"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."
I'm curious how much pie Princeton- and Harvard-educated Obama is willing to do without. You know, for the little people.
5 comments:
See Darren, that just shows you don't really understand socialism.
All that "from each according to his strength" stuff is for the rubes. It's the sales pitch. The come-on.
Michelle Obama, like all lefties with ambition doesn't expect to be held to the same standards, or limited by the same restrictions as ordinary people. As an important person some rules will have to be bent, some broken but that's the way it ought to be for special people. You don't, for instance, expect Michelle Obama's mother to be denied, say, a kidney transplant just because she's over the age limit set by policy, do you?
Similarly, Al Gore sees no irony or contradiction in nagging the human race to stop emitting carbon dioxide while jetting all over the globe himself. Special people, quite naturally, deserve special considerations.
What? You mean that the government has to take money from people to provide certain services? Why, that is almost EXACTLY the way the world works now. And has worked for the last century or two.
The campaign shelved her for a while. Now they have even more reason to coax her into keeping her trap shut.
Of course, I am more than happy to watch her continue to insert her bitter foot into her mouth.
No, what I mean is that socialism, like monarchy is just another means of funding the extravagant lifestyles of favored individuals at, quite literally, the expense of less-favored individuals.
I don't get poor(er) medical care because Bill Gates gets good medical care but you do get poor(er) medical care because Gordon Brown gets good medical care (assuming you're English).
I'd suggest reading "The Tragedy of the Commons" but Garrett Hardin didn't quite have the moral courage to explore the ramifications of the situation. He was more interested in establishing a rationale for the necessity of policing a commons then he was in exploring what occurred once the policing function was in place: the "commons police" inevitably go into business for themselves.
Socialism creates a commons and with it the need for a policing of the commons. Police, it turns out, are people and heir to all the failings of non-police.
My best guess is they will give up exactly nothing.
Post a Comment