Two articles have been published concerning the subject, one from the WaPo and the other from the AP. They reveal a certain level of resistance from some Democrats on Obama's plan too, but for very different reasons than the ones I have given.
So what is their disagreement? There are different reasons given for not liking it, a few complaints may be valid. But as you may guess, some are weak and the same old tired excuses. Let's look at the AP article and see what it says. This is John Kerry's reaction:
Sen John Kerry, D-Mass., said, "I'd rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job."
The key words here are, I'd rather spend the money.
Although he says he wants to spend it on infrastructure, he doesn't say the kind he wants to spend it on. Roads? Seems like we have enough of them already. Buildings? If so, what will they be used for? Offices? Offices for what? In case Sen. Kerry hasn't noticed, there are a lot of office units available for lease these days. Maybe (just maybe), this is because so many businesses have folded recently.
He also wants to spend the money on direct investment, another broad term. So it's only natural to ask, who will be doing the investing and what does he want them to invest it in? Will it be here or overseas? Will it be the government spending our money so they can keep the profits, so they can spend more? Does this mean that he wants to give people more money, to invest as they see fit? I rather doubt it. Government is addicted to spending and the power that comes with it, so it's not likely Kerry would want to empower the individual to make choices for him/herself. he knows better how to handle you money.
Maybe the next item on the Kerry wish list will enlighten us as to how Sen. Kerry feels our money should be spent, energy conversion. Does this mean he wants the companies in bed with Al Gore to receive our money, to make green products to combat a problem that hasn't been proven to exist? GE has been waiting in the wings for awhile now, they have done their part to advance the unproven theory. They want what is coming to them.
Of course the rest of the list is concluded with the all encompassing, other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job. Now we are down to the nitty gritty here. if we think this one through, we can figure it out. How about throwing our money at anything that will create a union job?
What am I getting at here?
Congress loves our money. They will find anyway to get their hands on it and will use it to pay off their buddies that contribute to their campaigns. That's how the system works. And any proposal that gives money back to people, who paid it to start with, will be demonized. Any opportunity to create individuality is scoffed at and demeaned. Any hope that people can regain freedoms lost to those in government has been lost.
Hope and change? Yeah, right. We just changed the faces in the White House. The same old vultures eyeballing your wallet, pretty much remained the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment