I have
not particular topic for today just some random thoughts I’d like to share.
First, if
you have the chance read Fareed Zakaria article and interview with President
Obama in the Jan. 30th issue of TIME magazine. If you read previous
blogs of mind I am a great admirer of the conservative Zakaria and his
viewpoints. In his article he believes that Obama will be either known as a good foreign relations president or a great one. Very interesting.
Sunday at
church an amazing thing took place that delighted me. The church we attend here
in Dunedin had an insert in the bulletin about 9 pastors that worship in that
church, mostly retired, some not, but ones the pastor wanted to lift up to
public attention, (one was even her co-pastor before she became head of staff).
I was not included in that group though I get hugged by her each Sunday like
the rest, but we’re snow birds and not as active in the congregation; though I
have been asked to lector a couple of Sundays while we are here. Presbyterian
pastors do not have a church membership, our membership is in a presbytery (see
an earlier article.) In my presbytery we have specific printed ethical
guidelines that say pastors when the leave a church should stay away from the
church they are leaving for two years and not participate in any pastoral
functions in those congregations. It is an guideline I believe in. New pastors
do not need the ghosts of Christmas past wandering around while they are
establishing their ministry in a church. Congregations are often confused and
troubled by that but I believe in it and have followed those principles in my
ministry, though I have returned to worship in a couple of churches when the
pastor and the session invited Doreen and me to do so. But what a contrast I
see between northern and southern congregations on this point. It is always a
fine point on have rules, guidelines and just letting folk loose in making wise
decisions.
Another
passing thought. During Bill Clinton’s campaign he made the great statement, “It’s
the economy stupid!” as a way of keeping himself on track with the interests of
the citizens. It’s still a good thing to keep in front of ourselves but we are
all over the place today in how to fix the economy. You know my position, go
back to demand side economics and supply side economics has been a total
failure. But this is the headline that caught my eye on today’s Mother Jones
blog, “It the wealth gap stupid.” You can read the blog for yourself, but the
point is clear and poignant. The wealth gap in this country is absurd and needs
to be addressed but hardly any politician seems willing to take it on aside
from Obama’s token of making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair
share. The 99%ers and the MoveOn groups get it. Why don’t more others,
specifically Republicans in all the various stripes today. They seem to have
taken the ostrich position of burying their collective heads in the sand. At
least sand does trickle down.
Final
thought for this blog is what are you doing to prepare your family to the post
American era? It is inevitable I believe that it is coming sooner or later when
we will no longer be the only super power in the world, but have to learn how
to work and play with others on the world’s sandlot. I don’t think our
civilization will just be destroyed and go away as previous empires, though
possible. I will like go into this in a future blog. “The Rise and Fall of the
American Experiment.”
I always found Zakaria to be a centrist. Wikipedia tends to agree: "Zakaria self-identifies as a "centrist", though he has been described variously as a political liberal, a conservative, or a moderate". And yes, I measure such things from the center. There aren't many centrist pundist. The late David Broder is someone I consider to be one also.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Obama is nearly as bad as he is made out to be on foreign policy. He gets bashed a lot for those photos of him bowing to foreign leaders, but I don't think these made any difference to anyone's policies.
-------------
I respectfully disagree that the "wealth gap" is an issue of importance. So much of this dispute is one between the have and the have mores.
One problem with the proposals for the millionaires to pay "their fair share" is because they would end up paying this money to the powerful ruling elites in Washington, who end up enriching and helping themselves first. The have-a-lots being forced to give to other have-a-lots who have the guns (the Federal government).
Now, if I see someone propose ideas to force the rich to give money directly to poor, that would be interesting. And would bypass entirely the problem of socialism, which is all about maximizing the wealth and power of the ruling class (and usually ends up with millions of people being killed).
Libertarians would not be happy with such a demand, but their outrage would pale next to the outrage of the privileged bureaucratic class to whom "public service" is an alien concept.
