On Sep 18, 2010, at 12:28 AM, frank theriault wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:03 AM, P N Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net
> wrote:
Frank. The guy with the most votes wins. Period. Sorry, but that's
the
truth.
No arguments here.
All presidents want a second term. Ultimately, they try to please the
majority.
No, they have to make it ~look~ like they're pleasing the majority.
That's where PR and spin doctors come in.
And I know it's hard for a lefty to accept this, but sometimes
what's good for the corporations is also good for the majority.
Sometimes, but not always. By their nature, in fact by law,
corporations act in the best interest of their shareholders. If
shareholders want what's best for the majority, we all win. But
that's not always the case. All too often the bottom line is the
bottom line - profits win out over what's best for John Q. If
corporations really wanted what's best for the public, the government
would never have had to mandate safety features in automobiles.
But they did. So government didn't act in the best interest of the
corporations, it acted in the best interest of the majority. Which it
usually does at some point.
They'd never have had to enact anti-pollution legislation,
But they did.
corporations would have self-regulated and never spewed all that toxic
shit into the air, water and soil.
In any case, Obama hasn't tried to please the corporations.
He bailed out banks (uber-capitalists until they need government
money, then they become welfare bums). He bailed out car companies.
Yeah, he's been real tough on corporate America.
Both of those actions helped prevent the country, and the city in
which I live, from going belly up. In terms of the auto bailouts, GM
is now thriving, and hiring people. Chrysler is close to being on an
even keel as well. Without the bailouts, Detroit would have become a
living hell.
He instituted
tough financial regulations
After giving all that money to the banks, he had to do something to
try to make sure that another melt-down like that doesn't happen
again. If it does, heaven help us all.
and mandated health care that 's going to be
costly for many businesses. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending
on one's
point of view, the majority doesn't seem to approve.
Don't get me started on health care!
;-)
Time will tell. But in
any case, life will go on. And it's a pretty damn good life, even
given the
present economy.
Agreed. Canada's a pretty damned good place to live, as is most of
the democratic West. My frustration is that it ~could~ be so much
better for so many more. We have the resources and the expertise...
Perhaps it could be the same for everyone, but then there would be no
motivation to succeed and carve out one's place in the world. It's the
age old contradiction, and there are no easy answers.
Since there are no easy answers, I'm going to abandon this
discussion:-).
Paul
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
