Ronin13
07-05-2012, 18:22
I wrote this so feel free to credit any mistaken belief in my inexperience with politics as I've only become politically awakened in the last 5 or 6 years. [Beer] Sorry for the length.
Runaway train.
Currently, the way things are these days in our American political atmosphere, the only way to describe it to someone who knows the rhetoric and jargon but doesn't understand the modern America political system is to use the runaway train analogy. What that is, and my theory that we currently suffer from a "runaway train government" is that our government is much like a runaway train. It's brakes (some would say a key component of this is the checks and balances system we're supposed to have, another key component would be the idea that the government if for and by the people and must work to that end not their own) are deteriorated to a catastrophic failure point and it is speeding along causing mayhem and damage along the way and there is but one way to put it back on track, so to speak. What do you do with a runaway train? Well you can't just up and stop it, as we all know from basic physics things in motion tend to stay in motion and that sudden deceleration would be very dangerous. You can't just up and destroy the train, the collateral damage alone would be inescapable and inexcusable. So how do you get a runaway train back on a safe course and speed? You slow it down. The slow down must be gradual and at the current rate the conductor of this train (the Obama administration and the democrats) seems to believe that you have to speed it up before it can be slowed.
Either by ignorance, avoidance, or just plain twisted belief, the liberals in this country believe that this current administration is trying to slow the train down. This is simply not the case. In this analogy, the train is the government, and speed is the powers and breadth of the government. The more speed, the more power and scope. What they fail to understand is that Obama, and the liberal mindset, believe that more government, more powers, and a further reach will make for a more efficient and smooth operating society. The idea of "spread the wealth" simply does not work because of two things: 1- People who have money want to keep it, and 2- people who are lazy and don't want to work for what they have want things to come to them so they can continue to work. This is just the way we are. Now, if you take charity out of the equation you are left with two groups, those who work for what they have, and those who feel they are entitled to "something for nothing." As we all know, there is no such thing in a capitalist society as "something for nothing." You cannot simply walk into a store and get a gallon of milk without exchanging something for it. This is a simple concept that is missed or ignored by those who oppose capitalism.
But what alternative is there? Communism? We saw that didn't work in the Soviet Union as soon after the fall of their economic model they were barely able to feed themselves. Socialism? Marxism? The estranged father of communism? The problem with a socialist core to the economic idea is that everyone works to the betterment of the whole. Sure on paper this sounds good, but due to humans wanting better for themselves and the little thing called greed it fails in practice. For this to work everyone would have to have the same work ethics, everyone would have to have the same drive, and everyone would have to be treated to the best. Mediocrity has no place in the Utopian socialist model. Every household would have to have a brand new 50" flatpanel HDTV. Every garage would have to be filled with fully loaded pickups and high end luxury sedans. Exclusivity would be gone and there would be no reward for doing a better job than anyone else- everyone is equal. Well, America is not based on equality. Sure we have equal rights, and equal punishment under the law, and are supposed to be treated equally. But George Washington and Private Snuffy circa 1776 were not equals in combat prowess and tactical knowledge, thus they were of different rank. In an equal society, every worker is equal, including the boss, so who's to say you can't take a half day... every single day? Who's to say that you are supposed to work harder than anyone else? When you cease to reward those who work harder, or promote those who show results more frequently than the next, you enter into a world where no one wants to work harder. Why should I work my ass off when Jack over there half-asses his way through work? I'm not getting any more socialist credits than he is, we both have the same car, and we both get the same quality of food. There is no more inspiration to pick yourself up and become the cream that rises to the top. And in a socialist society, where are all the yachts and private jets? To really make it equal everyone should have one right? It's either everyone or no one. Think about the fantasy you have "if I were to win the lottery..." Everyone thinks this who isn't insanely rich. We all dream of having the money to be able to do the things we've always dreamed; go buy that helicopter and learn to fly it, go buy that yacht and sail around the world, go build a racetrack and buy up all those exotic supercars and race them around, etc. etc. etc. But when that dream becomes impossible, or even worse, a reality for everyone, the world crumbles. It's that dream that keeps the hard workers working, the dream to provide for their family and have enough to retire someday. That's the normal, content dream.
Some believe, that they don't/shouldn't have to work for that normal content dream. The lazy, disenfranchised, disillusioned folks who think that they should be entitled to everything but they're not going to work for it. No they would rather have someone else do it. As attributed to President Gerald R. Ford "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thus, the more power in the hands of those that want to "redistribute" everything means they will come one step closer to achieving that dream. Not saying it will lead to full-on socialism, but a very close cousin at the very least. Which is why, we need to fire the conductor of this runaway train and get one which will realize that it needs to be slowed, it needs to be brought down to a reasonable speed, and put in place measures to keep it at that speed.
