Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

OBAMA COMPROMISE: Time for a second New Deal

Letter by Bob Klemola, University Place on Dec. 10, 2010 at 1:02 pm with 21 Comments »
December 10, 2010 2:07 pm

It is laudable that President Obama believes in compromise. But he is forgetting that while it is appropriate to compromise on what one wants, it is unconscionable to compromise on what is right and what is wrong. You do not accept a little of what is wrong in order to get a little of what is right.

The president’s stated belief is that if everyone is a little unhappy, it must be a good compromise. This may be true when picking the family dog, but when applied to negotiations with Congress this idea of compromise has created a mishmash of sound and unsound economic policies and destroyed our middle class over the last 30y years.

Our predecessors lived through what my grandfather called “Hoover Times” – the beginning of the Great Depression and the end days for the stranglehold corporations had over America’s economic policies throughout the first part of the last century.

Voter outcry during Hoover Times led to huge Democratic victories and to the New Deal, which shifted power away from the corporations and, over the next 50 years, created and strengthened the American middle-class.

Hopefully one day I will be able to tell my grandchildren about “Obama Times” – when a president who compromised by kowtowing to corporate power was succeeded by one who championed for a second New Deal and gave rebirth to a strong middle class.

Leave a comment Comments → 21
  1. Today, I tell my grand children that they are the masters’ of their fate, not the government and not some politican that’s here today and gone tomorrow. I teach them that the government’s responsibility is to keep them safe from foreign enemies and domestic criminals. I teach them that it’s their responsibility to provide for their personal needs when they become adults. I teach them that government programs come with government rules and that dependency is corrosive to the human soul. I teach them that little is better than much if much comes from someone else’s labor. I teach them to share with those in need through no fault of their own and to shun the lazy and irresponsible. I teach them what Ronal Reagan said, that guvment is the problem, not the solution. I’m sure my grandkids value their heritage more than yours ever could.

  2. ItalianSpring says:

    Bob- Hilarious letter. Thanks for the laugh.

  3. aislander says:

    It is wrong to delegate your thievery to the government, Klemola…

  4. bobcat1a says:

    Bugme, I had some troll caught salmon last week; It was really good.

  5. In other words roxey teaches his grandkids that are special, to disrespect the government, and to honor the domestic enemies (ENEMIES NOT CRIIMANLS) who are destroying our country so they can satisfy their hungry ghost of greed and avarice.

  6. sumner402 says:

    I’ll bet somebodies grand kids hate going to grandmas house!

  7. sumner402 says:

    I see the right is doing what they always do, attack and whine.

  8. chris3dog says:

    Roxey’s grandkids have been heard to say……grandma, what large teeth you have, and grandma why is your nose getting longer?

    I tend to ignore aislander, since all he ever says is…”someone’s been eating my porridge”. Is he referring to entitlements?

  9. aislander says:

    I don’t mind sharing my porridge, chris3dog, if I decide to. Trouble is, somebody’s stealing my porridge, and my kids’ porridge, and THEIR potential kids’ porridge, since they are debt slaves already because of this monstrous government you guys have saddled us with…

  10. Well said, Roxey. Naturally the usual coterie of hyenas and jackals yips and nips. Pay as much attention as you would to a fart in a windstorm, or less.

    Here’s one from Ronaldo magnus for the kids.

    “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”

  11. aislander says:

    Huh. No further lefty posts. Imagine that…

  12. It is a lost cause…getting some people to see the difference between choosing to share and having the government take what’s yours and give it away … while all the fat cats…up to and including leading democrats, whirlybird off to their vacation homes leaving, I must add…gargantuan carbon footprints along the way.

    Those of you who think the Nancy Peolosis and Harry Reids and the Al Gores and he John Edwards of this world …and the Michael Moores and David Lettermens and the worst hypocrite of late whose name escapes me…the maker of Avatar…are more interested in the poor OR the planet are living in a closet with your fingers in your ears.

  13. sozo – am I to understand that you agree with my agreement with Gore Vidal’s assessment of the Republicans and the Democrats being two right wings of the Money Party (In the original 1970s quote Vidal termed it “Property Party” but since most assets are virtual these days – and fiat currency is certainly a virtual money system – I update it to Money Party)?

  14. aislander says:

    I DO agree with your assessment of the problem, beerBoy, since it is obvious that the VERY rich influence government policies, but I know we disagree on the solution. Mine is more freedom for individuals and less power for government to act in ANYONE’S financial interests…

  15. I do not disagree with what you say bBoy, though you will notice I steer clear of detailed economic discussions because I am incompetent to analyze and evaluate.

    As you know, I share aislander’s opinion about more freedom for individuals and less power for government. And I truly believe that our society is at risk if we buy into the entitlment mentality that European countries have.

    I believe we do a disservice to human beings when we create a system of dependence. Just look at all the young adults who are still dependent on their parents at 25 and 30. It is not good for them (I should think it feels absolutely terrible) and it is not good for their parents. This is the simple metaphor I use when I think about socialistic type solutions. It is dangerous and just wrong, imo, to permit adults to abdicate their responsibility to be contributing members of society and let’s face it, if you give me money and keep me well fed and entertained, I’m not likely to be highly motivated to fend for myself.

  16. And P.S. — deep inside, I will HATE myself, and I will hate you for making me dependent. Shame is an awful thing.

  17. aislander says:

    It’s at least true, sozo, that people who are able to provide for themselves and their families are happier people than those who are dependent on other people or other entities, and, as for your assertion that you will hate the one who enables your dependence, well, just look at the way the “rich” are treated on this forum…

  18. sumner402 says:

    What is really doing the country a disservice is the blind loyalty to the certain media propaganda and party.
    Blind enough to actually think
    “that our society is at risk if we buy into the entitlment mentality that European countries have.”

    THAT is what is doing the damage to the country. That within our our country one side, the far right considers their fellow countryman ‘the enemy’ and is being fueled by a party led, owned and controlled media system build up over decades to the point of making Hitler envious.
    THAT is what is wrong.

  19. And you do NOT view those opposing your world view as “the enemy” Sumner? You certainly address them as if you do.

    I will stick to my opinion that the real damage will come in the form of creating a society of demanding dependents ready to roll the king’s car when the freebies are withheld.

  20. the way the “rich” are treated on this forum…

    Gotta say I can’t bring up a lot of crocodile tears for the poor “oppressed” plutocrats…..

    Individual freedom……that’s a great slogan but it’s funny how it is selectively applied. Certainly “blue laws” that restrict one’s individual freedom to behave in manners that others may find distasteful yet don’t infringe others’ rights to behave in “tasteful” ways should fall under that heading yet it is oftentimes the case that those who are most concerned about protecting property rights and economic freedom (which for the 14% of America which is under the poverty line is moot) are also concerned with preventing some individuals from having the freedom to engage in private behaviors legally.

  21. You make a valid point, bBoy, one that fuels the liberterian arguments I think.

    It’s a tricky business, regulation. One thing is for sure, in my opinion, states should decide far more as to what’s “good” for its citizens than the feds. Even things like the battle against obesity, if it’s to be waged, should be waged at the state level.

    This is where we are losing our way, IMO

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0