Statists that live in infamy
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are Left-leaning Democrats. They're liberals of the first order. They believe that government can do all and provide all for the nation, and that us little people can't handle our humdrum, dreary, pitiful lives on our own. Truth be told, folks, they're both statists -- those that tend to favor a great deal of government control over individual behavior and over the economy.
On 29 June 2004 Hillary Clinton stated the following in San Francisco, at a rally for Barbara Boxer:
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Yesterday, Michelle Obama had similar sentiments for people in North Carolina:
Should she become first lady, she said she'd focus on family issues.
"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
Michelle Obama is talking about redistributing wealth. Hillary is talking about seizing it. On 2 February 2007, Hillary said as much here, referring to taking the profits of oil companies. Now Michelle isn't running for president, but she does speak on behalf of her husband on the stump. It seems that her views haven't changed much when it comes to what Americans are being told they must do. And as long as she continues to espouse his socialist, statist ideas there will be fodder for pundits like myself to hammer him on.
Universal health care is a utopian dream run amuck that has failed everywhere it's been tried. People from Canada come to the US because they can't afford to sit on waiting lists for urgent medical needs. Canadian MP Belinda Stronach flew to California for cancer treatment because she couldn't afford to wait on a waiting list in Canada. So the idea that these people are going to thrust this boondoggle on the American taxpayer is insane. The costs can't even be computed right now, and many experts have stated, on the record, that the cost estimates by both candidates are grossly understated, and are misrepresented to the average voter.
As for the education system, we have increased federal spending by almost 60% since 2000, and the system hasn't gotten any better. I challenge anyone to show us where kids are graduating in greater numbers, and are as smart as they're supposed to be when they graduate. A significant percentage of college students are underprepared for college-level instruction. For example, 41% of entering community college students and 29% of all entering college students are underprepared in at least one basic skill area. Consequently, remedial instruction is offered by about 99% of public two-year institutions and 85% of public four-year institutions. The simple fact is that the schools are failing, across the board, around the country, to teach our kids what they need to be productive members of society. An increase in spending isn't the solution to the problem. Schools would be better off if A) Teachers are evaluated, promoted, receive raises and are tenured based on merit, not length of time as a teacher, and B) Schools were put back under local control rather than federal control. Additionally, lowering the tax burden on the family would allow one parent to stay home, and be actively involved in their child's education.
But that doesn't jive with a statist's view on the world. They believe they can do it better. Rather than giving us some freedom and leeway when it comes to things such as our own health coverage and education, they have decided they know a better way to ensure both. But if the education system, and ALL of it's faults are indicative of how the Left would handle universal health care, you can rest assured that we won't get our money's worth on health care either.
Publius II
On 29 June 2004 Hillary Clinton stated the following in San Francisco, at a rally for Barbara Boxer:
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Yesterday, Michelle Obama had similar sentiments for people in North Carolina:
Should she become first lady, she said she'd focus on family issues.
"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
Michelle Obama is talking about redistributing wealth. Hillary is talking about seizing it. On 2 February 2007, Hillary said as much here, referring to taking the profits of oil companies. Now Michelle isn't running for president, but she does speak on behalf of her husband on the stump. It seems that her views haven't changed much when it comes to what Americans are being told they must do. And as long as she continues to espouse his socialist, statist ideas there will be fodder for pundits like myself to hammer him on.
Universal health care is a utopian dream run amuck that has failed everywhere it's been tried. People from Canada come to the US because they can't afford to sit on waiting lists for urgent medical needs. Canadian MP Belinda Stronach flew to California for cancer treatment because she couldn't afford to wait on a waiting list in Canada. So the idea that these people are going to thrust this boondoggle on the American taxpayer is insane. The costs can't even be computed right now, and many experts have stated, on the record, that the cost estimates by both candidates are grossly understated, and are misrepresented to the average voter.
As for the education system, we have increased federal spending by almost 60% since 2000, and the system hasn't gotten any better. I challenge anyone to show us where kids are graduating in greater numbers, and are as smart as they're supposed to be when they graduate. A significant percentage of college students are underprepared for college-level instruction. For example, 41% of entering community college students and 29% of all entering college students are underprepared in at least one basic skill area. Consequently, remedial instruction is offered by about 99% of public two-year institutions and 85% of public four-year institutions. The simple fact is that the schools are failing, across the board, around the country, to teach our kids what they need to be productive members of society. An increase in spending isn't the solution to the problem. Schools would be better off if A) Teachers are evaluated, promoted, receive raises and are tenured based on merit, not length of time as a teacher, and B) Schools were put back under local control rather than federal control. Additionally, lowering the tax burden on the family would allow one parent to stay home, and be actively involved in their child's education.
But that doesn't jive with a statist's view on the world. They believe they can do it better. Rather than giving us some freedom and leeway when it comes to things such as our own health coverage and education, they have decided they know a better way to ensure both. But if the education system, and ALL of it's faults are indicative of how the Left would handle universal health care, you can rest assured that we won't get our money's worth on health care either.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home