The new Democratic party has an edge, however. They are now the party who offers 'free ones' (Other People's Money) to their 'clientele' (moochers) for votes. It's difficult for any person of low self-confidence to overcome the lure of free monies, especially now when the leader of the new Neo-Socialist Democratic Party is a skilled 'Community Organizer' who can swoon voters with vacuous, meaningless words like "HOPE" and "CHANGE".
Any politician who's been in office is susceptible to the lure of the Office and the pleasantries of the Beltway. So, to keep each one of 'em honest and staunch, keep the fires lit under their backsides. Especially those who are desirous of re-election.
As for Democrats? Is there any hope left for that now Far-Left neo-Socialist Party?
Mob-rule would have everything given out for free. Democrats want to promise just that; in a climate of limitless wealth, they could afford to offer their desired nirvana where everyone is exactly alike, with 'equal outcomes' for everybody. Is there limitless wealth? How long can the printing presses run? Are we Broke? Yes, we are.
Democrats are now promising their voters 'free stuff' in exchange for their votes. Our Great Debate today is to whether we should allow Democrats to get away with this tactic; if our Republic fails due to the overwhelming debt we are incurring, the answer will be plain to all, but it'll come too late. How much 'giveaway to the Poor and Needy' is enough? There must be a 'happy medium' between what we give to those who 'want' and really do 'need; allow for those who really 'need' to get some (temporary) help, and, most importantly, separate the politicians from their ability to suck the Treasury for limitless monies with which to buy votes.
Here's some thoughtful reading, for those with the necessary intellectual stamina (h/t Darleen Click)...
My answer is that one way to describe the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want government spending to be the independent variable that determines tax levels, and conservatives want government spending to be the dependent variable determined by taxes.
...
I’m a conservative because I think it’s democratically healthy to confront the hard question about taxes first and directly, and then let our answer to that question determine the budget perimeter for our welfare state. It is democratically unhealthy to proceed the way liberals have habitually dealt with the problem, by promising generous programs that will “pay for themselves” or even “pay for themselves many times over,” and only later, after people have come to expect and depend on the stream of government benefits, fess up about the taxes required to sustain them.
Best for the Republic to Vote Conservative, and keep the fires lit under their asses, or they will CHANGE over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment