Dreams Of Noise

Actually, I agree with you to a large extent. But. It's a very important argument, the same argument lib/progressives have been making for years, and it's almost never part of the media conversation. To have it codified and said out loud by the President is, to my mind, a reasonably big deal.

From:

randwolf.livejournal.com

The bully pulpit. Good point.

I don't know if O. is "aware" of the value of government, by the way: Obama appears to be policy-deaf, and does not seem to see the connection between the economic policies of 2008-2010 and the crushing defeat of the Dems in the House in 2010. O. seems to see democracy in terms of sending "messages" to the voting public, while deals are made among the powerful. He seems to see the problems of his Presidency in terms of failing to persuade the voting public, rather than failing to deliver.

From:

saganth.livejournal.com

Um, I hate to be a nay-syaer but.....Bullshit.

This seems to me to be a long-winded version of "don't hate the game, hate the players" or however that slogan goes. The bad politics AFFECTS the government, affects its ability to run effectively, affects its capacity to help, not-help or outright harm people. The bad politics and the government are, in this country and at this time (actually, for a looong time now) hopelessly intertwined. Politics is a parasite, a leech living off government to its detriment.

I voted for Obama, I believed in him. But this is just a speech. At this point, simply admitting things are screwed up and need to be fixed just does not cut it, and frankly it never has. My father once told me "friends are as good as friends do, not as they say they do." You can substitute "family" or "people" or any other term for "friends" in that adadge, and it still holds true. Government politicians are as good as they do, not as they say they do. And at this point Obama, his administration, and pretty much all of Congress, have demostrated they are not as good as they say they are. We need ACTUAL CHANGE, not talk about it, not promises, not so-called "compromise", not more corrupt pockets-lining at the expense of the people, not more indifference to the have-nots.

My reply to Obama? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

From:

Not arguing that point, m'friend. The fact that he's said it, though, at least means [a] he's aware of it... and [b] it's got the smallest dollop of an actual chance of entering the public conversation.

From:

Government doesn't do any of those things. Government takes money from (some) people and uses it to pay other people to do those things.

E.g. Al Gore's role in creating the Internet: He voted to take money from some people (taxes) and used it to pay other people (like me) to do the work.

From:

hitchkitty.livejournal.com

By this argument, GM doesn't build cars, either.

From:

GM at least assembles them: the people doing the work are direct employees. They don't build steering wheels, they buy them from another company.

From:

Dude (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_agencies). I'm pretty sure most of the agencies named on this page are, in fact, direct employees of the government.

From:

Most, but not all. NASA is a government agency; but remember the crack about "10,000 parts, each built by the lowest bidder"?

And when claiming that "government isn't broken", FEMA is hardly the first agency I'd bring up (or even in the top 100).

From:

Under Bill Clinton, FEMA worked.

From:

"Whether it works or not is arbitrary." I consider that broken.

From:

You are saying that since it does not work sometimes, it is broken all the time. I think your logic has a flaw in it.

And bear in mind as an additional point: the people who keep saying government doesn't work are the ones who keep putting in patronage appointees who don't know their agencies and firing government staffers who do. When someone kicks your computer repeatedly, then tells you it isn't working, would you consider that to be a simple case of a poorly built computer or a case of sabotage?

From:

I'm saying that a system which works sometimes depending on who is handling it, and which is supposed to work all the time, is broken.

If your local fire engine could successfully be driven only by the driver who worked first shift, but not the drivers who worked second or third shifts, would you say that your local fire department was just fine, or would you say it was broken?

From:

Then let me ask you: if it works sometimes, only for certain people, would you want *those* people running things or the people it doesn't work for? EVERY system can warp, break down or otherwise stop working if the wrong person is in charge. Does this mean EVERY system is broken? That's what your logic is driving to - please explain how I am mistaken.

For example, if the fire engine could only be driven by the 1st shift guy, I'd find two more like him. Please don't tell me I can't, we have a labor shortage and people are desperate for work; we can find the right guys.

