First, despite all the wailing and caterwauling about all the things that were going to go wrong with the Nov. 6 election, I think it came off rather well. Yes, I was not happy with the outcome, but I think that the process worked just like it was supposed to do. That, I contend is a good thing and stands America in an rare but nice place to be.
Second, I found it humorous that the UN election observers were appalled, or is that astounded, apparently at the lengths American election officials trust voters to do their part honestly. Imagine, not requiring positive identification or marking those people who already voted so they can’t just go somewhere else and vote again. I hope those progressives, etc., who are so upset with the idea of requiring a photo id to vote take note that the people in Europe and other continents shake their heads at our naiveté.
Third, I find it exceedingly humorous, that all those progressives and “modernists” who want to do away with the vilified Electoral College system now seem to be trumpeting that since Obama got over 300 votes (when he just needed 270 to win) gives him some sort of mandate to enact their agenda. For the same reasons that they don’t like the Electoral College, is the same reason that Obama’s victory does not represent a mandate. If there was more than 2 percent between the popular vote totals, then a case could be made, however, since there wasn’t, it reflects the fact that the nation remains one that still is looking for a consensus about what vision of the future is the one the country should pursue. To treat it otherwise is to risk escalating that division even further, and we don’t need that.
Fourth, I am, somewhat perversely I admit, glad that President Obama won the popular vote as well as the Electoral vote. I would hate to have seen what would be the public reaction if he had won the Electoral vote and not the popular vote. I suspect a dozen years from now, we would still be hearing tales how he stole the election.
Fifth, sort of a continuation of the above, but I am very glad we aren’t having to endure all sorts of ballot challenges in various courts because the loser wasn’t gracious enough to accept the initial vote counts and felt the need to go to court before they were even in.
Sixth, I have to commend former Massachusetts Gov. Romney for his gracious concession speech. Despite the fact that he didn’t instantaneously call Obama to concede when the networks “called” the election for the president (which one of my progressive friends complained about on his Facebook page about 10 minutes after the networks began announcing their projections as to the winner), Romney proved that he is a class act … but then again, class or no class, he lost and whatever impact he could of/would of/may have had is irrelevant. I just hope people take his message to heart.
My own message to borrow from Winston Churchill:
In Conflict: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance (Tempered by Humility – remember you lost)
In Victory: Magnanimity
If we are to bind up the wounds, the magnanimity is probably to most import thing to remember, but often the easiest to forget.
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Missed opportunity
Romney on Detroit auto industry bailout
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that General Motors and Chrysler should have gone through the bankruptcy process without the injection of $60 billion in taxpayer money that didn’t keep the companies out of bankruptcy court in the end.
Well, in this case, back in 2009, I was siding with Romney, but I understood the stakes. Yes, the American economy was going to go through a really rough shakeout, but I had foreseen that 30 years earlier, but I am not going to go back over what I was saying editorially back in the 1970s and 1980s.
No, something President Barack Obama said during the debate set off a cascade of thoughts in my head in relationship to the U.S. auto industry.
First, President Obama wasn’t talking about how he saved Detroit; he was talking about how the country had changed since 1916. Romney had pointed out that the U.S. Navy is smaller than it was before World War I and the president was saying a lot had changed, from bayonets (which are still used, Mr. President) and horses to aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.
It was the horses’ thing that triggered my thoughts. Even though Special Forces guys rode to victory in Afghanistan (proving that even horses are not quite obsolete yet), it was the image of horse drawn carts that leapt into my mind.
In 1916, the U.S. (along with the rest of the world) was on the cusp of shifting from a horse-drawn world to a internal combustion engine-powered one, something like the world is facing now.
Ok, this is a stretch, but think about it. Detroit is heavily invested in internal combustion engines that run on things that burn, right? That is a no-brainer. Of course it is. I can think of more than one movie plot that has the “auto industry” in conjunction with the “oil companies” conspiring to suppress breakthrough technologies that revolutionize the auto industry.
Now, stop and think a moment. Why were GM and Chrysler doing so badly? Might it be that not only that they were stuck with union contracts that were sucking the life’s blood out of the industry but also because they were stuck with an old business model? Are they not still trying to sell horse-and-buggies to a world that needs Mr. Ford’s Model Ts.
What would have happened if the fossil-fuel based auto industry had been forced into bankruptcy? It might have had to reinvent itself. That is what the buggy makers did 100 years ago. Some made the transition to cars, but a lot didn’t. That is what happens in a truly progressive world where the world progresses and inspires innovations and new industries.
President Obama talks a big line when he talks about turning to alternative energies in the future, but when he had a chance to really change things, did he do it?
But no, our government was more concerned about doing the bidding of the auto unions. Don’t believe me? Then why did the unions get rescued, while those bond investors – who by law came first on the list of creditors – basically got the shaft and the door?
You see, one of the great things about the United States is that we used to be a nation of laws. Those laws applied to everybody and the president wasn’t busy waiving their application against this group or another.
You want to know why I have a problem with President Obama and his administration. The answer is right there: Its refusal to apply the laws of the nation equally, regardless of social status, economic status, racial status, religious status, etc.
Don’t complain about the wealthy not paying their share when 1 percent pay something like 40 percent of the federal income tax. Sorry, but that dog just doesn’t hunt.
Don’t grant states waivers to unpopular laws, while suing other states for trying to apply federal laws within their jurisdiction.
Don’t tell defense contractors they don’t have to abide by federal law and that the federal government will reimburse them for their violations if they get sued because they didn’t.
The U.S. missed a huge opportunity three years ago when it could have stood up and taken the body blow that would have hit the auto industry in Detroit. That auto industry could have taken that opportunity, as provided under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, to reorganize itself, reconfigure the industry and come out with a more forward looking product.
Nope, we missed out chance, because we were too afraid that the unions might take a hit and some people might get hurt.
Well, getting hurt is part of life. What marks the type of person you are is what you do when you get hurt, get knocked down, and then get up again. What you do then is the true indicator of the type of person and type of nation you are. What are you? What are we?
Monday, October 22, 2012
Initial debate reaction – Obama v. Romney
Well, the 2012 presidential debates have come and gone.
My gut level is that Romney has come off better than Obama.
Why?
First, he was able to hold his ground with the president. Not only was Mitt Romney able to hold his ground, but he also did it in a much more “civil” way than President Barack Obama. That has made Romney appear “more likeable” in many ways, and I read somewhere that the likeability factor goes a long way in these races.
Romney did not “attack” Obama “personally” as was not the case going the other way. Repeatedly, Obama attacked his challenger for his personal wealth, attacked him not for his policies as a former governor, but because of actions taken, all within the law and quite legal, by groups of investors who were seeking to rescue businesses from total financial collapse. The president, much to the delight of his supporters I imagine, was in his bully pulpit – quite literally. The Canadian half of my household was much disturbed by that behavior that was in such marked contrast to that of the challenger.
Second, at least to me, Romney also projected a more positive vision for the future. Words do matter and positivism, as was illustrated by Franklin D. Roosevelt, can do much to help a nation lift itself out of economic problems.
I don’t know if it will mean a lot in the overall scheme of things, but I personally like positivity more than negativity.
The problem I have with the President’s view is that he returns to the tired canard that only if the “wealthy” would pay more, then all the nation’s economic problems would be solved. Unfortunately, that is not true. You could confiscate all the billions and millions of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, the Waltons, the Koch brothers, Donald Trump and you would do only two things: 1. Not even eliminate the budget deficit from one year, right now, much less the $16 trillion in national debt that we owe; and 2. By confiscating all that wealth, you would, in essence, kill the golden goose because there would be no more wealth to confiscate.
You see, in my humble opinion, we ask far too much of our federal government and therefore it spends far more than it should. Education, really, is not a federal responsibility. It is not the federal government’s job to go out and hire teachers or set educational curricula. It is not the federal government’s job to build elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools.
It really isn’t the federal government’s job to decide what medical care is available where and for how much.
It is not the federal government’s job to decide what economic choices businesses and individuals should or should not be allowed to make.
I know that, among a lot of people, those are not popular positions, because they make solutions difficult … and outcomes different for different people.
As far as foreign policy between the two men, I see very little difference, except maybe in how they want America to be perceived. One (Romney), wants to see the U.S. strong and assertive in its leadership, while the other (Obama), seems to want to see the US deferential, cooperative and respectful, if not necessarily strong and assertive. These perceptions are definitely different; although exactly how that would play I have no clue.
I do know that the quest to be both loved and respected is a bit Quixotic. It is a wonderful romantic goal, but totally illusionary. I also know it is what Americans want and can’t understand why we aren’t.
As for the election in that essentially ends (we all hope) in about two weeks, I have no predictions. I have no grand suggestions. Heck, I don’t even have any recommendations to anyone. I can’t tell you how to vote, even if you have a vote (which considering how many non-Americans read this is considerable), but then I wouldn’t even to presume to tell you how to vote. That is an individual’s decision. Each of us has to make up our own minds as to whom we are going to vote for and why.
It comes down to what we expect from our government (at any level) and which candidate will work (and not necessarily accomplish) toward ends that we think are in our best interest, as well as those of our communities and our nation. We have to understand that neither of the candidates will be able to deliver on many of their “promises” because it really is not in their power to do so in the American federal republic. Presidents are not gods, nor absolute rulers. Presidents have to find compromise and common ground. The more you see done by executive order or fiat, the less you are seeing our republic at work.
In the end, our choices at the ballot box do have consequences and those consequences, good or bad, will reach far and wide. I know the world is watching Americans with bated breath, because the United States does play such huge role in not just the affairs of its citizens but for people around the world, good, bad or indifferent.
But Americans now have to consider their own counsels. They have to look to themselves and decide what, in the final accounting, which candidate will indeed serve their own interest … because in the end, whether you agree or not, it is the individual who counts and not the village, not the province or state, not the nation, not the world, but the individual.
Without the individual, with respect and dignity for all, then there is nothing. We all become slaves, compelled to live for others.
My gut level is that Romney has come off better than Obama.
Why?
First, he was able to hold his ground with the president. Not only was Mitt Romney able to hold his ground, but he also did it in a much more “civil” way than President Barack Obama. That has made Romney appear “more likeable” in many ways, and I read somewhere that the likeability factor goes a long way in these races.
Romney did not “attack” Obama “personally” as was not the case going the other way. Repeatedly, Obama attacked his challenger for his personal wealth, attacked him not for his policies as a former governor, but because of actions taken, all within the law and quite legal, by groups of investors who were seeking to rescue businesses from total financial collapse. The president, much to the delight of his supporters I imagine, was in his bully pulpit – quite literally. The Canadian half of my household was much disturbed by that behavior that was in such marked contrast to that of the challenger.
Second, at least to me, Romney also projected a more positive vision for the future. Words do matter and positivism, as was illustrated by Franklin D. Roosevelt, can do much to help a nation lift itself out of economic problems.
I don’t know if it will mean a lot in the overall scheme of things, but I personally like positivity more than negativity.
The problem I have with the President’s view is that he returns to the tired canard that only if the “wealthy” would pay more, then all the nation’s economic problems would be solved. Unfortunately, that is not true. You could confiscate all the billions and millions of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, the Waltons, the Koch brothers, Donald Trump and you would do only two things: 1. Not even eliminate the budget deficit from one year, right now, much less the $16 trillion in national debt that we owe; and 2. By confiscating all that wealth, you would, in essence, kill the golden goose because there would be no more wealth to confiscate.
You see, in my humble opinion, we ask far too much of our federal government and therefore it spends far more than it should. Education, really, is not a federal responsibility. It is not the federal government’s job to go out and hire teachers or set educational curricula. It is not the federal government’s job to build elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools.
It really isn’t the federal government’s job to decide what medical care is available where and for how much.
It is not the federal government’s job to decide what economic choices businesses and individuals should or should not be allowed to make.
I know that, among a lot of people, those are not popular positions, because they make solutions difficult … and outcomes different for different people.
As far as foreign policy between the two men, I see very little difference, except maybe in how they want America to be perceived. One (Romney), wants to see the U.S. strong and assertive in its leadership, while the other (Obama), seems to want to see the US deferential, cooperative and respectful, if not necessarily strong and assertive. These perceptions are definitely different; although exactly how that would play I have no clue.
I do know that the quest to be both loved and respected is a bit Quixotic. It is a wonderful romantic goal, but totally illusionary. I also know it is what Americans want and can’t understand why we aren’t.
As for the election in that essentially ends (we all hope) in about two weeks, I have no predictions. I have no grand suggestions. Heck, I don’t even have any recommendations to anyone. I can’t tell you how to vote, even if you have a vote (which considering how many non-Americans read this is considerable), but then I wouldn’t even to presume to tell you how to vote. That is an individual’s decision. Each of us has to make up our own minds as to whom we are going to vote for and why.
It comes down to what we expect from our government (at any level) and which candidate will work (and not necessarily accomplish) toward ends that we think are in our best interest, as well as those of our communities and our nation. We have to understand that neither of the candidates will be able to deliver on many of their “promises” because it really is not in their power to do so in the American federal republic. Presidents are not gods, nor absolute rulers. Presidents have to find compromise and common ground. The more you see done by executive order or fiat, the less you are seeing our republic at work.
In the end, our choices at the ballot box do have consequences and those consequences, good or bad, will reach far and wide. I know the world is watching Americans with bated breath, because the United States does play such huge role in not just the affairs of its citizens but for people around the world, good, bad or indifferent.
But Americans now have to consider their own counsels. They have to look to themselves and decide what, in the final accounting, which candidate will indeed serve their own interest … because in the end, whether you agree or not, it is the individual who counts and not the village, not the province or state, not the nation, not the world, but the individual.
Without the individual, with respect and dignity for all, then there is nothing. We all become slaves, compelled to live for others.
Friday, October 19, 2012
When did we all become so cynical?
I have an online acquaintance who asked me if I believe President Barack Obama when he says something.
I told him I did unless there was something in the facts on the ground that led me to think that I was going to have be willing to suspend my disbelief … or in other words, until the facts on the ground seemed to contradict the words coming from the mouth.
This came up in an online conversation where he contended that GOP candidate Mitt Romney was lying about how he got the infamous binders alluded to the second debate with President Obama. Apparently, the bulk of the “binders” came from an advocacy group called MassGAP that had prepared possible lists of appointment candidates for both candidates for Massachusetts governor in 2002. The non-partisan or bi-partisan group says it was the group that supplied Gov.-elect Romney with the binders.
The disagreement here, apparently, is over whether the group marched down, dropped the binders on Romney’s desk and said, “Take your pick.” Meaning that Romney made no effort to include women in the cabinet and was forced to do it by MassGAP and therefore he is lying about what happened. (My friend’s version)
Or did Romney look at the list of candidates given to him by his staff and say “is this the best you can do?” Then tell his staff to try again, and this time for political cover, include more women. Then the staff took advantage of the offer from MassGAP and accepted the binders they offered. (My view)
Now, I must point out that before this point, he basically accused me of blithely posting my view as just so much misinformation.
Here is the video clip: CBS News – Romney: I had binders full of women
You watch it and you decide which better fits the available facts.
My point being is that what we often see is colored by the prisms of our preconceptions and what we want to believe. This is natural and to be expected.
Now, I must admit: I have lots of problems with President Obama and his policies. I think his vision of the way the world is and the way America should be are wrong. However, having said that, I do not accuse him of lying or misleading people without some evidence to give me reason. I may disagree with what he says, but I am not going to say he is a liar.
Most of the time, as I see it, he or his staff are “spinning” the facts to have us accept a certain interpretation of the facts. Some of the times, one has to do a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to accept the party line, and other times it is much easier to swallow. The same holds true for the Republican candidates. They always are spinning the facts to fit the narrative that they want voters and constituents to believe.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
For example, do I believe that the tax cut plans as reportedly put out by the Romney Campaign are all they are cracked up to be – pro or con? Not on your life. I sometimes think that Romney takes a more realistic view of what he might accomplish. (There being an old saying about Washington: The President proposes; Congress disposes) Basically, what I have heard him say at the first two debates is that “yes, I would like to cut certain tax deductions, close some loopholes and lower tax rates across the board, but until I can negotiate the particulars with Congress, I really don’t know how that will work out.” That sounds to me like an honest assessment of the situation.
