damnportlanders: Fun with Kool-Aid

Matthew Harris (

glowing_fish) wrote in

damnportlanders,
@ 2008-02-19 01:36:00

Fun with Kool-Aid
I am going to cut this for politics, but its might be important to read.

So, recently, John McCain has announced that he will have a a no new taxes policy if he is elected president. It should be noted that McCain, in a fit of realism, voted against both of Bush's tax cuts, but now has announced he wants to keep them in place and not pass any new taxes. And yet he also thinks we might be in Iraq for 100 years.
I don't know what the hell Kool-Aid John McCain has been drinking. He has to have more sense than this.
I might be kind of preaching to the choir here, because most Portlanders are fairly leftist, but its amazing how the republican party can pull off this type of cognitive dissonance over and over again.
Because, the thing is, republicans might talk about "smaller government", but when it comes down to it, they can't do it.
If you are an ideological libertarian, there is a reason to just say that there should be no government at all. But if people do want any government agencies, which most republicans do, it doesn't make sense to decry government spending. Because republicans might decry government spending, but unless it is the National Endowment for the Arts, they never attack any actual programs. Most people, I imagine, want to know that they plane they are riding in is (or that is flying over their house) has been inspected. Most people want to know that the drugs they are taking have been inspected, as well as their food. And most people also want to know chunks of freeway are relatively unlikely to drop down and crash their car. Which is why, try as they might to advocate smaller government, you won't see many US senators (maybe a few representatives on the fringe) say that we should abolish the FAA, or the FDA, or the Federal Highway Administration. Actually, after you take out Defense, and then other national security departments (Veterans Affairs, State, Homeland Security, Justice, Energy, Nasa), there is really not too much left to take out. Especially since no mainstream politician is going to announce they think the National Cancer Institute is going to be totally removed.
Even three very big programs, Farm Subsidies, Pell Grants and and Tenant Rental Assitance, make up about 45 billion dollars between the three of them, meaning totally eliminating them (which again, no politician is going to advocate), would cut about 1/5th to 1/10th off the budget deficit.
So, the question is: if after so many years of advocating smaller government, the so-called financial conservatives can't even eliminate big, wasteful programs like Farm Subsidies, how are they going to reduce programs that actually do things? Answer is, they can't and they won't, and they will just continue to prey on the cognitive dissonance of people who think they are "self-reliant", up until the bill comes due, for whatever generation finally has to pay off the Chinese central bank.
And I certainly hope they get called on it this year.

Oh, and bonus points for anyone who can tell me the flaw in my argument.

(Post a new comment)

	glenorglenda13 2008-02-19 10:34 am UTC (link)
	The flaw in your argument is that you're using logic to talk about Republicans. (Reply to this)

dave256
2008-02-19 10:49 am UTC (link)

Republicans got elected in '94 on a platform of reform and cutting then-balooning government spending after a very long run of Democratic control of the government. It took them a mere 12 years to put the Democratic spending and corruption to shame.

The Republican Party saw a challenge in the level of corruption in a Democratic government and they blew that out of the water. Not only did they surpass it, they flew past it. They overshot it by weeks. As John Candy would say, "They went plaid." And they did it in about a 1/4th the time it took the inefficient Democrats.

That's government I can believe in.

(Reply to this)

big bidness

bennomatic
2008-02-19 12:49 pm UTC (link)

Their solution is to outsource everything. The competitive nature of the free market will handle everything, they believe, and they move things in that direction.

Nixon put our health care system in the hands of Kaiser et al, saying that a profit-driven system would be more efficient and provide better service than anything the gov't could do.

Reagan pushed the envelope on the rights of corporations, and hobbled the FCC, paving the way for companies like ClearChannel to monopolize and homogenize our air waves, and for a new AT&T to rise from the ashes, following mega-merger after mega-merger, undoing the great work of Judge Green.

Bush was an oil man who shut down the shady back-room dealings by which big oil pulled the strings and made them into front-room dealings, with the barons in the position to guide federal environmental, economic and military decisions.

Bush II takes all that other stuff to an extreme, while also adding a number of other feathers to his cap, such as privatization of schools. With NCLB, he found a way to take money away from public schools and give it to "charter schools" which were, to be fair, sometimes run by interesting independent organizations which had the best interests of children at heart. But for the most part, they were run by for-profit corporations who simply wished to suckle at the government's teat while providing lower quality education (teach to the test!), along with a foot in the door for mega corps which would take every opportunity to advertise to children. Of course, it's a bittersweet 'victory' when the business plan does not work out and the for-profit schools are shuttered mid school-year, disrupting the education of thousands of kids and forcing them to go back to a system which--without all the money redirected to the failed charters--can not handle them.

In the next republican administration, I guarantee that social security will be fully privatized. Beating the drum against the incursion of socialism, the righties will convince poor people to give up protections whose loss will primarily benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy, but by the time they realize what they've done, the poor disenfranchised will be too old, too hungry, too sick, too weak to put up a serious fight.

Not that Dems are perfect, but under a powerful Dem, things tend to get better for the common person, to the dismay of profit-driven corporations. Kennedy and Johnson were responsible for huge civil rights legislation. Carter, bless his heart, was under constant attack from oil companies--the gas shortage and the hostage crisis were not just random occurrences; they were designed to get Reagan into office. However, since then, with all his work on things like election monitoring and Habitat for Humanity, Carter has become one of the greatest American ex-presidents in terms of the good he has done for ordinary people. Under Clinton, we saw the largest growth in job creation in history, and there was an explosion in the middle class which had been chipped away slowly over time.

McCain is the least terrible of all the repubs, but he still wants to support war, rich people over poor, insane immigration policy, and last but not least, he's a right-to-lifer. He needs to be defeated in November.

Flaws? What flaws?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: big bidness

glowing_fish
2008-02-19 07:49 pm UTC (link)

In the next republican administration, I guarantee that social security will be fully privatized. Beating the drum against the incursion of socialism, the righties will convince poor people to give up protections whose loss will primarily benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy, but by the time they realize what they've done, the poor disenfranchised will be too old, too hungry, too sick, too weak to put up a serious fight.

Quoted for the Truth, as they say on the internet.

Social Security won't be fully privatized. I would be very surprised if the issue is even brought up, really.
The point of my post is that as much as people might follow rhetoric about wanting to have smaller government, they won't really go for any real changes. The last politician who suggested making social security voluntary was Barry Goldwater, right before one of the worst electoral defeats this century. There isn't a mainstream politician who wants to eliminate social security.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: big bidness

bennomatic
2008-02-19 09:19 pm UTC (link)

I agree and disagree; the bushies have been pretty good about convincing people that it's important to push for legislation that is bad for them. A great example is the inheritance tax, which is really only a big deal for something like the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers, but somehow it became an issue of freedom for mom and pop. It was in that environment that they were able to push through legislation that--if people really had an understanding of the winners and losers--never would have otherwise been allowed to pass.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

kornmonkie
2008-02-19 12:53 pm UTC (link)

The argument of small government vs. government spending in America is as old as the country itself. People have been barking up that tree for a very long time. It continues to be popular, because small government is right up there with other basic "American" principles.

If the market could be trusted to regulate themselves, there'd be no need for the FAA, FDA, FCC or any other government acronym. Of course, this brings up the question, of whether the market or an agency can best dictate the quality of the product or service?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

bennomatic
2008-02-19 07:13 pm UTC (link)

I actually appreciate the ongoing tension between those philosophies. I think it's possible to go too far with government regulation, just as it's possible to go too far with lassez faire capitalism, since, as you say, you can't trust the market farther than you can throw it, if that far.

The reason I don't like republicans is only partially because they want small gov't at the expense of important social programs. Mostly, however, it's because they're really lying. They don't want small gov't, and they don't want to end entitlement programs. They just want entitlement for the rich, and for corporations, and they want to get rid of watchdog agencies which would stand in the way.

