This is where the Democrats want to take us,
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.
God help us.
Just remember, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
Be careful what you wish for.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Every time one of these libturds opens their mouth, I clench a little more.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Wow! Just imagine jobs, health care, and homes all at the same level of quality as our current government education. Remember government housing – Cabrini Green in Chicago – There is a real gem.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
The government is already big enough to take everything you have.
And if you needed help for your children to eat or see a doctor, you would take help from the government. We’ve already established that.
There go you but for the grace of Bob, my friend.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I drove through Cabrini-Green once and I was literally sick to my stomach. (And I mean literally.) Growing up in Vermont, I had never witnessed that level of poverty. I could not believe people actually lived in those conditions. Long live government housing!
Haik, I am not sure what you are implying there, but I did not need help from the government for my children to eat or have health care before Bob.
Yeah, there are circumstances when people need help and I am all for helping people who are truly in need. If fact, I have many times.
I’ll leave you with a quote from a couple posts down, “But for those who have a legitimate problem, they have some sort of problem that prevents them from succeeding; we are all for taking care of those people. But we do not want to take normal, healthy Americans and turn them into wards of the state, turn them into dependents.”
October 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Unfortunately I think the tendency is to look at the worst and expect the worst. Big government works perfectly well if you place competent and capable people in charge the institutions, hire competent and capable people to work under them, provide them with the adequate staffing and resources that they need and keep a necessary level of checks and balances to keep things from wobbling too far to either side.
I get frustrated with those sort of bare-bones government approach, simply because it seems to stem from a belief that money trickles downward. What I tend to see is that you strip out any sort of controls or measures to help the lower rungs – and you get a class system which is built on people stepping on each other to move up.
I can understand that if you want to be greedy and horde your money at all costs, that’s fine. But don’t turn around and suggest that everyone needs to do such a thing, simply because we have a different perspective on the world. Personally I’d like a government that works for everyone, not just those who have climbed to the top of the ladder, if you like.
That said, there’s reforms that I’m sure you and I would agree on wholeheartedly that I would support. Limits to welfare, for instance. It should be a program like the C.C.C., where in bad times you’re getting paid for some meaningful work, not exactly an incentive to keep popping out kids and live off the check. There again, I think you tend to look at the person who does exactly that and expects money for doing nothing – I look at the person who lost his job, house and most of his possessions and needs a bit of help to get by for a few weeks or months to get back to work. I hold faith that people will get back on their feet and use their talents (as you put it) to support themselves, perhaps more than you do. I also feel that they deserve a safety net and adequate social services, health care and the like…without being thrown to the wolves like they currently are.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“I can understand that if you want to be greedy and horde your money at all costs, that’s fine.”
When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me, but mostly you.
I have barely any money and what I do have, I am quite generous with. I happen to have more faith in people than in government. I happen to think that a local, community-based approach is better for everyone involved than a large, de-centralized government that benefits from keeping people down. I am a lot of things, but greedy is not one of them.
“I think you tend to look at the person who does exactly that and expects money for doing nothing – I look at the person who lost his job, house and most of his possessions and needs a bit of help to get by for a few weeks or months to get back to work.”
I think of the 20-year-old pregnant college student from a poor family, who needs a little help while she finishes college and gets a good job, but was told that she could only get food stamps if she quit school. (That would be me, 12 years ago.)
I think of the young, single mother who quit job after job every time she was about to lose her benefits because years of dependence made her afraid to rely on herself. (That was not me. I went right out and got a job and did not qualify for any assistance, not even housing.)
I am not opposed to helping people. I will repeat the quote I posted in the comment above yours. It obviously bears repeating.
“But for those who have a legitimate problem, they have some sort of problem that prevents them from succeeding; we are all for taking care of those people. But we do not want to take normal, healthy Americans and turn them into wards of the state, turn them into dependents.”
October 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
The ‘you’ in the statement was much more a general sense in my mind than a deliberate attack, per se. I can see how it would be taken that way, so I do have to apologize. Ultimately I look at those who amass millions (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars in personal wealth, moving that money into tax shelters and shrinking behind lower tax rates – and I can only call that one thing: greed. But I don’t believe that the pursuit of money is an end goal, as someone like Warren Buffet may.
I suppose I don’t quite understand as to why state run health care, housing or any other entity would be so frightening. Is it a fear of paying higher taxes to support such a system? Is it for fear of people like W. who will put incompetent people in charge because of their ideology? Some sort of fear of loss of freedoms?
I don’t believe in your quote above because there are normal, healthy Americans (as you define them) who are ignored and struggling economically right now. The system we have currently doesn’t work, and I’d rather put my faith in a large government to take care of its citizens than large corporations who believe only in a profit margin.
If giving every American socialized medicine through health clinics (with state run hospitals existing for things like M.R.I.’s and surgeries) is turning them into dependents (as an example), I’ll take that over having my parents pay $1000 a month to a monolithic entity of a health insurance company who does everything in their power to deny their claims when they do get sick.
“I happen to think that a local, community-based approach is better for everyone involved than a large, de-centralized government”
I certainly agree with you there and would welcome a return to tribal communities – however it seems unlikely that every town is going to become an independent city/state in the near future. Maybe in 2012 at the “End Date”?