To catch you up, here's been the conversation so far, from my friend B's page (all of my responses are in bold and i've also added some ongoing comments to the conversation in [brackets]):
B: I got an email today saying that in an effort to show Obama that the people of the US are tired of his shoving things down our throats we should all boycott the State of the Union address tomorrow night... food for thought...
From someone on the other side of the political fence, I'm curious as to what things you're referring to. Personally, I'm dissapointed in the president's first year in office too, but it stems from his office's abandonment of what little there was of the progressive stance he took on some issues during the election. What do you think he's shoved down your throat?
(Not trying to pick a fight here or anything, just genuinely curious.)
(new poster) A: i can't listen to Obama he makes me want to vomit!! PS can you say health care, socialism! They don't care that the American People don't want it. They are trying to further their socialist agenda and they don't what America stands for.
(new poster) C: I always boycott the state of the union address....
Three things, A
a. Define "socialist agenda"
b. What's left in the healthcare bill that resembles socialism? The public option's out. Expanding medicare and medicaid's out. Redundant anti-abortion and anti-immigrant coverage is in. What's left to call socialist? (For the record, i'm not fond of what's left of the bill either.)
c. Which American people are you talking about? Obama ran on a univeral-healthcare ticket and the majority of American people voted for him. Gallup still polls a majority of Americans want their legislators to support the healthcare bill.
B: Judd ~ I won't even pretend to be mildly informed about this... I was simply repeating what was told to me. I don't care for Obama, at all, that I will state, simply because I can't see where the changes he is trying to make are for the greater good... This country is not headed up, I feel. I knew this would stir someone up, but posted it anyhow... See More, and deeply wish I could fire back with some sort of highly informed info, but cannot. serves me right for sticking my neck out without backup! I seldom watch the news even, so that is that! But I still don't agree with Obama. Call me stubborn republican!
[I really wasn't trying to pick a fight at this point. I was just mildly curious to hear how B would back up her intitial post. So I wrote the following in response]
no worries. i'm not stirred up, i was just curious. it's one thing to to hear people arguing on tv or the internet, but i also like to hear contradictory opinions from people i know and respect.
[then A showed up again]
A: a)They are advocates for socialsim. This is when you possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. They want a system where they take from the American people who work hard and give to those who don't. This presidence is all about making people rely on the government for everything. They need to make people stand on their own to feet and support themselves. They have created a welfair state. California is a great example of what is going to happen to the whole country if we continue down this road. They are going to break this country and we are all going be be screwed. If they don't turn things around it will happen.
b)It is a good thing all of those things are out because they will break this country!! If it wasn't for Scott Brown they would still be trying to pass this through. The people of Massachusets has state run health care so if that doesn't say something i don't know what does. The demacates know they don't have the votes and that is why the want to back off. It is a little disterbing that they had to bribe Senator to vote for it. They were willing to jam a half ass bill through so they could have a place to start. There is nothing about the bill that is good when they started or when they finisher. They need to reform health care not re-shape it. They need to get a handle on insurance companies and bring cost down. People need to make there own way and support themselves. I don't expect anyone to pay for anything that i consume. People should work hard and live with in their means.
c)Obama ran on a Hope and Change ticket. He made the American people think he was going to change goverment and he hasn't. He promised to make things more transparent and clearly that isn't happening. You as a Obama supporter are clearly not happy with what you voted for. Im not sure on those Gallup polls, that isn't what i have heard. I think the wide spread outspokeness of the American people at massive tea parties and town hall meets paints a clear picture of what the America people think. You are right I think a lot of people believed in Obama and the plat form he ran on but he hasn't done a thing he said he was going. He has done nothing positive or productive in his time in office. He is the worst president in the history of this country!!!
[at this point, I'm dying to jump in here. Alas, resolution. So I copied and pasted A's reply into a word file, and inserted my own steely logic directly into her arguements, and resolved to dirty up my own webspace instead of poor B's]
a)They are advocates for socialsim. I’m sure they, the democratic members of Congress (which is what I’m assuming you’re talking about), would have a different theory about this. Most would say (maybe not the blue dogs) that they’re advocates of social contract; that is, ‘an agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.’ Call it socialism, communism, or whatever other scary buzzword Glenn Beck is using this week, pitching in and being an active part of your government isn’t sinister. In my mind it’s the responsibility of all citizens to do their part.
This is when you possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. In a totalitarianistic sense that’s true. But that’s socialism on a Police State level, not on, say, as single-payer healthcare level. Socialism is already an intrinsic part of our society, whether you like it or not. Public roads, parks, emergency services, Social Security, the FDA; they're all varying degrees of socialism.
They want a system where they take from the American people who work hard and give to those who don't. Here I’m assuming you’re talking about the president and Congress’ plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So when you say ‘American people that work hard,’ you’re talking about individuals who clear over $250,000 a year (also known as the wealthiest 5 percent in the nation). And when you say ‘give it to those who don’t,’ you’re then referring to working-class people; those who make at or near minimum wage. Those who can’t get on full-time with their employers because it would make them eligible for health insurance, so they work two or three part time jobs to get by. Work ethic can’t be measured by income or by need. That’s a route the greedy take to justify their avarice.
This presidence is all about making people rely on the government for everything. I disagree. If I can’t afford health insurance, or if I need food stamps to get by while I’m looking for a better job, then I’ll take the help. Consequently, when I’m in a position later in life to help others who can’t afford health insurance or need food stamps to get by while THEY look for a better job, I’m not going to begrudge them. It’s people relying on people.
They need to make people stand on their own to feet and support themselves. Which is the goal of most welfare programs, actually; to help people get on their feet and provide them with the skills to fend for themselves.
They have created a welfair state. No offense, I don’t know your personal situation, but this sounds like it comes from someone who’s never had to choose between paying the electricity bill or eating lunch for the week. It’s nowhere near as black and white as you make it out to be. Sure, there are some abusers within the system. But they’re the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of people who have to accept some type of charity make it a point not to make it a habit.
California is a great example of what is going to happen to the whole country if we continue down this road. I disagree (big surprise, right). California’s in a tough spot, that’s true. But it doesn’t have anything to do with some phantom socialist menace. They took a tremendous blow when the housing bubble popped. And thanks to a lack of solid progressive tax structure, the knockout punch came in the form of a drastic dropoff on income and especially sales tax (the state’s primary income base). Socialism and welfare doesn’t have anything to do with how that cookie’s crumbling.
They are going to break this country and we are all going be be screwed. If they don't turn things around it will happen. Again, I think you’re taking an overly pessimistic, doomsday stance on this. They’re in a pickle, that’s true. It’s gonna suck getting out of it. I’m guessing the solution will have a good deal to do with tax reform and (hopefully) the tax revenue generated off of legalized marijuana. But I don’t think they’ll be dragging the rest of the country down into some debtor’s hell. That’s Glenn Beck logic.
b)It is a good thing all of those things are out because they will break this country!! So at this point, what’s the harm to you? Are you worried that forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and allowing policies to be carried over from one job to the next will be the end of the American way of life? I don’t see the connection.
If it wasn't for Scott Brown (who I promise you, will be referred to as a RINO by the end of the year) they would still be trying to pass this through. Oh, they still are. There’s always reconciliation. That’s how Bush got his upper-class tax cuts passed when he came in to office.
The people of Massachusets has state run health care (which, ironically, was the brainchild of then GOP Governor Mitt Romney) so if that doesn't say something i don't know what does. Oh, it says something, but not what you think. It says the progressive stronghold of voters that is Massachusetts felt that Congress had shunned them by watering the bill down into a chopped up piece of crap, so they decided to take their ball and go home, so to speak. It’s not that the GOP has had some kind of sudden influx of people coming around to their way of thinking. It’s that Democrats and progressive independents are feeling disillusioned by the democratically controlled Congress and White House’s inability to get stuff done.
The demacates know they don't have the votes and that is why the want to back off. Like I said, reconciliation. The only reason they haven’t yet is because the president is still pandering to the Right, for some reason.
It is a little disterbing that they had to bribe Senator to vote for it. I agree with you here. The Ben Nelson Nebraska exemption thing was shitty. But for the record, he later came to his senses on the issue and amended the bill so that Nebraska’s no longer exempt from paying their way.
They were willing to jam a half ass bill through so they could have a place to start. See, I don’t buy this conspiracy theory crap. The bill is what it is. It’s not a foot in the door for a socialist takeover, it’s an attempt to wrest healthcare away from insurance companies who are currently making a fortune off of our health and wellbeing (how effective the bill will actually be is debatable, but the intention is clear). There’s not some secret clause that will grandfather in a KGB when we’re not looking.
There is nothing about the bill that is good when they started or when they finisher. Good before: public option, universal coverage, lowered medical costs, no denial of healthcare due to pre-existing conditions. Good after: universal coverage, no denial of healthcare due to pre-existing conditions. Obviously the bill was a hell of a lot better before than after, but there are still good bits in it.
They need to reform health care not re-shape it. The literal definition of reform is to change the shape. The changes need to be massive. Tort reform and out-of-state buying won’t cut it. They need to get a handle on insurance companies and bring cost down. Agreed. People need to make there own way and support themselves. I don't expect anyone to pay for anything that i consume. People should work hard and live with in their means. See section A for what I have to say about this.
c)Obama ran on a Hope and Change ticket. Yeah. There was a hell of a lot more to it than that.
He made the American people think he was going to change goverment and he hasn't. I see your point, but I’m on the fence on this one. On one hand, he’s kept a lot of the policy of his predecessor. Which sucks. On the other, his administration and his worldview rhetoric (if maybe not yet his policy) has done wonders to improve our international image. We’re no longer the paranoid French-hating imperialists that we were for most of W.’s reign of terror. On the other, we’ve still got W.’s war policy to contend with. It’s an inherited mess, that’s true, but I would have rather the president take things in a direction other than perpetual sustainment.
He promised to make things more transparent and clearly that isn't happening. I’d say that his Open Government Directive is still a work in progress, but thus far you’re right. Hopefully with this new hardline stance on the financial sector we’ll see more transparency and accountability.
You as a Obama supporter are clearly not happy with what you voted for. Yeah, but for totally different reasons than yours. Don't get me wrong, he's a million times better than the alternative. But he’s not liberal enough, in my opinion. Let’s see a withdrawal from Afghanistan, legalized gay marriage, a national cutback in fossil fuels and carbon emmisions of at least 25 percent, union support in non-union friendly states and single-payer healthcare for starters. Of course, I knew that wasn’t going to happen when I voted for him in November, the President’s a Centrist, not a liberal. But a guy can dream, right?
Im not sure on those Gallup polls, that isn't what i have heard. Here’s the link, read ‘em for yourself.
I think the wide spread outspokeness of the American people at massive tea parties and town hall meets paints a clear picture of what the America people think. Thank you, Fox News. This is the conservative base you’re talking about, in all it screaming, hyperbolic glory. They’re certainly out there. But they’re still only a fraction of the nation, as much as Fox News doctors footage to pretend otherwise.
You are right I think a lot of people believed in Obama and the plat form he ran on (still do. It’s only been a year, for god's sake), but he hasn't done a thing he said he was going. You’ve kind of got me here. He’s had several stalls some of his major initiatives, like closing Guantanamo, getting a healthcare bill through, and getting to work on climate control. But is that his fault, or the fault of the political opposition, which has literally kicked and screamed and held its breath in a temper-tantrum since he’s taken the oath of office? I suspect the latter.
He has done nothing positive or productive in his time in office. That really depends on where you look. For starters, he scrapped the F-22 program, he improved our country’s global image, he got China to commit to some respectable (but not great) environmental accommodations, he won a Nobel Peace Prize, introduced and implemented the stimulus package, and he’s just lately overseen a massive aid endeavor to Haiti. There are plenty more I could list, but this reply’s beginning to get a bit long. One question you should ask yourself is, has he done nothing positive or productive, or has he just done nothing that benefits me personally.
He is the worst president in the history of this country!!! Really? Because I can think of a pretty horrible one without even trying. The one I’m thinking of ignored FBI warnings which resulted in the worst attack on American Soil since Pearl Harbor, then after invading one country he cut-and-ran to invade another country that had nothing to do with the attack in the first place. He justified it by lying and saying this other country had weapons of mass destruction, and that they were a heartbeat away from destroying us and our freedoms. After that he sat on his hands while a whole city drowned in a hurricane. He did it again when the free-market cronyism market that he helped to establish and maintain fell apart right when he was leaving office.
Guess who I’m thinking of?
[I have, of course, invited A to continue this conversation in the comments section if she so chooses. Which, hopefully she will. So stay tuned.]
