I am not going to blog about why I'm voting for Obama. (as if that were a surprise to anyone anyway).
Because, the fact is, I'm not going to change your mind. My mom isn't going to change Natalie's mind. Natalie isn't going to change Aunt Kathy's mind.
And that's okay.
I just hope this conversation is just that; a conversation. Because that's the most valuable thing we can gain from one another. That or just get frustrated and stop listening or reading as the case may be.
I hope it's the former, but I've been told I'm an optimist.
7 comments:
Is "blog war" a real thing? I suppose it is as real as "blog stalker." Maybe we have started something new!
God, I love you.
No, I don't think I'm going to change minds and hearts...although miracles do still happen. I thought blogs were places to express opinions. Well, I have one or two of those and have...mmm...taken advantage of the opportunity.
Aunt K says I'm menopausal, so everyone might just want to take that into consideration. It is sorta like adolescent hormones but you're older and don't give a damn what other people think any more.
Blog war or not, the free exchange of ideas is one of our most precious pre-occupations.
So, here's my 2 cents worth:
After reviewing comment made on my sister Mary’s blog http://the-unencumbered-life.blogspot.com/ and our niece Natalie on her blog http://thenataliepaige.blogspot.com/ , both offering opposing views regarding a few issues prevalent in this election year, mainly dealing with the respective tax proposals offered by Senators McCain and Obama, I would like to offer this viewpoint.
Both Natalie and Mary offer logical and factual arguments for their respective candidates of choice. Natalie summarizes the standard argument that the rich already pay too much in taxes, and Mary points out that stereotypes about the poor are often inaccurate and misleading. Both offer, on the surface, what seem to be compelling arguments for their positions.
Neither argument, however strikes at the heart of the problem; Greed is not a virtue, and we all are obligated to the national interest. McCain supporters complain about the “socialist re-distribution of wealth” that Senator Obama would oppress US with. I assert that Supply-Side economics has resulted in one of the largest re-distributions of wealth the world has ever seen (upwards out of the middle class into the hands of the top 5% of income earners.)
The concept of Supply Side Economics, as envisioned by Milton Friedman and enacted by every sitting President since 1980, is fatally flawed, and was doomed to failure because it ignored the fundamental truth that capital markets, especially in the financial sector, must be regulated in order to function properly. Regan championed the idea that taxes are evil and destructive, that Government is oppressive and archaic, that government regulations are destructive, and that, in the words of Calvin Coolidge, “The Business of America is Business.”
However, as Christ taught us, greed is one of the most destructive of all human traits, and must be controlled. Kenneth Galbraith uses an analogy of the free marketplace that always made a lot of sense to me. He likened it to a freeway on which goods and services could be freely exchanged. However, if you remove all traffic laws, speed limits, lane indicators, and if you have the traffic cop look the other way, you end up with a bloody mess. That is exactly what happened in the 1930’s when unregulated capital markets were overcome by greed, and it is happening again now, as we speak.
Teddy Roosevelt understood that if the banking sector ever got enough power, it could destroy our democracy and our republic. That’s why he recognized that monopolies, especially in the banking sector, must never be allowed. He also understood that only the rich would ever be able to shoulder the burdens of National Interests. This, I think, is the crux of the problem; under the cowboy economics of de-regulation, we have un-learned the hard truth that private interests are not national interests, and that national interests must be preserved at the expense of private interests.
Since 1980 we have become accustomed to the complete abrogation of responsibility by the corporate class to national interests. Is it in the national interest to dismantle our manufacturing base (and the blue-collar middle class with it) in the name of cheap slave labor overseas and the extreme profits that accompany that shift? Is it in the national interest to allow corporations to headquarter offshore in order to avoid supporting the national interests? Is it in the national interest to have 43 million people without health insurance and to have the most expensive health care system of any “industrialized” nation (along with some of the highest profits of health care corporations on earth)? Is it in the national interest to engage in wars to protect corporate profits and to secure foreign oil reserves instead of developing energy independence at home? Is it in the national interest to engage in two simultaneous wars without having a general draft to man our armies, or to expect the civilian population to also sacrifice by actually taking responsibility for their financial obligations by paying higher taxes to finance these wars? Is it in the national interest to pile up trillions of dollars of debt to Communist Red China, while telling the richest of our citizens that they are over taxed?
No, it is not. Private interests are not national interests. Corporate values are not family values. Greed is a vice, not a virtue, and we all have obligations and responsibilities to the Nation if we are to have a Nation. If the United States is to exist, it must be of, for, and by the People of the United States, and not just a loose confederation of unregulated corporate states operating in their own self interests. You cannot build a healthy economy in a democratic country from the top down. It must be built from the bottom up. No democratic nation can exist without a strong, healthy middle class. Trickle-down was a lie. Trickle-On was the reality.
For anyone who is concerned about the tax obligations imposed on the wealthiest of our citizens, I would just offer this; who else can pay? TR correctly recognized that the wealthy would always have the ability and means to meet the obligations of the National interests, while the middle and poorest among us never would.
Most American families have an income less than $60,000 per year. That means that most people live on less than $3,000 or $4,000 per month. With that they are expected to pay for housing, insurance, food, clothing, insurance, a car payment, to save for their children’s college education, for their own retirement, and often for their own healthcare. The middle class (and that’s who I’m talking about here) hasn’t had a decent raise in income since 1980. We have been choked and squeezed and had our jobs shipped out from under us, and seen the cost of home ownership skyrocket to the point that it is damn near impossible for most of us to actually own a home in many American markets.
Consider these contrasting messages in times of crisis; during the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill told his people that he could only offer them, “blood, sweat, toil, and tears” , while G.W. told the American people to go out and shop after 9/11. For me, those two statements perfectly illustrate how far we have gotten away from our sense of unity in obligation for Country, which has been replaced with greed and self interest.
It is time for trickle-down to die. It’s time for a New Deal. Change is coming. Buckle your seat belts, it might be a bumpy ride.
Uncle David
My dearest darlingest Uncle David,
I am delighted to see you interacting with the internet, but feel you have misunderstood the blog medium. For comments exceeding the length of the actual post, I do believe, your comments deserve a space of their own. An Uncle David blog perhaps?
I can't wait to see the title you come up with!
your lovely niece,
hannah
I'm so excited, I can't sleep!!
Love you all--
Kathy
Dear hanna bannaramma, fairest of them all,
I have a penchant for wordy pontification and left-leaning economic theory, much to the chagrin of my siblings and other relatives, relatively speaking, of course.
However, given the current value of the dollar, I don't think I over-inflated the value of my 2 cent post. In fact, it probably should have incorporated a few hundred more words, but I felt merciful, and opted to spare everyone.
As for a blog space of my own, I have no time for that. I have a garden, two dogs, a demanding job, and some un-mentionable high maintenance subversive extra curricular activities that I obsess with. Anyway, my internet etiquette is admittedly pretty thin so, in the words of Rhett Butler, "Please forgive me for all my shortcomings".
I’m sure this reassurance will allow your Aunt Kathy to sleep well, and often.
Be well, do good work, and if you screw up, just think of that moron from Crawford, and you'll gain true perspective.
Uncle David
I, too, am so glad that Auntie Kathy may now rest her pretty little head.
but... as for that moron, he's actually from New Haven, Connecticut. Sorry to be nit-picky, but it's a little pet peeve of mine and it helps me maintain a little Texas pride.
Post a Comment