On the other hand, what I hear President Obama saying is that we will raise the tax rates on the “wealthy” (leaving open exactly what being “wealthy” means) and that is going to solve our deficit as well as pay for all the new things coming under Obamacare. That absolutely is impossible. There ain’t enough money in the “wealthy’s” piggy banks to pull that off. Besides, that smacks of killing the golden goose before she lays her eggs.
Now, the question is: Is Obama lying or is Romney lying.
I don’t know. But as an article of faith, I am going to say that I think for the most part both men are honest and decent people. They are neither vicious, nor cruel nor evil. Their world views are just different. They see the world through different prisms and therefore see what needs to be done in different lights.
There is a good question: Are things better today than they were four years ago? Do you think the policies of the last four years, extended and broadened over the next four years are going to improve the situation or not? Do you think what plans Romney and Ryan have articulated, if implemented and however sketchy they are, will make a difference? Will that difference be better or worse?
Honestly, my jury is STILL out, but I know it is leaning heavily more in one direction that another.
And, just for the record, I didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter in 1980. I voted for John Anderson and that is saying more about who I have voted for in 40 years because I really do believe in the sanctity of the secret ballot.
As for the binders’ discussion: It is a tempest in a teapot, as Pappy used to say.
I told him I did unless there was something in the facts on the ground that led me to think that I was going to have be willing to suspend my disbelief … or in other words, until the facts on the ground seemed to contradict the words coming from the mouth.
This came up in an online conversation where he contended that GOP candidate Mitt Romney was lying about how he got the infamous binders alluded to the second debate with President Obama. Apparently, the bulk of the “binders” came from an advocacy group called MassGAP that had prepared possible lists of appointment candidates for both candidates for Massachusetts governor in 2002. The non-partisan or bi-partisan group says it was the group that supplied Gov.-elect Romney with the binders.
The disagreement here, apparently, is over whether the group marched down, dropped the binders on Romney’s desk and said, “Take your pick.” Meaning that Romney made no effort to include women in the cabinet and was forced to do it by MassGAP and therefore he is lying about what happened. (My friend’s version)
Or did Romney look at the list of candidates given to him by his staff and say “is this the best you can do?” Then tell his staff to try again, and this time for political cover, include more women. Then the staff took advantage of the offer from MassGAP and accepted the binders they offered. (My view)
Now, I must point out that before this point, he basically accused me of blithely posting my view as just so much misinformation.
Here is the video clip: CBS News – Romney: I had binders full of women
You watch it and you decide which better fits the available facts.
My point being is that what we often see is colored by the prisms of our preconceptions and what we want to believe. This is natural and to be expected.
Now, I must admit: I have lots of problems with President Obama and his policies. I think his vision of the way the world is and the way America should be are wrong. However, having said that, I do not accuse him of lying or misleading people without some evidence to give me reason. I may disagree with what he says, but I am not going to say he is a liar.
Most of the time, as I see it, he or his staff are “spinning” the facts to have us accept a certain interpretation of the facts. Some of the times, one has to do a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to accept the party line, and other times it is much easier to swallow. The same holds true for the Republican candidates. They always are spinning the facts to fit the narrative that they want voters and constituents to believe.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
For example, do I believe that the tax cut plans as reportedly put out by the Romney Campaign are all they are cracked up to be – pro or con? Not on your life. I sometimes think that Romney takes a more realistic view of what he might accomplish. (There being an old saying about Washington: The President proposes; Congress disposes) Basically, what I have heard him say at the first two debates is that “yes, I would like to cut certain tax deductions, close some loopholes and lower tax rates across the board, but until I can negotiate the particulars with Congress, I really don’t know how that will work out.” That sounds to me like an honest assessment of the situation.
