At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America.
“The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’” Obama told a crowd of 200 donors over lunch at the W Hotel.
When you remember that at a million dollar lunch fundraiser how many of the 200 already are subsidized by the government. Considering all the crony capitalist in the audience you know they were scared. :eek:
I am sure the millions of Americans out of work feel like they are on their own.
In a powerful display of profound disappointment with President Obama, some of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors gathered Tuesday - not inside his tony San Francisco fundraiser at the W Hotel, but outside on the sidewalks carrying signs in protest of his policies.
And Obama is correct. Republican candidate Herman Cain recently told Wall St. protesters that they should “blame themselves” for being poor. This is an absolutely naive way of looking at a country, as unemployment and poverty are caused by a number of factors that have little to do with one’s own motivation. Stories abound of graduates who have been told they are/were too qualified for the job they were applying for. Is that their fault? Or what about students, the elderly, the disabled, who can’t get a job because the market is saturated with more desired workers. Should they simply be left to the forces of supply and demand? To simply say “blame yourself” shows lack of government initiative. It really just boils down to mere finger-pointing. Well, Herman Cain won’t be elected if all he can do is finger-point. He’ll be elected when he can show an outline of how to get to the bottom of the U.S.'s unemployment and poverty problem, which today stands at 1 in every 6 person living in poverty.
Yes it is a bad thing. Governments aren’t elected to be idle figureheads. They are elected to ensure that the nation is safe and prosperous. Simply taking a laissez-faire, hands-off approach to the country is not what is in the job description. That is why no entity like the media considers Ron Paul and candidates like him seriously. It’s political suicide. And not only that, but it’s really quite a callous worldview - to tell your own citizens that they’re on their own. Government help doesn’t necessarily have to intrude on a person’s freedom. In fact, it can enhance a person’s freedom - freedom from hunger, illness and illiteracy.
But “on your own” to Obama means the way things were before him. There is no possibility at all that Repubs will get rid of social security, disability pensions, student loans, and a lot of other things. This country could use a little more “on your own”, in my opinion, if by “on your own” means no Obamacare, no EPA killing of drilling, no “I’ll make your utility costs go up”, no mandates to Catholic institutions requiring them to cover abortions with their health insurance, no opposition to DOMA, no opposition to “ministerial exceptions” in employment.
I talked to my pharmacist this morning about something. I just offhandedly asked him how business was. he said it’s ok, but the government just raised his cost of selling diabetic test strips from $3300/year to $4300/year. Keep in mind, he is a pharmacist and dispenses every kind of thing imaginable, but the government decided that he has to have a special license to sell those strips, which come in a sealed package anyway. Just arbitrary, confiscatory and otherwise entirely pointless.
I do a lot of real estate closings, and at the beginning of this year, the government changed the very clear “Settlement statement” in such a way that a bunch of costs have to be lumped together where they were previously detailed on the page. But then, it decided that we have to detail those lumped together costs on two additional pages, expressed in two different ways. Whereas before, people understood them easily, now it’s just confusing to them. Yes, and it also required an additional page comparing the “good faith estimate” costs to the actual costs. Not a terrible idea until you consider that the borrowers received the “good faith estimate” when they applied for the loan, and the whole additional page is just pointlessly repetitious.
Trusting in government to do the right thing or even the beneficial thing is not always a good idea.
Correct. Some people are just terrified at the idea of respecting the God-given Liberty of their neighbors. Instead they are eager to trample on the human dignity of others by using the government to enslave and indenture their neighbors in exchange for promises that they will be “provided for” by the State. It’s positively ghastly.
There are two Reagan quotes that are quite apropos
Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
The ten most dangerous words in the English language are “Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Godspeed your departure from office, President Obama. You’ve “helped” quite enough already.
You speak of people as if they are all just one homogeneous slump. Wouldn’t you agree that there are individuals and not necessarily people? Isn’t that what the central tenet of Republicanism is about - the individual rather than people? And because we are dealing with individuals, every individual will be in his/her own unique position. Some individuals will be disabled; other individuals will be students planning to go to university/college; too, other individuals will have recently been laid off. Should the government tell the disabled woman she’s on her own because she acquired a wrong set of genes; or the government tell a student from a less well-off background that it’s his fault for not being born into a richer family; or the government to tell the unemployed carpenter that he should be evicted from his household because he didn’t make a “correct” decision on a job?
That’s callousness, I’m afraid, and we won’t ever see a return to that kind of government, regardless of what any political ideologue says on the radio.
People aren’t moving away from Obama because he allegedly intrudes on individual “freedom” (which by the way, is comprised of both positive and negative liberty). People are moving away from Obama because there has been virtually no change under his government. 1 in every 6 Americans now live in poverty. The U.S. debt continues to skyrocket. No one is happy. If Obama had carried out even half of what he promised to do in his early campaign to fruition, he would have easily won this upcoming election. It seems to me (and forgive me if I’m wrong, I mean no offense) that he is more interested in the photoshoots and delivering fancy speeches than actually catering to the desires of the American electorate.
yet any country that is older then america has a system that takes care of its people…the bible says help thy brother and thy neighbor…and they are not communist, I think so many years of brainwashing that anything that they think its wrong…somehow paying for healthcare threw taxes is taking out of your pocket? your taxes are taken anyway…
anyone that says that people are responsible for themselves has never been in a position where they had the skill and no job.
its sad that the American constitution is nothing but a paper to cover ones *** from prosecution, nothing other then freedom is in there that helps the people.
jesus said to help, people who clam they should help one another truthly catholic, god loves you and if you pray to him he doesnt ask for a fee or HMO…
[quote=“Thomas Jefferson”]A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.
People who want Nationalized Central Socialism are a menace. They respect neither Subsidiarity nor Liberty. Even sadder still, they do not trust the capacity of humans to care for the less fortunate unless there’s a gun put to their heads.
I am not sure anybody could function if policemen were to just disappear overnight.
Surely, you must agree that the govt is needed to police the behavior of the people and that people must rely on the govts ability to police criminal activity, if people did not, the result is a lot of people taking the law into their own hands, conducting their own versions of “Justice” and society functions more inefficiently due to the great amount of uncertainty.
Self-help in of itself is not something that a society should strive for.
You stuck on the “police” channel. Where are the police disappearing, and what gives you the impression they will? The fact we have taken on 4-more years of federal/state dept has added to the issue. The cuts haven’t created more homicide. They forced the police to go to work instead of sleeping in the cemetarys and hiding because they could.
Police are not supposed to be employees of the Central Government.
Individuals secure their persons and property.
Police Officers (or Sheriffs) are employed by local governments.
States hire their own State Troopers to handle state lands, highways, and points-of-entry.
Federal Agents are employed to handle interstate crimes.
Soldiers are employed to handle international conflicts.
That’s how Subsidiarity works. When the National Government decides to manipulate local policing (like say through funding control) bad things happen. Come to think of it, when the National Government decides to do just about anything at the local level (charity, education, zoning) bad things happen.
If only our Founders had been wise enough to limit the National Government to clearly enumerated powers in the Constitution …