Expanding our perspective does not improve our options much, sadly. - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 14/08/2012 04:26:14 PM
Even if it does much to explain the length of my posts. 
Running a nation of 310 million is necessarily a nuanced exercise. Too bad nuance does not win elections.
It comes down to how much one can reasonably expect of an anti-government government, and the only reasonable answer is "nothing." If Republicans were calling for LESS (rather than NO) spending, with increased oversight and accountability to reduce fraud and waste, that would be supportable, even laudable. However, that is not what is on the table; the two party system is offering another all-or-nothing choice between expanded government or none.
Best case scenario is probably Obamas insistence on industry subsidies instead of the "shovel ready" jobs he promised (combined with GOP Congressional obstructionism) slowing government spending and trimming the deficit without doing anything to stimulate the economy. Remember, we got an $800 billion stimulus despite Obamas advisors telling him full recovery required $1+ trillion, solely because he did not want to let Republicans say he added a trillion dollars to the deficit (how did that work out?)
That is not an appealing choice, but Romneys stated plan to raise middle and lower class taxes to pay for a millionaire tax cut is worse. Even if it actually created trickle-down jobs (which would be a historic first,) the wages of new employees would just be taxed out of existence to pay for it. It is not even about no taxes vs. higher taxes any more, but whose should increase. Apart from that, the GOPs only plan for government is to eliminate what exists—except in the bedroom and doctors office.
Running a nation of 310 million is necessarily a nuanced exercise. Too bad nuance does not win elections.Just providing Jens with a viewpoint. I would like to say "they don't even show support for my most basic rights? Fuck 'em." But I can't, for my example and other reasons (obviously).
It comes down to how much one can reasonably expect of an anti-government government, and the only reasonable answer is "nothing." If Republicans were calling for LESS (rather than NO) spending, with increased oversight and accountability to reduce fraud and waste, that would be supportable, even laudable. However, that is not what is on the table; the two party system is offering another all-or-nothing choice between expanded government or none.
Best case scenario is probably Obamas insistence on industry subsidies instead of the "shovel ready" jobs he promised (combined with GOP Congressional obstructionism) slowing government spending and trimming the deficit without doing anything to stimulate the economy. Remember, we got an $800 billion stimulus despite Obamas advisors telling him full recovery required $1+ trillion, solely because he did not want to let Republicans say he added a trillion dollars to the deficit (how did that work out?
) That is not an appealing choice, but Romneys stated plan to raise middle and lower class taxes to pay for a millionaire tax cut is worse. Even if it actually created trickle-down jobs (which would be a historic first,) the wages of new employees would just be taxed out of existence to pay for it. It is not even about no taxes vs. higher taxes any more, but whose should increase. Apart from that, the GOPs only plan for government is to eliminate what exists—except in the bedroom and doctors office.