I wish Paul would've won the nomination. Then there would've been an actual debate.
Paul, of course, has good ideas with respect to military spending, foreign policy, etc., etc., etc. (Paul wants to make deep cuts to military spending. Not necessarily defense. But military. Ending all these needless and illegal wars. Including the asinine and fruitless drug war. I mean, why don't we have a war on dandruff -- ha ha ha!)
I don't support all of Paul's positions. I just think there would be an actual debate between him and Obama.
Can't see that happening with Obama and Romney. I mean, they serve the same interests and get their cash from the same banking and insurance sector.
The only issue they'll discuss: how far should we lower taxes. And how close should we get to a perfect form of capitalism. Which has never existed. And never will. Because, as George Carlin pointed out, the "owners" don't want that. I'm talking, as Carlin said, about the real owners. Carlin said: FORGET THE POLITICIANS. They are there to give you the illusion that you have choice. You don't. You have owners. They own you. And they certainly own the likes of Obama and Romney. I mean, Romney is poor relative to the extreme wealth of the Koch brothers; exceedingly poor.)
So, why not end all taxes? Let's not fuck about. Let's have pure capitalism. (I, of course, don't support this. But that's what they -- in the words of Carlin: the people that own this place -- are inevitably pushing towards.
But do the billionaire donors of politicians really want a plenary market system? Do they? Do the Koch brothers and executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Rex Tillerson really want a thorough market system where there are no taxes, no subsidies, no bailouts and no externalizing their costs? Well, no. They'd be mad to push for that.
However, they're simply serving their own interests -- and it's fully rational and levelheaded-- to shift the tax base from them to everyone else.
And Romney isn't in this presidential race to "create" jobs. It isn't about that. Nor should it be. He is rational.
And his own good sense dictates to "gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
He's being, well, coyly rational. He's serving, again, his own concerns. He knows that.
And, too, as a rational actor, well, why should he care or concern himself with anyone else? Why? The business world is not benevolent. And can't be.