?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

...the senators in Washington took the cowardly route. Preserving their own jobs is more important to them than doing what the overwhelming majority of the American people want. Fire them! Vote them out! They don't care about you!

This is as pissed as I've ever seen our President.

Comments

veronica_rich
Apr. 21st, 2013 08:55 pm (UTC)
pt. 2
If you don't place clear, stringent regulations on industries that deal in necessities of the public, you have pure competition between predators that have no predators buckling down to eliminate them in turn. It turns into the rabbit problem in Australia. There was a country before FDR, and it wasn't roses and champagne all day long for the common person. These companies will feed on each other, then consumers, who have far less power as a result of having less money to influence legislators. (And helping them are a lot of really stupid voters who regularly agree to vote against their own long-term interests.)

Without government "interference," what are the chances we would have eradicated slavery at the time we did; or ensured the national vote for women; or be as close to not punishing people for wanting same-sex marriage as we are now? I don't believe a one of those things would have happened sooner than it did if there wasn't some larger force countering majority human nature and forcing people to ... well, behave decently, for lack of a better term. I don't want to leave my country in the hands of the Christians and venture capitalists to make those decisions for me; I want it to come from people I vote in.

(I have a co-worker who lives in a fantasyland and has tried to argue that air pollution today would be down just as much as it is, from 100 years ago - or more! - if government hadn't enacted regulations on those poor, poor job-creators, costing them more money. Why? Because it would be in their best interests to keep their customers alive, of course, by cutting polluted output on their own. I could go on for days about what's wrong with this naive view of people whose primary goal is to make money off the quantity of consumers, not the quality of their lives, but I won't.)

My co-worker never once said these companies would keep their pollution in check because it's the right, moral thing to do. While I understand our society now is all about making the most money possible, and I operate and do business within that reality, it worries me that this has become the acceptable paradigm for civilized adult behavior at all times. But it is - and government still has a place in combating that against civil rights (such as the right not to have to die simply because you can't afford a simple lifesaving surgery or antibiotics) when it's needed.

Another thing I notice you talk about is saving money you would spend on health care, and using that for when you get sick. My mother's cancer cost well in excess of $1 million by the time she died, and that was just 7 months after she was diagnosed. There is no way in their entire lives she and Dad would have been able to save a million dollars, even if they walked to work and lived in a cardboard box. I don't think they're unusual in that.

Profile

Galadriel sketch
bonnie_halfelvn
bonnie_halfelvn

Latest Month

March 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars