|Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 14):|
agree, he married money, but she cannot bankroll a Presidential Campaign, they need the big rollers for that, like NG/EADS and all the other corporations our politicians coerce to get elected
Don't forget that one of the reasons money matters so much in politics is because of laws made for the purpose of keeping money out of politics. If you want money to matter less in politics, make it EASIER to raise money. The current ethics laws makes it HARDER to raise money. The kind of "reform" Mccain wants would make it harder still. If you want to make money matter less in politics, stop unconstitutional regulation of political speech. Let anyone give as much as they want to whoever they want, just require full disclosure. And get government out of places it doesn't belong. If government didn't have its fingers everywhere, there would be less incentive to buy it off.
don't think politicians are on the average any more evil or corrupt than the average person on the street. However, that's not saying much. The kinds of things that ordinary people - not just those we call criminals - will do to scam the system are amazing. It is common practice, for example, for people to move assets around among family members to make sure that public aid pays for a relative's nursing home stay. This kind of thing, by and large, is NOT being done by poor people trying to scrape together enough to eat. . It is done by middle class people wanting enough money to get an SUV
rather than a subcompact or a house in a B neighborhood rather than a C neighborhood. People think of government money as some sort of endowment from on high. They will do anything to get government money, regardless of the purpose of the program in question. Where these kind of activities are illegal, they are often not prosecuted because there are bigger fish to fry. And besides, cheating the government isn't really cheating, is it?
It is that attitude that makes programs like Medicare and Medicaid as expensive as they are. It is killing us.
|Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):|
What hope does Obama bring to the World? IIRC, England once had a PM full of hope and Change. His name was Neville Chamberlin, remember "peace for our time"?
Well...from what I've read...the consensus seems to be that Mr. Chamberlain had no choice but to make the deal he did. The allies were much better prepared to fight in 1939 then they were right after Munich. Hitler hated the Munich deal. He did it because it was his only hope of keeping England and France on the sidelines while he conquered Eastern Europe. He hoped to eventually have England, at least, as an ally. England's fleet would protect him while he got his "leibensroom" in the East. He wanted to conquer Russian and all the slavic states, thinking the Slavs were subhuman. It is a credit to the British people that they didn't buy this garbage. I'm not sure I could say the same for today's Americans and Europeans.
Chamberlain hated Munich also. If he had a military to match Hitler's he would not have signed the deal. The true blame for Munich does not lie with Chamberlain but with those who thought all war was over after armistice day(the end of world War I). These people simply abandoned most military spending in favor of social programs. The modern counterparts of these people are found in the H Bush and early Clinton administrations, and in the congresses they had to deal with. These are those that insisted on a radical downsizing of the military after the end of the Cold War. They crippled our human intelligence capabilities with political correctness(and are trying to do the same thing again today).
I would also blame those who did nothing to resist Hitler's earliest provocation - the remilitarization of the Rhineland.
Suppose France + Britain had gone to war with Germany after Hitler did this. They would be reviled as warmongers. Those who pointed out Hitler's reniging on the Versailes deal would no doubt be called insensitive and ignorant - who are we to judge the German culture?. Since this was before the worst of Hitler's rearmament effort, there would be little concrete evidence to appease the critics. There would probably be a prolonged insurgency. When the leaders of Britain and France refused to pull out after this insurgency, the world left would hate them as butchers. They would take further flack by going against the League of Nations, since there is no way the league would approve such an operation. Remember, this was back in the days when there was great hope that the League of Nations would end ALL
war simply by making pronouncements from on high.
But if Britain and France stood firm on the Rhineland, there would have been no World War II
. There would have been no holocaust. The only thing that would suffer is the reputation of Britain and France. They would get the same grief that George W and his followers get now. They would go down in history as imperialist, waremongering fools. Hitler would be seen as a fallen petty dictator at worst, and perhaps even a hero in struggle against the hated imperialist Britain and France. The left made Castro and Che Guevera into romantic heros - some people even gave Pol-Pot this honor before the full extent of his barbarism was discovered. The right gave similar treatment to many overseas dictators simply because they violently opposed communism, as did Hitler. There is no reason Hitler would'nt get the same treatment. Remember, the visceral reaction we have at the name simply would not be there were it not for WWII
and the Holocaust.
People would not think about what would have happened had Britain + France not intervened in the Rhineland. They rarely do, when looking at history. They also don't look at what the world would be like if thugs like Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh had overrunn all of Southeast Asia. It is simply assumed that since it didn't actually happen it was foolish for the people of the time to think it could happen. They only think about who to blame for the fact that they don't have a perfect world. They soak up the luxury of hindsite. The fact is, if we had not intervened in Vietnam and later in Iraq the things we feared might really have happened. That is not necesarily a case for those operations - it's just a case for careful thought rather than knee-jerk opposition.
|Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 10):|
Well said. I believe, and I don't think I'm too off track here, the American people would like to see a return to old fashioned values, money that will buy something and a government that's more representative of what the masses want.
Unfortunately, what the masses want is more government dough to make the local school look fancy enough to keep property values up. Or, they want to keep the "rif-raff" out of the neighborhood. Or a job for their nephew. Or some change in regulations to make it easier on local industries and harder on competitors. The problem with politicians is that they give us what we want. One reason I generally like Mccain is that he is willing to take unpopular positions. Sometimes. So does Obama, though he hasn't been in politics long enough to really tell. And Obama has never really gone against his core constituancy like Mccain does sometimes. If the people want someone who will give them what they want they want Hillary Clinton. The Clintons have not purposefully taken any unpopular positions since the massive tax increased they got passed in the early days of Bill's administration. Even the Clintons' actions in the National Security arena have been largely determined by political considerations.
With the budget in trouble the way it is, we need a politician that is able to say "no" to us. I think Mccain is the best hope for that at the moment. But even his election will not change the fundamental selfishness which people all the way from President to ordinary voter bring to politics. That selfishness is our main problem and has been for a long time.