There are 2 different classifications of voters in the general election, Idealists and Realists. Their education ranges from the educated to the uneducated.
The idealists are for health care provided by the government and higher education for all. There has to be a minimum wage and open borders for all. Government has a blank check to solve all of our problems
Whereas, the realists, want prisons, walls around the border, no government health care and a balanced budget.
The main thing about health care and higher education, if the individual can’t pay for it, It doesn’t become more affordable if the government pays for it. Anything the government tends to produce or supply is done very inefficiently and becomes increasingly expensive over time. Sometimes the goals set are not even questioned. What good does it do to send everyone to college? Has the question even been asked??? No!!! Everyone should be entitled to a higher education? What makes that a given truth. This is idealism speaking. Trade schools could offer a better life than the promise of a college education. Many never make it through their sophomore year at college and by God, they have the student loans to prove it.
Many mothers want their kids to go to college and become a doctor, lawyer or scientist. A carpenter, plumber, merchant seaman or oilrig worker might not seem like much, many make very good money.
The big problem is the elections. As a Republican, I did not vote for the president that won the election 6 years ago. But I kept quiet and lived with the results. What we need to realize is that there is a fringe element that determines the elections. 43 percent are Democrats and 43 percent are Republicans (guesstimates on my part). Notice that over the two last elections most of you remained faithful to you party. What happened is that the fringe people, the non-committed who were one issue voters, came into play. It was this 14% that elected the president.
Sadly, for the next election, we are again looking at one item voters. Save the whales, abortion, non-abortion, gay rights, black lives matter, border security, immigration etc. So, when you see CNN of MSN deliver the news you have to wonder. Why are they are reaching to absurd levels to stretch the truth? They are working the fringe voters.
It is kind of funny the idealist will protest for a minimum wage and the realist will sell them signs for their protest. You want a college education; a realist will make it happen for you. Want to buy a home you can’t afford; a realist will make it happen.
We have a split of the electorate 43 percent Republican and 43 percent Democrat. It is the 14 percent of the undecided voters that the news media is interested in influencing. This is where the 2020 election will be won or lost. And it could have very interesting results in the coming election in November. The average voter has no idea that the news media is assuming how the majority of the people will vote. The hard-core votes are fixed in stone. What the committed voter doesn’t understand, is that the media is focusing on the 14 percent “one item uncommitted voters.” They may be hoping, to sway these voters, with their rather absurd hate Trump rhetoric. I believe they have a good chance to accomplish their goal.
The line between realism and idealism is fading. The realist has lost the argument that the government has to pay for what it borrows (this camel has a strong back as far as straw is concerned). From here we only have Republicans and Democrats as two distinct classes of voters. But there is one more now, the news media. This is the organization that speaks for the swamp that lost control of the government when Trump got elected.
Imagine how much money could be lost by ethanol suppliers if we got rid of ethanol added to gas? That is swamp money. Less miles per gallon and it costs more. HMMMM.
Lets see if the media can sell the uncommitted voters "a pig in a poke."
2 comments:
"The main thing about health care and higher education, if the individual can’t pay for it, It doesn’t become more affordable if the government pays for it."
That's a very sharp observation, Jim.
I've been trying to think of anything that it is actually cheaper for a government to do. I suspect that it boils down to
(i) Things where the government can make the costs appear lower by confiscating property ("eminent domain" to you; "compulsory purchase" to us).
(ii) Things where the government can abuse monopoly power or monopsony power.
I suppose there is an occasional case where government is a reasonable means to organise non-violent things - say lighthouses on rocks far from any port, perhaps the drains and sewers, and a few other things that are far too mundane for politicians to take much interest in.
Hi dearieme
Like you say, when it comes down to it, the only thing the government should be interested in is: defense, roads, infrastructure and law and order.
The trouble is, is that the congress appoints bureaucrats to manage our affairs and they can screw it up royally under the guise of government restrictions created by congress. Some bureaucrat's whim becomes the law of the land until it is ruled unconstitutional. How much does that cost to fight to overturn it? Ans. more than the average John Doe can afford to spend. Kind of sucks.
Post a Comment