Hillary for President
Well, I tried to support Ron Paul as the U.S. Capitalist party icon, but the translation from principal to practice left something to be desired. I am switching ("waffeling and wavering") to Ms. Hillary Clinton. Why?
First, there is the contradiction that a Democratic President, Democratic House and Democratic Senate is NOT a Republic. Unlike her main opponent, Ms. Clinton is not a male. This renders her perspective absolutely distinct and uncompromisable in comparison to any male counterpart, leaving the two party system, at least sexually divergent. In regard to a balanced government, having a Female President is as close to performing the actual function of an Executive branch, which is to mediate between the House and Senate and then fairly and with appropriate intent, execute their Legislation. I suspect responsibility will be more comfortably exercised by Ms. Clinton than by her antagonist "Mr Change".
Second, Ms. Clinton supports market based mechanisms in appropriate proportions.
For energy, for instance, she supports carbon trading, more research dollars, rather that government intervention in resource acquisition. And government guidelines on automobile efficiency standards - which stimulate competition rather than stagnate it.
From her site:
"Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis."
I like that! And she continues: ...
"Recognizing that transportation accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but would help automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds." "
Assistance in retrofitting, is a huge part of overcoming the capital shortfall our 'interest on fiat money' - economic system is suffering from, though it skirts the edge of government run industry. Government needs to get away from funding everything and leave money for the -consumer driven- capitalist system to finance the things folks like us wish for, directly.
Ms. Clinton's Education reform ideas are okay, as they at least get rid of much of the oppressiveness that is preventing education from happening today, but she could stand to read Richard Louv's "Last Child in the Woods" to add to her allure. Just about anything thought through is an improvement to our education system.
and on and on, Ms. Clinton's policies and practices are superior to anything else out there. Besides, change? CHANGE? Isn't that what PGWB implicitly stood for, though not in so many words. Haven't we had about enough frustrated policies to last a lifetime? It's time for a Queen Elizabeth, someone who can get our economy back on track and our global image back in the realm of the humanly decent. If Ms. Clinton isn't anything else, she is at least a much prettier face that what our progressive nation is represented by these days.
Peace and prosperity!
First, there is the contradiction that a Democratic President, Democratic House and Democratic Senate is NOT a Republic. Unlike her main opponent, Ms. Clinton is not a male. This renders her perspective absolutely distinct and uncompromisable in comparison to any male counterpart, leaving the two party system, at least sexually divergent. In regard to a balanced government, having a Female President is as close to performing the actual function of an Executive branch, which is to mediate between the House and Senate and then fairly and with appropriate intent, execute their Legislation. I suspect responsibility will be more comfortably exercised by Ms. Clinton than by her antagonist "Mr Change".
Second, Ms. Clinton supports market based mechanisms in appropriate proportions.
For energy, for instance, she supports carbon trading, more research dollars, rather that government intervention in resource acquisition. And government guidelines on automobile efficiency standards - which stimulate competition rather than stagnate it.
From her site:
"Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis."
I like that! And she continues: ...
"Recognizing that transportation accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but would help automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds." "
Assistance in retrofitting, is a huge part of overcoming the capital shortfall our 'interest on fiat money' - economic system is suffering from, though it skirts the edge of government run industry. Government needs to get away from funding everything and leave money for the -consumer driven- capitalist system to finance the things folks like us wish for, directly.
Ms. Clinton's Education reform ideas are okay, as they at least get rid of much of the oppressiveness that is preventing education from happening today, but she could stand to read Richard Louv's "Last Child in the Woods" to add to her allure. Just about anything thought through is an improvement to our education system.
and on and on, Ms. Clinton's policies and practices are superior to anything else out there. Besides, change? CHANGE? Isn't that what PGWB implicitly stood for, though not in so many words. Haven't we had about enough frustrated policies to last a lifetime? It's time for a Queen Elizabeth, someone who can get our economy back on track and our global image back in the realm of the humanly decent. If Ms. Clinton isn't anything else, she is at least a much prettier face that what our progressive nation is represented by these days.
Peace and prosperity!
posted by lou_srewlect | 5:48 PM
2 Comments:
How can you possibly call yourself a capitalist when you want someone so far left in office?!?! She wants MORE regulation, LESS laissez faire, and MORE social programs. This post has broken my hopes of ever seeing a real capitalist society.
I suppose, but the cost of war is just too high and it is consuming the basis of capitalism from the other direction. Instead of value added things like social programs, health care and the like, we pay people to make things that self-destruct and have little real use. Their wage drives up demand, which in turn drives up the demand for more wage... in addition to consumer debt with our fiat money doing the same thing, I do not see how capitalism can survive. Ever consider what the accountability to capitalism is for any government body?
Post a Comment
<< Home