Obama the Pragmatic Moderate

[d-ray657]

That is the opinion of a writer from the American Enterprise Institute - not exactly known as a left wing think tank. Actually, it frightens me to be thinking along the same lines as someone from the AEI. I guess that's just what happens to pragmatic thinkers.

Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Thanks, Don. I passed it on to all of my folks. Most of them will hate me for it. Fuck'em, I couldn't care less.

Dave

[Zeke]

Concur.

[merrylander]

Now do you believe me?

[finnbow]

I read that article yesterday and was thinking Norm Ornstein is now going to have to watch his back. His truth-telling doesn't square with the narrative the GOP has been spouting. It's probably time for another excommunication (a la David Frum).

[Fast_Eddie]

Tough to read. The rhetoric has gotten pretty bad. He sure manages it well I think, but they're so out of control and have so many media mouth pieces they may be too much to stop. I'm really afraid for the country if these people ever actually get what they say they want.

Most prosperous country in the world, with more liberty than anyone, lower taxes than most Western nations and there are thousands of people marching on Washington with a vailed threat of armed isurrection. The people behind these messages know what they're doing, but the people on the ground are taking them at their word. They really believe they're over taxed and their freedom is at stake.

And what freedom exactly is it they've lost? Well, some of their personal privacy I guess, but that's not Obama's doing. I'm not clear if they can still be held without being charged as they could under the previous administration, but again, can't lay that at Obama's feet. What significat program do they want eliminated? Millitary spending? I don't see signs for that, even though it would be the easiest place to cut spending in a massive way. Social Security? You'd have to change the law to cut it, but I don't see the signs for that either. I hope they run a Republican on a "Kill Social Security" platform but I know I won't see that. Medicade/Medicare? Well, same thing.

So there's the bulk of the budget. If we killed everything else it wouldn't make a huge difference in anyone's tax burden. So what is it they want exactly? As they march past the monuments and memorials, what is it they want to change?

The questions that will never be answered. Because there are no good answers. They're just angry because someone told them to be angry but never explained why. Reagan told them that taxes were too high. Maybe they were. But they were lowered again and again. What other country has done a better job? If there's an example out there I'd love to explore how they're doing it and what we can learn from them. But I don't see them holding up any example.

As I've said before, I think America is a dang good place to live. Feel like I won the lottery being born here. Should we continue to srtive to make things better? Sure- and the health care reform legislation is a great start. But wholesale changes to America? No thank you. I'm good. The only big thing I'd like to see change is the preception of our great nation in some corners of the world. And yes, I think Obama is a better person to take that on than we've had in a while.

[finnbow]

Good post, Ed. This "overtaxed" notion is, at least in part, an outgrowth of the "Starve the Beast" ideology put forth by His Holiness, Ronald Reagan. Cut revenue flow to government (i.e., taxes) and government programs/expenditures will be forced to shrink. They figured out the first part (cutting taxes), but never even tried the second (reducing spending). What resulted is a widely held belief that we can have all the government we want, but we don't need to pay for it.

The "poster child" pork projects (e.g., bridges to nowhere) have helped perpetuate the myth that tinkering around the edges on government spending will get us where we need to go in terms of fiscal responsibility. As fiscally irresponsible as the Dem's are, they are paragons of virtue and truth when compared to the perpetrators of the big lie being foisted upon the unwashed masses (e.g., the Tea Partiers).

[d-ray657]

If you want to eliminate an outdated or failed arms system you are weak on defense. However, if you want to eliminate social security, you campaign on "improving" it by privatizing it, and allow Wall Street to get its cut while SS slowly dies. Besides, the rich don't want to change the way SS is funded. The SS tax is the most regressive we have. Not only do all of the lower income earners pay at the same level, the richest only pay on a portion of their income.

What the article didn't really address is that much of the misinformation about Obama sticks because he does not fit the profile of a moderate leader. It's easy to play on even latent prejudices to label a black man as someone outside of the norm. I am not saying that all who disagree with the President do so because of his race, or that even a majority do. I do believe, however, that people are more willing to accept slander against one different from themselves.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Good post, Ed. This "overtaxed" notion is, at least in part, an outgrowth of the "Starve the Beast" ideology put forth by His Holiness, Ronald Reagan.

Completely agree with your post. Might be time to give Congress their check book back. The collection folks are calling.

[piece-itpete]

How much is enough?

Pete

Wiki.