Skip to main content

View Diary: If I had a nickel every time I read a story of Obama cutting Social Security.... (375 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  True enough, but... (6+ / 0-)

    Let's say that you saw that there were two parties in the country, and one of them was all about making people's lives worse really fast, and the other one was all about making people's lives worse much more slowly.

    And everyone around you was saying, 'What are you, stupid? Pick the slow one! The slow one!' But you feel like, hey, the only real voice I have in the government is my vote. Why should I be rewarding a party for making my life more miserable, but not as much as the other guys? Why shouldn't there be a party that made my life less miserable?

    Obamacare might make some people's lives less miserable, although aside from a very tiny minority of people it will only benefit those who are not receiving health insurance through their workplace, who are still a majority of Americans.

    Most of Obama's other accomplishments were either helpful for a small group (small business owners, gay and lesbian people who want to join the military, etc, and I won't say there weren't plenty of those) or ways to make life a little less worse for people than they would have otherwise been. But lives are still getting worse.

    And I get that he's in the middle of a serious economic crisis (though we don't act that way any more, because 8% unemployment with a much larger than usual number of people who have left the workforce entirely is now the new normal) but he spends dramatically more time talking about cutting spending and 'everyone is going to have to feel the pain' than he ever does about ways that government can make lives better.

    Well, I don't want my life to get worse, slowly or quickly. Or other people's either. And the fact that neither party is willing to talk about fixing the real problems in the US, whether it be the fact that we now have a much worse, much more precarious financial sector than we had in 2007, the fact that income inequality is going to continue to get worse, possibly fast enough that we will never get down below 6% unemployment again, or fucking global warming (which, to his credit, the President has indicated that someday soon he might consider thinking about beginning a conversation about. Maybe.)

    So I yell at the powers that be, and wave my arms a lot. And somehow this seems inexplicable to you, that I should be upset if Obama's talking about making life worse for a bunch of people, as if it were a good idea. Even if he doesn't do it himself, he's just making it more likely to happen in the future, since he's blessed the idea with the seal of approval from 'THE MOST LIBRUL PERSON IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE'.

    •  So you have a tantrum. (6+ / 0-)

      Guess what?

      You have only two choices.

      And not choosing will implicitly mean one or the other of these.

      Do you know what a mature response to anything you didn't like in the Democratic Party would be? Change the party. Or if you want, build up a real third party. That would probably involve handing over the government to the Republicans for a fairly long time, but you seem to be cool with that. But it's not a real choice in most of the country, since those who natter on about a third party have been too lazy to do the ground-level organizing that would make such a party credible.

      "It is wisdom to know when you only have one choice," as someone once said.

      Apart from that, there's the sheer immaturity of declaring "I won't support a party that doesn't do everything I tell it to," which is what you said above, in summary.

      "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

      by sagesource on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 10:56:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well said, sir. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        worldlotus

        It always amazes me how many "progressives" don't grasp the way the system ACTUALLY works.  It'd be nice if the system worked the way they think it works- Hell, I'll go as far as saying the system SHOULD work the way they think it works- but even a cursory study of current events/history will show that it does not.

        Consider yourself tipped, because due to site hypocrisy I can't do it at the moment.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:34:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The way the system works is parties that (0+ / 0-)

          anger the public get voted out of office.   Support for Social Security polls in the 60-70% range.  If the Democrat Party cuts benefits, then we can only hope that they truly find out exactly how the system works.

          •  And then they get what? (0+ / 0-)

            That's right, policies that are even LESS popular than the ones that caused the voting tantrum in the first place.

            You don't understand how the system works, and as a result, you can't use it to get what you want.

            But venting your anger is much more important than actual results to you.  Otherwise you wouldn't be pushing a strategy designed to express yuor anger AND guaranteeing you worse results.

            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

            by Whimsical on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:52:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  It is what it is. (5+ / 0-)

      And no amount of YELLING at TPTB is going to change it.

      Why should I be rewarding a party for making my life more miserable, but not as much as the other guys? Why shouldn't there be a party that made my life less miserable?
      No one is saying that there shouldn't be a party that makes your life less miserable.  What we ARE saying is that your strategy not only guarantees that your choices will remain " really miserable really fast" and "less miserable more slowly", but your strategy will give a lot more power to the "really miserable really fast" party- as you've done for the past 40 years. And you're not going to like the results- as you haven't for the past 40 years.

      I'm all for changing the Democratic party into a party that IMPROVES your life.  But that's never going to happen while you give all your power to the "really miserable really fast" party because the Democrats aren't making things better fast enough to suit you.

      Let's change the party. And if that means you have to suck it up for a few election cycles and accept "less miserable more slowly" while we do that, well, then, I suggest that's what you should do.  Because what you're doing now CLEARLY isn't working.

      And the answer is NEVER going to be "Give more power to the really miserable really fast" party.  The faster you GET that, the faster we can actually turn the Democratic party around.

      "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

      by Whimsical on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:31:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hear, hear (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        worldlotus, FiredUpInCA

        I try not to get involved in these, because I really have a hard time understanding the logic of punishing my own side for failing a purity test that is impossible to pass given our system. Some people turn any statement that points out this reality as making a binary choice against progressive values, when in reality, the binary choice is "some or nothing": Do I support Democrats, and get some of what I want, even if that "some" means slowing down the GOP's attack on the New Deal, or do I not support Democrats, in which case I lose the "some" in place of the GOP getting what they wanted all along?

         You've stated what my feelings are better than I could have.

        No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

        by newinfluence on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:06:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A purity test would involve something quaint (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jabney, Mr Robert

          like say those old civil liberties we no longer need.  Social Security is a core program that defines the Democratic Party.  Supporting Social Security is not a purity test, it is a test of whether the Democratic Party died and we couldn't even tell.

          •  If the Democratic Party dies (0+ / 0-)

            it will because of you and those like you demanding we embrace a voting strategy which is killing it, instead of one which strengthens it.

            You've weakened the Democratic party so much already and the more you embrace your failed strategy, the closer you push it to the brink of death.

            You get good results from a strong Democratic party.  You don't get a strong Democratic party with your strategy.

            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

            by Whimsical on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:54:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  And I would like to add (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        worldlotus, FiredUpInCA

        That if things are getting worse slowly, that by definition means you have time to CHANGE them.

        It's the difference between a river that's overflowing its banks and a tsunami.

        You can do things about the river. Put sandbags around things, maybe build up the banks, at the least you have time to leave. It might not save everything, but you have time to try.

        With a tsunami, not so much.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site