So one party says that they will give you everything you need, and for free. One says that you will need to work hard to have the things you need. I wonder which one Americans know for their laziness and love of convenience will choose in November. Remember all, salvation is free, everything else follows the old idea…there is no such thing as a free lunch…
I wonder which one America will pick
You are bating (sp?) me…but i will not bite. 🙂
Bite blue boy, bite! 🙂
How about this?
Of course this theory didn’t work in 2000 or 2004. Though, now, i wish it had. My dad read something not to long ago that said the longer that George W. stays in office the better he makes his dad look. I found that pretty hilarious.
I am not sure that in 2000 and 2004 the offer of freebies was anywhere near the at the level of this campaign. And the freebies used to be just aimed at the extremely poor, now with health care, free college, they are aimed at those who really vote. You have got to give the freebies directly to the voters, that is what they learned this year. And you won’t find me in the George W fan club, but that doesn’t mean I react by jumping way to the left either. Maybe I should give Nader a look, at least McCain will look younger that way.
“Free college” is a bit misleading. Dodd (when he was still running) wanted a 50/50 plan for in-state tuition for community colleges. Each state would have to approve the plan or not. Edwards wanted to pay for 1 year of public ed. but student would have to complete college-prep work, stay out of trouble and work part-time in college. Obama wants (at least press release info) wants to give fully refundable tax credit of $4000 (that would cover 100% of first $4000) at time of enrollment. Richardson wanted to give 2 years of tuition and fees for each year of community service.
So, “free” is not exactly free. It is either limited in scope or has requirements attached to them.
And on health care – Clinton wants mandatory health care subsidized by govt. and employers. Obama wants all children to have health care. Here is the kicker for both – both would partially fund these by rolling back Bush tax-cuts for those who make over $250,000 p/yr. And for both of these candidates it is an issue with affordability. It just seems that while the “right”, on this issue, acknowledges there is a problem, the “left” is coming up with alternatives to deal with it.
And honestly, i don’t think, for me, i have reacted by jumping way to the left (and i know that you may not be implying that i have)…but has been a gradual shift.
And like my post on God’s Politics that Jim Wallis (and Ron Sider) have been very helpful in seeing (and saying) that the problems (and therefore the solution(s)) are tackled by focusing on social structures that hinder people and also some people’s lack of work ethic. The two must go hand in hand.
Funny, never heard any of that mentioned in any of the many speeches I have heard, not even in the debates, but that all said, it goes to my original post, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
And while I reject the idea that when you tax the rich at very low levels, everyone benefits, even the poor (trickle down economics made famous by Ronny). I also reject the idea that taxing the rich heavily only has impact on the rich people’s profits and bank account. We must not forget that the rich run much of the economy and provide most of the jobs.
And finally, I just do not buy that Hilary or Obama are going to change any social structures in ways that are truly helpful, rather extend the same structure that keep people in poverty.
And did I mention that McCain scares me, and it is not because he is too liberal, but because he is too much like another president I know, only older and more testy.
Yeah, i found that info on the NY Times web-site that listed out the candidates position on a number of issues. With as much changing that these candidates do….just wait 5 minutes and they will be saying something else. 🙂
Yeah, agreed…..i don’t think that necessarily any of these candidates will succeed in changing structures. But, I do think that the left at least comes up with more solutions, on a whole, than the right. Sometimes the solutions are good, sometimes not so good. Part of the issue is that we don’t have a real good opportunity to keep any of these candidates accountable for their plans. No plans is bad. Having plans is better. Having plans but with no accountability is unhelpful and pretty much worthless.
As far as i am concerned we need to run everyone out of there, get people in who understand this was never to be a full-time career type job, and who actually listen to and understand the people they represent. Next election cycle (2012), you, Phil, are my write in.
Why do you assume I will not be on the ballot?
I think it’s oversimplifying to assume that if a democrat wins, it’s because Americans are lazy.
This post was not intended to be holistic in any sense. I wrote it while listening to a Hilary speech that was nothing but a long string of freebie offers. And if you want to tell me that Americans are not attracted to freebies, I do not understand.
Furthermore, I watch a lot of news, much more than Jaimee would prefer, and I know that when asked why people like Hilary they list the same freebies I heard her offer. As for Barak, he offers vague hope, another favorite of humanity, which has brought both the greatest accomplishments and greatest tragedies in human history to fruition. I am not sure which way he will lead us.
First, let me just say….can I be your running mate then in 2012?
Second, why don’t the candidates offering something free that has value and substance…..like free coffee?
Third, why not stop watching the news and become the news…..how about setting something on fire?
Fourth, maybe you shouldn’t do number 3.
Fifth, make sure you read number 4.