![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Regarding 'The Party Of No'
Once again, I'm putting off my review of last weekend. I have other things I'd prefer to discuss. I'll get around to it.
I want to discuss that which is being dubbed "The Party of No".
It's a matter of fact that, by and large, America is a two-party government. It's also a matter of fact that both parties don't exactly have a good track record of working together for the betterment of the nation as a whole. The reasons for this are complicated and stuck in, well, alot of backroom politics.
Enter Obama, who at least has made offers to work together.
Whether or not you believe Obama has been sincere in his efforts to try to work with the other party.. seems to depend on where YOU lie on the political spectrum. From my perspective, he's tried to at least engage the other side, the Republicans, in conversation and try to bring them into the national debate, however they've been reticent to do so.
Which is why the Republican Party is being dubbed by some "The Party of No."
No. We will not work with you to find middle ground. No, we will not try to find compromise with you. No. No. No. And, by the way, No.
I know that at least some of my audience thinks that this is not a fair assessment.
Yesterday, Tax Day, was supposed to be a Big Day for the party of No. The throngs of angry tax payers were supposed to throng the streets of cities around the nation to protest Obama's tax and spend politics. However, by the accounts I've seen, not only was the protest a relative fizzle, not getting anywhere near the kind of numbers that anti-war protests and pro-immigration protests have seen in RECENT years, but it became obvious to those who were there, it was less about taxation, than about Obama himself.
The ironic part here is the real likelihood that many of those protesters out there, certainly some of the people I know would read this journal and agree with the protesters... would actually pay LESS tax under Obama's plan than they were under the previous tax plan.
I guess what I'd really like to see from the Republican Party is a viable new alternative. It's fact that things fell apart under President Bush's watch. If it's your belief that how you're taxed has anything to do with the economic explosion (and if you truly believe Obama's Tax Plan is going to harm America, than you DO equate taxes with the economy at least somewhat), than how can you expect America to support any plan that mirrors.. the same plan that was in action when things fell apart? You need a new alternative. That plan did not work.
Really, though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, except that it gives the government more money to lend to banks, to offer to states, etc.
I suspect the real beef is with the idea of raising taxes, period, to pay for all the things Obama wants to pay for. If that is it, couldn't we just discuss this issue. I know it's an age old argument between the two parties, but at least we'd be arguing the right argument. Then from there, you could make bills, attempt to pass them, etc.
One last point...
I know that some of you disagree with me. Some of you feel passionately and strongly against what I'm saying here. I know, and have spoken to, briefly, my ideological opposites.
To you I say: I respect your right to believe what you will and to speak as you may, but ask that if you have something to say, you say it respectfully and thoughtfully. Thank You.
I want to discuss that which is being dubbed "The Party of No".
It's a matter of fact that, by and large, America is a two-party government. It's also a matter of fact that both parties don't exactly have a good track record of working together for the betterment of the nation as a whole. The reasons for this are complicated and stuck in, well, alot of backroom politics.
Enter Obama, who at least has made offers to work together.
Whether or not you believe Obama has been sincere in his efforts to try to work with the other party.. seems to depend on where YOU lie on the political spectrum. From my perspective, he's tried to at least engage the other side, the Republicans, in conversation and try to bring them into the national debate, however they've been reticent to do so.
Which is why the Republican Party is being dubbed by some "The Party of No."
No. We will not work with you to find middle ground. No, we will not try to find compromise with you. No. No. No. And, by the way, No.
I know that at least some of my audience thinks that this is not a fair assessment.
Yesterday, Tax Day, was supposed to be a Big Day for the party of No. The throngs of angry tax payers were supposed to throng the streets of cities around the nation to protest Obama's tax and spend politics. However, by the accounts I've seen, not only was the protest a relative fizzle, not getting anywhere near the kind of numbers that anti-war protests and pro-immigration protests have seen in RECENT years, but it became obvious to those who were there, it was less about taxation, than about Obama himself.
The ironic part here is the real likelihood that many of those protesters out there, certainly some of the people I know would read this journal and agree with the protesters... would actually pay LESS tax under Obama's plan than they were under the previous tax plan.
I guess what I'd really like to see from the Republican Party is a viable new alternative. It's fact that things fell apart under President Bush's watch. If it's your belief that how you're taxed has anything to do with the economic explosion (and if you truly believe Obama's Tax Plan is going to harm America, than you DO equate taxes with the economy at least somewhat), than how can you expect America to support any plan that mirrors.. the same plan that was in action when things fell apart? You need a new alternative. That plan did not work.
