If a woman becomes pregnant our President does not believe that woman should be “punished” with the obligation of raising her child yet our President believes it is just to demand that citizens pay the health care for citizens they do not even know. Inside President Obama’s mind: “Does a mother have to take care of her child? No. Can I imprison citizens who do not take care of other people’s financial obligations, even if all parties are adults and have no legal or biological relationshp? Yes.”
Once you get over the initial shock of such a ridiculous statement it is not hard to see why leftists and statists believe an unplanned pregnancy is punishment. To them another life is a burden. It is another person that needs healthcare, education, welfare, student loans, and whatever other entitlements they are handing out.
They frame this issue in terms of women’s rights but it is really about finding another way to avoid responsibility for your actions and eventually pass the cost on to the general population under government healthcare.
I disagree blackhawk,
I believe they think they are behaving altruistically and nobly in both instances. Neither party is punished and they feel great picking our pockets to pay for the lunacy of their reasoning.
I believe at this point you are probably right. Most people have been convinced over the years through the constant reinforcement from the left that these are both altruistic and humanist. But there is no doubt that many involved in the development of both abortion and progressive social and economic policies did so for social engineering purposes. Minimal wage to wall off “undesirables” from the workforce, abortion to control the breeding of minorities, all for the goal of reaching a more desirable and superior gene pool.
I don’t personally know any supporter of abortion rights or progressive economic policies now who subscribes to these social engineering aspects (or who would admit it) but there is no doubt their genesis is much less noble than how they are sold to people today.
blackhawk,
I have heard that from folks I trust, but I have not researched it myself.
In reference to the minimum wage thing I did a little bit of reading on it myself. Without actually having the research in front of me I do remember it basically went like this:
You set a minimum amount that workers need to be paid. Then you raise it incrementally until the minimum wage is more than those workers are worth. It effectively locks people who cannot find any other work out of the workforce. Nowadays most people think of minimum wage in very simplistic ways (higher minimum wage = more money, more money = good, right?) because it has been white washed and turned into and altruistic endeavor over the years. Goldberg talks about it a little in Liberal Fascism. Once again that is my ineloquent distillation of complex economic policies but I hope you get my basic point. Studying whilst discussing the finer points of leftists social policies does not lend itself to very thorough explanations.
Refusing to carry the burden of other’s financial obligations is bad for the collective. But another kid in the world is a burden on society, getting rid of them is good for the collective.
It is scary once you figure out how these people’s minds work.
No. The first statement is not true in any instance. Carrying the burden of another’s financial obligations greatly limits the likelihood that individual will develop the ability to assume his or her own financial burdens. And, it limits the potential of those who already have that ability by diverting their capital from other uses.
Well yeah, I agree, but that’s not how the statists sell it to the American people. When you spread the wealth it is good for everyone, as Obama would say. When you believe that capitalism is inherently bad and oppressive there is no value in teaching people to be individually fiscally responsible. That would just be playing the fixed game of capitalism as they see it. They believe that gains and losses are calculated on a collective basis, not an individual one. Financial burdens are issues of social justice and should be carried by each person relative to their wealth.
Ok just so we’re clear, I don’t believe that last line. That is simply my ineloquent distillation of what I’ve learned of leftists economic policies. When you believe that capitalism is bad and the free market is a fixed game fiscal responsibility is meaningless. Asking someone to take responsibility for their finances is like asking someone to take personal responsibility for the losses they suffered as a result of a home burglary instead of calling the police and trying to get their stuff back in their minds. You lost because you played the capitalists game and now it is time for the government to step in and level the playing field. It appeals to people in tough economic times because the leftists get people drunk off the idea that they are about to get a piece of someone else’s pie.
Ironic isn’t it that those who said they didn’t want the government getting between a woman’s ‘right to choose’ and her doctor are now willing to force people to do the same thing for potentially every aspect of health care?
Though I’d rather not go to prison I am willing if I am fined for not purchasing health insurance. I wonder how many others there might be? Hey, three squares, good books and I’ll be fine.
BTW, when I heard this clip from Obama way back in the primary season of 08 I found it disgusting and very revealing. I wonder if he considered his own girls ‘punishment’.
I wouldn’t advise Floyd going to prison. I hear he’s got a purty mouth…
I think I’ve done about a fifteen-peat today. You people need to drink more caffiene. You bore me.
Floyd would be assigned to a re-education facility in the mode of the camps from “Tommy”. Oprah would be there instead of Ann-Margaret.
Excellent article Rufus. We all know how hypocritical the Left is but it still never reduces the shock of seeing it actually laid out in plain English. Well played sir.