Dmarks, I’m glad you see Zakaria’s centrist tendencies, it still leaves him in the conservative camp, thus he writes for TIME rather than U.S. News and World Reports. But he speaks for a position that we need and lack in this country. Common ground folk that seek to solve problems rationally and not at the expense of others. Did you read my pieces on Zakaria. On his book :Post American World", in 8-10-11 and 9-1-11
ReplyDeleteI am amazed however at you easy gloss over of the “wealth gap” as a minor issue. We exist in a time when the equity of wealth is the same at that was in existence leading up to the Great Depression. It is the major economic issue of these times and has tremendous fallout now and for the future. You also have a strange propagandist definition it socialism versus an academic one. All economies in today’s world are mixed economies and to lump the socialism of the old USSR and Sweden is bizarre. You further imply that such tendencies make government an evil institution of the wealthy and ruling class. And yet seem blind to the fact that it is the ultra rich that have seized the government under present deregulations policies that have created today’s economic mess. Since I have written on these matters I will not go into them again. But I am amazed at folk anti-government attitudes versus government reform concerns.
I will try to take a wider view in a coming article about our nations issues.
I enjoy your comments but some seem to be coming from a very strange place.
The real issue you ignore is the plight of the middle class in all of this. When appropriate government regulations are in place the middle class flourishes and the nation as the whole is healthy. The last 35 years of supply side economics have made us as Warren Buffet describes more like sharecroppers; working harder and harder and getting less and less.
The whole line about 'ruling elites' just sounds like a classic redirect debate strategy. Change the subject by implying that all taxes simply go to line politicians' pockets rather than paying for anything.
ReplyDeleteThat may be a case to make for lobbying reform, congressional insider trading, or campaign finance reform (such as supporting a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United case), but it's not a case about tax policy. Total non-sequitur.
"I am amazed however at you easy gloss over of the “wealth gap” as a minor issue."
DeleteI'm not jealous or greedy, and don't feel that it is a big deal that Donald Trump has 30 cars.
"You also have a strange propagandist definition it socialism versus an academic one. All economies in today’s world are mixed economies and to lump the socialism of the old USSR and Sweden is bizarre."
I look at the academic definition of socialism first: one in which the rulers control the means of production. Of course Sweden isn't as bad as the USSR. But why would Sweden, a European nation, adopt in any form, even mild, and in any name the ideology of Hitler and Stalin... which ravaged Europe for much of the 20th century?
"You further imply that such tendencies make government an evil institution of the wealthy and ruling class."
That's not a mere "implication". It's history. Look at the worst dictators of the 20th century. Most of them are socialists.
"And yet seem blind to the fact that it is the ultra rich that have seized the government under present deregulations policies that have created today’s economic mess."
The top 1% rich in the US pay 38% of the taxes. There's absolutely no evidence that the "ultra rich" have seized the government, and much evidence to the contrary. And as for regulations, the Bush administration piled on a lot more, and the Obama administration has continued to do so. And as for the economic mess, this was caused by a bureacrat with a bad idea and the ability to put it in place.
Everything I found puts Zakaria in the centrist camp. I'd like links to your older pieces on Zakaria's older work. Sounds interesting.
I respectfully disagree with the "anti-government" label being put on me, as I am strongly in favor of government. However, I am opposed to corruption and government doing the wrong things.
"The real issue you ignore is the plight of the middle class in all of this."
This happens when you get increasing over-regulation which forces business to off-shore and outsource and otherwise downsizes, as government ends up punishing businesses for hiring people.
------------
"
The whole line about 'ruling elites' just sounds like a classic redirect debate strategy."
It's not a redirect or change of the subject at all. I am referring to the elites who rule. Look up both words.
"Change the subject by implying that all taxes simply go to line politicians' pockets rather than paying for anything."
I never "implied" this. But the problem of politicians self-enriching at the taxpayer expense is getting worse and worse. These greedy folks help bankrupt government and keep it from performing its critical and necessary missions.
"That may be a case to make for lobbying reform, congressional insider trading, or campaign finance reform (such as supporting a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United case)"
Far from it. "Citizens United" undid an outrageous situation by which the government could punish Americans for daring to criticize those in power. We certainly don't need it reversed. We still have a First Amendment.