Democratic Politics - An Internal Critique
posted by Danian Michael at
11:48 PM
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Previous PostsWebsites and Bloggers I RespectSunday, January 13, 2008 |
||||||
13 Comments:
I think you were rather one-sided with your critique. How are the republican candidates any different? They are running for GOVERNMENT office and making promises to help the American people using the GOVERNMENT if they are elected. Not more than 1 week ago John McCain said he would lower emissions if elected. That is not a matter of National security, what then?
Agent of Change,
Nice! Well we shall put your name to the test. First of all, I thought you made some great points, showing me my own bias. Indeed the republican candidates are guilty of the same thing, sadly I know this all too well. I noted for example in the presentation that Bush was guilty of spending among other things; increased spending = bigger government. But of course I am saying that ALL politicians who have this god-like view of government, Democrat or Republican, are prone to disappoint us. I personally will stay far from those Republicans. I think you would acknowledge however, that Republicans are at least aware of the internal contradiction and have protested against it. Traditionally, Republicans have viewed government the way I do, that it should be minimized and not grown and inasmuch as that still applies, hope remains within the Republican Party.
Danian,
Hope, are you kidding me, there is no hope for Washington. And you are a fool Danian for having any.
Agent of Change,
By golly, I think the lights are coming on. Precisely Agent of Change, don’t place your hopes in Washington, they will always let you down. Now am I being self contradictory when I say (imply) that I have hope in the republican party but on the other hand say, don’t have hope in politicians? Am I doing the same thing I accuse Senator Clinton of doing; speaking out of the two corners of my mouth? Well I’m going to bite the bullet and say, no I’m not. Like I have said, Government does indeed serve a purpose, shall I enumerate a few of the main ones (per the Constitution): It makes laws, it judges the right use of them and it is in charge of protecting us. In this sense a Republican Administration, at least traditionally, tend not to want to go outside its mandate, per the Constitution; therein lies the source of my hope. But to the extent that an administration will reach beyond the boundaries of the constitution, well, there my hope diminishes. The question is which political party is more likely to over-reach? I think even on that question you and I could probably have another fruitful discussion.
Both parties have disappointed me - that's why I personally don't align myself with either. I just read that the average federal government spending is $9000 per person ($3 trillion budget, 300 million people, give or take). Considering that I don't have any children that will go through the education system and that I don't expect to collect anything from social security, I feel especially "jipped". I pay several times that in income / SS / FICA taxes and get little back. I'll be voting for whoever has the best plan to minimize governmental spending and my taxes, including any requisite reduction in defense spending. Furthermore, I think Americans' expectations for lifestyle, benefits, and overall comfort exceeds their individual contributions. The government is not responsible for providing these benefits. We're being passed by the wayside by countries once considered 3rd world because we're getting to cozy.
Reality Check,
Hey guest what; you are a conservative, the same goes for you Agent of change albeit in a more cryptic way. I don’t know of one person who has been completely satisfied with government and that includes the candidates themselves by the way. All of then, without exception, has run on a platform of change. I like your point about being “jipped.” I think this would be a great exercise for our country: The government should stop withholding taxes and then let everyone write a check at the end of the year. This would mean the end of the Democratic Party as we know it and a return to first principles for the Republicans. No one is going to write a check for $9000.00 without wanting a lot of accountability. And people like you Reality Check, who I would imagine number in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, would see even more clearly how truly irresponsible the government is. For all of your hard work, you are being penalized and ridiculed. So I maintain; when a Presidential candidate promises to help you with your personal problems using the government, start preparing to be disappointed and taken advantage of if you are rich and disappointed and taken advantage of if you are not rich.
Danian Michael,
Which party is more likely to overreach, is there even any question as to which party that is? Two words, Patriot Act.
One more thing,
I am not a crypto-Republican. I could easily say you are a crypto-Democrat but where does that get us.
Lucky me. I heard this morning that I might get a few hundred of my tens of thousands of taxes back this year to help the economy avoid a recession. Of course, hundreds of MY dollars are also going to other folks who didn't earn it!
