Regarding 'The Party Of No'
Apr. 16th, 2009 07:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hkellickOnce 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)
Date: 2009-04-17 01:51 pm (UTC)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.