one political post
I don't like discussing politics but since we just had a historic election, I'll post ONE political post.
Well the months and months of propaganda is finally over and we have a new president-elect. I can't say that I agreed with the choice, but it's over and I will be giving Mr. Obama my full support as I hope most of the rest country does also (which won't happen). I hope even more that he does a good job. My expectations are very low at this point given the very vague "policies" he's been touting along the way. Change, change, change...that's all you would hear. Hopefully now we'll find out what that "change" actually means and it will get the country rolling. And after watching his excellent speech following the election, I can see how millions of people flocked to him. I think being as good of a speaker as he is locks in about 10 million of the votes for any canidate. But I digress...
So why won't the rest of the country get behind hime and move forward? I'll tell you why...
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Obama takes office in respect to the internet coverage that he'll receive. One thing that always made me give President Bush the benefit of the doubt was he was really the first president that had to go through constant internet scrutiny throughout. Now, I'm not saying he was a fantastic president who was wrongly criticized or anything, but remember when we was elected there were no blogs, well maybe like 2, and news organizations didn't have writers putting up multiple columns a day. Now there are millions of blogs. Each with their own opinions about everything, this one included. No president had to go through that before. Any idiot with a computer can post his or her opinions, beliefs and even lies out to the entire world. And just like a tidal wave, if enough people are saying it, momentum builds and eventually it becomes reality, true or not.
I'm looking forward to watching what happens now that a second president will step into quicksand of the internet. We'll see how the blogosphere responds. You know there will be just as many blogs tearing him down as praising him. Why? Because it's easy. And just like news networks, it's more popular to "report" on the negative stuff than anything positive, whether it's true or not. PLUS, everyday bloggers can hide in relative anonymity. It's easy to launch opinions or lies like SCUD missiles at someone when they're coming from all sides from nowhere in particular i.e. the internet.
We'll see what happens!
Well the months and months of propaganda is finally over and we have a new president-elect. I can't say that I agreed with the choice, but it's over and I will be giving Mr. Obama my full support as I hope most of the rest country does also (which won't happen). I hope even more that he does a good job. My expectations are very low at this point given the very vague "policies" he's been touting along the way. Change, change, change...that's all you would hear. Hopefully now we'll find out what that "change" actually means and it will get the country rolling. And after watching his excellent speech following the election, I can see how millions of people flocked to him. I think being as good of a speaker as he is locks in about 10 million of the votes for any canidate. But I digress...
So why won't the rest of the country get behind hime and move forward? I'll tell you why...
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Obama takes office in respect to the internet coverage that he'll receive. One thing that always made me give President Bush the benefit of the doubt was he was really the first president that had to go through constant internet scrutiny throughout. Now, I'm not saying he was a fantastic president who was wrongly criticized or anything, but remember when we was elected there were no blogs, well maybe like 2, and news organizations didn't have writers putting up multiple columns a day. Now there are millions of blogs. Each with their own opinions about everything, this one included. No president had to go through that before. Any idiot with a computer can post his or her opinions, beliefs and even lies out to the entire world. And just like a tidal wave, if enough people are saying it, momentum builds and eventually it becomes reality, true or not.
I'm looking forward to watching what happens now that a second president will step into quicksand of the internet. We'll see how the blogosphere responds. You know there will be just as many blogs tearing him down as praising him. Why? Because it's easy. And just like news networks, it's more popular to "report" on the negative stuff than anything positive, whether it's true or not. PLUS, everyday bloggers can hide in relative anonymity. It's easy to launch opinions or lies like SCUD missiles at someone when they're coming from all sides from nowhere in particular i.e. the internet.
We'll see what happens!
Labels: president
posted by Derek at 10:33 AM
10 Comments:
hey derek... great blog by the way, i just wanted to make a couple of comments. first, president bush didnt make "mistakes" because the bloggers on the internet found out about them, he MADE MANY mistakes, and they were well documented by just about every news source out there. to think obaba will make "mistakes" now because the internet is more widely used is an irrelevant correlation.
as far as "change" goes, we could talk for months on this topic, however, i will suffice it to say that in the last 8 years we have done nothing to improve social aspects of the united states that are well within our grasp to fix (Social security, education, the economy, and the one that bugs me the most... HEALTHCARE). obama will provide inexpensive healthcare to more americans than mc cain was proposing. as far as the other issues go, only time will tell how these topics get addressed.
im also glad to hear you will be backing obama and you are not one of those "crazy" conservative racist nutjobs who booooo everytime they hear obama's name, or chant "kill him" at rallys. we need more conservatives like yourself to give obama a chance and see how the man leads.
take care
Thanks for the comment William!
I certainly didn't say Bush made mistakes BECAUSE of bloggers. I even stated "Now, I'm not saying he was a fantastic president who was wrongly criticized or anything..."
He definitely made his own mistakes and they were documented by some, exaggerated by others, and even ignored by some who would support him no matter what. I was just mentioning that he had the type of coverage that no president had had up until his taking office.
As for Obama, I really hope he does a good job. I'm not sure about the inexpensive healthcare you mentioned. I hope that you're not pulling for national healthcare because that just will not work. However, anything else that brings healthcare costs down I'm all for!
Go Obama! and Palin in 2012! j/k
palin was the downfall of mc cain, had he not picked her, i think the race would have been alot closer. i think also, that clinton was "put under the microscope" just as much as bush was. so its not just a republican/democrat thing, its something that a country should do. looking over our leaders is a great idea for the people.
and no, im not for "socialized" health care, but i am for insurance coverage for all including preexisting conditions and for preventative care.
i sent you a message on facebook a week or so back wondering what you liked about mc cains polocies, and i hadnt heard anything back from you... would you care to elaborate now?
Ah, I had a hunch you were the "William" I thought you were :)
Stop trying to bait me...I'm trying to work! :)
Clinton was under the same media scrutiny but not by the general public. Again, I was just commenting on how now there are millions of people with easy access (blogs) to making their opinions/thoughts known to everyone in the world, not just to those around their dinner table. That was all I was trying to say. Nothing about Republicans getting more scrutinized than Democrats or anything like that.
i kinda figured that was the point of your comment...
slow day for me in lab, so discussing your blog is keeping me busy!!
hope all's well
Hey - posted this elsewhere in the context of being proud of my country, and some lib said you don't always have to be proud of your country if it does something wrong.
"I understand where you're coming from, but saying I'm always proud of being an American doesn't mean I'm always happy with the decisions made by our country, and doesn't mean I'm always proud of my country... I think you're confusing my being proud with my praise and approval. It's more a state of mind, a sense of optimism that I have that no matter how bad things are that I still live in the best country in the world where anything is possible. I tend to think that my country is trying to do its best with the information is available... I thought that with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and what I remember of Carter. No matter how much I disagree with Obama I don't think he is out to destroy America like some on the right do, but I can certainly disagree with his policy and be a member of the loyal opposition. "
Derek, couldnt agree more. As much as it pains me to see McCain/Palin lose, I will be supportive of President Obama. Having said that, I will never feel compelled to agree with a policy of his that I believe is not in the best interest of our nation. I also agree that he is not out to destroy our country, far from it. I believe that he has many of the same goals for America that I do, where we part ways is how best to achieve them.
I do have concerns about the leadership style Obama may adopt. (I am forced to future tense as I dont see much of a history of leading so far. I dont mean that as a jab... just a fact) One of the toughest jobs any leader has is to make decisions that may appear costly (and may in fact be costly)on an individual basis that are for the benefit of the larger group as a whole. He,BO, has been a personality figure thus far in his career, one who seems more interested in how people feel about him the "icon" than about him the "leader". Frankly, I may be tempted to feel the same way. He was just elected to the highest position in the world, (in my estimation) as one of the most underqualified (on paper)candidates in American history. He won this election based almost solely on the perceived shortcomings of the current administration... and his own personality. This wasn't an election about issues save the economy. (This became apparent when you asked an Obama supporter why they are voting FOR Obama... every answer starts the same way "Well, George Bush did...." "William" is a great example.
But back to my concerns :)
Obama needs to ditch the "everybody wins" line of thinking. That is not how the world operates and it is not how effective leaders lead. Good example would be the bailout of GM and the rest of the auto industry. The tough but correct response is to let GM go under. Sucks I know, but where does it stop? First the banks, then the auto industry, whats next... the airlines? Bottom line, GM is a great place to draw the line in the sand. Perfect time for Obama to act presidential... of course the odds of him doing that are slim in this instance.
As far as fixing the economy-this one is aimed directly at "William" - the right answer is to lower taxes for everybody. This requires a major shift in liberal thinking. ***take notes William*** Every dollar collected in taxes is paid by hard working Americans. Don't think in terms of corporate taxes, payroll taxes or capital gains taxes.... think only taxes. Money falls into two groups, the money that you earn and the money that the government takes from what you earn. They take it in one of two ways... higher product and service cost or lower wages/income.(Distorting this relationship is one way that President Elect Obama has gained a great deal of favor from people who think the govenments primary role is to act as an intermediary between employer and employee... going so far as to take on the role of employer with this government sponsored infrastructure rebuild initiative.) Bottom line is government needs to get out of the way of the free market model. Do we need taxes on some level, of course we do. Just remember, how much MORE control do we want to give the same people who brought us the social security debacle (Which by the way "William" GW DID try to get the house and senate to present legislation to fix)the IRS and the DMV?!?!?!
Sorry... I have been drinking and blog-commenting. I need one of those tubes you blow in to start your computer. :)
Sorry Derek, long comment. Great blog entry.
Will be supportive of Obama but outspoken in necessary descent.
thanks for your comments ED, and im glad to hear you will be supporting obama although you are clearly a republican. your comment that "Bottom line is government needs to get out of the way of the free market model" does not address the tax issue... except to possibly say that there should be no taxes. please explain if you could.
i would also like to make specific examples of why i chose obama. i am a research scientist whos job depends on government funding. 1) if mc cain became president, he would have put a "spending freeze" on money that i would use for my research, making it increasingly difficult to maintain my research and my ability to be competitive. 2) palin specifically stated she was to cut fruit fly research. i am a fruit fly researcher, and was hugely offended by this comment. 3) i dont believe that corporations deserve a tax break when they are already making record earnings. 4) obama had the insight to recruit biden as his running mate, someone to help obama in foreign policy, and help with his "lack of experience"; mc cain (must have drew a name out of a hat) chose someone who could potentially steal clinton votes and evangelical conservative value votes (she was clearly not piked for anything "policy" oriented, because her foreign policy experience is clearly a joke, if you say differently, we have a real issue).
anyway... im glad to hear you will be supporting obama, i hope he doesnt disappoint and if he does... i wanna hear about it here on these pages!!! thanks derek!!!
William, I will be happy to clarify my tax position. Taxes are necessary, as I mentioned in the previous blog comment. The differences in the way that you and I think of government and taxes are (correct me if I am wrong):
1. You think that government is better able to manage the spending of American earnings than Americans themselves.
2. You said " i dont believe that corporations deserve a tax break when they are already making record earnings."
a. Have you seen the stock market lately??? who is earning record profits outside of the oil industry? Market is down 30% this year.
b. Why wouldn't you applaud ALL tax breaks? regardless of who gets it? Why is it your/the governments job to determine what is "too successful" and in need of higher taxes? I have a retirement account designed to help put my 2yr old through college, I LOVE high profits. More help for the college fund! You of all people should like profits too! If you met a scientist (trying hit close to home with this :) )from the oil industry who works in R&D to develop cleaner oil exploration would you feel comfortable telling him that HIS budget should be cut because his company was too successful and should have to give more $ to the government?? Probably not.
c. Tax cuts lead to higher government revenue. (This is the toughest one for Dems to understand.)Two examples of how:
During the Clinton years, the dems decided that they would impose a "luxury tax". This killed the sale of "luxury" items... rich people just stopped buying them. The additional tax (of I believe 30%) above the normal tax rate essentially cost the government the original normal tax revenue portion of the sale. So higher taxes actually produced a net loss in $ collected. (Not to mention the real loss was the American jobs that disappeared with the drop in luxury item sales)Thankfully, the dems quickly reversed the tax and luxury sales picked back up)
Conversely, here is a Wisconsin example of how LOWER taxes increase revenue. Gov. Doyle decided that he would try to attract the movie industry to WI so they would produce movies here. (Actually a good idea I concede) His plan was a good one, lower taxes to film makers so that it is cheaper for them to make movies in WI... the end result, movie makers have begun coming to the Dairy State and we have, I am sure, seen a net GAIN in the $ collected by the state! Lower tax rates = higher tax revenue.
Here is one more example from WI that speaks to the effect of higher taxes in general... free of charge :)
Gov. Doyle wanted to lower the # of smokers in WI. (again, not a bad idea) His plan was to add a $1 per pack of smokes tax. His thinking was correct, if you increase the cost of an item or service, you will cause a drop in the use of that activity/item. So if I can expand that theory out a bit, why would anyone be a fan of payroll taxes? Capital gains taxes? As Obama is.
If we know that an increased tax on payroll will give incentive to an employer to lower their overall payroll spend via fewer employees or lower wages, how is that a good thing??
If we know that what the stock market needs is an influx of money to get us out of this funk we are in, why is it a good idea for Obama to raise the capital gains tax whereby he is lowering the incentive for Americans to invest in the market??? (Remember, higher taxes on a function = lower use of the function)More taxes on investing equates to less investing.
I recognize that as someone who depends on tax $ for his research the above examples may not sway you. But we can probably agree that the government can be a wasteful entity that has less at stake in how our money is spent than we do. So why increase their role in how our money is used??
As for Palin vs Biden, her foreign policy is certainly lacking... no doubt about it. But I will take a one term governer over a one term senator 10 times out of 10. And if McCain needed the foreign support from his VP, he would have tapped someone who has it.
Good banter, we learn so much more when we talk to people who disagree with us than with those who agree.
Take care William.
Two apologies:
1. My outline structure above derailed quickly... feel free to overlook that :)
2. To Derek, for a clear violation of appropriate use of a friends blog comment section. I dont know what the hand signal is for said violation but I am thinking "personal foul and 15 yards" is right on. I'll pace it off in my living room.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment
<< Home