Dems may not be perfect, but you can typically believe them when they say they are going to try to improve schools, create the closest thing to universal health care that they can, and hold industry accountable for the pollution they create in the never-ending search for profits.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	ms_xeno 2008-02-19 04:48 pm UTC (link)
	Meanwhile, Democrats will make a few vague gestures about bringing the troops home and supporting some domestic programs, while doing very little of either. Whoopie. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	glenorglenda13 2008-02-19 05:45 pm UTC (link)
	Then again, what can they do when the GOP keeps filibustering? (Reply to this)(Parent)

xplo_eristotle
2008-02-19 08:07 pm UTC (link)

The only flaw I see, really, is the bit about staying in Iraq for 100 years. If you had actually watched the clip, you would know that he was talking about having bases and a military presence there, just like we have in Japan and Germany and everywhere else around the world.. not that he thought it would be peachy keen if the war/civil unrest/whatever dragged on for 100 years without resolution.

It irks me that every single non-Republican who brings this up manages to parrot the distorted out-of-context interpretation fed to them by whatever irresponsible lying liberal media they've been listening to. Way to look like clueless morons, guys.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	glowing_fish 2008-02-19 08:30 pm UTC (link)
	I imagined that the quote was repeated out of context. Although, even a peaceful 100 year presence in Iraq would be imperial. And expensive. Also, why pass up a chance to make macros like this: (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

abalone99
2008-02-20 12:34 am UTC (link)

Having a Hilary or Obama in White House vs. McCain will not mean that we will NOT have military bases in Iraq for 1 or 100 years. The fact is, like it or not, we invaded the country. We will not be able to just pick up everything and go when we do eventually leave. It doesn't work that way, expensive or imperial as it may be, and would be to both our and the Iraqi's detriment to leave w/o any military presence. This is not to say we will remain there with the kind of presence we have now, but regardless of who wins the White House, there will, at the BARE minimum, be a military base or two left over for quite a long time.

Also, while we're talking about pullout, I do hope people understand that even if this second we were to announce we were suddenly pulling out of Iraq starting THIS MINUTE, it would take at least 15 months running at maximum efficiency (i.e. assuming no one's trying to kill you on your way out and you're not focusing resources, time, and manpower on doing ANYTHING else) to get everyone and everything out of there.

These facts come from several good, and funnily enough extremely liberal friends who have and still do oppose the war and who happen to be West Point graduates, now officers in the army, most of whom have recently come back from their 2nd 15 month tour in Iraq.

I was quite surprised by what they told me and was not aware of the practical issues surrounding our presence, the pull out, and our unavoidable continued presence in the country. I spent much time conversing with them (and others) on the realities of the situation.

I'm quite a liberal myself, and don't want a Republican to wind up in that branch government myself, but I wish to God that people would educate themselves more on what it would ACTUALLY take and mean to pull out of Iraq.

As for the rest of your post, I agree whole heartedly, and I think that you put the Republican zest for small gov't vs. the realities of the situation in a wonderfully concise manner - cognative dissonance.

Much like the common liberal/democrat in regard to the realities of pulling out of Iraq quickly/entirely, the common republican could really do with thinking the problems through and really researching what it would take and mean to reduce or make stagnant governemnt spending and taxes.

Why can't people just be a tad more rational and instead of coming out with inflammatory (and unrealistic) sound bite clips like, "I'm going to do away with all taxes!" or "I'm going to pull us out of Iraq!" say things like, "I recognize there is a lot of government waste in our current tax system and agencies. I'm going to do my best to cut down some of that and make taxpayer's dollars work more efficiently so that we can make the best use of our collective money to do the most good through programs we all agree are necessary to the well being of the individuals that make up this nation." or something like, "We all concede that, at worse, it was a mistake to invade Iraq, or, at best, we have grossly mismanaged the invasion. In an effort to protect the lives and well-being of both the Iraqi people and our soldiers, I am going to work with my military advisors as openly and receptively as possible to find a long term solution that fixes as best as possible the mess we've created there while protecting as many people's lives as possible."

Oh, that's right. Cause those sound bites take too long and don't fit in the 10 second time slot the news has alotted for politics so they can spend the majority of their broadcast talking about Britney Spears' latest breakdown. And even if they did fit, people would start losing interest by the 2nd sentance...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	bluejayway 2008-02-20 07:23 am UTC (link)
	tgf;dr (Reply to this)(Thread)

	glowing_fish 2008-02-20 11:15 pm UTC (link)
	trigeminal neuralgia ftl! (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…