Now that America has heard the top ten reasons why romney lost (going on 25 at last count), the truth is obvious, the republican message sucks.
1. Your messenger was carrying your message; romney did not create the GOP platform or pander to all of its radical constituencies on his
own. Do the republicans really plan to ditch the homphobes, true believing radical Christians and those
who see America as it existed fifty years ago? Romney never criticized the nut jobs nor distanced himself from their comments. Why?
2. The modern day GOP is
built on separatism and dividing the country; it is called maker vs. takets, job
creators vs. welfare queens, the successful vs. the food stamp nation; ready to
actually practice some real inclusion with that idealogy? Talk with a republican and within a few minutes you'll hear the 'us' and 'them' line of bs.
3. Government
is never the solution, it is always the problem; that is except when you want
the public to bail out the banks which gambled us to the brink, when you insist
on favoring industries which required corporate welfare even when profitable and
when you continue to use government as tool to enforce social policies which
your side favors vs. what the majority believes.
Reform requires real
commitment to changing your bad habits; and the first step in that is to admit
you might have some. So far what we have seen from the Jindals, Barbours and
others is totally cosmetic and not substantive.
1. No one likes a loser particulary after you have
chosen that loser as your standard bearer and spent a few billion to get him
elected;
2. Victory has a thousand parents; defeat is an
orphan;
3. Nothing is so clarifying as to have your candidate and his
(your?) message rejected by a majority of the electorate.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
(1st draft) - The utopian vision
of hindsight. Longing for the 50's and 60's.
The recent election of 2012 brought into focus an almost mythical characterization og the 1950's. The nmedia likes to characterize the c omposition of the republican/ tea-party/ right-wing base as the white man who longs for the 1950's.
Well who is the people who long for the 1950's. Most likely not those lived them as adults. Think about that - 18 in 1950 would make one 80 today so its mostly those who were children are the majority that make up the group that romanitize the 1950's
But what are the social/ economic eleements the characterized the 1950's?
1) jobs / empolyment\
2) level / state of education
3) characteristics of the population then vs. 2012.
4) taxiation
5) transportation - auto / air / rr.
6) make-up of work.
7) only country left standing
8) WWII - political/economic-mass production / labor force.
9) the incentives to relocate between states and cities.
10) myth of free market
11) right to work [anti-union]
12) emerging from WWII as the only power
13) the mercantilist empire
14) the white world vision thing
15) gthe 1950's last vestige of the regional economy that came to be as the USA developed in the USA as it grew and evloved.
16) the agricultural transformation -
The recent election of 2012 brought into focus an almost mythical characterization og the 1950's. The nmedia likes to characterize the c omposition of the republican/ tea-party/ right-wing base as the white man who longs for the 1950's.
Well who is the people who long for the 1950's. Most likely not those lived them as adults. Think about that - 18 in 1950 would make one 80 today so its mostly those who were children are the majority that make up the group that romanitize the 1950's
But what are the social/ economic eleements the characterized the 1950's?
1) jobs / empolyment\
2) level / state of education
3) characteristics of the population then vs. 2012.
4) taxiation
5) transportation - auto / air / rr.
6) make-up of work.
7) only country left standing
8) WWII - political/economic-mass production / labor force.
9) the incentives to relocate between states and cities.
10) myth of free market
11) right to work [anti-union]
12) emerging from WWII as the only power
13) the mercantilist empire
14) the white world vision thing
15) gthe 1950's last vestige of the regional economy that came to be as the USA developed in the USA as it grew and evloved.
16) the agricultural transformation -
The
other thing about the agricultural-industrial complex is that it has gutted the
populace of the ag states, turning them from the self-reliant small
farmer-citizens into financially disenfranchised farm laborers. This is a key
driver for the anger. They distrust the federal government for good reason- ag
policy has destroyed their way of life. And as a consequence, the nation as a
whole has lost an important part of what made us great- small farmers and the
small local industry of tinkerers that they foster was traditionally one of the
engines that fuel manufacturing innovation- and serve as a stabilizing political
force.