Lately many of the Repulicans ARE acting like Democrats with their out of control spending....but I agree that it is traditionally the "tax and spend" Democrats who will lead us closer and closer to socialism....starting with gasp!...National Health Care
I don't understand the fear of a socialized health care system. We are the ONLY western industrialized nation in the WORLD without one. Yes, taxes would be higher. But, those without the means to pay for their own health care, those who even have jobs, and are doing their best to get a piece of the American dream, would be taken care of. No one would be raped by the greed of the insurance and/or pharmaceutical companies...
Is health care not similar to having a public paid police force? Or fire fighters? Public schools? I'm sure, even if there was a public health care system put in place, aside from the very lucrative Medicare and Medicaid systems that are currently raping our nation, there would still be a place where the rich could go, to be coddled and pampered, as they are in every other facet of their lives.
Back to the point, the biggest flaw in Danian's blog is that he says that Hillary Clinton is the best Democrat running. Well she's not. She may make the best headlines, but she's no more of a democrat than Fred Thompson. She has been bought and paid for several times over by the same corporations that are driving our nation into the ground. This is why I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Michigan primary. He is a democrat's democrat. He puts human rights and common sense in front of the wants of big business. Hillary voted for the war, she has voted for the funding of the war time and time again. Dennis has consistently voted against funding the war. He voted against the Patriot Act. He actually brought articles of impeachment to congress (HR333). He has since dropped out of the race, due to being shunned by major media. I WILL be writing his name down on my ballot in November.
The other farce of your argument, Danian, is that you claim that if a presidential candidate thinks the government should be more involved in the day-to-day of citizens' lives, that they have to agree with all of the policies of past administrations. Including Mr. Trickle down, pay the rich, F*** the poor, Reagan, who all the republicans seem to really love... maybe cause he was a good actor... I can't figure out why... I don't see the reason in that argument, obviously since Hillary and Barak are running on campaigns of "change", then they obviously don't agree with what is happening in Washington. It's just unfortunate, that no matter who is elected, they can't really do much in the way of truly changing the landscape of American government.
And since when can a blatantly right wing conservative give an "insider's Critique" on the Democratic Party?? LOL
Peace,
Andy
Andy,
I suppose I could make a minor deviation and answer your claim on socialized medicine. Why would you want to entrust such a vast, complicated and not to mention expensive entity to the government? Has the U.S. Government ever proven itself to you in a way that fills you with confidence? You know Andy, when you denigrate Regan all you are doing is further proving my point, that government is basically unreliable. That was my point, whether it is Regan in your case or Bill Clinton in mine, the government will disappoint you. In all your statements, I sense a deep mistrust of Government, yet you want to give it more responsibility. Explain that to me? A minor correction, I didn’t say that Hillary Clinton was the best Democrat running; I highlighted her platform because she was and still is the front runner, that’s reasonable. Now I don’t want to argue with you as to who is the best Democratic candidate; I don’t have a dog in that fight as I’m sure the reverse is true.
This is a straw man: “The other farce of your argument, Danian, is that you claim that if a presidential candidate thinks the government should be more involved in the day-to-day of citizens' lives, that they have to agree with all of the policies of past administrations.” You have misstated my position (see paragraph 1 for further clarification). What I am saying is that it is not logical to hate the government as much as Democrats do and then want to give it more responsibilities. They are all running on the platform of change, if the government is so capable of handling health care for the whole country, why change it?
Now I have to answer your slam on trickle down economics. Let me ask you, how many poor people have ever employed you, the count is zero for me. It is simply a fact of life that hard working, creative people make money and employ millions of people to help them make more money. Now you may think that is not a noble goal and if you do you should start working for free. A poor person has never helped me to pay my bills and take care of my family, how about you? Pharmaceutical companies save countless millions and billions of lives every year, they have saved mine. Why do you hate them so much? Should they all just go away? Do you think the cure for AIDS is going to come from a ghetto? No it will not, it’s going to be some rich guy with his big corporation that will do this. Will you refuse the cure because the it wasn’t a poor person who developed it? Next time you get paid Andy, look at your check and note the big corporation at the top and also note all the good you will do with it in taking care of your family.
I have a home work for you, tomorrow when you wake up, note how many things you use in that day that are there because of big corporation, because of rich people and tell me that you are not being just a bit unfair to them.
By the way, you democrats could use a right wing guy like me to come in and clean house. :)
People should read this.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home