Healthy Debate
"There is wisdom in many counselors..." Proverbs
I love good debate. It helps us get at the truth. If all we ever hear is one side, we will never really get at the issue. For that reason I try to listen to NPR and Rush. I try to watch FOX News and CNN (and if I am in a very good mood, even MSNBC)
I value my more liberal friends input as well. For example, here is an excerpt from a recent email I received from a good, intelligent, Christian man who disagrees with me on the issues of the day:
The current criticisms by Republicans of the 1st month of action by Obama
and the Democratic Congress are completely absurd. They just finished 8 years
of record setting lobbiest-controlled, boondoggle-earmarked, deficit-spending
budgets in the history of the US government. They turned a positive federal
budget situation into a huge deficit. And the removed any federal oversight to
the free-market frenzy (read -- "robber baron" era) to generate the largest fiscal
disaster since the Great Depression. So now the Christian Right (who swept
W. into power and advised him throughout his presidency), has the adacity to
say anything other than "well, we completely screwed things up. Let's see if
your ideas work any better." If fact they are criticizing the very things they were
exceptionally good at! ... deficit spending and boondoggled earmarks!.
Considering the market, the mess, the deficit, the wars, the world, I would just
slink away and decide that my party should move closer to the practical
middle of the road than stay in the extreme ideological right.
In 2001, I was willing to let W. lead for four years.
He might 'correct' some Clinton excesses. However, I also predicted soon there
after that W.'s ideological policies of extreme Ayn Rand economics would
give us a small economic problem if his governance only lasted 4 years.
I also said that if W got reelected then the following president would have to
deal with an economic disaster similar to the Great Depression.
The 1920's policies were repeating themselves in the irresponsibly
deregulated free-market of the 2000's. Now the 1930's are repeating themselves.
The Christian Far Right's governance has failed. It is time to confess and move
to the pragmatic middle. (I admit that President Obama is slightly left of me
on several issues, but atleast he is a pragmatist.
Here is my response:
1. The Christian "Right" did not elect Bush
> either time. His views lined up, according to multiple
> polls, with nearly half of America (e.g. 49% are against
> abortion on demand). The exception is the war in Iraq,
> during his second term. The "Christian Right"
> label is pure liberal myth used by the media. It has never
> "elected" anybody.
>
> 2. Deficit. We have been in deficit as long as I can
> remember, no matter who is in office. Bush did not want to
> raise taxes (he is a Republican) but a little thing called
> 9/11 happened. He also funneled billions into AIDS, Katrina,
> etc. Hardly a hard-hearted conservative who cares nothing
> for the poor and hurting..AND the Republican congress went
> along with him. In fact, these nasty Republicans passed a
> welfare reform bill under Clinton (which he signed) which
> grealty helped things and got many back to work. Besides, I
> remember my Econ prof explaining the fed deficit is no big
> deal and is only a political football. Just who is going
> to call the debt?
>
> 4. It was Democrats who controlled much of the oversight
> bodies. The economy was doing great until the Dems took
> control of congress two years ago. Then everything tanked.
>
> 5. Things were not all peachy under Clinton. Have people
> erased their own memories? I have the 403b statements to
> prove it. Our retirement funds went down the tubes in the
> 90's big time. Interested rates plummeted. It was only
> when Gingrich and Republicans got control of congress that
> things turned around.
>
> 6. Lastly, much of all this is just two simplistic. What
> happens with any of this is depends on a combination of who
> owns the Whitehouse, either or both houses of congress, who
> is on the Supreme Court, and who runs key committees, e.g.
> bank oversight.
>
> All in all,though, I trust Republicans over Democrats any
> day.
>
> Factoids:
>
> Which Presidents in recent history cheated on their wives
> while in office? All Democrats (Roosevelt, Kennedy,
> Clinton) All of them are blamed by multiplele historians
> for disastrous policies as well. (Of course, Bush is blamed
> too. I am simply saying Dems fair no better and actually are
> much worse)
>
> Which party has the only President to be impeached since
> the Civil War? (ok a gimmee.)
>
> Why was he acquited by the Senate? Because the Dems voted
> strict party line. He was clearly guilty of perjury and
> obstruction. He was found guilty in court and stripped of
> his lawyer standing by the bar association.
>
> Who was in charge of the bank and housing committees when
> the market crashed? Dems, homosexual Barney Frank in the
> lead. To accuse Republicans and "Robber Barons" is
> grossly distorting the facts. Republicans, including John
> McCain, had called for changes in lending, etc. years ago
>
> We are now lead by a morally and ethically corrupt party.
> Apparently, since the "Christian Right" elects
> presidents, they were too busy having potlucks or don't
> care anymore . Now we will all pay the price of their
> negligence.
>
>
What do YOU think? (I know, I know...I can't count)
>
>
I love good debate. It helps us get at the truth. If all we ever hear is one side, we will never really get at the issue. For that reason I try to listen to NPR and Rush. I try to watch FOX News and CNN (and if I am in a very good mood, even MSNBC)
I value my more liberal friends input as well. For example, here is an excerpt from a recent email I received from a good, intelligent, Christian man who disagrees with me on the issues of the day:
The current criticisms by Republicans of the 1st month of action by Obama
and the Democratic Congress are completely absurd. They just finished 8 years
of record setting lobbiest-controlled, boondoggle-earmarked, deficit-spending
budgets in the history of the US government. They turned a positive federal
budget situation into a huge deficit. And the removed any federal oversight to
the free-market frenzy (read -- "robber baron" era) to generate the largest fiscal
disaster since the Great Depression. So now the Christian Right (who swept
W. into power and advised him throughout his presidency), has the adacity to
say anything other than "well, we completely screwed things up. Let's see if
your ideas work any better." If fact they are criticizing the very things they were
exceptionally good at! ... deficit spending and boondoggled earmarks!.
Considering the market, the mess, the deficit, the wars, the world, I would just
slink away and decide that my party should move closer to the practical
middle of the road than stay in the extreme ideological right.
In 2001, I was willing to let W. lead for four years.
He might 'correct' some Clinton excesses. However, I also predicted soon there
after that W.'s ideological policies of extreme Ayn Rand economics would
give us a small economic problem if his governance only lasted 4 years.
I also said that if W got reelected then the following president would have to
deal with an economic disaster similar to the Great Depression.
The 1920's policies were repeating themselves in the irresponsibly
deregulated free-market of the 2000's. Now the 1930's are repeating themselves.
The Christian Far Right's governance has failed. It is time to confess and move
to the pragmatic middle. (I admit that President Obama is slightly left of me
on several issues, but atleast he is a pragmatist.
Here is my response:
1. The Christian "Right" did not elect Bush
> either time. His views lined up, according to multiple
> polls, with nearly half of America (e.g. 49% are against
> abortion on demand). The exception is the war in Iraq,
> during his second term. The "Christian Right"
> label is pure liberal myth used by the media. It has never
> "elected" anybody.
>
> 2. Deficit. We have been in deficit as long as I can
> remember, no matter who is in office. Bush did not want to
> raise taxes (he is a Republican) but a little thing called
> 9/11 happened. He also funneled billions into AIDS, Katrina,
> etc. Hardly a hard-hearted conservative who cares nothing
> for the poor and hurting..AND the Republican congress went
> along with him. In fact, these nasty Republicans passed a
> welfare reform bill under Clinton (which he signed) which
> grealty helped things and got many back to work. Besides, I
> remember my Econ prof explaining the fed deficit is no big
> deal and is only a political football. Just who is going
> to call the debt?
>
> 4. It was Democrats who controlled much of the oversight
> bodies. The economy was doing great until the Dems took
> control of congress two years ago. Then everything tanked.
>
> 5. Things were not all peachy under Clinton. Have people
> erased their own memories? I have the 403b statements to
> prove it. Our retirement funds went down the tubes in the
> 90's big time. Interested rates plummeted. It was only
> when Gingrich and Republicans got control of congress that
> things turned around.
>
> 6. Lastly, much of all this is just two simplistic. What
> happens with any of this is depends on a combination of who
> owns the Whitehouse, either or both houses of congress, who
> is on the Supreme Court, and who runs key committees, e.g.
> bank oversight.
>
> All in all,though, I trust Republicans over Democrats any
> day.
>
> Factoids:
>
> Which Presidents in recent history cheated on their wives
> while in office? All Democrats (Roosevelt, Kennedy,
> Clinton) All of them are blamed by multiplele historians
> for disastrous policies as well. (Of course, Bush is blamed
> too. I am simply saying Dems fair no better and actually are
> much worse)
>
> Which party has the only President to be impeached since
> the Civil War? (ok a gimmee.)
>
> Why was he acquited by the Senate? Because the Dems voted
> strict party line. He was clearly guilty of perjury and
> obstruction. He was found guilty in court and stripped of
> his lawyer standing by the bar association.
>
> Who was in charge of the bank and housing committees when
> the market crashed? Dems, homosexual Barney Frank in the
> lead. To accuse Republicans and "Robber Barons" is
> grossly distorting the facts. Republicans, including John
> McCain, had called for changes in lending, etc. years ago
>
> We are now lead by a morally and ethically corrupt party.
> Apparently, since the "Christian Right" elects
> presidents, they were too busy having potlucks or don't
> care anymore . Now we will all pay the price of their
> negligence.
>
>
What do YOU think? (I know, I know...I can't count)
>
>
posted by Rob | 9:32 AM
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I originally left a comment about this healthy debate trying to use analogies from the Bible, but then I realized that with amount of Bible illiteracy around about four or five you out would get it.
Then it struck me. That is what is wrong with the debate. Common language. When a democrat says tax cut they mean raise the tax on the rich and give it as a credit to the poor, and when a republican says tax cut, they mean to cut taxes on everyone including the rich. But everyone agrees to then cut taxes, and given who is in power the result follows.
For any debate to have any success both parties much speech the same language and for politics in America both sides do not speech the same language.
Hey Rob-learn how to spell! "Two simplistic?" Give me a break! I know, you can't get the spell check to work and you were in a hurry, but is that really an excuse?
No wonder your son has a hard time with spelling!
Rob (his own worst critic of course)
Maybe there is nothing left to debate, both sides all ready know what the other thinks, so what is the point in debating any more?
The two party system has had a strangle hold on the Politics of America for two long it is time for more Americans to look at third parties.
Generally, all sides think they know what the other thinks.
and then there are those moderates, who will almost always be somewhere in the middle of the 2, 3, or more parties. I personally get a little frustrated at having to align with a specific platform or party when choosing/voting.
Mike M.,
I am with you. I tend towards the left and got very upset at the Republican administration from time to time. It seemed back in 1999, that Bush was planning to move to the middle and heal the great divide in Washington. Very not so. I was glad to see the Bush administration end.
Obama seemed to say he would try to heal the great divide. However, now I have this rumbling anxiety as I watch the Obama administration make executive decisions that are the most extreme positions possible with respect to abortion, stem cell research, etc.
Obama President seems to lead oppositely as I would like him to lead. I want to return Keynesian economics ... Obama hired people associated with the CEO's that mess everything up (Paulson etc). I want a regard to moral concerns in policy ... Obama said that science would be the only policy guide. Science has no moral component.
My stomach rumbles with anxiety.
Post a Comment
<< Home