Really, though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, except that it gives the government more money to lend to banks, to offer to states, etc.
I suspect the real beef is with the idea of raising taxes, period, to pay for all the things Obama wants to pay for. If that is it, couldn't we just discuss this issue. I know it's an age old argument between the two parties, but at least we'd be arguing the right argument. Then from there, you could make bills, attempt to pass them, etc.
One last point...
I know that some of you disagree with me. Some of you feel passionately and strongly against what I'm saying here. I know, and have spoken to, briefly, my ideological opposites.
To you I say: I respect your right to believe what you will and to speak as you may, but ask that if you have something to say, you say it respectfully and thoughtfully. Thank You.
no subject
When I was stuck contracting in Rochester, I had to decide on several occasions whether or not I could afford to pay for health insurance out-of-pocket, as an after-tax expense -- or if paying off my credit card debt from my periods of unemployment and/or saving against the possibility of being let go on 2 days notice again was a higher priority. When I wasn't working, unemployment was barely enough to pay rent on, but it kept me from going through my little bit of savings even faster until I could find a job again.
Unemployment saved me from having to beg off of friends who couldn't afford to help me, or having to move back in with my parents under terms that would have been devastating to my mental health. Universal health care would have meant not having to worry about getting sick and having to pay for doctors or antibiotics out of pocket. I was pretty lucky; physically, I'm generally healthy. But if I'd been able to maintain health coverage, maybe I would have gotten my migraines diagnosed earlier. Maybe I would have been less reluctant to follow-up on my mental health issues. Maybe it wouldn't have been almost 10 years since the last time I saw a dentist.
Basic unemployment is not anything close to a self-sufficient salary. You should know that yourself, based on
no subject
But at no point growing up did we depend on the system. We depended on ourselves, mostly, and we sometimes got some help from people at church or family. But mostly we just did for ourselves.
I've been without health insurance. I was also fairly lucky during those periods. So that's good. But the worry, I'm familiar with.
I've been laid off, although I had notice, and they gave severance. I've never lost a job suddenly, so I don't know what that is like. Janine has, though, and I've seen her go through that, but of course, we had money in the bank and I have a good job, so no problem.
And the year I spent in Iceland, I heard them bitch about their universal healthcare constantly. One of the guys I worked with, Maggi, he needed some surgery done to remove something or other, or fix something. But he was on a six month waiting list, because it wasn't "critical". I tell you, when you tell an Icelandic man that if he drinks alcohol or eats anything with wheat he will have to be hospitalized, until he has the surgery to fix the problem... yeah, he wasn't so happy.
Anyway, I'm really sort of rambling here. I know about a lot of the pressures that make it useful for people to have access to a support system. I don't think a support system is bad in and of itself, but I think that doing it at the level of government is vastly inefficient and is going to lead to situations that demotivate people to go out and work.
Obama's plan that lets you opt in? If you opt out (or don't opt in), do you not have to pay for it? No? I still have to pay? Yeah, so you can opt in to using it, but you can't opt out of paying. Doesn't sound particularly good to me.
no subject
Though I think it's important to differentiate socialized healthcare, such as Iceland or Canada have, with what Obama is suggesting. As far as I understand, Obama's not suggesting state-sponsored health care with waiting lists and all that, just universal healthcare for all Americans, which would otherwise make use of the existing structure. For you and I, who no doubt have health care through our respective companies, nothing would supposedly change (except, as you no doubt will say, the amount we might pay in taxes.)
no subject
no subject
The Amish have pretty much perfected this when it comes to social security: they support each other as an intentional religious community. Therefore, they have a religious exemption for paying into SSI, etc., because even if they get a job outside the community, they don't use the government as a religious/community principle. They have that insurance built into their way of life.
Most people don't have that kind of guaranteed quality of life insurance. Therefore, I believe that anyone who realistically might have need to access the system -- including ex-Amish -- should pay in. It's how SSI works (in theory; I won't go into how broken SSI is at this point), so I have no problem applying the same concept to opt-in universal health care. In general, you don't plan to rely on SSI for retirement or if you become disabled, but if it happens that you need it (and can jump through the hoops to qualify), you're damn grateful you don't have to beg for that little bit of extra support.