January 21, 2012
-
Republican Politics
I'm appalled at the current state of politics within the Republican Party.
There seems to be no practical choice of a qualified candidate for President. The top runners include a very rich and successful capitalist who seems completely out of touch with the country's economic problems; a megalomaniac so unable to cooperate that he was thrown out of his powerful political position by members of his own party - and convicted of unethical conduct at the same time; an unsuccessful political hack who seems willing to do or say anything to attract votes; and a libertarian who apparently does not believe in modern economic realities.
They all seem to have the same one stated goal - to defeat the current President. They offer no solution to the present economic woes of the country except to remove all controls and reduce the government's power to guide and stimulate the economy despite past clear demonstrations that this is not a successful solution - as evidenced by the problems such policies have caused in the immediate past.
The present state of our political and economic affairs would seem to offer a perfect opening for a candidate willing to work for the good of all Americans by cooperating with the Democrats and doing whatever it takes to get the country back on track, but what the Republicans offer instead is more political strife supporting that part of the population which certainly doesn't need it.
One curious measure of the attitude of the various candidates is their insistence on being called by descriptive titles referring to positions they once held: Speaker, Governor, Senator, even though they no longer hold these positions.
Comments (13)
I agree with you that there is not a candidate that does not have problems with their conduct, naivete, or understanding of people's needs. I would like to see some one more in the frame of John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. Both were committed to what made America great, and would make her great again. Both followed a challenge to the electorate to do what they could do in giving to this country's greatness, and not depending on the nation's coffers to support them in laziness.
Our current problem seems to believe more in the government than in the people. That is the biggest problem I have with him politically. I also, as a union member, see that tendency too much, by us. We do not need more, greater government. We need a government that assures the help available for people who are struggling to get back on their feet, and a kick to the rear of those who insist on lying on a hammock of ease.
I also would like to see real solutions to the problems we as Americans are facing. I believe it needs to come through the private sector, for it is in the private sector that wealth is built. We need to give greater encouragement to the entrepreneur and people with inherited wealth to put it into the private sector, creating and expanding American employment.
@pb49r - Encouraging the "private sector"has been the common thread throughout our history as a nation and the government has always done that. The problem is that the current Republican Party policy is NOT to encourage the private sector, its to keep the government from encouraging anything. The part of the private sector these candidates support is that part [large banks, large investors, the upper one percent] that doesn't need encouraging - they are doing very well, thank you.
Obama's entire career has been in working to encourage and support those who most need it - basically the working poor. The basic way the government encourages the upper one percent is by taxing them and spending those taxes on programs that provide jobs for the working class, provide possibilities for small business, and encourage investment because more people working means more demand for everything. Historically, the Upper Classes have always benefited hugely from such government stimulus. Look at the period of 1945-80 as an example of what happens when a rising worker - to - middle class economy, with attendant tax rates over twice as high as our current ones were in effect. That's when the fathers of the current one percenters made all their money.
@tychecat - I don't know how old you are, but I think you have it wrong.
I lived through that very period of time. We were in an economic malaise before the election of President Reagan, in 1980. The economy was wrong. Reagan loosened much of the regulation, and we had 20 years of growth in the economy. We had people encouraged to get off the public dole. There were jobs. That started to change after about 1998, and the first 6 years of Clinton. Who were our Presidents during that time? Reagan (1981-1989), George H. W. Bush (1989-1993), William Jefferson Clinton (1993-2001). The slowdown of Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) was reversed in military, economy, and esteem for the American way of life, when President Reagan came into office. I was a baby born in 1952, and those early years until President Kennedy, were not good. Things got going better under Kennedy, then slowed down with Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to escalate our military commitment in Viet Nam, in about 1965/1966.
Looking at economy, we have done better under Republican Presidents. Looking at military, we have done well under most Presidents.
@pb49r - LOL Since I was born in 1930, as you can imagine I was working all during that period and remember it well.
I just dug through my statistical abstracts and checked the GDP growth rates for the period 1945-1990. As you can imagine, if you've ever wrestled with the numbers of the dismal science, it took me a while - but at my age, I've got the time
There was some fluctuation but a pretty consistent yearly growth rate of between three and four percent during those years and at that time the income tax rates ranged from 19%-86.5% (1946) to 14%-70% (1981). The rates were reduced under Reagan to 12%-50% (1982) and the top rate threshold was increased from $376K to $99.9K at that time. It's a chore to dig those statistics and rates out of where the government buries them - but I can give you sources if you are really interested.
The reduction of tax rates to the present 10%-38.5% at the present time has obviously led to lower government tax receipts and attendant lower government ability to stimulate the economy as it did after the depression of 1929-39.
Curiously enough, the stock market seems to do better during Demo presidencies.
Okay.
OBAMA 2012 FOUR MORE YEARS! He has got us going in the right direction finally, it makes no sense to question that he will continue to do so. Of course he will!
@pb49r - Looking at economy, we have done better under Republican Presidents. Looking at military, we have done well under most Presidents.
WRONG!!! That's a LIE! Don't lie!
Obama is still battling to get us above water again after Duba fucked up the entire country. He will finish the job in his next 4, where upon Hillary will then continue to do so! Just like her husband did, HELLO?
@tychecat - yeah, don't you love being called a kid, ha ha ha! My opinion of you just lept way up! Older people know stuff!
Unfortunately, there is not a practical candidate on the dem side either.
No one seems to know who to vote for because everyone seems to have screwed up.
Undoubtedly Obama faces an uphill battle - in recent times few presidents have been reelected during time of economic downturn. In his defense,however, he took office AFTER the downturn began and, with scant congressional support, has led the government's response and attempts to check the rather fast-moving economic collapse.
He has been more successful than much of the rest of the world - especially Europe - who has seen their economies spiral further and further into depression.
Even the fast growing economies of the developing nations such as China, India, and Brazil have been hit badly by this world-wide downturn. The U.S. with a relatively low 8.5% unemployment rate is doing fairly well - but obviously has a long way to go.
If we let the middle class contract and the spread between the classes continue, our economic upturn may never happen. Our country has led the world in the development of a truly high-mass-consumption developed and mature economy. It would be a shame to be the country that leads the world into general economic collapse and chaos brought about by capitalism and capitalistic economic competition unfettered by moral and sensible government controls.
@TheTheologiansCafe - @Nushirox2 -
My first vote for a president was for Eisenhower [remember him from your HS history book?] At the time I was not completely sold on his policies - and later suffered a little because of the deplorable state the Army was in when I joined it during the Korean War.
I can assure you that it will be very seldom that you will find a presidential candidate you are completely satisfied with. IMHO, the best you can do is select the one who best follows your attitudes toward what you think the government should be, the one that expresses practical interest in your problems, the one whose policies will , in your opinion, be the most practically beneficial for you. By no means let political rhetoric and propaganda sway you away from selecting the candidate who you think might be working for your best interests economically and politically. Moral attitudes and attitudes toward those things over which the candidates have no practical control are often used to sway voters into voting against their best interests: e.g. Any working class person who votes for Romney in the belief that he will work to improve their economic lot is being foolish. He really sees nothing very wrong with the present situation but is afraid that the modest attempts Obama has made will pay off at his Class's expense and has promised to cancel them. That's obviously why there is so much money behind his campaign.
Obama is by far the best public speaker of this current bunch. If you listen to what he says you might be surprised by how middle-of-the-road the policies underlying all that rhetoric really are. I think he has the best chance of returning America to prosperity - but it will not be a fast track and will very much depend on how much congressional support he gets.
Sounds even worse than South African politics...sad when there are no alternatives.