…………. when the population discovers that it can simply vote itself money. Socialist totalitarianism is the apparatus that is necessary to enforce the redistribution of wealth necessary to “equitably” allocate wealth. History relentlessly establishes the foregoing truism. (Perhaps that sounds like a “truism” because it is universally “true”).
Our society is at a cross roads. Have we truly become so irresponsible, so neutered and so deprived of a national sense of entrepreneurship that we literally want the government to provide financial support from, quite literally, conception to the grave?
Look at the big picture and ask yourself what government must demand if it is to provide the level of “services” for its citizens. Is it not also true that any government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take from you everything you have”.
Not content to have government provided and controlled health care Hillary now radically steepens the descent into socialism by proposing that every child get $5,000 at birth. Welfare for everyone and the only questions left for future campaigns is who will pay more and what is the bottom dollar for which the election can be purchased.
The ash heap of history is littered with cultures that trod that path. I’m not just talking about impoverished Old Europe-historically diminishing before our eyes-but really really Old Europe, like the Roman Empire, perhaps the best historical example of the universal dole’s” s affect on a society.
So, Hillary defines dependency ever upward, ever enlarging the share of the population that has to vote for more government because they cannot live without it.
Is that the world you want?
Our society is at a cross roads. Have we truly become so irresponsible, so neutered and so deprived of a national sense of entrepreneurship that we literally want the government to provide financial support from, quite literally, conception to the grave?
Look at the big picture and ask yourself what government must demand if it is to provide the level of “services” for its citizens. Is it not also true that any government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take from you everything you have”.
Not content to have government provided and controlled health care Hillary now radically steepens the descent into socialism by proposing that every child get $5,000 at birth. Welfare for everyone and the only questions left for future campaigns is who will pay more and what is the bottom dollar for which the election can be purchased.
The ash heap of history is littered with cultures that trod that path. I’m not just talking about impoverished Old Europe-historically diminishing before our eyes-but really really Old Europe, like the Roman Empire, perhaps the best historical example of the universal dole’s” s affect on a society.
So, Hillary defines dependency ever upward, ever enlarging the share of the population that has to vote for more government because they cannot live without it.
Is that the world you want?
4 comments:
Mr. Sporer, let me tell you something from the perspective of a Democrat who has never been fond of the Clintons (didn't support Bill in the 1992 primaries, never gave a dime to Bill or Hillary).
I have been working all year to discourage Democrats from supporting Hillary. My reasons for not liking the Clintons are different from yours, but we share a desire to keep the Clintons from returning to the White House.
Perhaps the biggest reason Hillary has as much support as she does is because of the deranged Republican war against Clinton during the 1990s. It created a lot of sympathy for the Clintons and a desire among some Democrats to rub the GOP's face in it by sending Bill and Hillary back to the White House.
I believe that the more Republicans attack Hillary, the stronger her position will be among Democrats.
Perhaps that is your agenda because you would prefer to run against Hillary in the general (and I couldn't blame any Republican for wanting that).
On a different subject, doesn't one of the Republican presidential candidates also favor some kind of automatic benefit (like a savings bond) for every American at birth? I can't remember, but it seems like someone was talking about this at one of the GOP debates.
desmoinesdem
Desmoinesdem'
In reverse order:
I hope no R is proposing such an expansion of the welfare state, I will check on it. Maybe we have a closet liberal like Nixon on the team.
With respect to Clinton, I must confess that at least I hope she gets the D nomination, since the D nominating is much more oligarchical than the R process, I will probably get my wish.
The war against the Clinton was a good idea and the right thing to do, just poorly executed. One doesn't have to fight about esoteric foreign policy "crimes", etc... with Bubba. He simply ran a criminal operation, very much like a gangster operation, out of the White House.
Dozens of Clinton Admin people went to prison. The only people who didn't think the Clintons gathered in bribes are those who ideologically still think the earth is flat.
Ideologically, Bubba stood for very little. He went from the ultra liberal Hillary agenda of the first two years to signing 8 of hte Contrat with American items.
The Dems seem to view Evita's nomination with unethusiastic inevitability.
The greatest irony about the Clinton years is the venality of the Dems who excused and concealed Bubba's obvious crimes during the impeachment process. Al Gore would probably still be the President if he would have simply uttered teh words "The President cannot be a criminal".
Sporer,
As you know, I happen to fall into the same category as Desmoinesdem. Not a big fan of Bill or Hillary. My question to you is, do you really want Hillary to be our nominee just so you have a better chance of winning? You must realize there is about a 50/50 chance our nominee will win. Do you really want our nominee and your potential president for 8 years to be a person you think is so corrupt and horrible? Wouldn't you want our nominee to be someone you could somehow live with? Or is it reality that you will view any D president as a corrupt, horrible person no matter what?
I disagree you, Ted. What you call socialism occurs when our leadership elites for their own financial gain from across the political spectrum ally themselves with big money interests. There's an enormous amount of money to be dishing out "benefits" from sky's the limit college tuitions to almost universal home ownership
financed by predatory loan practices. The latter created fortunes at the expense of the middle class for conservative Republicans in the banking and real estate industries.
Considerably older than you I came of age when our leadership elites took seriously their responsibility to look out for the community's welfare often at their own expense.
You can sell the electorate just about anything. We desperately need grownup leadership to explain the ultimate realities of borrow and spend economics. The main difference between Clinton and GOP is she'll bankrupt the country with domestic programs in contrast to us pissing the money away playing the Global Cop. Either way we'll end up dead broke.
In the White House I intend to run America the way I handle my personal finances. Do everything for cash except for very short term borrowing to even out my cash flow. That's how I'm doing my campaign.
How would things work at a practical level in a Klein administration? For starters I have no fear of saying NO, wearing out my right hand writing veto messages, ordering federal agencies to curb spending, and using my authority whenever legally possible to refuse to spend appropriated money.
Post a Comment