Posts
The November elections will indeed present a very stark choice between two visions of where this country is headed.
Obama: "a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared"
Is it me, or is that just a euphemism for "socialism light?"
Romney/Ryan: "We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes"
HT: Drudge
Monday, August 13, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Yep, you are correct.
Ryan and Romney are American candidates for Decent Americans.
Well, if Obama is a socialist, then so are Romney and Ryan, since Romney's health care plan was the model for Obamacare, and he was for the auto company bailouts before he was against it before he was for it, again, and Ryan voted for the Bush Medicare prescription drug benefit.
It's sad that your otherwise fine analysis has to be tainted by this partisan silliness, which contributes to the poisoned political atmosphere that makes bipartisan compromises (which is the only way they can be enduring) on big issues nearly impossible.
Instead, this crazy mentality has contributed to the election of fools that would mess with the full faith and credit of the U.S.
Well done.
I suggest you spend a little time studying up on Paul Ryan and his policy proposals, then tell me if you can find any "partisan silliness" in them. In fact, I challenge you to find anything that is not sensible.
If our rights come from 'nature and God', then why doesn't Ryan propose cutting a single dollar out of the Defense budget?
Let's not forget, Paul Ryan is a Government employee, he doesn't earn income, he is paid for by taxes + debt.
If he truly felt Americans should take care of themselves, he would have avoided politics altogether in favor of a more entrepreneurial life.
Where is Ron Paul when you need him!
If Obama is a socialist, then Reagan was a fascist.
As further evidence of that, many of Obama's most ardent left-wing supporters from 2008 have since soured on him because, well, he just wasn't liberal enough. Even his health plan is almost a carbon copy of the plan republicans put forward in 1996.
I can't believe people take these pre-election policy proposals seriously. Attention to all those who haven't been paying attention for the past 50 years: They won't happen! At least not as advertised. They never do, because once these guys are elected they have to go to Washington, where politics has a nasty habit of interfering with even the most well thought out plans.
Whatever nifty proposals Ryan has has about as much chance of happening as planned as snow has a chance of falling in Honolulu.
Scott- by partisan silliness I believe he was referring to you.
I consider Obama's underlying beliefs—that prosperity and wealth need to, and can be, spread around—as antithetical to free markets and capitalism, and thus a threat to the economy. This is very, very important stuff. If governments could "manage" prosperity, then socialism would have worked.
Obama shouldn't be in charge of sharing other people's prosperity until he has produced some if not a lot of it for us.
A basic question:
Is it possible for "equal opportunity" without "sharing of prosperity"?
Let's consider your children when they were young and the children in these statistics.
In 2010, 9.2 million (11.7 percent) families were in poverty.
In 2010, 16.4 million (22.0 percent) children under the age of 18 were in poverty.
Do you believe your children have earned their good fortune at birth and the other children didn't? Do you believe all the children have equal opportunity?
What does "equal opportunity" mean when everyone's starting line in life isn't equal? Really?
I strongly believe in the equal opportunity ideal. All civilize societies strive to create the condition for equal opportunity. Societies (governments) have been improving this area for thousands of years. "Equal opportunity" means society work toward leveling the unfairness (randomness) that is life for everyone.
However, "equal opportunity" without "sharing of prosperity" is a damn LIE! Fundamentally, it can't be done!
this stupid stupid AD should seal the election. "asking the rich to pay a little bit more".... what a crock of s*it. this guy is a socialist and wants to re-distribute wealth.
Obama "The Choice Ad"
incase you missed the AD during the olympics
"As further evidence of that, many of Obama's most ardent left-wing supporters from 2008 have since soured on him because, well, he just wasn't liberal enough."
That just tells you how infantile and nuts is the American left.
"Even his health plan is almost a carbon copy of the plan republicans put forward in 1996."
A)No it isn't. A mandate is not the entirety of either plan.
B)Some Republicans.
"If he truly felt Americans should take care of themselves, he would have avoided politics altogether in favor of a more entrepreneurial life."
What a crock of....
So all conservatives should just abandon the field to the Leftists? Were that to happen, all entreprenurial endeavors would be snuffed out in a matter of months.
Some say we have a choice between the socialists (Dems) and the national socialists (Repubs).
Post a Comment