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.
No thanks.
In my state that means Rick Perry would be in charge of distribution. The same Perry who just cut off funding for women's health. Again, no thanks.
"Let do and let alone; the world goes on all by itself."
What you advocate is communism. And communism, however well (or ill) it can help men (or women) cope with poverty, will never get them out of it. But that's not what you want, is it? You want people to wallow in self-pity, and vote, vote, vote for you and your friends forever. And where does that leave me?
Well, maybe *I* am the one to deprive you of victims and thus destroy your world. Ever think of that?
It all began with Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999, a Republican law that gutted Glass-Steagall and enabled the big banks to also act as brokers and speculate with depositors' money. Combined with Republican policies of no regulations at any time, the hedge funds had free rein to bundle and sell the toxic mortgage-backed securities to firms like Fannie and Freddie, all with S&P's AAA rating.
Then the hedge funds bet on the securities to fail, which was inevitable with the subprime mortgages, and we saw the collapse of the housing market, the stock market crash, and the inevitable recession in 2008.
Fortunately, Obama was elected in '08, and he enacted ARRA, which contained a middle-class tax cut and saved or created five million jobs. Meanwhile, the monthly jobs report revealed 28 consecutive months of private-sector jobs growth, with an average of about 250,000 per month. Contrast this with the average of 750,000 jobs lost per month the day Bush left office. According to economists, ARRA prevented a second depression.
What's all this about communism?
I don't know what economists you've heard from, but they're wrong about ARRA.
Communism is the system of government under which you have two cows, and the government takes both and gives you the milk. Sort of. And that is what you have consistently advocated.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley had an immediate impact on banking practices. It eliminated the regulations that separated bankers from brokers, and led to chaos. The only way to deal with Wall Street excesses is to reinstate Glass-Steagall. You do know what Glass-Steagall was, don't you?
The economists are right about ARRA. The only thing wrong is that it is too small. It should have been larger, around $1 trillion, but it was thought Congress would not go for that number.
As it was, it has been very effective in putting people back to work, repairing infrastructure, and stimulating the economy. The middle-class tax cut helped, but five million new consumers has provided the primary stimulation. Consumer spending is the number-one catalyst in any economy.
Both consumer and business spending had ceased when Obama took office, and Econ 101 says when all spending stops, the government must step in with its own spending, or risk a depression.
You are not getting it. None of this has anything to do with communism, which is a political term. Socialism is the economic equivalent, but ARRA is anything but a socialist solution. Obama is a committed capitalist.
Oh and those same values were instilled to me by my grandfather who came to this country at 12 and worked hard until he was able to build his own contracting company and retire comfortably.
Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't mean much to someone without a job who is losing his home. Neither would any of Horatio Alger's rags-to-riches stories.
Must be faulty genetics.
The genetics are just fine, and I have passed them on to the next two generations. I have a granddaughter in med school, so the work ethic must be functioning.
Who asked you to teach me anything? Take care of your own genetics.
For YES people, you have to read and guess there must be missing parts here and everywhere!
And in any case, those programs can't stay up for much longer. Turns out that the "Atlases" of American society are indeed shrugging.
Unlike the anti-capitalist, job-killing policies of our current socialist regime.
Ayn Rand has a job for the unemployed? She related to the working poor like Romney does. There are still five applicants for every job opening.
The topic here is The Life of Julia. Got anything to add to that?
Obviously to Obama women have to depend on the government throughout their lives. Pooor Julia needs the government at every stage of her life, what would she do without them? I wonder how Julia will feel about putting forth 75% of her income to taxes so the government can fend for her, Obama doesn't mention that fact.
The GOP has already lost the women's vote in November. As well-done as the Life of Julia is, the money could go elsewhere, although the R's are busy alienating other groups, like Latinos, GLBT's, blacks, workers, just about everyone but southern redneck white males and the corporate elites.
Which one are you?