Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Why I will Probably Vote for Romney

The fact that in November I will probably vote for Romney will probably surprise anyone who's read any of my political posts.

My reason for voting the way that I do differs from most Americans. I don't believe that the actual choice in President matters--at the end of the day it's Congress that gets things passed or not passed, independently of what the President says or wants. I look at the office of the President as being a way to motivate the non-political to get off their butts and care. Granted, this idea of mine is dependent on the polarization currently destroying our country, but I believe that the office of the President can also be used to close the gaps between ideologies.

I voted for Obama not because I was particularly impressed by his ideology, but because I didn't like the way McCain was so pro-war and because if we didn't reform Wall Street and Big Business we'd end up in the same economic situation again--the bailout was a necessary evil because the failure of regulation made money stop flowing. But more importantly, Obama seemed like he was playing a pivotal roll in American politics. He was getting the younger generation interested in politics and motivating the growing complacent older generation to stand up and say that they didn't want their children and grandchildren's liberalness to govern them. I voted for Obama because I knew in my gut that if he won, something big was going to happen in America. And I was right. The Tea Party was born just a couple months after his election.

American's (and really all humans) are largely governed by what they think not necessarily what is truth. I haven't done the research, but it seems obvious to me that many of those fears about a Democratic President that we heard about during the election and since haven't come to pass. Talking with my grandmother yesterday was interesting. She's opposed to mandating healthcare because it will put more people on Medicaid, even though the only difference between the current system and a system with more people on Medicaid is that people not currently with any sort of insurance only go to the hospital when they're dying (or think that they're dying) and if they had some form of insurance, they'd see a doctor for their once a year check-up and find things before their a major problem. Okay--and some government official might change the tax code to move the money you're paying the insurance company to subsidize the hospital's ability to take non-insured individuals to the Treasury to fund Medicaid, but really this would be just a technicality. THAT would be the worst case senario where nothing changes. The best case senario (and what is most likely) would be that health care costs would go down since instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on recovery from a massive heart attack, we could spend $10 a month on Lipitor pills. And yes--I mean we. Most of the money you pay in insurance goes to hospitals so that they can treat individuals who don't have insurance. But I digress.

I will vote for Romney because if he wins, the middle class might finally be convinced that tax breaks for the rich aren't in their best interests. UhhhhhhG. Shoot. Dammit. I'm sorry. My logic is faulty. The middle class won't learn anything because as soon as Romney wins the election, businesses will know that all taxes will be reduced and you will see a sudden upsweep in spending in their sector...spending that was cut when a Democrat took office not because he was actually going to tax their businesses, but because he was going to implement fair taxes to help cut the deficit--taking money not spent hiring people (money spent on Lamborginis (not an American made car) that were destroyed 3 months later). And laws trying to keep the mega-rich from putting their money into Swiss bank accounts. And reforms that would keep Wall Street from selling bad loans. When Romney takes office, business will once again rule our country.

I predict that the major battles in Congress will be about passing necessary reforms. They will be blocked by well paid lobbyists and nothing will change. Oh, you don't know about the power of Lobbyists to stop common sense reforms? Watch the video below.

Watch The Meth Epidemic on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Romney

Romney said something interesting the other day. He was asked if he or Obama was funnier (because of his possible appearance on SNL) and he didn't know him personally to be able to make a judgment. This got me thinking.

I propose that at some point during any campaign, all the candidates (fringe or not) regardless of their party affiliation, eat dinner together. It should be completely private, media free, and in neutral territory.

I think that 90% of the hateful speech is made during the campaign because they're making assumptions about the other. I mean heck, how well do the Republican candidates know each other personally? And they know Obama even less. Maybe if they got to know each other without a camera catching all the soundbites, they might understand eachother's positions a little be a little more progressive, instead of reductive.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Redundancies?

Obama is going to try to shrink government by getting rid of redundancies such as the Commerce Department. I'm sure even the least governmentally informed of this country know about Rick Perry's gaffe when he forgot the names of the departments he would end, so now that Obama is going to attempt such a feat, shouldn't he be happy? I haven't heard any replies, except from the collective that is the Republican Party, that says that Obama's only doing it because the Republican's wanted to first (yes, the is of course a stupid reason to do anything...sarcasm). I personally think that this is the best way for Obama to win the re-election--take everything on the Republicans' platforms and attempt to do them. If he can get them completed, then American's will like him. If he can't get them passed, then he proves that they are impossible promises and also makes congress look even more ineffective (if a Democratic President can't get Republican ideas passed in a split congress, then how could a Republican get the same laws passed?). It's a win-win situation.

Sorry for how dippy this sounds--I'm fuzzy headed today--stupid cold. I guess I should go back to melting crayons (got a Crayola Crayon Maker for Christmas)--not too much thinking in that.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Cathy's 2011-12 Political Predictions

I'm actually optimistic about the coming 2 years. And no, I'm don't classify myself as Republican. Here's why:

I'm pretty sure that the Republican's threw away the past 2 years. They did NOTHING that I can see to help Obama make better policy decisions--they threw him and the rest of congress under the bus.

The Democrats aren't Obama's type of people--they also threw him under the bus. They handed him crap and he had to sign it to get anything done.

Now, why do I think both parties tanked? Because the Democrats are a bit too idealistic and a bit too much government for the rest of America. They really should have pulled back on some things and would have had the Republicans actually pulled their weight. But they didn't because they have their head's stuck up their butts too often.

So, now that we have Republican majority in the House I expect better bills to come out. I'm not sure how the numbers work and how much Reps and Dems in the house will have to work together there, but with the Senate still belonging to the Dems, whatever hits the president's desk is going to HAVE to be bi-partisan.

So, we're going to see 1 of 2 things happen:
1) The dems and reps are going to actually work together and the country is going to prosper.
2)They're going to play chicken and see who blinks first and nothing will get accomplished.

In either case, it's going to be a hard sell in 2012 to say that Obama caused the issues, though maybe in the 2nd case I would expect him to get his butt to the Capital Building and show them who's boss.

I'm also extremely giddy to see what happens to the tea party backed candidates. I'm sad that it looks like they all ran as Republicans (I was hoping that they would make my life easy and actually get themselves together to run as a 3rd party)--it's made finding them in the election results difficult. But anyway, I fully expect that somewhere one or more of them is going to wake up one morning about 2 months into their term and wonder how on earth they are going to keep their word on the platforms that they ran on. How many said no to pork barrels? How exactly do they plan to get money to their localities without them?

By the way, I need to look into one candidate labeled "the mom in sneakers" because she's quite proud to be, what?, 9th in pork barreling. I'm glad that she's honest.