Runaway train.
Currently, the way things are these days in our American political atmosphere, the only way to describe it to someone who knows the rhetoric and jargon but doesn't understand the modern America political system is to use the runaway train analogy. What that is, and my theory that we currently suffer from a "runaway train government" is that our government is much like a runaway train. It's brakes (some would say a key component of this is the checks and balances system we're supposed to have, another key component would be the idea that the government if for and by the people and must work to that end not their own) are deteriorated to a catastrophic failure point and it is speeding along causing mayhem and damage along the way and there is but one way to put it back on track, so to speak. What do you do with a runaway train? Well you can't just up and stop it, as we all know from basic physics things in motion tend to stay in motion and that sudden deceleration would be very dangerous. You can't just up and destroy the train, the collateral damage alone would be inescapable and inexcusable. So how do you get a runaway train back on a safe course and speed? You slow it down. The slow down must be gradual and at the current rate the conductor of this train (the Obama administration and the democrats) seems to believe that you have to speed it up before it can be slowed.
Either by ignorance, avoidance, or just plain twisted belief, the liberals in this country believe that this current administration is trying to slow the train down. This is simply not the case. In this analogy, the train is the government, and speed is the powers and breadth of the government. The more speed, the more power and scope. What they fail to understand is that Obama, and the liberal mindset, believe that more government, more powers, and a further reach will make for a more efficient and smooth operating society. The idea of "spread the wealth" simply does not work because of two things: 1- People who have money want to keep it, and 2- people who are lazy and don't want to work for what they have want things to come to them so they can continue to work. This is just the way we are. Now, if you take charity out of the equation you are left with two groups, those who work for what they have, and those who feel they are entitled to "something for nothing." As we all know, there is no such thing in a capitalist society as "something for nothing." You cannot simply walk into a store and get a gallon of milk without exchanging something for it. This is a simple concept that is missed or ignored by those who oppose capitalism.
But what alternative is there? Communism? We saw that didn't work in the Soviet Union as soon after the fall of their economic model they were barely able to feed themselves. Socialism? Marxism? The estranged father of communism? The problem with a socialist core to the economic idea is that everyone works to the betterment of the whole. Sure on paper this sounds good, but due to humans wanting better for themselves and the little thing called greed it fails in practice. For this to work everyone would have to have the same work ethics, everyone would have to have the same drive, and everyone would have to be treated to the best. Mediocrity has no place in the Utopian socialist model. Every household would have to have a brand new 50" flatpanel HDTV. Every garage would have to be filled with fully loaded pickups and high end luxury sedans. Exclusivity would be gone and there would be no reward for doing a better job than anyone else- everyone is equal. Well, America is not based on equality. Sure we have equal rights, and equal punishment under the law, and are supposed to be treated equally. But George Washington and Private Snuffy circa 1776 were not equals in combat prowess and tactical knowledge, thus they were of different rank. In an equal society, every worker is equal, including the boss, so who's to say you can't take a half day... every single day? Who's to say that you are supposed to work harder than anyone else? When you cease to reward those who work harder, or promote those who show results more frequently than the next, you enter into a world where no one wants to work harder. Why should I work my ass off when Jack over there half-asses his way through work? I'm not getting any more socialist credits than he is, we both have the same car, and we both get the same quality of food. There is no more inspiration to pick yourself up and become the cream that rises to the top. And in a socialist society, where are all the yachts and private jets? To really make it equal everyone should have one right? It's either everyone or no one. Think about the fantasy you have "if I were to win the lottery..." Everyone thinks this who isn't insanely rich. We all dream of having the money to be able to do the things we've always dreamed; go buy that helicopter and learn to fly it, go buy that yacht and sail around the world, go build a racetrack and buy up all those exotic supercars and race them around, etc. etc. etc. But when that dream becomes impossible, or even worse, a reality for everyone, the world crumbles. It's that dream that keeps the hard workers working, the dream to provide for their family and have enough to retire someday. That's the normal, content dream.
Some believe, that they don't/shouldn't have to work for that normal content dream. The lazy, disenfranchised, disillusioned folks who think that they should be entitled to everything but they're not going to work for it. No they would rather have someone else do it. As attributed to President Gerald R. Ford "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thus, the more power in the hands of those that want to "redistribute" everything means they will come one step closer to achieving that dream. Not saying it will lead to full-on socialism, but a very close cousin at the very least. Which is why, we need to fire the conductor of this runaway train and get one which will realize that it needs to be slowed, it needs to be brought down to a reasonable speed, and put in place measures to keep it at that speed.