very little-the percentage of income spent decreases as income increases. So giving multi-millionares and billionares a tax cut might make them spend a little bit more, but most of it is going to be saved(meaning it's not going into the economy). The government would spend all of that money, meaning that more money gets pumped into economy. There is such a thing as wasteful spending, of course, but when we're talking about recovering from a recession, increasing spending(even is some of it is wasteful) is much, much better than cutting back on it(which is what would happen under Romney). This is basic macroeconomics. It's not necessarily that government is going to spend smarter, it's that government is going to stimulate the economy more. The government is not a corporation, and in my opinion people need to stop treating it as if it is one.
|
On October 28 2012 09:04 ParkwayDrive wrote:
real men would recognize the sham of the two party system and not vote for either of them
The beauty of our democratic republic is that the President only has to do something once every four years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
