Here are some interesting comparisons:
1/ Illegal immigration - McCain, Obama, and Clinton all support some type of "amnesty" for the 12+ million illegal immigrants in this country.
2/ Taxes - Obama and Clinton have stated they will let the Bush tax cuts expire and raise taxes on the "rich". McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, but now promises that he will seek to make them permanent...hm mm. Could this be "Washington talk". He has also stated that he believes the "Estate Tax" should not be repealed, and should revert to previous levels (how about 55% of a large portion of your estate going to the government, instead of your family).
3/ Global Warming - McCain, Obama, and Clinton all agree that regulations should be in place to "slow down" Global Warming. This "bogus science" is the subject of another Blog, but whatever these regulations become (impossible CAFE standards for automobiles, "carbon credit" trading, Global Warming surtaxes on energy bills, regulating our light bulbs, etc., etc.) will cost the average American a lot of money, based on "science" that in many respects doesn't make sense (in my humble 'scientific' opinion).
So this becomes one of the most interesting election seasons since the Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan days. Of these three, whoever wins may have a completely Democratic House and Senate. If it's Hillary or Obama, hang on to your wallet, and tell your children and grandchildren to make serious long term personal financial plans, because they will inherit a governmental financial burden that will be impossible for them to support. But if John McCain wins, along with a Democratic congress, will he dig in his heels, or will he "reach across the aisle" and send us down the same road as Obama or Clinton would? We'll see... Sadly, in this blogger's opinion we have only poor choices in this coming election.
3 comments:
We've had poor choices in the past two elections (beginning with George W. Bush, the weakest of all candidates, winning the 2000 GOP primary), so I don't see how anything's different there. You may think McCain's bad, but I don't see how he could be worse than George W, who cuts taxes like a conservative, but spends money like a drunken Democrat sailor. I don't think I called you a "dinosaur," but some of those other quotations might be attributable to me. You call the idea of a "moderate" reaching across to unite us "B.S." I couldn't disagree more. Sure, maybe Democrats' idea of moderation is Republicans coming over to their side. But how is it any different with Republicans?
The very problem is this "us vs. them" mentality -- that's what is the biggest dinosaur, and that which many (most?) Americans have had ENOUGH of. That's why people are responding in mass numbers to the buzzword "Change," why so-called "fringe" candidates like Ron Paul have received such support, why a third-party candidate like Bloomberg could very possibly win the election (if he decides to enter). We have had enough of this bullshit partisanship and divisiveness -- from BOTH sides.
In some of our email debates, you suggest my time on the East Coast is turning me into a liberal. But just because I don't agree with many of the tired ideas of the GOP doesn't mean I agree with many of the equally tired ideas of the Democratic party. If you must label me, I guess I'd say I'm an Independent, because I can't really identify with either party.
I wish I could say the days of these two parties are numbered, that people have reached a breaking point, but that would probably be short-sighted of me. More likely, if you look at a much longer view, it's probably all cyclical. People had 12 years of Reagan-Bush, then said "enough," and got eight years of Clinton -- then said "enough" again and got eight years of W. Now they're saying "enough" again (though with a very loud voice this time). I can't recall in my lifetime the country being so divided, but I suspect there have been other periods in our history when that's been the case. I hope so; otherwise, there might be a revolution on the horizon, whether figurative or literal.
Let me just respond to some of your bullet points:
1/ Illegal immigration. This is a very complex issue, and the biggest failing of the right is to characterize it in such a black & white fashion. Yes, it's very easy to say "they came here illegally, they broke the law, so deport them." It's also very irresponsible and callous to characterize it that way. Even if they came here illegally, it didn't happen in a vacuum. There were enough jobs here that Americans didn't take to create the vast wave of illegal immigration. There were plenty of businesses and individuals hiring them, and I am willing to bet many of those same businesses and individuals vote Republican. We as a nation MUST take at least a smidgen of responsibility for creating the conditions which attracted so many illegal immigrants. Yes, there were many other factors, not the least of which is rampant corruption and poverty in Mexico. But it's unethical to disavow any responsibility for the problem, to simply thump our chests and say "they're here illegally, deport them." Such talk is completely useless and does nothing to help solve the problem. It's a complex issue, and MUST have a complex solution. One point on which we can probably agree: stop the flow NOW. But the larger question of what to do with all those who have already come here is a more difficult one to answer.
2/ Taxes. Fiscal issues are probably where we'd find most common ground, as that's where I've always identified with the Republican party (as opposed to social issues). If anything, my views might be even more radical, as what I like most about both Ron Paul and Huckabee is their commitment to abolish income taxes. If we really want to shrink government and eliminate waste, let's start by abolishing the IRS. Either institute a "fair tax" based on consumption (e.g., sales tax), or force the government to cut radically cut spending. I found it interesting to read yesterday about the connection between Prohibition and income tax. Taxes on alcohol were one of the greatest sources of revenue for the government until income tax was instituted in 1914. With the windfall of revenue that came in after 1914, the government no longer needed to rely on alcohol taxes, so they could give in to the Prohibition lobby. Then, when the Depression hit and income tax revenues fell, they had to repeal Prohibition to bring in more tax revenue. These days, people think of income tax as if it's always existed, that it's a fact of life, but that isn't the case. We the people can force our government to eliminate it, and make them cut spending. Democrats certainly won't do it, and Republicans probably can't "get ‘er done" because of the perception that they're helping rich people. So it will have to be a grass roots effort by and for the people. Oh, and as a footnote, I agree that there is no tax more evil and unfair than the estate tax.
3/ Global warming. I hesitate to even touch that one, because with you and me, it's like discussing religion. Like an atheist who won't believe in the existence of God until he dies and meets the Big Cheese in person, you won't believe global climate change is real until your ranch becomes beachfront property. So I won't waste my breath here.
I'll wrap up my comments by repeating that we haven't had a good candidate in years, and this election is no different. Maybe after four years of Obama's "change" creating no real changes, we'll all be ready to vote for someone really revolutionary. Until then, I will remain as cynical as ever.
(Oops, so much for no longer talking politics, as pledged in my own blog.)
I love comments, especially from a son that says he will no longer argue politics...but isn't that what makes a democracy?
I agree that GW has been a major disappointment. The first Republican president in a long time to have a Republican House and Senate. This was their chance and they blew it. My son is right, spending like "drunken sailors" (which I think is an insult to the US Navy). In addition, the war in Iraq has been disaster. This may surprise a lot of people, but I have been against the war from the beginning. Not because of the war on Terrorism (which is real), but I thought it was a waste of billions of dollars, when we could have just bombed Sadam into "heaven", or for just a billion we could have hired the Israelis to assassinate him (and believe me they could). This war was estimated to cost $300 billion, before we are through it may cost a trillion.
But I disagree that the "us vs them" mentality is a dinosaur. It's basic philosophy on how we should live our lives. The Democrats believe government is the solution to all problems, Conservatives (like our founding fathers),believe in individual freedom, personal responsibility, keeping government out of our lives, and keeping more of the money we earn. How do we bridge that gap?
I agree that people have had "enough" regarding politicians. We read about Bush's 30% approval rating, how about Congress' rating of less that 20%. Ron Paul makes some good points in his message, but he is a bad "messenger"...people think he is a kook. On the other hand, Barac Obama is a very impressive "messenger", but has no message ( except for "hope" and "change"). Sadly, in this age of 24 hour news, it's charisma and likability that make the difference. Ironically this could propel Obama into the position of leader of the free world.
Regarding the bullet points:
1/ I am against illegal immigration. How many times do we have to define the term "illegal". But I am not against a "guest worker" program, we need them. I am involved in the wine industry, and we could not survive without farm workers to harvest grapes.
The government has blown this one. Study after study has shown that illegal immigrants cost more money than they contribute to our society, due to welfare, free medical costs, etc., etc. There is a reason that one half of the emergency rooms in Los Angeles have closed during the last few years. This has become an "entitlement" society. We cannot even afford to take care of the citizens of our country in the future, how can we support illegals also? And for someone to wait until they go into labor and then rush across the border into an emergency room just to have a baby that is a citizen of the USA, with all the rights we provide, that is appalling.
2/ My son agrees with me on taxes...we're making progress.
3/ Global Warming - no comment. I'm blogged out, it's freezing, and I need to go turn on the heater.
We will agree to disagree on the "us vs. them" mentality. I read a great quote yesterday: When asked if we need a third party in this country, the person replied "We need a second party." (The person was Warren Beatty, so you'll have to disregard the messenger and focus instead on the message, which I think really hits the nail on the head.) An analogy might serve here: the Dems and the Cons have been acting like bratty, whiny kids fighting with one another, and what's needed is a rational adult to send them both to their rooms and sort out the mess they've BOTH made.
As for "illegal immigration," I'm against it too. That's a no-brainer. Seal the border and control immigration, as we should have been doing all along. The issue that is more complicated, and thus requires a more complicated solution than simply saying "deport them all," is what to do with all of the illegals currently in the country. I won't repeat what I said above, but I urge you to read it again, since I think you might have missed my point.
As for insulting the Navy with the "drunken sailor" stereotype, as a Navy veteran who lived that stereotype, I'm entitled. :-)
Post a Comment