On the other hand, what I hear President Obama saying is that we will raise the tax rates on the “wealthy” (leaving open exactly what being “wealthy” means) and that is going to solve our deficit as well as pay for all the new things coming under Obamacare. That absolutely is impossible. There ain’t enough money in the “wealthy’s” piggy banks to pull that off. Besides, that smacks of killing the golden goose before she lays her eggs.
Now, the question is: Is Obama lying or is Romney lying.
I don’t know. But as an article of faith, I am going to say that I think for the most part both men are honest and decent people. They are neither vicious, nor cruel nor evil. Their world views are just different. They see the world through different prisms and therefore see what needs to be done in different lights.
There is a good question: Are things better today than they were four years ago? Do you think the policies of the last four years, extended and broadened over the next four years are going to improve the situation or not? Do you think what plans Romney and Ryan have articulated, if implemented and however sketchy they are, will make a difference? Will that difference be better or worse?
Honestly, my jury is STILL out, but I know it is leaning heavily more in one direction that another.
And, just for the record, I didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter in 1980. I voted for John Anderson and that is saying more about who I have voted for in 40 years because I really do believe in the sanctity of the secret ballot.
As for the binders’ discussion: It is a tempest in a teapot, as Pappy used to say.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Mountain out of a molehill
As Pappy would have said: Tis a mountain out of molehill.
Jeemney Christmas. What is with all the uproar about presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying he got “binders” filled with women’s resumes when he went looking for women to fill out his cabinet when he was governor of Massachusetts?
Hey, give the guy some credit. He did do the sexist thing and tried to do affirmative action for women. What was he supposed to say: I got a pile of resumes or a stack of applications? This has got to be the most senseless news story in … well at least a couple of weeks.
I will say one thing for the businessman-turned-politician at least he had his staff trained halfway decently. The boss asks for information and a good staff will organize it for him, so he doesn’t waste time. It seems to me that his staff did just that: Organized the resumes for his review. And for this he is getting blasted and blistered?
Methinks some people have their head in the wrong place.
No, it seems that some of our progressive and liberal friends are trying to make an issue out of something that isn’t an issue, or at least shouldn’t be in my estimation. I wish someone would explain to me ( as Pappy used to say) in words of one syllable or less so I could understand exactly what the problem is because I don’t see the problem. Ok, I am a male in my sixties, but I don’t see what the problem is hiring women to fill positions if they are qualified, pay them the same rate as any guy you would hire for the position (note: you are paying for the job being done, not for the person to fill it).
Still, we are three days after the debate, and we still are flapping our jaws about a non-issue.
To me the unanswered question was who pulled the security teams from Libya in August? Who denied the U.S. ambassador to Libya’s request for addition security and why? Why was the White House apparently clueless when the flunkies in the State Department knew pretty much what was going on? Was it really the Secretary of State’s fault that the real-time reports of the eight-hour gun-battle (including mortar fire, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns) by an estimated-platoon-sized contingent of terrorist drove the Americans and their staff and guards into bunkers was not transmitted to at least the National Security Advisor, if not the Secretary of Defense, as well as the President?
Sorry, that seems to bear more on the job of being president then whether or not he reviews candidates for cabinet or staff positions by having their resumes presented to him in binders.
I am a retired journalist, actually a retired newspaper editor, and the current state of journalism absolutely revolts me when it comes to campaign coverage. Of course, I come from a different era, when you didn’t have to deal with the passions of the social media.
For example, I pointed out to one of the people whom I have considerable respect as a thoughtful person that a picture that she had posted on her Facebook page was factually incorrect … and she told me I basically was being an idiot because it didn’t matter. Everybody did it. Well, I guess, I have to apologize to her, but damn, I thought accuracy and the truth was more important than just tearing down people, places, organizations and things you disagree with.
At least when I differ with someone, I do try to at least explain why I think my observations are valid. But just to say: Well, that is how it is done of Facebook and everybody does it, appalls me. I guess personal integrity is passé and personal credibility is something no one cares about.
No wonder America is going to hades in the handbasket.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
A puzzled person
What is it about this election that makes people hate so viscerally? I haven’t a clue, but I see it even in people that I hold in some respect.
I see it when individuals call political candidates “lying bastards” and other deeply offensive slurs. Why is it our language has become so coarsened that such pejoratives are acceptable … especially in public discourse? I see it when people attack others for disagreeing with them in terms that defy civility.
I watched the presidential debate on Wednesday night, and either I am totally blind or I didn’t see any flat out lying … and I certainly didn’t see any bastards. Oh, did they tell the absolute unvarnished truth? Give me a break. However, there was truth in everything that they said, depending on how you want to parse the facts. It was in the spin, rather than the facts, the mistruths were slung.
You see, I have become painfully aware that we all seem to view Plato’s shadows differently. We view things, I have come to realize, through different prisms and some of them are starkly different than others.
It makes me question my own reality and as hard as I can, I find it hard to find empirical evidence that disputes the perceptions I have gained over the six decades of my life.
Yes, politicians shade the truth to fit their cause. There was plenty of that on Wednesday night, on both sides. Maybe I hold a too high a standard to call out people on “lying” rather than telling the truth from a particular point of view.
So I look at what people say, and ask why? What is it that drives people to be so visceral in their hatred of their political opponents?
And then I step back and I look around the world at conditions in other countries and I realize that Americans are not any different. No, we are humans, just like everybody else. It would be nice to think we are “exceptional” but as humans we are not.
We do have an exceptional form of government and an exceptional (well, less now that at other times, maybe) economic system, but as a people, there is little different from others around the world. The dogmas may be different, even the ideologies, but the essence of our human nature is not different.
As I watched the debate, it was obvious that the challenger was beating the incumbent badly. It seemed such a mismatch. Mitt Romney came across as the civil individual, while President Barack Obama came across as angry and offended that anyone would challenge him. That bothered me a lot.
Now, I don’t know what issues the president was dealing with that night, but he definitely wasn’t cool, calm and collected.
Now, I know that Romney impressed me, but I could also see how he was parsing his facts in ways that could be construed in various ways as to make him seem like he was not telling the truth.
The classic being the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, profits and profit margins, tax credits and tax deductions, and if you don’t understand the differences between those terms, please look them up. Educate yourselves.
Tax Rate vs Tax Revenue
Profit vs Profit margin
Tax Credit vs Tax Deduction
So, when Romney said he was going to lower tax rates but keep them revenue neutral, it really isn’t an oxymoron. Economists will tell you something about what is called the Laffer Curve which is the point that Romney was trying to make. (Laffer Curve explained.) While it is difficult to chart exactly how the curve will be under any given tax rate situation, it really is not hard to understand how it works. Most people don’t understand.
Most people think, that the higher the rate, the more the government will get in taxes, and history has shown that to be false in the 1960s, the 1980s and again, in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Still, it bothers me that people I respect very much somehow see the world through such different prisms.
I joked with one of them, who was saying that the very rich should pay so much more in taxes, that since he made more than I did, would he send some of his money to me. I mean he is richer than I am, or so it seems. (Well, since I now have rent a two-bedroom apartment and he apparently owns a small farm and has access to a condominium in a very expensive building – at least by my standards as I would never been able to even consider owning either, while acting as the COO for a software gaming company that has the rights to a few of the top selling games of the 1990s and at least one or two of the top rated games for the latest IPODs in the 2010s, would make him appear to be more wealthy than I am, living as I do.) He got very upset with me, for making such a suggestion, since his company is a restart of the 1990s version, and said I was “enjoying my retirement.”
Again, we probably are making asses of ourselves – you know the old cliché that when we ASSUME you are making an ASS of yoU and ME.
However, my point was what gives him the right to demand that others pay higher taxes to transfer their wealth to others, if I don’t have the same right to make that demand of him. However, I think it all got lost in translation.
And maybe that is what puzzles me the most: We all seem to have lost any sense of humor. Hey, given my life, one has to look back at it and laugh. Otherwise, you probably would either be crying or committing suicide – neither of which option appeals to me right now.
Still, if you push me really hard, I would have to say I know who I am not voting for … now if I just could figure out who to vote for that will most effectively represent what I believe. I still am left puzzled.
