jackofallgeeks: (Default)
[personal profile] jackofallgeeks
It's Fox, so you may want a grain of salt, but I find This
article to touch on a concern I have with every election, and the concern I
have with the emotional fervor Obama's drawn from many people. Basically,
the Obama campaign is working on a plan to "manage expectations" because
they fear that people's expectation of change may be "unrealistic." Obama
was allegedly the first to realize that expectations may be overblown.

I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by how little
change actually happens should Obama win. Honestly, the fact that
he's such a media darling and has the backing of his party behind him tells
me, at least, that it's going to be business as usual. Real promise of
change would have been met the way Ron Paul was -- to hear Paul
supporters talk, he had as much charisma and grass-roots support as Obama,
but I recall him being not-invited to debates and ignored by the media. No
one in power wants change.

Even more concerning for me, though, is the thought of unified
Executive and Legislative branches. For most of my cognizant life I've
known a split government, where one party controls the Congress and the
other has the White House. Generally, I think that's a good thing,
for the simple cynical reasoning that as long as they're fighting with each
other, at least they'll be leaving the rest of us alone. If Obama wins, i'm
afraid we'll see a Democrat congress with a Democrat president (nevermind
the fact that I don't bellieve Obama has what it takes to be more than just
a Party figurehead and moth-piece) and I think that's a bad thing.
It will minimize the checks that I generally rely on to ensure the
Government mostly leave me alone.

To be frank, though, I really think Obama would be a bad choice at this
particular time in history. I'm no great economist, but I do know that he
wants to tax businesses, and I also know that the best way for a business to
protect profits from taxes is to raise prices. Higher prices is not
something we need right now. It's arguable that McCain's plans could see
people's net income shrink, and it's further arguable that such a situation
would be like raising prices. The difference is that if people don't
have the money to spend, prices will tend to fall toward actual cost; Obama
would raise the effective 'cost' of business, making that lower-limit on
prices higher. At least with McCain businesses might have a lower settling
point.

Anyways. Just some of my thoughts.

I really wish I had my Emma Goldman icon ^__^

Date: 2008-10-31 01:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] circuit-four.livejournal.com
I'm not as opposed to your ideas as you might guess -- I'm REALLY afraid Obama will be "Carter II" -- but I will make one counterpoint: yeah, you need to keep taxes low enough for businesses to thrive. But as Henry Ford wisely noticed, you also need a middle class to consume those products.

I do feel Republican policies -- not "Republican-principled," mind you, but "the current GOP" -- very strongly favor those who already hold major capital. The middle and working classes are in bad shape, to say nothing of those who can't work for some reason, and I really feel like in times of crisis they should get taken care of first and foremost.

As a kinda-sorta leftist, one of the phrases I keep hearing to describe our current system of "captive-market libertarianism" is one I think I agree with: "discipline for the poor, socialism for the rich." Corporations already have a tendency, IMHO, to privatize profits but offload costs onto the public. It's one of the fundamental principles of modern government: somebody's gotta revitalize the commons, or you're gonna have tragedy.

Date: 2008-10-31 02:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tarsus4.livejournal.com
I honestly had very similar thoughts before Sarah Palin. Granted she'd be entirely stymied by a Democratic Congress backed up by a finally dubious constituency, and granted that the odds of her having any power whatsoever depend on chance events, but it got me emotionally rolling down a road.

Having started down that road, I think it's wise to get our social house in order. We've had a very anti-human President for 8 years who has done everything in his political power to empower the religious right. We need to offset those judges, we need to repeal those policies, and we need to show that if you violate the trust of an entire nation you WILL get smacked hard and your party will take time to recover from it. That, and if I keep voting my fears, I'll never see any real change in the system for the better, just resistance to bad change.

So, let Obama try. Give him 4 years to impress us. If we feel like we're doing Carter all over again, Romney sweeps in to save us. There might be some damage, but you can't hope for progress without taking risks.

Date: 2008-11-01 12:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] starlight1184.livejournal.com
I like what you said about the social house. How nice will it be to have a president who can actually speak intelligently eloquently and actually get us back in the world's good graces?

Date: 2008-10-31 03:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quix.livejournal.com
I've already commented on this on your Facebook, but I thought it worth mentioning since we seem to be on the opposing sides of the fence on many issues... I really like Ron Paul. He really impresses me as a bringer of sensible change. Jess & I have had several conversations of how we could, as a society, legitimately introduce other parties that would be taken seriously other then the Democrat and Republican parties.

Profile

jackofallgeeks: (Default)
John Noble

August 2012

S M T W T F S
   12 34
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 24th, 2017 02:27 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios