It's no secret that I'm a supporter of President Obama. Those who don't want to support him certainly have a right to their own opinions, but I'm amused by the people who think they can simply deny he is now our President. I grew out of the whole If-I-Don't-See-You-Then-You-Aren't-There mentality before Kindergarten.
I'm also tired of being told by the outspoken Nobamas that I should not voice my support, because by doing so I'm automatically naive and think he's omniscient (I'm not and I don't), and that by supporting the President, I'm unamerican and a socialist (again, I'm not and I'm not). I also find it ironic that most of these unamerican accusations come from people who think it's ok to deny homosexuals their "unalienable right to...the pursuit of happiness," but that's another issue for another day.
I'm not going to agree with everything Obama says or does. He was my choice for President because I agreed with him on more issues than McCain. Obama is a stout supporter of education issues and the need to reform a well-intentioned but poorly administrated program. McCain wanted to ignore a problem he didn't believe existed. Obama wants to change things that aren't working. McCain wanted to keep things pretty much the same. Obama wants to socialize medicine. I think that's something that should be explored in order to protect our "unalienable right to life...." And I don't see anything Obama is doing that will endanger our right to liberty. That being said, I didn't agree with him on 100% of the issues so naturally I'm not going to agree with everything he does. I don't think that makes me hypocritical or unsupportive. And for those of you who are going to jump on the "You said you're not a socialist but you support socialized medicine" argument, let me say that I am also in favor of public education...which could also be correctly labeled "socialist education." Yes, certain aspects of our society should be socialized, NOT society as a whole. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"--health and education are critical elements of those rights that we hold dear.
So for the record, here is where I currently stand:
Things that we should not be arguing about:
- A $500,000 salary cap on executives of companies that are being bailed out by government money: Apparently, all this talent is going to go somewhere where it can be paid millions of dollars and get Las Vegas getaways and free cars. Then the companies left "talentless" are going to tank...period. Well, if these top execs were so talented, then they wouldn't need the government and the "little people" to bail out the companies that they couldn't manage to run profitably. Let them leave. (Assuming they can find a job--what flourishing company is going to hire someone who helped drive a company under and then bailed when they were asked to show a little personal sacrifice?) But if by some miracle, they move on to a new multi-million dollar company to ruin, and these failing companies that are left behind manage to find someone who's willing to do the same job for a paltry half-million a year, we might actually be dealing with a person who isn't obsessed with his/her own personal greed. Once the company is back on track and has paid back the government money, then it becomes a private industry and can pay whatever it wants in salaries, which may just help to motivate these poor new execs during this difficult time of $500,000-per-year budgeting.
- The tax issues of Cabinet nominees: people lie. Obama is not omniscient. The truth came out, they're gone, and now there's room for more honest people in their places. The fact that Obama didn't make excuses or try to keep them on is proof that he is committed to the high standards he has set for himself and his people.
- The need for improved child health care. These kids whose parents can't afford health care didn't choose to be born. They'll suffer enough for their parent's stupidity in other ways and in other places; they should at least be healthy in the mean time.
Things we should be questioning:
- Using tobacco money to support the child health care improvements: This is going to hit the poor the hardest. Poverty studies show that when individuals and families live below the poverty line, they tend to value entertainment above other things. This means that when you walk into a poor area, you're going to see nice cars with thousands of dollars of enhancements and a great alarm system, gaming systems and expensive televisions in the living room, iPhones and Blackberries, great stereo systems, etc. Meanwhile, the kids are eating ramen noodles and wearing too-small clothes that were bought for them last year at the Salvation Army. Poverty is usually caused by the failure to manage money well. The majority of smokers are beneath the poverty level. Raising taxes on cigarettes is not going to reduce smoking--this entire plan is counting on smokers continuing to shell out more money for the same product. Smoking budget goes up, Joe Smoker compensates by taking it out of the food/clothing fund, kids suffer. I think smoking is disgusting, and I think we need to do more to stop it, but I'm opposed to anything that wants to raise the tax on smoking. It won't prevent/reduce smoking, and innocent dependents are the ones who are going to get the brunt of it.
- Delaying Digital TV: This shouldn't even be an issue. Get your free converter box from your cable company. Now you're fine. You've had months and months to do this. The people who waited this long are the same people who are going to wait until after the next deadline as well. More time isn't going to solve any of the potential problems, so let's get it over with and just rip off the band-aid. I don't even know why this should be something the President is worrying about.
Something we should appreciate:
- A President who is willing to go on the record and say "I screwed up." No excuses, no justification or rationalization, just a simple statement of human fault. "I screwed up." He could have rationalized his ingorance of his cabinet nominees' tax history, but he just admitted he was wrong. Bush screwed up all the time. Did he say it? No. He wouldn't even pronounce "nuclear" correctly, which only solidified his ideas that his way was the right way because he was the President. After all, if he suddenly started saying it right, people would notice and then everyone would know that he was wrong about something, which would completely undermine his authority. (At least that's how I think he saw it.) Then there was Clinton--"I didn't inhale." "I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman." Why he couldn't have just admitted that he did it and he was wrong is beyond me. The fact that he was clearly lying was the only reason people even cared and still remember about it. Meanwhile, Obama answered the pot question with "I inhaled--frequently--that was the point." He also admits to being an ex-smoker who uses Nicorette and still sometimes gives in to cravings. On both of these issues, the American public seems to be saying, "Thanks for being honest. Let's move on to things that are actually important." We're not wasting our time obsessing about how the President lied to us. So no, Obama is not a deity flying in on some winged mythical creature to save the day, and he is able to stand in front of a camera and admit that he's an actual fallible human being. I have to say that I like that.
3 comments:
Like usual, we'll have to agree to disagree on these statements of yours. I do agree w/ you that cigarettes shouldn't be taxed in excess. However, we have different reasons for this. You say they shouldn't be taxed because this will harm mostly "poor people" who then might not spend their money where us "better off" people think they should spend it...on healthy food and clothing for their kids and such. See, we can get into a lot of trouble when we start saying how people ought to spend their money (of course children's basic needs ought to be taken care of...and we have state programs to ensure this). Who knows, people might come over to our home and feel sorry for our children since they don't have iphones, their parents don't drive nice cars and the list is endless, however, they are fed healthy food. So if a parent is willing to feed their child Ramen at the sake of buying one more game for their Wii or a pack of smokes, that is simply their freedom. I'd argue that so long as that child isn't being abused, that's OK. I wore plenty of clothes that we far too big for me while growing up, because my mom's friends gave them to me because we could not afford new clothes for me at times. I am OK. And sure, we even ate Ramen at times, because it was cheap....but my parents loved me and the gov't did not tell them how to spend their money. I think that imposing a tax on anything, just because it's bad for you, is wrong. Too much internet is bad, too much TV, too much junk food...look at what the New York City just did to non-diet soda...TAXED it. Why? Because they think it has too much sugar for you and they (the gov't) thinks that they ought to tell you what you should and shouldn't buy and if you choose to buy what they deem as a worse decision, you're going to pay a pretty penny for it. The states use these made up taxes to fix their over budgets in many cases, or to give health care to children....who is going to pay for these newly implemented programs when all the smokers quit smoking?
I too think that smoking is gross, but I feel that people should be free to choose to smoke if they so want to. Just because I find something repulsive, doesn't mean that "more should be done to stop it"...because really, there are lots of things that I find repulsive, but this is America, and like you said, everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness.... cigarette lovers included, right?
P.S. I do like the fact that you and I can have very different views pertaining to certain things (politics....I have a feeling we're on the same page about LDS) but I am glad that at the end of the day we don't hold a grudge (which by the way I said it was very accurate that you hardly every held a grudge on that facebook quiz) anyway, I am respect that you can/are loving and kind to peeps who think differently than you do (you have to, you live in UT..;) anyway, know that I think that practically every other thing about you is just totally awesome!!!
Poverty research has shown that the majority of people who live below the poverty line show poor money-managing skills. They spend on the wrong things, valuing goods and possessions over food and clothing for their children. I wasn't critcizing, just stating a researched fact. I'm guessing that your parents would have rather bought things to keep you safe and heatlthy than amp up their stereo system. Sure, they fed you ramen because it was cheap, but they weren't buying cheap food because they spent the rest of the money to buy a better TV, and expensive liquor, or brand new rims. I'm also assuming that you drive a reasonably-priced car because you recognize the financial responsibilities you took on when you decided to have children. Sure, you can't provide EVERYTHING, but you prioritize, manage your money, ensure the necessities, and your kids are happy.
What we see in poverty is the exact opposite. Parents could make better spending choices to take better care of their children, but instead they buy luxury items like video games and cigarettes. Imposing more taxes on cigarettes will strap their budgets even more, and research shows us that in order to continue to afford these items, money will be taken from food. This is because poor money management leads people to not think ahead, which grocery shopping requires. Otherwise, it's a week before payday and there's no money for milk because it got spent on a new exhaust system.
I agree that it's a person's freedom to choose how he/she spends his money, and I don't think I so much as implied that the government should tell people how to spend their money. In fact, my thinking is the opposite. I think it's cruel for the government to tax an addictive substance. This complicates the issue because consumer freedom is compromised. Sure, they can quit, but addiction limits a person's freedom psychologically, and while we outsiders see freedom, the individual feels helplessly trapped. I think that by taxing cigarettes, the government is pretty much telling people how to spend.
As far as stopping smoking, I'm not naive enough to think that it's actually going to happen. But smoking is very different from regular soda. First of all, nicotine is an addictive drug. Secondly, smokers aren't just choosing to hurt themselves, they take others with them. Granted, we've done a lot to limit that, but there are still children living in homes and being injured by smokers. Yes, Joe Smoker has his freedom to choose to smoke in pursuit of his happiness, but what about the freedom he's taking from his children, who certainly have a right to life? Who is more important? Which right trumps? Thirdly, smoking causes cancer and other health problems. No one can smoke safely. People can drink soda safely.
You say that just because someone finds something repulsive doesn't mean that we should limit people's freedom to indulge in the behavior. If health and moral objections are completely ignored in deference to the pursuit of happiness,we can go ahead and legalize drugs and prostitution. We won't be taking freedom away from anyone, people have the freedom to spend how they want, and the only people being hurt are the ones involved. And just think of the tax revenue!
And just for the record, I didn't mean to insinuate that I thought smoking should be outlawed, just that "we should do more to stop it." Education, prevention, and reduction is what I'm thinking about -- helping restore freedom to smokers who feel that they have none and helping potential smokers understand how exercising their freedom to choose to smoke will severely limit their other freedoms later on.
And P.S. I love that you're a reasonable person who I can argue with and not worry that you're going to get all offended. I love to stretch the debate muscle and that kind of person is rare. Thanks for being there!
Post a Comment