The idea for this post spawned several titles:
Your Government Doesn't Care
Politicians Don't Give a Damn
Politicians Don't Give a Shit
Politicians Don't Give a Fuck
Fuck You, Vote for ME!!!
I could go on with this, pages of this, except the titles would just get longer and more obscene. I think you probably get the point though. I'll expand so as not to just leave you with my wit (or lack thereof).
In short, there are a large number of people that believe the role of the government is to take care of people. The landscape of the past 80 years is littered with the wreckage of a "caring" and "compassionate" government. This goes all the way from New Deal government intervention to the War on Poverty to government-funded "social justice" to No Child Left Behind, to the discussions in the present about what government should "do for people" (as in government health care and bailouts for examples).
There's just one problem: For the most part, the people charged with this duty have one goal. That goal is to get reelected.
Now in my analysis of the faults lying in our particular flavor of capitalism yesterday, much of the blame falls to a government that has failed to respond to the calls of its dwindling number of constituents that call for government to stick to what it's supposed to do. Instead, they respond to people like this:
Now we've all seen this particularly stupid Obamaton. The sad part is that she's not alone, and not just found on the liberal side of the aisle. I checked my two senators, and strangely, both of them (George Voinobitch (R) and Sherrod (the color of shit) Brown (D), invest themselves in the idea government being able to "solve" problems (Brown being the worse of the two of course). And there are plenty of people who see the flow from Washington as something they have a "right" to.
It's something I liken to an addiction (having this particular failing myself). It's EASY to get the government to give you stuff if you don't succeed otherwise. And just like the dealer you hit up for your fix, the politician expects something (votes) back. And he cares just as much.
I shudder when I hear about someone asking what the government will do for them, when a politician talks about making government work FOR people, when promises of goodies from the Washington grab bag come down the pike, or anyone talks about government solving problems in the private sector (like creating or saving jobs). I shudder because I know that these things never pan out to what they're sold as, and because they demand a price down the road.
Our country has fought over the power of a central government versus the power of the states. We've survived division on that basis to form our constitutional government, fought a war over it, then proceeded to dismantle the remaining safeguards against relying on someone too far away (like the 17th Amendment, which made the Senators form Ohio my representatives in Washington rather than the state's representatives.
All this has done is to further isolate people who were once held accountable (and maybe tarred and feathered) when they stopped representing people and started working to just be reelected. Because it meant the reason they gave a rats ass about us at all (the whole vote thing) was pretty much washed away.
So those of you who believe in a caring and compassionate government that does things for us because it's the right thing to do, please explain how you rationalize this. And if you can't, then tell me why you want to give them more power over you. Skip the specific policy battles here, because if you get this point, you'll understand why I have so many problems with the specific policies we're debating today.
14 comments:
"We're from the government, we're here to help you"
Everybody hates me Patrick...everyone. So, that means I do not have relatives hitting me up for money and it means I will have to settle for cremation when I die because I will never find six pall bearers...
Cremation is surely better for the environment anyway.
Dmarks: That's my favorite Great Lie!
Tao: Most of us don't hate you. And I would be proud to drive down and be your pallbearer when you are cremated. I'll even promise not to use the urn as a chamber pot. :)
Soapster: Burning stuff is recycling!
I'll help carry your casket TAO. It would probably be a great funeral. You're not leaving anything to anyone that hates you so that's more money to spend on a great send off for you.
Patrick my friend, allow me to straighten you out here on the benefits of a government that cares about you.
How many health insurance companies are lining up to insure your kids simply because you are an American and are in a tough situation? Is your employer helping you out with this?
I don't know about Ohio my friend, but you're only recommended to eat no more than a few fich taken from the Mississipi River each month because of industrial pollution. 40 years or so ago companies dumped PCB's into the waters of Michigan. I don't know if you can even eat any fish from it's waters.
Although I have stock and a few voting shares in several companies, the wealthiest and largest stockholders control the company direction and how much CEO's get paid. It's nice knowing that although the rich guy has far more influence than you or I will ever have on government, at least in the voting booth our votes are worth the same as his.
Life's dealt you some bad cards Patrick. I've had my share also. It's good to know we have a government of and by the people that is willing to help us out when we need it. And has the resources to help also.
101: You didn't explain how you rationalize that the government cares. In fact, in your rush to kick the EEVIL corporate CEOs, you make my point for me. The government doesn't "care" because it has no reason to. It does have a reason to cater to those with the cash.
A responsive government whose goal it is to secure the rights of all individuals lest they get voted out would not be so tolerant of a company that pours shit into a water source.
As what I assume is Lake Michigan feeding crap into the Mississippi, it's because the CITY OF CHICAGO dug a canal so they could connect the lake to the river system and flush their shit down it. That's passing the buck, and it's where the other states should have been raising hell, and making Washington deal with the miscreant state.
And personally, I've dealt myself most of the bad cards to myself. It's really how you play your hand that matters, because even a shit hand can win sometimes. And I've never heard of the house (just the government) reshuffling the cards so everybody gets the same result.
You confuse the ignorance and loyalty of the right wing to corporate interests that pollute, don't want a national health care plan. Yet don't want to offer you affordable health insurance for your family through work either Patrick.
These creeps have hijacked government and used it to serve only themselves and not the Nation as a whole.
Your problem is with the republican party Patrick.
Truth 101 said: "Your problem is with the republican party Patrick."
And yet you say "These creeps have hijacked government and used it to serve only themselves and not the Nation as a whole. "
Which isn't a bad description of the Democratic Party (which actually runs government, so I suppose someone might say that they "hijacked" it) and their policies which are often bad for the nation (such as Reid and Pelosi's favoring of "reforms" that would damage health care).
Lest you forget 101, it is not the Right Wing that presently shares a bed with corporate interests.
Considering the Left's propensity for corporatism at present in their want for a command and control economy, coupled of course with their allegiance to union labor, education, and environmental wackos, your charges to the contrary don't quite hold up.
I have no problem with a government that supports working people. Protects the environment and supports education Soapboxgod.
How are a clean environment, good jobs with good wages and a properly funded and run education system bad for anybody?
Corporate interests schill for lax environmentla controls and anti union, anti working family legislation. I am consistent and concientious my friends.
Anti-union is pro-worker, really. Most workers in America say "union no", and half of those who are in unions are only members because they are forced in.
Anti-union is in the public interest.
101: You miss on two points.
First, I don't differentiate which party sucks the corporate tit (this goes for the Soapster and Dmarks too). Because both sides have people who do so. That's the point: our politicians don't fear getting the boot, because we let them.
And second:
How are a clean environment, good jobs with good wages and a properly funded and run education system bad for anybody?
Considering the government both fails at doing this, and is not responsible for making this happen, you're wasting time trying to justify the unjustifiable.
The environmental issues are used as reasons to nationalize, not preserve nature. Good jobs with good wages disappear because of government fixing and controlling wages (and killing jobs in the process). And we pour money and regulations into government education systems that continually get shittier (or did No Child Left Behind flip your dinger?).
The ONLY way to fix things is to require our representatives to empower the states and the people who are closest to the problem to fix it. Not add to the pile.
Oh, and if I wanted to push to get health care from my employer, it would probably cost me the job instead.
"Good jobs with good wages disappear because of government fixing and controlling wages (and killing jobs in the process)."
With close to twice as many administration "czars" now as existed in all of Russian history, each pulling down millionaire federal salaries, you can't outright say that "the government does not create jobs".
This silly czar list includes a health czar (he must command the surgeon general in the czarist army structure or something) and a Faith-Based Czar. Don't forget "Van the Terrible" Jones, with his great love of hate groups. His "green czar" title surely referred to the bills he lined his pocket with, as his cushy do-nothing job was the only "green job" that ended up created there.
"Oh, and if I wanted to push to get health care from my employer, it would probably cost me the job instead"
Definitely. The healthcare plan going through Congress contains provisions to encourage small business to cut wages and fire workers in order to cough up money for a healthcare plan.
There are many reasons that the healthcare bill should sputter out without in Congress passing, and the provisions that bully small business and employees are a part of that.
Shaw happens to be making a pretty good case against H.R. 3200 in her recent posts. Even if you look at just the "true" and "partly true" ones alone, these are very very bad.
Such as pg 167, the part where the government punishes individuals for not choosing a healthcare plan of the government's choice. Great way to mandate "univeral healthcare", guys, with such a tax penalty provision that will force many families to loose their homes or go hungry in order to meet the federal government's one-size-fits few family budget standard.
That's pretty scary, when the federal government gets into the business of meddling in family budget priorities. This is big brotherish and I believe it is an unprecedented intrusion. It is also a usage of tax policy not for necessary government revenue, but as a hammer for government to smash individuals.
Post a Comment