Monday, October 15, 2012
The things that influenced me. (4-27-2013)
1) Well, isn't it always one's mother - rreading/travel/nature/family-ancestors/architecture-design/history/
2) The location - the earliest english experience west of the appliciations/railroads/industry/technology
3) G. Washington - prototype of leader
4) Thomas Edison - the practical creative/technology
5) Braddock expedition - military/ logistics
6) Brownsville - economics/patterns of development/evolution.
7) roots of architecture/urban design. - Colonial villages/walkable places
2) The location - the earliest english experience west of the appliciations/railroads/industry/technology
3) G. Washington - prototype of leader
4) Thomas Edison - the practical creative/technology
5) Braddock expedition - military/ logistics
6) Brownsville - economics/patterns of development/evolution.
7) roots of architecture/urban design. - Colonial villages/walkable places
Sunday, September 30, 2012
The best read on the elction yet!
Watch for it. That moment in the debate were it becomes clear that the zingers are not enough, or the other gimmicks they are training him for run their course and he's left standing there with just himself, his authentic self to draw from. Obama will be kind if not even generous in the moment, but make no mistake he will finish Romney right then and there. Because that's what a winner does when it's winning time. - BadGimp @ DemocraticUnderground 9-30-2012.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Chicago - mass transit that serves nowhere (3-28-2013)
nowhere. The failure of a transit strong American city. Service to a lot of locations is poor or non-existent. Case in point: Soldier Field, McCormick Place, Navy Pier, United Center, Comiskey Park vs. Wrigley Field.
mass transit accellorate development. Answer: it doesn't. It creates disfunctional development that ultimately fails and leads to urban decline.
My 14 years here - discovered several thimngs about chicago - its history / influence of roads, railroads and transit. growth , mid-west sensibility.
the magnets of development. south loop railyard / near wset side / ball parks / future of gambling.
party twons - america has seven: New York, Miami, New Orleans, Chicago, Vegas, LA, SF.
How tying the major magnets into & together with mass transit would accellorate economic development by achieving two factorors: ability of the workers to get to their jobs easily and economically. and secondly, provide the visitors to these venues with a variety of choices of how to get to these places.
-transit corridors are natural avenues of development.
- Brookfield / Hollywood / Congress-Park stations.- a set of suggested development principles.
- Chicago's major mistake - no mass transit to entertainment venues.
mass transit accellorate development. Answer: it doesn't. It creates disfunctional development that ultimately fails and leads to urban decline.
My 14 years here - discovered several thimngs about chicago - its history / influence of roads, railroads and transit. growth , mid-west sensibility.
the magnets of development. south loop railyard / near wset side / ball parks / future of gambling.
party twons - america has seven: New York, Miami, New Orleans, Chicago, Vegas, LA, SF.
How tying the major magnets into & together with mass transit would accellorate economic development by achieving two factorors: ability of the workers to get to their jobs easily and economically. and secondly, provide the visitors to these venues with a variety of choices of how to get to these places.
-transit corridors are natural avenues of development.
- Brookfield / Hollywood / Congress-Park stations.- a set of suggested development principles.
- Chicago's major mistake - no mass transit to entertainment venues.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The NFL maintains twice the
number of players that it actually uses. What does that say about labor? American labor in general. Twice the number of workers, so a 50% umployment rate is acceptable.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
The Medicare Differences
The New Republic's Jonathon Cohn has an exhaustive guide to the Medicare debate playing out in this election. Or, nearly exhaustive, because of course neither Romney or Ryan has produced sufficient details to answer all of the questions Cohn poses.
But here are his key questions: 1) How do the plans control Medicare spending; 2) How quickly do the plans cut spending; 3) On whom do the plans place the most risk; and 4) What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system? And here's a quick chart of Cohn's analysis
An executive summary of the differences from a article at Daily Kos by Joan McCarter, 'The Most-definitive Gude to the Medicare Debate'.
