Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing

Post a reply

Username

Subject

Message body

Emoticons

Font colour: Font size:

Close Tags

[quote="Guest"][quote="Guest"][quote="Jack Frohbieter"]  My original point is that sending Rush Holt back to Congress is to give your approval to the spending that he has voted for and to encourage more of the same. I for one believe this is against the best interest of this country and its citizens. If you agree with the spending that is occurring vote for Rush. If not, vote for Scott.[/quote]

OK, so you believe that Rush Holt's voting record that shows he voted to prevent health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, to protect social security, to close the Medicare prescription "donut-hole", to make higher education more affordable, and to protect the environment, "is against the best interest of this country and its citizens" ??  Are you completely out of your mind? You my friend are the enemy and not Congressman Rush Holt.[/quote]

Your both enemies of rational policy.  You come across like as much of a zealot as the other side, accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you as being the "enemy" or out of their minds.

Personally I'll vote for Holt, but not reflexively because he is a Democrat as some people do.  But I also understand the root of the discontent with the health care reform, even if I don't completely agree with it.  The problem is despite years of history and now multiple periods with each party in power practicing its philosophy on governing, there is no unequivocal proof that either side's policies work.  Reagan governed with trickle down economics and we eventually saw prosperity, but it was also the historic period of uplift that typically followed a conventional recession like the one he had early in his tenure, and it was accomplished partially by quadrupling our national debt – the first time it was ever measured in trillions.  Clinton governed by all the typical Democrat principles and policies and we saw the greatest economic uplift in our history, yet it also arguably set us up for some of what killed us a couple years ago that we’re still recovering from.  Each side can find plenty to support their cases and plenty to use to condemn the other side.  Anyone who states one side absolutely is right and the other side are idiots, etc. doesn’t have a lot of historical perspective or a full grasp of the facts.

So when you look at health care reform, for example, you can see a positive step in the right direction to close loopholes and cover another 40 million Americans without insurance.  Or you can see a boondoggle that does not help most of the 85% of Americans that already had insurance whose primary problem is the soaring cost, which arguably will and already is only getting worse as a result.  Looked at from this point of view some people see something that will make their lives worse, not better, and believe it will ultimately fail as a result of costs but not before doing a lot of damage.  Of course there are counter arguments to all of this too.  The point is it is not black & white.  The real word is full of gray.  People who think it’s absolutely clear are usually the dumb ones.

Of course the simpleton’s who see things in absolutes also tend to frame everything in political party jingoism.  Everything wrong is the Democrats fault.  They are all socialists.  Or Republicans are all evil, extremists or conspiring to make us all slaves to the rich elite.  Blah, blah, blah.  As soon as you read that kind of preamble you know right away that everything that comes after it will be nonsense.[/quote]

Options
HTML is ON
BBCode is ON
Smilies are ON

	Disable HTML in this post
	Disable BBCode in this post
	Disable Smilies in this post