Codes words all. These “ideas” are continually repeated over and over by politicians. But what do they mean?
Let’s start with “Shared Responsibility”. This is usually used in reference to taxes.
In reviewing the 2012 Republican and Democratic Platforms (before the Dems decided that taking God out was not such a good idea, and decided, albeit after much contention, that there was a God after all), I was struck by the differences in the language. Of, course, I was very happy to know that they approved of there being a God. After all, some of them were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, but I am not so sure about all of them. Maybe they were endowed with rights from Mother Earth, or Zeus, or the Big Bang God, but I digress.
Anyway, I looked for conservatives code words, and could not find any. Of course, I admit, as a Conservative, I am a strict Constitutionalist. Leaning Libertarian, I believe in the powers enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal Government and nothing more, and nothing less.
However, the Democratic Party Platform is replete with Liberal Code Words.
In the Republican Platform (aka Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s ideals), emphasis is placed on personal responsibility in the area of obtaining home mortgages, interstate infrastructure shared with the states, the responsibility that comes with abiding by the Constitution and how the federal government relates to the states based on that. They talk about how individuals and people living in certain fiscally conservative states should not have to bear the burden of the irresponsibility of other individuals and people living in other states that do not live under the same constraints of – let’s hear it – “personal responsibility”. The Republican Platform addresses the responsibility of the individual to use and store guns, the responsibility of the development of resources, additional fiscal responsibility, and personal responsibility in doing things which contribute to bad health and higher health costs as a result of these habits. They talk about taking personal responsibility for planning for retirement.
The Republicans talk about the federal government sharing responsibility with the states and sharing threats with the American people. They talk about a belief in fair elections, personal liberty, and free enterprise. They talk about our shared history, values, and common interests and goals with countries who actually share those same values, etc.
They talk about personal responsibility a lot!
When the Democrats mention personal responsibility in their party Platform, they only mention it twice. They talk about how responsible citizens contribute to government ordered mandates (paying into Medicare and social security, which is not an option, so how is this “a personal responsibility”?).
When Republicans discuss the matter of illegal immigration, they talk about the rule of law. But when Democrats talk about it, they use the term “personal responsibility” in a manner I cannot even comprehend – they say that “President Obama has made important progress [red alert – another code word] in implementing immigration policies [Un-Constitutionally through Executive Orders I might add] that reward hard work and demand personal responsibility [italics mine].
How is those illegal immigrants do anything that requires personal responsibility when they are here ILLEGALLY? That is why they are called “illegal”. It is not a term to denote something ambiguous. It is not a term given them to make them “feel bad”. It is a term given them because that is their definition under the law.
Finally, the Republicans note that the most important institution in this country is the “family” and the family is the basis from which all other institutions are formed. They noted that “Government can never replace the family”.
When Democrats discuss family, they use such language as “family reunification” for illegal aliens.
They talk about all the government has done to help families with more government, more government policies, more government programs, etc. They do not see the “family” as the foundation of America, only as an entity which they need to help direct.
Additionally, and a final note on this matter, the Republican Platform discusses a President’s responsibility in appointing impartial Supreme Court Justices who are not ideologs to any one party or platform, but whose only judgments are based on the Constitution.
The Democratic Platform mentions that these judges should demonstrate their faithfulness to the Constitution, but adds the caveat that they should “bring with them a sense of how American society works and how the American people live”.
Translation: The Constitution is fine, but we have to adapt it to changes in society, regardless of what the law says, or what the majority wants or believes. If they think that the law does not go far enough, then they feel they have the right to interpret the law to fit these changes.
The Democrats constant harping about fairness never takes into account personal responsibility. Unfortunately, the entire modus operandi of the Democratic Party is to replace the family as the fundamental basis of a core foundation with government bureaucracies.
Fair Share. The Democratic National Platform talks about how the wealthiest do not pay their fair share (although they pay over ½ of all the federal income taxes in this country and only constitute 1% of the population).
That terminology is not even in the Republican Lexicon.