In the case of FEMA, I'd look at what Bill Clinton demonstrably did right in terms of policy and employees and steer away from what George W Bush demonstrably did wrong.

From:

If it only works for some people, I would want it run by those people.

If it doesn't work for everybody, it's broken and I want it fixed.

From:

The Internet does not work for everybody. How will you fix it?
Cell phones do not work for everybody. How will you fix them?
Health insurance is astoundingly broken in the US. How will you fix it?

Government is, at its core, about governing and managing the lives of its citizens and resident visitors. Many things done by government may not work as well as they could, but they are considerably better than not having them at all (Social Security, the national highway system, the Post Office til it was spun off to name a few) - and government, unlike private business, does not pick and choose its customers. Private schools restrict admission; public schools cannot. Cable companies can say your home is too far from the street, unless there's a municipal agreement that says they have to service you if they service anybody in town. Police departments, fire departments, teachers and social workers all work for everybody who needs them in their communities. Maybe they aren't properly funded, maybe their resources are restricted, but they still work as best as they can. Want them to work better? Fund them properly.

Many problems we see in government come from removing professionals and professionalism, cutting budgets, and putting in hacks. When Bush put Brown in charge of FEMA, he let go of a highly capable Clinton appointee - and we saw the results in New Orleans. To be fair Brown did at least try, but he was untrained and incapable. Head Start works great with the funds it has and has excellent results, but it has never been fully funded. Abu Ghraib and other problem places where we fought or held people have suffered from relaxed ethical standards, which came from top-down directives. The list is too long to give here, but that's a representative sample off the top of my head.

Right now our government is not properly funded. Most of the deficit is due to Bush-era tax cuts, two wars started by Bush that never faced a proper appropriations process under Bush, and an unfunded entitlement program backed and signed by Bush (Medicare Part D, which has giveaway money to private insurance agencies). I would be much happier with Medicare Part D if it was re-written and properly funded, meaning no private corporate giveaways, no doughnut hole and a small tax; I have not been happy with either of the two wars, nor have I been happy with tax cuts that give a tiny slice to people living on the edge like me while giving several whole pies to the rich.

Tell me: how would you fix government? I tell you three times: if you want to fix it by making it smaller willy-nilly, you will reduce its functionality for several things it does well - and that means breaking it.

From:

alverant.livejournal.com

The government doesn't "take" money any more than the maid "takes" money for cleaning your house. Taxes pay for civilization. If you don't want to pay taxes, go live in a country that doesn't have any and see how you like it.

From:

If I don't want the maid's services, I just say so, and have no obligation to pay. If I want a different amount of services any given week, I pay a different amount.

I have no such choice with government and taxes. It takes what it decides to take.

If I moved to a country without taxes, the US government would still insist that I pay it taxes.

From:

alverant.livejournal.com

Wrong again. If you don't want the rights, privileges, and obligations that come with being an American then you do have a choice. You can choose to renounce your citizenship and cut all ties with this country. Then you don't have to pay the taxes and we don't have to waste money on you if you get in trouble.

Freedom isn't free so if you enjoy our freedom, then don't bitch about having to pay your fair share. If you don't want to support this country, then leave.

From:

shockwave77598.livejournal.com

THIS.

From:

If I renounce my citizenship and cut all my ties, then the US government will only demand taxes based on my income for the next 10 years. Further, it is against US law to give up US citizenship in order to avoid US taxes.

Look at http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

Or don't you consider the IRS a reasonable authority for US taxation rules?

From:

It only demands those taxes if your income is in excess of an average of $150k a year for the past 5 years or you have at least $2m in assets. I'm sorry, but if you are making that much you are living a considerably more comfortable life based on the shared sacrifices (taxes) of this country than most of the rest of us; and I have no sympathy for you if you are renouncing citizenship just to get out of paying taxes.

This does not mean I do not wish you good fortune; but with good fortune comes an increasing ability to maintain a civil society that benefits you more than it does me. You have more to lose if society goes down the tubes than I do, and the government is our insurance policy that society will not, in fact, go down those tubes. If I ever get to the point where I am earning the kind of money I like, I admit I might grumble a bit about taxes; but I will accept them as a legitimate part of my duty as a citizen.

Taxes are a patriotic duty to help make our country great, not just some burden that takes away some of your money and leaves you with an emptier checking account. If you consider taxes to be nothing more than a noisome bother that gives you absolutely nothing (or barely anything) in return, you are not community minded and you are no patriot.

I am not saying you should never grumble about taxes, or anything like "shut up and like it" - you can say what you will about taxes, and grumbling about them is a time-honored tradition dating back at least a couple of thousand years. The rest, well, I said that above.

From:

tigertoy.livejournal.com

Obama has said this before, but he hasn't said it frequently and forcefully enough. I think he falls into the intellectual trap of not realizing how stupid our advertising culture has made people. The reason the Republicans win with their strategy of picking a lie, sticking with it, and repeating it over and over is that it *works*. We are bombarded with so many messages that most of us don't actually notice anything until we've heard it a hundred times. Folks like Obama who actually listen to things the first time (even things that take more than 15 seconds to express) and when they hear something true remember it are a minority. But all of us, from the most rabid fundamentalist to the true genius, have an automatic tendency to assume that everyone else is just like them; in particular, we all assume that when we know something, everyone else knows it too.

The apparent flaw in Obama's political strategy is again, that down at the bottom he's assuming his opposition is basically like him. He thinks the Congressional Republicans want what is best for the country, respect their opposition, and actually want consensus. The truth is that they're much smaller minded than he gives them credit for. They only care about winning, and they've told their lies about how the only thing wrong with the country is that the rich pay too much in taxes so often that they actually believe it.

But even though Obama's results are disappointing, I do not take it as a given, or even moderately plausible, that someone who was more intransigently liberal would get more done in the current climate. He's gotten less done than you wanted. He's gotten less done than *I* wanted. But he has done some good. It's hard to be fired up about a leader who's presided over a period of decline, but when we were headed for total collapse and all we got was decline, that's actually IS a good job.

So, if y'all really want Michelle Bachmann for President, keep up that Obama bashing.

From:

Oh, I absolutely want Obama re-elected; the thought of any of the current crop of Repubs, at any level, becoming president is inspiration to hurl. The reason that I think someone more intransigently liberal would've got more done is that his or her opening gambits would involve going for as much as possible rather than trying to appease Repubs and actually give them more than they asked for... and then more, and then more. If a more-or-less midpoint is, say, a fee of $50, and the person who wants your services charges $20, you start with a bid of $70 or $80, not $15.

From:

shockwave77598.livejournal.com

Here's a wild thought -- have the Democrats nominate someone other than Obama. I would even vote for Hillary Clinton over "good hair" Perry. She at least has a bigger pair of stones than Obama turned out to have. There's a time to compromise and there's a time to tell others to sit down, shut up, and do their jobs. Hillary at least can do that.

From:

bayushisan.livejournal.com

Well said but the problem comes from the other side constantly screaming about how the government is bad and only holds businesses back. The repubs have made it their mission to bend over backwards for corporations and deregulate everything because, in their limited judgement, the glorious "free market" will fix all problems, and if it doesn't fix a problem, as with health care, well those dirty poor people can just go to the emergency room or find a charity to help them.

At this point though I'm very disappointed with the President. Between the keeping the warrantless wiretaps and giving in on so many issyes, like health care, I'm just disillunsioned with the state of things. I think President Obama would be better than any of the current repubs but I just don't think that he's a fighter when it comes down to it.

