Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dem Campaign 2012 – “you could have had it all”

Dem Campaign 2012 – “you could have had it all”

By a clear majority, Americans support getting free stuff over not getting free stuff.

And once established, getting free stuff becomes a basic right, and a part of the Democratic Party platform.  We cannot win the free stuff war.

How to pay for the free stuff is someone else’s problem.  Until someone else runs out of money, or the ability to borrow money from China.

So it’s very frustrating to see House Republican’s cave on extending unemployment benefits without paying for the benefits by cuts elsewhere.  I understand why they are doing it from a political perspective, but it’s frustrating nonetheless.

With Republicans having caved on the issue, Democrats are going to make sure voters get all the free stuff, not just some of it:

House Democratic leaders are warning Wednesday that a bipartisan deal on the payroll tax package could be “a long ways” off.

The Democrats are praising the Republicans’ decision not to offset President Obama’s extended payroll tax holiday, but cautioned that the GOP’s push to shorten the duration of emergency unemployment benefits — and offset that provision with cuts in federal pensions — could sink the deal.

If the Republicans do not continue to give the voters all the free stuff, the Democrats’ campaign theme will be “you could have had it all,” but the Republicans took it away.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I read speculation elsewhere that Republicans are giving in to these cuts in the hopes of having another debt ceiling vote just before the election.

    Disgusting and scary – that politics, polls and money, make policy and law – not statistics, science and common sense and not the good of our nation and people.

“And as more middle-class families … land in the safety net …, anger at the government has increased alongside. Many people say they are angry because the government is wasting money and giving money to people who do not deserve it. But more than that, they say they want to reduce the role of government in their own lives. They are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it. They say they want less help for themselves; less help in caring for relatives; less assistance when they reach old age.”
–NYT

That is a hopeful sign.

People are getting sick of even GETTING stuff they know they have not earned.

Prof: panem et circenses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

That is all!

FDR understood what conservatives have denied for generations; that when you provide “free” stuff, the populace never wants to give it up, and a populace that is dependent on government to care for them will, within one generation, lose the desire to care for themselves.

So buying a home has become a right that if you can’t pay for it, other taxpayers will.

Health care had become not a commodity, but a right, and if you can’t pay for it, other taxpayers will.

Getting more out of what was sold as insurance against old age poverty and unemployment was sold as a right, but if you don’t contribute enough to sustain you, other taxpayers will.

A recent article on the fraud and abuse of SSDI is a clear example of how people use the system to avoid responsibility. How many people do you know that are physically/mentally capable of holding down some form of job yet draw SSDI?

When you breed independence and ambition out of people, you can control them.

    Hope Change in reply to retire05. | February 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Agree, retire05 —

    InstaPundit quotes a song lyric something like: “They’re trying to turn us into beggars, because beggars are easier to please.”

    Well said!

    Once you breed in government dependence, money to pay for it all becomes short in supply. Then if government attempts to wean people off their dependence on them, the people rebel, like what they are doing in Greece.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to retire05. | February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    My grandaddy’s words when FDR passed all his programs: “This is going to rurrn (ruin) a whole lotta people.”

    Surely, those programs were meant to expire, like the WPA (which did a build lot of good strong buildings) when the economy improved.

    At least FDR knew not to let government workers unionize. The Democrats had to wait another generation for that to matter under Kennedy.

It seems to me a matter of self-evident, natural right that a religious institution should not be required to provide services that violate the religion’s doctrines—and I am all but an atheist.

MENE MENE

    retire05 in reply to gs. | February 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    If I, as an employer, explain to prospective hires that although I provide health insurance to them, I do not purchase plans that cover birth control, sterlization or abortion procedures, does that prospective hire not have the right to seek employment elsewhere? Is employment not a contract between employer and employee for renumeration for services rendered? If I do not like the renumeration, I am free to seek employment elsewhere. Do I not have the liberty, and yes, the freedom, to run my business in conjunction with my religious beliefs?

    So, if we are to force those employers who have a religious objection to providing, not for a woman’s health (which abortion is not a health issue in reality), but for the purpose of continuing making the killing of our unborn part of national accepted behavior, it is not out of the realm of possibility that employers will eventually be told who to hire in the first place, placing FDR-type restrictions on what each job can pay, and what company sponsored benefits will be given. FDR’s rules during the New Deal are exactly what created the system of company sponsored health care in the first place.

Off Topic-

Hey, Professor, you’re linked at Real Clear Politics for the contraception story. I’m sure you already know, but congratulations!

Now don’t go gettin’ overrated on us, ya hear?

[…] environment in which to manage money and investments. As I have listened to the windup for the coming 2012 Presidential election season, I have found it nothing short of astounding that the sitting President of the United States is […]

Now I didn’t go to no fancy pants college or nothin’ like that. Hell, I didn’t even graduate from high school. Spent too much time driving my big ol 4X4 truck, drinking beer and chasing girls.

Now all them how’ ya doin’ college graduates are sittin’ in them big old houses drinking fine wine and eating steak while I’m still driving the same old 4X4 piece of junk truck. I just ain’t fair, I tell you. Just because them 1%’rs went and studied hard got them fancy degrees and saved their stupid money now they think they got it all.

Well I had money once. Spent it all on fast cars, fast women and good booze (the rest I wasted). Now I ain’t got squat.

If I ever tried to go up there on the hill and take stuff out of those nice houses, I’d get busted for sure. But now I can vote for Obama and, guess what, he will take their stuff and give it to me all legal like.

Is this a great country or what!

Windy City Commentary | February 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Looks like Newt’s Super PAC will start doing Mitt’s dirty work on Santorum. Meanwhile Mitt’s hands will be clean. Let me remind you that it is against McCain-Feingold rules for a candidate to communicate with or have any control over a Super PAC. Basically, a Super PAC can misrepresent itself as backing one candidate, while it actually does its work for another.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291140/adelson-romney-deal-maggie-gallagher

    Newt can’t stop Adelson from meeting with Romney’s guys and he can’t decide what his (Newt’s) purported SuperPAC says or does. A candidate can ask SuperPACs to correct errors and pull ads, but the damage is done by then.

    Fact is, Newt isn’t holding either the purse strings or making the decisions.

    The SuperPACs are a detriment to the election process and they harm the overall image of the candidates and the party – and need to be stopped.

Imagine if Newt had remained speaker, and his surpluses kept going on, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today with conservatism or the broad ranging debt crises. We would financially solvent with probably 0 or near to 0 debt. Imagine that when you hear from the establishment that betrayed his leadership to implement their great cash grab.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to imfine. | February 15, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Newt crossed Bush former head of the CIA. A dangerous thing to do. From the RINO perspective, Newt had to be removed.

    But, from Newt’s perspective, it is good he got out, took time to think, writes, study, get help, counsel, take stock of his life, repent of his sins and grow up/mature, learn to be a father and grandfather and real man.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm

      Oh, how I wish for an edit button, or the self-control to re-read my posts before clicking submit!

      Newt didn’t betray Bush, Bush betrayed Newt. Bush betrayed all off us. He let that liberal lap dog sununu talk him into a disastrous tax increase trap the dems laid, and case him out of his presidency. Newt didn’t advise Bush to commit political suicide, he tried to save his presidency by torpedoing the tax increase.

      These people are dissociative of their own failings. Their unprincipled stupidity and lack of political savvy did themselves in. Stop blaming Newt, if they had listened to him, they would have done wonders for themselves and the country.

The Republicans cannot win on the “free stuff” platform. The Democrats have upped the ante by offering denigration of individual dignity and devaluation of human life. The Democrats offer not just “free stuff”, but promises to fulfill dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification.

Well, maybe the Republicans simply cannot win. Of course, that would depend entirely on the integrity of the American people… along with fictitious, schizophrenic, dead, and illegal voters.

“Free stuff” really isn’t free to the people who receive it. Receiving “free stuff” creates a new form of slavery… to the government. Once the government grants me free stuff, it has the power to demand information about myself to get that free stuff.

For instance, to give me “free health care,” the government will want to know my entire health history and make decisions about my treatment (or lack of treatments) based on that knowledge. And if citizens aren’t complying with the government’s rules, the government can then take away the “free stuff.”

It’s like we’re in a new silent civil war, and the Democrats are for slavery (to the government), and most Republicans are against it, but cannot articulate very well why.

“One of the consequences of such notions as “entitlements” is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.” ~ Thomas Sowell

It is not complicated. The problem is that the Republicans elected leaders who do not know how to lead. They should have elected Paul Ryan to be the speaker of the house and Marco Rubio to be the Senate minority leader. They did not, and now we are stuck with that weak sister Boehner and Mr. “go along to get along” McConnell. Until we get rid of these two, America and the Republicans are doomed.

What the government gives, the government can take away.

Good song Professor but to be honest I like this version much much better …hot women in combat boots * SHRUG * personal kink I guess …anyway I’m sure you’ve seen this but maybe some of the other folks haven’t not bad for a cell phone recording ….HUH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBaskRZDbNA

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend