And in any case, those programs can't stay up for much longer. Turns out that the "Atlases" of American society are indeed shrugging.
Does 'Julia' really have a fulfilling life?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/05/06 19:45:44
|
|
|||||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | |||
|
36 votes
|
|
86% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
12% | |||
“The Life of Julia” is the Barack Obama campaign’s picture essay
on how government works for you (at least, if you’re a woman). Each
slide shows a particular program that affects Julia at a different stage
in her life. The slide text describes the program, gives credit to
Obama either for creating it or extending it, and says how his
presumptive opponent would cut or drop it. This hypothetical woman goes
to college, then to work as a Web designer. Somewhere along the way, she
needs an operation. (What for?) At age 31, she “decides” to have a
child. (Who is the father? When did she get married?) At 42, she starts
her own business. At 65, she enrolls in Medicare. (Does Obama mention
that he cut Medicare to pay for Obamacare?) At 67, she retired, knowing
that Social Security somehow will not run out of money.
Julia’s parents bear only oblique mention, and her hypothetical
husband, none at all. Her son bears mention only because he, too, takes
something from the government. This is deliberate and calculated. Julia,
in effect, has no husband, nor parents either. She is a ward of the
state, and even the wife of the state.
Rich Lowry of National Review, and Michelle Malkin of Hot Air, have each shown that “The Life of Julia” does not work. Lowry says
flat-out that the programs that Julia “benefits” from, do not work as
advertised. Whatever any program gives, real life takes away, if it
lasts at all. (To take one example: any help the government gives to
help a student pay for college, will only enrich the college. How? The
college will raise tuition, knowing that the government will pay! And pay, and pay.) Malkin does Lowry one better. She gives example after example of real women who do not
see the benefits that “Julia” sees. (By the way: she includes herself,
as she has every right to do.) Malkin also accuses the Obama campaign of
lying. The campaign implies that without government, Julia would have no help at all, from anyone.
Part of that is that Julia might as well have been an orphan, and
almost certainly had her son out-of-wedlock. The other part is that the
campaign ignores, or denies, the kind of support that Julia can find privately.
And even if it did work out the way Obama says it does: what kind of life is that? Is this what everyone should look forward to? Shall the government really take care of you from the cradle to the grave?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/05/06...
Top Opinion
-
No
+13No. And you know what? A real "Julia" would chafe at all the restrictions such a dependent life would involve. Do this. Don't do that. Take it back and get it stamped.
And in any case, those programs can't stay up for much longer. Turns out that the "Atlases" of American society are indeed shrugging.
somebody has to pay for these pipe dreams.
JUST TWO.............?
[That's no more illogical than Obama's dream of their future!]
For the greater good, of course.
Before we get completely carried away, let's look at a slightly more moderate source:
"The Life of Julia is an interactive online tool that looks at how President Obama's policies help one woman over her lifetime compared to Mitt Romney's plans. Whether it's allowing young people to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26, expanding access to Pell Grants, or passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that allows women to stand up for their right to equal pay for equal work, President Obama has fought to help women of all ages. Under a Romney administration, Julia's story would look a lot different: Romney would reverse many of President Obama's accomplishments to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." –– NPR
That's akin to saying Trotsky was more moderate than Stalin.
So Stalin had him moderately murdered. Ahhhh, socialism!
Are you kidding?
The journalists who work at these so called "center-right organizations" are all just about left of center, with most of them being far left. Any polling data of these journalists shows very clearly that they vote higher than 9/10th Democrat, and the number is probably better represented by percentages like 95% to 98%. That means the people at the news organizations of the MSM are practically all left wing, and most are far left. How a group so firmly left could produce an "ultraconservative perspective on economic issues" is virtually impossible, and clearly not the case.
Both parties in this country have tilted towards the left since Reagan left office. The RINOs an...
The journalists who work at these so called "center-right organizations" are all just about left of center, with most of them being far left. Any polling data of these journalists shows very clearly that they vote higher than 9/10th Democrat, and the number is probably better represented by percentages like 95% to 98%. That means the people at the news organizations of the MSM are practically all left wing, and most are far left. How a group so firmly left could produce an "ultraconservative perspective on economic issues" is virtually impossible, and clearly not the case.
Both parties in this country have tilted towards the left since Reagan left office. The RINOs and the neocons have had control over the GOP, as is evident by spending, and the military adventures in nation building. The Democrat Party is certainly run by people who are socialists, as there is no other way to describe Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. From making mortgages "affordable", to socialized healthcare, to nominating Supreme Court justices that think the Constitution is old and not relavent, I am not sure what more you want from the Clinton and Obama Administrations, as you should have passed out with joy.
Conservative viewpoints are on display very little in the MSM, but they still act like they are balanced, but the reality is the conservative commentary is basically nothing more than putting a token conservative here and there. There is no balance there whatsoever, and using NPR as an example is nothing more than ridiculous.
The United States is a center-right country (to use the European term to describe a country's politics), but the MSM is in no way representative of that, as the MSM is not only to the left, but to the hard left.
I am trying to imagine where you could possibly be politically if you think the media in the United States is not left-wing, and I am at a loss. How would you describe your politics?
Talk about having been convinced, where do you get your information Mother Jones, or Utne Reader?
If Mother Jones, or Utne Reader were center-right organizations controlled by private, for-profit corporations, I was going to have to move to the Moon with Newt and Callista Gingrich. And I am kind of attached to living on the Earth.
I thought we were talking about the Life of Julia. I didn't know we were rehashing Soviet history.