1. How do the plans control Medicare spending?
In the case of the Affordable Care Act, through "reductions in what Medicare paid providers—that is, doctors, hospitals, and suppliers of medical goods," using information about where Medicare is overpaying and introducing incentives for increasing quality of care. In the case of Romney/Ryan, market competition—moving Medicare to a privatized, voucher system.
2. How quickly do the plans cut spending?
This is a harder one to nail down, for both plans, since there are so many factors at play. But, in essence, the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion (that number is subject to change) in the next 10 years, extending the program's solvency to 2024. The Romney/Ryan current voucher plan doesn't really supply enough specifics to know how quickly spending cuts will unfold, but those cuts will likely be harsher if Romney/Ryan followed through on their promise to restore the ACA cuts, the same cuts Ryan included in his budget. They'd also be harsher because Romney has a budget cap, a hard target for spending. Keeping Medicare spending to a hard target will mean "a more severe spending cut than Ryan’s or Obama’s."
3. On whom do the plans place the most risk?
That's an easy one, and also the most important question of the whole debate. With the Affordable Care Act: "[I]t does not undermine the basic guarantee to seniors—that, upon retirement, every American will get a comprehensive set of insurance benefits." There is the very real possibility that access with be more of a problem, if providers start dropping Medicare patients because of reduced payments, but seniors will still have comprehensive insurance. The Romney/Ryan plan would force seniors to pay more, and does put the future of the program as it exists today at risk.
4. What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system?
Obviously, the Affordable Care Act expands access to affordable health insurance and to a key program for providing health care to lower-income people: Medicaid. Romney/Ryan's plans for Medicaid would drastically cut the program, shrinking access to health care for millions, including many seniors. It would force states to have to prioritize who got health care, forcing states to become de facto death panels
To Joan , thanks for this work. I copied it to remember these points for arguement.
But here are his key questions: 1) How do the plans control Medicare spending; 2) How quickly do the plans cut spending; 3) On whom do the plans place the most risk; and 4) What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system? And here's a quick chart of Cohn's analysis
An executive summary of the differences from a article at Daily Kos by Joan McCarter, 'The Most-definitive Gude to the Medicare Debate'.
1. How do the plans control Medicare spending?
In the case of the Affordable Care Act, through "reductions in what Medicare paid providers—that is, doctors, hospitals, and suppliers of medical goods," using information about where Medicare is overpaying and introducing incentives for increasing quality of care. In the case of Romney/Ryan, market competition—moving Medicare to a privatized, voucher system.
2. How quickly do the plans cut spending?
This is a harder one to nail down, for both plans, since there are so many factors at play. But, in essence, the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion (that number is subject to change) in the next 10 years, extending the program's solvency to 2024. The Romney/Ryan current voucher plan doesn't really supply enough specifics to know how quickly spending cuts will unfold, but those cuts will likely be harsher if Romney/Ryan followed through on their promise to restore the ACA cuts, the same cuts Ryan included in his budget. They'd also be harsher because Romney has a budget cap, a hard target for spending. Keeping Medicare spending to a hard target will mean "a more severe spending cut than Ryan’s or Obama’s."
3. On whom do the plans place the most risk?
That's an easy one, and also the most important question of the whole debate. With the Affordable Care Act: "[I]t does not undermine the basic guarantee to seniors—that, upon retirement, every American will get a comprehensive set of insurance benefits." There is the very real possibility that access with be more of a problem, if providers start dropping Medicare patients because of reduced payments, but seniors will still have comprehensive insurance. The Romney/Ryan plan would force seniors to pay more, and does put the future of the program as it exists today at risk.
4. What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system?
Obviously, the Affordable Care Act expands access to affordable health insurance and to a key program for providing health care to lower-income people: Medicaid. Romney/Ryan's plans for Medicaid would drastically cut the program, shrinking access to health care for millions, including many seniors. It would force states to have to prioritize who got health care, forcing states to become de facto death panels
To Joan , thanks for this work. I copied it to remember these points for arguement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
