| 11/17/08 02:31 PM |
#160
|
|
Carri Blodgett (Crowe)
At the risk of making enemies (or friends), I'll state my perspective & do what I can to maintain a civil discourse on this "taboo" topic (thanks, Greg!?!)
I'm unfamiliar with that 401(k) plan, probably because it's a just one proposal in a sea of ideas at this point. Personally, I don't buy into the fear-mongering - charges that an Obama administration will take away our guns, or rob us of our 401(k)s, or tax us into oblivion, or redistribute wealth under a pseudo-socialist regime. I could prove to be wrong, but currently I think it's all speculative hype with little substance coming from right-wing "screaming heads" on Fox News and talk radio.
On the charge of changing one's direction to suit voters - and I don't know what specific issue you are referring to - isn't that what politicians all do? In fact, isn't it what they are supposed to do, that is, reflect and represent the will of their constituent voters? Frankly, if everyone in my district opposed the bailout and our congressman still voted for it based on his own "principles" I'd be outraged. I agree that having principles is important, but in representative government I don't think those principles should necessarily always dictate where an elected representative stands on an issue. Furthermore, if someone has an opinion, and they later learn more information that changes that opinion, I'm all for it. I think politicians, and people, should always have an open enough mind to weigh the data and make the right choice, even if it means changing their mind and admitting they initially had it wrong.
I agree that important issues of improving this country and the lives of our citizens are at stake. I feel certain obligations should rest on the shoulders of a government by, for and of the people. That's why I believe government needs to fix health care and education and Social Security; and I'm willing, if necessary, to pay slightly higher taxes for the government to stabilize those pillars of human existence. I'm jealous of European and Asian countries that have better health care systems than ours and better care for their elderly and children. I'm embarrassed by a country that funds war in the 100s of billions of dollars, but won't provide a few million for low-income children's health care. I personally believe slightly (we are only talking slightly higher rates) higher taxes on the wealthy will help bring the federal budget closer to being under control; and I believe it is fair for that burden to fall on the wealthiest group of taxpayers, who have benefited generously from the Bush tax cuts at the expense of our country's burgeoning budget deficit.
I'm tired of living in a country that routinely exalts (and legislates measures that ensure) redistribution of wealth upwards, but is appalled & cries "Socialist!" at any notion of redistribution downward to help those in need (not all of these folks are lazy, good for nothings). Measures like the ones being discussed & implemented in some cases (the bailout) don't equate to "socialism" as everyone is so quick to accuse. I think it's fair to say that certain societal structures are so important that their provision should not be left entirely to purely capitalistic, market-driven forces. Our system ALREADY DOES THIS in MANY ways, yet no one wages accusations of socialism when we talk about generous farm subsidies or tax deductions or the earned income credit, etc...
The problem is, if you don't care for those in the lowest income brackets and the division of wealth becomes too great in a nation, people become too desperate, and then you'll see things like social unrest, revolution and terrorism take root. How often are wealthy countries, with a moderate (as opposed to widely divided) distribution of wealth involved in violent, internal conflict? Rarely. But look at countries with huge disparities of wealth and there is frequent unrest and violence. You need some subsistence level support to provide for the population's basic needs or the society becomes too polarized, with too many people who have little or nothing to lose by raging against the system. I have felt our country become more divided and unstable in the last 8 years - that trend is what I'm afraid of.
I don't think Obama is a savior and I know he doesn't have all the answers. But I do generally trust his judgment & believe in his effectiveness as a leader with the right interests at heart.
I agree we can't tax our way to prosperity, but how do we define prosperity? Is it enrichment for some greedy hedge-fund managers and oil company executives, big companies & "good capitalists" getting bigger & wealthier & more powerful (and hoping for the trickle-down), or is it raising the standards of living and quality of life for our entire population by ensuring they have their basic human needs met? Given the choice, I favor an administration that errs towards the latter definition: that of prosperity for all.
|
|
