Total Pageviews

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

It’s all about the role of government


It's time for Americans to stop skirting the issue because they might think that it's too controversial. You are what you are, and it doesn't matter whether you are a conservative libertarian, liberal, are a combination of all or not. The political parties need to sharpen the contrast between the parties. It's going to boil down to the role of government.

It used to be that divided government was best, but now it is just the cause of polarization. Every constituent should know what the party and political candidate stands for. It's time to stop relying on the slogan “smaller government and fewer taxes" because that's a pretty vague stance. Everyone wants less bureaucracy, and I've never known anyone that enjoys paying taxes; granted most don't mind paying their fair share. If a candidate is running on "smaller government" ask them what departments they will eliminate. If it's less taxes; ask them what they will cut. That way, you will know if they are for your programs, you will know if the candidate is for status quo, improvements, or elimination. It's the same way with taxes, if they are for never increasing taxes; then you know where that candidate stands. It's important to know if they will compromise, or if they have an ideology that won't allow them to compromise.

I will bet my last dollar that most people will say that they pick a candidate not the political party, but historical data proves them wrong. Subconsciously, people will choose a political party when they're voting for a questionable person that they know nothing about. It's where those negative ads that people say they don't like come into play. A lot of people will say they are a pragmatic moderate because it's the popular thing to say. They want to portray an image of being above the fray.  I have run into a few people like that but that stance is more of an exception that it is the norm. A lot of people don't know a lot about politics, so they are sincere when they say that they vote for the candidate and not the party. That doesn't mean that they don't have an opinion about the safety net, entitlements, social issues and the war. I know many that agree with the democrat's stance on the environment, war, and economic policies, but they will never vote for a pro-choice Democrat. There's nothing wrong with that stance because it's how the person feels. That's the very reason I won't vote for republicans and their stance on the social issues. People try to make straight party voting a bad thing, but in order to believe that, you would have to ignore the significance of party platforms. I think older republicans have seen the future demographics and they know they have to stop straight party voting or they are doomed. I have voted for several republicans in the local elections because it doesn't really matter who fixes the roads or votes in a budget proposal. There are extreme ideologists, I will never vote for, but that's unusual in local elections. It's usually about the shopkeeper you do business with, or the person they helped you coach a little league team. Politics never comes up in the daily conversations with these people.

On the national front, the lines are drawn. A republican has to be in denial, if they don't think that, their party doesn't want to eliminate the safety net, regulators, unions, the minimum wage, entitlements, and Roe v Wade. It's a party of individualism, and it hates every element of “it takes a village." It’s a party of capitalism, but ignores the fact that government always bails them out because capitalism in America likes to privatize the gains and socialize the losses. On the other side, the democrats need to realize that their programs have had a long run, and it's time to reform them, if they are to be sustainable. It's time for democrats to grow a spine and not be ashamed of protecting the environment, the poor, a woman's reproductive rights, collective bargaining, and middle class issues. Democrats need to vote for those that talk against plutocracy and not avoid the topic because it might influence their donors. The inequality between rich and poor is what brought down the Roman Empire and was the main contributor of the 1929 Great Depression, and it's time to let our fellow Americans know that. You would be surprised of the similar talking points, but back then the middle class went after the poor farmers instead of the Wall Street giants.

It's not always about politics or ideology, a lot of times its how we treat fellow human beings. Will we really take the life of a teenager wanting our cell phone? Are we at that point where we think that violence, guns, and chest beating is the answer? A lot of my friends disagree with me about politics and ideology, but our friendship takes us beyond those issues. My friends don’t mind telling me how wrong I am because they know I can defend my position and vice versa.


Anonymous said...

More and more I’m getting the sinking feeling that Obama is actually one of “them” and that there’s no hope for our country. What if the puppet masters do control all sides and the two party system has been turned into an expensive joke to give voters the illusion of democracy? I’m reminded of the amusement park rides that include mock steering wheels. It’s always interesting to see how some children carefully turn the wheels (as if their lives depend on their driving skills) while others spin their wheels just to have something to do. When voting for Obama in 2012 I’ll be thinking about the kiddies spinning their wheels.

The old benediction comes to mind “Blessed are they who go in circle for they shall be known as wheels”

When in danger
Or in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout.

...and then what?

Anonymous said...

When he took office in 2009, Obama had an incredible opportunity to connect with the American people and push an agenda to address what had gone so terribly wrong in the Bush years, a "100 days" program. Now he has lost that chance, and words that once might have inspired now seem insipid and empty. When he gives one of those speeches in which he repeatedly turns from left to right and back (reading from a teleprompter), without ever looking you in the eye (straight into the camera), there is no engagement with the audience, who increasingly could care less what he has to say. After the debt ceiling debacle, Obama is in danger of becoming a lame duck, whether for the balance of this term, or even if re-elected, for the next 5+ years. He needs to break through the fourth wall that distances him from the public by proposing and fighting for an economic recovery program we can believe in, if we're to believe in him again.

Edith Ann said...

Nice blog, Mike, especially the part about the differences in the parties there toward the end.

Sadly, though, I think the vast majority of folks are truly clueless when it comes to the basic platform of the party they choose to identify with.

And I know for myself, a couple of times the chose has come down to the lesser of two evils.

Mike said...

This blog is about voters,ideology,and political parties.
It's about our understanding of the issues and how it relates to the path forward.

The bad economy will make getting reelected difficult but The GOP is making it easier with their choice of candidates and the actions of congress...Right now Obama's approval is a lot higher than that of congress...Throughout the years ALL president's take most of the heat for a bad economy...15 months is an eternity, and I wouldn't count out the team that beat the "Clinton Machine" and then a seasoned McCain.

Edith Ann said...

Anonymous 2--What is with the teleprompter remark? Geeze, already that has been run in the ground. Everyone except the last Bush has used a teleprompter. Ever really look at one of Bush II's speeches? He had a notebook, and after every sentence, he turned the page and paused for effect. Go watch one--there was one sentence on each page, written in giant print. You can see it in the videos. That must have been what he had to do because he couldn't manage the teleprompter.

Obama wasn't my first choice, but you have to face facts--he came into office at a clear disadvantage! The highest office in the land was now integrated, and you know that upset just a whole lot of folks. Remember the comments on the Advocate (forget about the rest of the nation--the center of the universe is in Victoria, Texas) and how folks were screaming after a 2 or 3 weeks that Obama had not set everything in apple pie order? How was he suppose to connect when the republicans couldn't stop spreading the hateful talking points provided by FOX News and folks like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I can't ever recall a president as reviled as Obama, and I just don't understand why.

I can't say I am 100% satisfied with his tenure so far, but he's a hell of a lot better than the last guy in the White House. He is better educated and much more polished. McCain conceded the race when he selected Sarah Palin as a running mate.

Mike said...

Thanks EA
I was inspired by the ignorant political comments on our VA forum.You're right it's a waste of time.....One poster said he works two jobs and looks for a cheaper cut of meat ,while a Lone Star cardholder gets pork chops,so he blames the usual suspects ,but votes for a candidate who will not extend his unemployment benefits and is looking for way to repeal Social Security and Medicare....

I'm beginning to understand your anger and frustration....That anger and frustration left me in Nov. Of 2008;it's back...I don't know if they are purposely lying or if they are very misinformed...It may be a combination of the two.

I did notice one poster admitted to being a troll....I wonder if he got a warning email?

All I 'm asking for is true intentions and let the voter decide....I will never understand why an elderly person would vote for someone that wants to privatize Medicare...Most won't ,as the recent NY election showed, where an ultra conservative district voted for a democrat because her opponent said she supported the Ryan (privatize Medicare) plan.

Anonymous said...

What does John Kerry know about downgrades!?

He marries a woman w/10 bazillion dollars and then remarries a woman w/100 bazillion dollars.

He has the millions, without all that messy "earnins".

Mike said...

Senators have a phone on their desk,cell phone,computers,newspapers and the ability to get info like anyone else...Now,republicans have something against marrying someone who is rich?Oh,democrats can't think about the less fortunate or the ability to understand the stock market because he is one of many rich democrats....I think it is a personal vendetta.

Anonymous said...

The rich are able to move their purchasing power to anywhere they can to save money. The middle class and poor have no such flexibility.

Look at John Kerry, the wealthiest man in the Congress. He receives a salary from the taxpayers of America, a superior medical plan and will get an extravagant pension when he retires. Yet, when purchasing a very expensive yacht, tried to berth it in a neighboring state to avoid taxes. With his hypocracy exposed, he moved it to The People's Republic of Massachusetts.

How he, Pelosi, Rockefeller, McCaskill and every other millionaire on the Hill as well as in the Administration can take a penny from the taxpayer and look themselves in the mirror is unbelievable.

Mike said...

Looks like someone should put up a "I hate John Kerry blog" or "."I don't like rich democrats because it looks like you have enough material....Thank you for posting and have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

Looks like someone should put up a "I hate John Kerry blog" or "."I don't like rich democrats because it looks like you have enough material.

mike you are wrong I do not hate Kerry or rich democrats. Notice that I wrote "How he, Pelosi, Rockefeller, McCaskill and every OTHER MILLIONAIRE on the Hill"

But I have have utter contempt for the ACTIONS of those hypocrits of ANY party who I think actually believe that because of their position and wealth a lot of laws don't apply to them. Witness the problem they have filling apointments(either party) because of problems with taxes etc.

Big problem the Democrat Party candidates have in Texas is the leaders of the National party. Pelosi represents what may be the most liberal Cong Dist in the country. Whose actions get all the national pub? Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and the ultra libs(mike may argue that they are not, but to most Trxans they are.) A big majorityof Texas voters( how long since a Democrat won a state wide election in Texas?) don't agree with what the DNC is peddling.

Mike said...

I believe in the 50 state union and I don't keep up with Texas politics. Taxes has long been a conservative state, even the democrats were conservatives(John Sharp,Bullock etc.) but if that is what you like,the GOP is the party for you.i.e. Texas will give their electorial votes to the republican candidat.... I understand what you are talking about, I would have been disappointed if the democrats would have chosen blue dog democrat Health Shuler of North Carolina to be the party leader. You would've seen the democrats voting with the republicans on just about everything.

Nancy Pelosi despite the district she represents was chosen by her peers to be the leader, because of her fundraising abilities, intelligence, mental toughness, and political knowledge.

You may not like liberals, but they are what makes up the base, they lick the stamps, mail the fund raising letters, knock on the doors, and make those important telephone calls. You won't see much of it in Texas because of the gerrymandering districts. The conservative stronghold will play out in a few years because of the future demographics.

Ted Kennedy was also rich but if you pull up the legislation he supported or proposed, you will see that he was a champion for the poor, middle class,and women's rights. It's all about legislation not wallets.

You might not like John Kerry but I don't like Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary landrieu because they will sell their votes to the highest bidder.

It boils down to the context of this blog. A lot of people are cafeteria democrats and republicans. They pick and choose from the party platforms, things they like and don't like.

Mike said...

I hope uou figured out that I meant to type Texas instead of taxes.

Mike said...

You said "Big problem the Democrat Party candidates have in Texas is the leaders of the National party."
That's a very good point and worth considering but the DNC does not want to mirror the GOP.

Their special interest groups include lawyers and trade unions. I understand perception means a lot, but nationally the democrats are being looked at more favorably than the tea party republicans.

Texans will eventually get tired of crappy Health Insurance, education, pollution, and minimum wage jobs. They are already seeing that trickle down doesn't work and low property taxes may not be the ultimate....

You talk about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid but have you noticed the stupidest words come out of the republican congressmen from Texas?Google Joe Barton,Louie Gohmert,Randy Neugebauer, and Pete Sessions to start...Then's there is Ron Paul,who is in a class all his own....I don't think the GOP can cast stones.

Anonymous said...

"They are already seeing that trickle down doesn't work and low property taxes may not be the ultimate.... "

Working pretty good on the trickle downm from the shale oil boom

Anonymous said...

Stupid comments are not limited to
the one with either R or D behind their name Jackson Lee another Texas doozie. Even Pelosi "We will have to pass this bill to see what's in it. And the little guy from Ohio who claims aliens took him in their space craft.

Mike said...

In 2012 we will be will voting to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison and one representative.

I'll make it pretty simple.

1. The GOP wants to keep the Bush tax cuts as they are
2. Dems want to keep them for the middle -class and tax those making more than $250,000( after deductions) $30.00 in taxes for every $1000 over $250,000.
3. The GOP wants to tackle the debt problem with spending cuts only. They will never increase taxes on any one.
4. The dems want a more balanced approach with tax increases on the wealthy to decrease the burden on the elderly and the poor. They want a shared sacrifice.
5. The GOP wants to eventually privatize Medicare and Social Security.
6. The dems recognize that those entitlements need reforms not elimination.
7. The GOP wants to reduce the power of the EPA and banking regulators.
8. The dems do not want to sacrifice clean air and water for profits.... After the financial crisis of 2008; who can be against regulating Wall Street?
9. The GOP wants to keep the troops levels in Afghanistan where they are.
10. The dems want to stay on the withdrawal schedule

Mike said...

Nancy Pelosi announced her three representatives to sit on the super commission. That's why the young people like the democrats; look at the composition of its members. There's a member from all walks of life, a woman, Hispanic, black, conservatives, moderate, and liberal were chosen.

I don't even have to tell you that the Republican Party was Grovernized... Each member has signed the Grover's Own Party(GOP) no tax increase pledge. No diversity whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Mike has written profusly about the different school of economics.

Which school advocates raising taxes during a recession?

Talk about ridulously dumb and stupid. Al Gore saying the SS funds would go into a "lock box'

Mike said...

READ CAREFULLY: Show me an AUSURITY ONLY, than has created jobs and growth.

Drastic cuts work just like tax increases.Same principle;you are taking money out of the economy....We have a DEMAND problem and since we ship 25% of our goods to Europe,we also have an export problem right now....We are in a world economy that will not wait for us.

Again for the last time.....When we have been spending ~25% of GDP and taxing at ~10% of GDP only option is to BORROW...Now,we need to have a 3:1:1 ratio of spending cuts to investments, to tax increases on the TOP 2% ......Just 1% of growth will start to turn thing around....It's basic Keynesian...If you like Hoover like economics or trickle down then that's your preogative.

I must have posted that same theory about 25 times and all some people hear is TAXES..They have been Grovernized.They won't be taxed in fact the administration is talking about another payroll tax to help DRIVE DEMAND....Demand= consumers not purchasing =layoffs or no hiring.

That's not that hard to understand....Geez.

Mike said...

Michael Cloud (local GOP) just told KAVU that the two issues of this years election will be the constitutionally of the health care law and Obama failure to crate

I wish they would make up their minds because the GOP say the the private sector creates jobs but now it's Obama's fault...He's their leader?

Anonymous said...

Obama made the brag that HE and his programs could and would create jobs, shovel ready jobs. So far that has never happened. The question now is where are the jobs POTUS promised. One reason that Obama's approval rating is 43.5 per cent Disaproval about 50% mike loves polls

Mike said...

Got popcorn? GOP debate is like Hannity and it's pretty funny.

Legion said...

On another note, the 11th district court of appeals today has ruled the Individual Mandate unconstitutional, clearing the way for a SCOTUS ruling.

Some say that since "Obamacare" does not have a sever-ability (?) clause that the entire law is doomed if the ruling stands,others say if the ruling stands it opens the door for a single payer system, gov. healthcare, since no one would be required to buy Ins.. In other words it would be just like SS, no opt out...unless you get a exemption.

Legion said...

The cost of healthcare, sigh, yesterday I took my mom to her doctor, her wrist had swollen. Her doctor orders a blood test and x-ray. We go down two floors in the Detar East tower for the blood draw at the lab. So far that means seeing five people, the Receptionist,nurse and doctor, the lab receptionist and lab tech. Today the X-ray in Detar Hosp. itself, we see the registration receptionist, the registration person that enters the data and copies Ins. and Id, and finally the x-ray tech.
Eight people for a visit, blood draw and x-ray, geez.
Doctors use to draw blood in their office and send it to the lab, they also had a x-ray in their office, these days...nah.

Mike said...

I agree but the promise to insure 31 million leaves the pubic option open and everyone wants to keep the "pre- existing conditions"plus other portions of the law... The Supreme Court has been very favorable to the "general welfare clause" in the past. The ruling today made reference to that.

I think it's an interesting case but I don't how it can go forward because the individual mandate won't go in until 2014....No one has been hurt by the law,so who is going to sue? The administration could call it a tax and we all know congress can do that...Very interesting.