"Think about it."
Earlier in the evening my friend had been complaining about John Doe. John Doe had told my friend's husband that he would sell a concert ticket for him since the said husband couldn't go to the show. John Doe sold the ticket--then proceeded to spend the money at the show. John Doe is now telling my friend's husband that he is poor and can't pay him back. With the money that he shouldn't have spent in the first place. Needless to say, my friend is not pleased.
Then I launch into the explanation:
I told her to think about it in a politcal manner. John Doe is the one taking my money and your money and not doing ANYTHING to deserve it. John Doe is full of entitlement when he shouldn't be. John Doe is irresponsible and has no desire to make anything of himself because John Doe's mother and family and friends have allowed him to slump through life. Hmm. Sound familiar? Just replace John Doe with the freeloaders--replace the family and friends with taxpayers and our government. It's the John Doe's in the world that make me fiscally conservative and should you, too. If you work hard to earn your money--why should you have to give it to someone else who doesn't work hard for anything?
Furthermore--here's a story for you to consider. This very successful gentleman was raised in a dirt poor family. When I say dirt poor I mean, small town, rural, deep South dirt poor. This gentleman got his first job at the age of 10. His mother instilled work ethic in him. He joined the Army as soon as he could--went to college then on to graduate school. This guy --who could've said, "let the government take care of me" chose not to. He chose to make something amazing of himself. Now--this government wants to tax the living daylights out of him because he's too successful. He's what this country is all about.
My friend considered all this and shrugged. "Maybe you're right--maybe you're not."
I winked and said, "maybe you're more conservative than you thought."
The one thing we both can agree on these days? We don't like politicians. Period.
3 comments:
Keep plugging away, SG. It sounds like you're making progress. Oh -- don't take that as a criticism. I'm not calling you "progressive!" You're just making progress in educating your poor naive friends.
So, fellow conservatives, where in the world is Mike Ross - you know, the "Blue Dog" who sold out on healthcare for what amounts to a rounding error in $$?
Mark Wessling, a close watcher of Congress, files this report:
Diving and snorkeling at Australia's Great Barrier Reef, watching New Year's fireworks in New Zealand and sleeping in a luxury Hawaiian hotel is the vacation of a lifetime – unless you're a member of Congress. Then it's a fact-finding mission to study climate change.
Ten lawmakers – six Democrats and four Republicans – spent 11 days on an international junket in some of the most breathtaking spots on Earth, and then stuck taxpayers with the $500,000-plus bill.
According to the Wall Street Journal, six spouses also made the journey at the end of 2007, and their expenses for lodging and travel also came out of taxpayers' pockets.
“The trip we made was more valuable than 100 hearings," Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., to the Journal. “Are there members of Congress who take trips somewhat recreationally? Perhaps. Is this what this trip was about? Absolutely not.”
Baird, the lead congressman on the exotic junket, was the chairman of the House Science Committee's subcommittee on research and science education at the time. The trip was ostensibly to gather information on global warming and how federal funds are used for scientific projects.
Joining Baird were Reps. Frank Lucas, R-Okla.; Mike Ross, D-Ark.; Russ Carnahan, D-Mo.; Charlie Melancon, D-La.; John Tanner, D-Tenn.; Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Bob Inglis, R-S.C.; Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.; and Adrian Smith, R-Neb. Ross, Carnahan, Melancon, Tanner, Neugebauer and Lucas were accompanied by their spouses.
During their adventure, the 10 lucky lawmakers visited the Great Barrier Reef, Australia's rain forest, a research station at the South Pole, a penguin colony, and the Royal Hawaiian Hotel on Waikiki Beach.
The final tab? The lawmakers reported the total cost at merely $103,000, according to the Journal. But that figure doesn't include flight costs because commercial airlines were not used. Instead, Air Force jets ferried the participants to their far-flung destinations. The Journal used Pentagon figures to estimate that the flight expenses brought the overall cost of the junket to more than $500,000.
Now, during a recession when most of us are tightening our belts, and in a decade of global cooling, when most scientists (who aren't also politicians) are now saying there is no evidence of manmade global warming, and they now only use the term "climate change", as though man could "change it back", we go on junkets to check out fascinating spots in the Pacific, and support "Cap and Tax". Curious, or clueless?
sometimes the hypothetical will skate right over their little pointed heads!
Post a Comment