Shared Prosperity. The Democratic National Platform notes that they want to promote “shared prosperity”, but then goes on to talk about how that relates to sharing our prosperity with other countries, helping other countries grow, not how that relates to helping Americans share in the prosperity of a thriving economy.
Sadly, they are proving it every day – selling land to China, giving leases to Brazil to drill for oil – all the while stymieing our own oil companies from drilling offshore or not allowing any new oil leases, or halting the construction of the Keystone pipeline, or new refinery plants. Or as Barack Obama has stated, his goal is to halt the mining and production of coal. All of these actions against us are to protect the environment. All the while counties like China and India are laughing at us while they go “forward” [Alert: Another Code Word] full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes, to expand their economy with the same types of energy. The environment? HA! We don’t need no stinking environment….
The Democrats, in their Platform, talk about an America where everyone has a fair shot, does their fair share, plays by the same rules, and pays their fair share of taxes. This is reiterated more than once, but when it is all boiled down, it is all about getting more money from the same people who already fund most of the government in this country already.
Well, that is 59% of the money taken in from the “rich” and the middle class, because those in the lower class DO NOT PAY ANY FEDERAL TAXES at all.
The other 41% comes from BORROWING MONEY from other countries such as China and Japan, etc., and PRINTING MORE MONEY to monetize the debt. The more money that is out there compared to the actual value of our economy and assets and resources then, the less our money is worth, and the less it will buy (Think Zimbabwe !). So who suffers the most? The very people for whom they claim to CARE.
In the Republican Platform, when looking for the idea of Shared Prosperity, it cannot be found.
The Democratic Party is all about CARING, FEELING, and expanding government to fill every nook and cranny of our lives.
The Republican Platform, on the other hand, talks about the law, upholding the law and the foundation of this country, the family, as the primary guiding force in this country. They also talk about ACTIONS, not feelings. For one, I would rather someone correct the problems in this country based on THOUGHTS, not FEELINGS.
Progressives believe that everyone should be able to “prosper” at equal rates and with equal outcomes. Someone should tell them about Physics – an expenditure of energy must be made to cause an effect. Of course, “what constitutes a ‘cause’ and what constitutes an ‘effect’ depends on the total system of explanation in which the putative causal sequence is embedded” (Wikipedia, Causality, Physics, 9/8/12). So what does all this scientific gobble-de-gook mean? If you don’t exert an effort, why should be rewarded with an outcome equal to that of someone who does.
Like my dad likes to repeat an often told joke, “This guy says to God, why don’t you ever let me win the lottery?, and God says, “Meet me half-way. Buy a ticket!”
Progressives (who relished in the OWS movement), believe that “rich” people such as CEO’s, Wall Street Fat Cats, Investment Bankers and Entrepreneurs (can you say “Mitt Romney” or “Bain Capital”?) should not be able to profit off of their own labor (because they really don’t work anyway). All they do is take money from poor people and lay off people who need jobs. Man, did I hear all about that at the DNC Convention?
At the DNC Convention 2012, in Charlotte, NC, in September, 2012, Peter Schiff conducted a survey of delegates and attendees (and did not interview any OWS people, so he was sure to get the opinions of just the Democrats, and not those possibly controversial people in tents outside the building). Numerous delegates thought it would be a great idea to support a new federal law to ban or cap corporate profits. Where do they think they they get their food, or clothes, or ipads from? Some of them wanted corporations to have only losses. Of course, he was leading them with such language as banning “The stuff that is left over for the greedy capitalists”. And they also wanted caps on CEO income. That will incentivize production! Watch:
http://www.schiffradio.com/b/Democrats:-Lets-Ban-Profits!/-364966515326707963.html
Has the power of extrapolation taken a vacation in these people’s brains?
No progressive ever demonizes one of their own – billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffet; millionaire movie stars like Angelina Jolie, Susan Sarandon, and Martin Sheen, and millionaire politicians like Nancy Pelosi.
Why?
Because they “CARE”.
They have convinced so many Americans that Rich Conservatives do not care; therefore, it is OK to take their money.
They believe that only a shared sacrifice through a re-distribution of wealth will provide the means for the poor to rise into the middle class, and the middle class to maintain their collective lifestyles.
Speaking of the word “Collective”, they believe in a totally different interpretation of what “We, The People, in order to form a more perfect union” means. This really came out in the DNC Convention when this line came out of someone’s mouth (sadly, I cannot remember who said it, but I remember the angst in their tone, like they had just had an epiphany of what the Founders actually meant).
They believe that a “more perfect union” can only be achieved through a shared sacrifice. The only problem with this is when they consider the suffering of the poor; they never consider “personal responsibility” to be a factor in the equation leading up to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
Their equation of shared sacrifice goes like this:
ME + Whatever I Want to Do to Feel Good = Someone Else Gets to Pay For It
Pat Buchanan is demonized on a regular basis for bringing to light the main causes of the decay of society in general through a loss of the worship or respect of God, and the loss of self-respect. No one wants to touch the subject of illegitimacy in this country for the fear of “offending” someone. But look at it honestly, and the stats cannot be disputed. As Rick Santorum is apt to repeat, those children who are born and raised in a two-parent household are much more UNLIKELY to live in poverty than in a household headed up by one parent. He has revised his statement to say that the one-parent household applies generally when a woman is the head of the household. But this holds true for a household headed up by a single-man as well, just not as drastically. And while his numbers are off a little, the disparity is still enormous in my opinion.
This is discussed and fact-checked here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/13/rick-santorum/rick-santorum/
What needs to be analyzed is the age at which these women first give birth, and the education level of their parents and their own education at the time of conception. I will make a prediction – if anyone makes this analysis – I bet a Euro to a gluten-free doughnut hole that the median age is about or under the age of 19, that the majority haven’t graduated high school, and that their parents have nothing more than a high school education.
The problem with the shared sacrifice analogy in forming a more perfect union is that the MOST IMPORTANT part of the equation, “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY” has been taken out of the equation. And, progressives consider that the suffering of the poor is the only sacrifice that they have to make because they have already felt their share of the pain. Therefore, they do not have to “contribute” anything else to the collective pot.
Since the politicians have already done due diligence in saving the lower class through all their social justice programs, they are now fixated on saving the “middle class”.
And progressives only see one way out of the mess that our government has created – well, actually, two ways out – 1) More Government and 2) TAX THE RICH.
While conservatives are asking everyone to look at the big picture of what is causing the problem. 1) More Government and 2) The Death of Personal Responsibility.
Progressives, who have taken over the Democrat Party are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to political ideology than those newly engaged citizens who are forming a new group called the “Tea Party”, and who are trying to take over the Republican Party. Both groups call each other horrible names – radical, extreme, racist, etc., while “We, the People” are stuck in the middle. OK, I admit, I am a Tea Partier. But I really, really, really do CARE! I just want some grown-ups in the mix. People who can look at the problems without calling each other names, without lying about wanting the exact opposite of what they are doing. People who are not afraid of taking on the issues head on. Can Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, and perhaps a new Senate accomplish this (FINALLY?). I don’t know, but I do know that middle ground is shrinking as fast as their claim that the “middle class” is shrinking (a trumped up argument from both sides for a later blog). I do know that Barack Obama is a man who is repeating the same promises he made in 2008, and while he thinks he just needs more time, I know that if he is given more time to double up on what he has done, then by the end of 2016, we will be 20 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT (or even worse given compounded interest), China will be buying up more of our land, we will be energy poor, and our dollar will be useless.
[I welcome any comments from anyone who has read both platforms to chime in and refute anything I am repeating or stating here.] But unless you are willing to invest the time and effort into having a legitimate debate based on a true analysis of the issues, just keep your opinions to yourself. There are enough uneducated opinions out there already.]
Genqueen's Blog 
Progressives just drive me nuts.