I see it when individuals call political candidates “lying bastards” and other deeply offensive slurs. Why is it our language has become so coarsened that such pejoratives are acceptable … especially in public discourse? I see it when people attack others for disagreeing with them in terms that defy civility.
I watched the presidential debate on Wednesday night, and either I am totally blind or I didn’t see any flat out lying … and I certainly didn’t see any bastards. Oh, did they tell the absolute unvarnished truth? Give me a break. However, there was truth in everything that they said, depending on how you want to parse the facts. It was in the spin, rather than the facts, the mistruths were slung.
You see, I have become painfully aware that we all seem to view Plato’s shadows differently. We view things, I have come to realize, through different prisms and some of them are starkly different than others.
It makes me question my own reality and as hard as I can, I find it hard to find empirical evidence that disputes the perceptions I have gained over the six decades of my life.
Yes, politicians shade the truth to fit their cause. There was plenty of that on Wednesday night, on both sides. Maybe I hold a too high a standard to call out people on “lying” rather than telling the truth from a particular point of view.
So I look at what people say, and ask why? What is it that drives people to be so visceral in their hatred of their political opponents?
And then I step back and I look around the world at conditions in other countries and I realize that Americans are not any different. No, we are humans, just like everybody else. It would be nice to think we are “exceptional” but as humans we are not.
We do have an exceptional form of government and an exceptional (well, less now that at other times, maybe) economic system, but as a people, there is little different from others around the world. The dogmas may be different, even the ideologies, but the essence of our human nature is not different.
As I watched the debate, it was obvious that the challenger was beating the incumbent badly. It seemed such a mismatch. Mitt Romney came across as the civil individual, while President Barack Obama came across as angry and offended that anyone would challenge him. That bothered me a lot.
Now, I don’t know what issues the president was dealing with that night, but he definitely wasn’t cool, calm and collected.
Now, I know that Romney impressed me, but I could also see how he was parsing his facts in ways that could be construed in various ways as to make him seem like he was not telling the truth.
The classic being the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, profits and profit margins, tax credits and tax deductions, and if you don’t understand the differences between those terms, please look them up. Educate yourselves.
Tax Rate vs Tax Revenue
Profit vs Profit margin
Tax Credit vs Tax Deduction
So, when Romney said he was going to lower tax rates but keep them revenue neutral, it really isn’t an oxymoron. Economists will tell you something about what is called the Laffer Curve which is the point that Romney was trying to make. (Laffer Curve explained.) While it is difficult to chart exactly how the curve will be under any given tax rate situation, it really is not hard to understand how it works. Most people don’t understand.
Most people think, that the higher the rate, the more the government will get in taxes, and history has shown that to be false in the 1960s, the 1980s and again, in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Still, it bothers me that people I respect very much somehow see the world through such different prisms.
I joked with one of them, who was saying that the very rich should pay so much more in taxes, that since he made more than I did, would he send some of his money to me. I mean he is richer than I am, or so it seems. (Well, since I now have rent a two-bedroom apartment and he apparently owns a small farm and has access to a condominium in a very expensive building – at least by my standards as I would never been able to even consider owning either, while acting as the COO for a software gaming company that has the rights to a few of the top selling games of the 1990s and at least one or two of the top rated games for the latest IPODs in the 2010s, would make him appear to be more wealthy than I am, living as I do.) He got very upset with me, for making such a suggestion, since his company is a restart of the 1990s version, and said I was “enjoying my retirement.”
Again, we probably are making asses of ourselves – you know the old cliché that when we ASSUME you are making an ASS of yoU and ME.
However, my point was what gives him the right to demand that others pay higher taxes to transfer their wealth to others, if I don’t have the same right to make that demand of him. However, I think it all got lost in translation.
And maybe that is what puzzles me the most: We all seem to have lost any sense of humor. Hey, given my life, one has to look back at it and laugh. Otherwise, you probably would either be crying or committing suicide – neither of which option appeals to me right now.
Still, if you push me really hard, I would have to say I know who I am not voting for … now if I just could figure out who to vote for that will most effectively represent what I believe. I still am left puzzled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)