From:

Indeed not -- or, he can fight like crazy if he thinks a fight is warranted, but that circumstance is so rare (e.g., a presidential election) that he just stands there and lets the other guys hit 'em. Rope-A-Dope involves an eventual turn to the offense. This ain't it.

From:

When Obama first ran for the Democratic nod, he was not my first choice. He was no higher than fourth on my list because he was clearly not very liberal. Actually, on reflection, fifth. Kucinich, pre-disgraced Edwards, Clinton and Clark all were higher priority choices for me. They all had more progressive agendas and all knew how to fight.

In office, Obama has shown a great willingness to throw liberal ideology, including proven programs, flat-out under the bus. His debate skills and media skills, which worked very well during the campaign, seemed to go away nearly completely. He has not fought to defend the role of government. He hasn't even bothered to fight to teach about the role of government. This speech is one of a very small handful of times when he has talked about government being a good choice.

Still, if it is such a good choice, why is he insisting that government cuts are a good thing? We're in a depression. This was the mistake Hoover made after the 1929 crash. It's the mistake FDR made in time for his second term, sans the tax increases. Keynesian economic stimulus has been proven to work. He is not fighting to stimulate our economy in both the public and private sectors like FDR did; he is fighting to gut the public sector and talk to the private sector.

We are in a rerun of the Great Depression. Oh, there are differences. We have better tech, a more global economy, more general resources at our disposal, and the GOP now wants to cut taxes on the rich instead of raise them across the board - but none of that matters in the sweep of things. We have *seen* history. We have *seen* how policies got us up and running, by applying municipal lessons at the national level and investing in the common good, through both public and private means. And that is exactly what we are not doing right now.

From:

james-the-evil1.livejournal.com

Unfortunately he & the Dems in general have waited FAR too long, IMO. They've given the other side DECADES to sell the "government is bad" line, and from the comments I'm seeing on this story at HuffPo & Yahoo there're a lot more agin it than fur it.

From:

redneckgaijin.livejournal.com

Yes, Obama came out fighting with a speech defending government.

Just like he gave a speech about ending torture and holding those responsible accountable.

Just like he gave a speech about ending, not extending, the war in Iraq.

Just like he gave a speech about raising taxes on the wealthy and helping the poor.

Just like he gave a speech about... do you see what I'm getting at here?

Obama gives speeches. And then does nothing about them, or else turns his back on his own words completely.

And I won't be voting for him, whatever else happens.

From:

gardnerhill.livejournal.com

Well, thank God you'll never have to worry about the outcome of abortion/birth control/rape/gay marriage laws rewritten by religious fundamentalists.

From:

redneckgaijin.livejournal.com

Leaving aside the fact that Obama was dragged forcibly- by a REPUBLICAN Sec. of Defense- into moving against DADT, and still personally opposes gay marriage even if he's stopped defending DOMA... and is still ordering the deportations of gay foreign nationals in same-sex marriages to American citizens...

... leaving aside all that, I refuse to reward a politician who does the opposite to all the reasons I voted for him by voting for him again. Obama and his blue-dog ilk RELY on people saying, "I hate his guts and wish he'd just keel over dead of natural causes, but it's him or the loonies, so I HAVE to vote for him."

The reason the political debate has shifted so very, VERY hard to the right is that the Republican Party has learned they cannot take conservative votes for granted... and that the Democratic Party has learned they can take liberal votes for granted. Things will keep getting worse until this dynamic changes- and the only way it will change is if Democrats lose votes for being incompetent, for breaking promises, or for utterly failing to defend any of their party's stated positions.

So- I won't vote Republican, but nor will I cast any ballot for Barack Obama. This is the one and only way I can express dissatisfaction that Obama- that any politician- cannot help but listen to.

(Likewise I almost certainly will not vote for the Democrat in the upcoming US Senate race, since the Texas Democrats have recruited General Ricardo Sanchez... as in, "commander of military prisons in Iraq during Abu Gharaib" Sanchez.)

From: