Monday, July 31, 2006

Kerry Proposes Mansions for Every Person in North America

OK, not exactly, but the general idea is there.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=TXCLU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Yes, he would want the Federal government to pay for this if people couldn't afford it. Yes, he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 (said cuts also known as the "Great Economic Growth Engine That Foiled a Terrorist-Attack Induced Recession") to help pay for this. Yes, Karl Marx would be proud.

I'm completely stunned that Democrats can say things like this and not be called out on it. How abysmally bad at math are reporters, anyway? A cynic might say that as long as a politician tows the Leftist line, they get a free pass to say whatever they want without someone pointing out how idiotic they sound. That's what a cynic might say, but since I'm not one, I won't.

Forget the math for a minute (as hard as that might be). Forget the pass that the Demos get from the MSM (because that's just old news). Does the average American realize that Kerry's talking about socialism here? And can someone - anyone - please point out to me a free society that has successfully chosen and implemented socialism and is better off for it?

The Demos whine about the big government that Republicans want. The Republicans whine about the big government that Demos want. I've got a solution: let's elect some Federalists and have no big government. After all, with both classes of kleptocrats unhappy, isn't that the definition of a good compromise?

2 comments:

Mr. Light Bulb said...

"Does the average American realize that Kerry's talking about socialism here?"
No, Mr. M, they do not. Nor could the average AMerican define Socialism. It's not part of government schoool curricula, purposefully.

The Monarchist said...

Mr. LB:

Wasn't there a time when conservatives ran on a platform that included abolishing the Dept. of Education? Why not any more?

Just taking a stab at it, but might it, possibly, just a little, have something to do with the people who elected them? As the citizenry becomes less and less self-governing, someone or something has to fill that governmental void. If the citizenry is happy allowing the federal head to assume this responsibility (and wield the concurrent power), is there any doubt that the government will refuse to grow in size or scope?

Ever heard the old yarn about cooking a frog, Mr. LB?

-AH