There are three or four things we need, I think, from this election and from our next elected government that comes from it:
First, we need our government to work. We need all the people and all the branches to work together. We need all these people to cooperate and be productive. We need a government that puts the country and our success and productivity first, and their political party aside. I'm pessimistic that that can and will happen but that is exactly what needs to happen and what, at least in part, for at least a lot of us, if not most, is what this election was about.
Second, we need Congress and all over government to work for everyone and not just the moneyed, wealthy and corporations. We need a tax structure that doesn't unfairly and with a great imbalance, favor those same wealthy and corporations.
Finally, we need jobs and we need a country that works. I don't think you achieve that by stripping the corporations and businesses of oversight and regulation, either. If I did, I'd be all for not regulating the banking industry after they just recently took the entire country and too much of the world to the brink of financial ruin, for which we are still paying the price. We need a government that does regulate but that doesn't "meddle" in business and that's a bit of a balancing act that has to take place.
In this final point, we need all government officials to pull the country forward, however they can, and do what's right and good for us, regardless of who, exactly, is in the White House, so we can be a stronger country, particularly financially and economically. It's crucial that no one person or group put themselves or, again, their political party first to the detriment of the country or this president, that's the long and short of it.
Of course, this is all what needs to happen but I patently don't think this is what will happen at all, tragically, for each of us, separately, but all of us, collectively, as well.
But here's hoping. Here's hoping everyone wises up. Here's hoping we don't just drown in political infighting for the next two years, in hopes that a bad economy then, at the 2012 election, will bring someone's political party back into power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I gave up on the whole mess long ago. I don't believe change (for the good) is possible. I don't trust any politician. I've thought about not voting at all, but so far I've gone and cast my token ballet, knowing it wasn't doing any good or making a difference.
When one party is in power, the other party throws stones. It's hopeless, and I can only see it getting worse.
I doubt I'll live long enough to see whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, I don't want to live to see it.
And on that cheery note, I'll stop.
Can you tell it's the season for SAD?
I wanna'/gotta' stay hopeful. We have to get better. We have to improve. We have to make this a better place.
mr
Bipartisan almost always means "don't argue with the majority much". We need to encourage third parties--in part for new ideas, in part to shake up the existing structure.
We need to look at the end results of tax structure, not just the front end, or what sounds good in a slogan. The Laffer Curve undeniably exists, the only reasonable argument is the shape of the curve, and which side of the peak we are on. When you tax a business, they don't just take it out of profit, they do something to recover the cost--raise prices or move jobs among the most common.
The government can not create jobs more than temporarily--robbing Peter to pay Paul only works until Peter goes broke.
We need to reduce the cost of hiring an employee, Maybe a tax credit to employers, based on the taxes their employees pay--the more jobs you create and the better they pay, the lower your tax bill? If you are doing good things like creating jobs, you should be able to get rich in the process--not all rich people are parasites.
I have to agree, I think it's time the 2 parties need the "gun to their head" of a third (and fourth, etc.?) party and their requisite needs and ideas. We don't want to turn into splintered Italy but we're far from that now, for sure.
Funny you should say we need to reduce the cost of hiring an employee. That, of course, is one of the things the Health Care Reform Act was all about.
How about we don't worry so much about reducing the cost of hiring an employee but putting in guarantees of a living wage? Or both? That'd be nice.
Obamacare as passed is an example of partisan politics--Democrats had to pass something in order to 'not fail'. I think a lot of them don't expect Obamacare to be an improvement for their constituents, but thought they needed the score.
I'm pretty sure we've talked about 'living wage' before--either prices will go up, or unemployment will go up by enough to cover the increased wage--and it won't be just the wages of the bottom tier that are affected.
dude, what patent nonsense. "Partisan politics" my butt.
Let me repeat the painful and obvious truth---we have the most expensive health care system IN THE WORLD and we rank 37th in mortality rates as compared to all other nations. We're worse than Costa Rica, for pity's sake. Our health care system is broken--it doesn't work--and it needed/needs fixing. We needed this. Wealthy people needed it, the middle- and lower-classes needed it and corporations were even crying for some relief from this lunacy.
Let me repeat, partisan politics my butt.
And for the Repubs to want to waste time revisiting this? It's irresponsible, it's stupid, it is, in fact, a waste of time and we have far too many other, real problems that need addressing.
Shame on Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and the Republican Party and anyone else who wants to waste time relitigating the Health Care Reform Act because a) as I said above, we needed this, however weak it turned out and because b) it's going to die in the House of Representatives because they haven't got the strength in numbers in Congress to truly change it. It's going to be all posturing for the 2012 elections.
Idiots. Shameful, prideful, ignorant idiots, all.
I think your definition of partisan is partisan.
The definition I am familiar with doesn't have to do with an idea being right or wrong, but rather whether or not an idea has significant support from more than one political faction. Whether you agree or disagree with Obamacare, it was clearly a partisan issue with little Republican support.
I will agree that our system sucks. It sits in limbo, with many of the worst aspects of both market driven and socialized. A well-done market driven system would be an improvement--but even a well-done socialized system would be better than what we have now, or what we will have under Obamacare.
You're mistaken about my definition of partisan. Mine is simply whether or not the person or thing takes any side at all. I don't think you can get more unspecific than that.
And see? You're merely looking at health care reform from either Republican or Democratic eyes and I'm not. I'm looking at it as an American citizen who is exposed to this system. THAT'S why I'm saying it needed and still needs repair. To heck with Washington and politicians and what Congress and the President were doing. It needs fixing. We need more affordable and accessible health care. My view did then and does now have nothing to do with politicians.
The fact that the Republicans didn't want anything to do with this reform says more to the fact that they a) wanted to protect their wealthy corporate benefactors and b) wanted to make sure this President isn't successful, for fear of creating another 40-year run of Democratic rule, ala' FDR has far more to do with why this health care reform wasn't assisted by the "Party of No" than anything and also why they want to revisit it now and waste time on it, instead of fixing our problems.
You seem to be defending the Republicans of the last Congress. I thought that was beneath you or, at least, certainly not your bailiwick.
We have a purely market-driven, Capitalist health care system now. That's why it's the most expensive in the world.
It's also why it isn't working and why the middle- and lower-classes are losing their health care and will have none while the wealthy will do nicely.
mr
We do not have even close to a purely market driven health care system now. It is highly regulated, hospitals cannot turn away patients that can't or won't pay. In theory they can refuse treatment for non-emergencies, in reality it is too risky to refuse to treat anything more serious than a hangnail. It is impossible for a consumer to shop for the best value, or even to know what a hospital stay will cost beforehand. Competition is reduced or eliminated by the state licensing system and 'certificates of need'.
Like college education, the more the government helps, the more expensive it gets. There simply has to be cost control on health care, otherwise it will expand without limit. The only question is how--death panels, consumer incentives, rationing via bureaucracy, rationing via expense?
The Whole Foods style system of high deductible insurance coupled with medical savings accounts would be a great compromise, making sure that almost everyone could afford care while leaving us with choice and incentive to try to control costs--but that sort of system is specifically forbidden under Obamacare.
We agree on cost controls, which amazes me. I'm surprised you accept that.
Secondly, I can't believe you even said "death panels".
There is no way to avoid cost controls, all we can do is choose how they are done, and this is always a 'least bad' situation, there is no good way. 'Death panels' is a nasty way of phrasing a particular method, but it doesn't mean that the method is wrong. The questions involved are particularly nasty--How much is the rest of this person's life with? How much is this person's pain worth? Ignoring the individuality of these questions is more pleasant, but probably not the way to get the best and longest life for the money spent--especially when the decisions and budget are separated from the life in question.
Post a Comment