Going into the fall elections, the Democrats have adopted another campaign theme of sorts that they hope will convince undecided voters to vote for them: actively promoting the ‘common good.’ Via the AP:
Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America _ then repeated the phrase 29 times.
The term is “common good,” and it’s catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what “compassionate conservative” did for the Republicans.
“It’s a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives,” said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community _ sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty.”
Jason at TexasRainmaker explains with links exactly what Democrats mean when they start talking about the “common good.” Essentially, he writes, it equates to Socialists advocating Socialism. This quote, in particular, stands out as a prime example of such:
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters — some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend — to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” - Senator Hillary Clinton June 28, 2004
Yet one more in a long list of reasons to run to the polls on election day.
I believe it is ESSENTIAL for people to learn economics. The result of the government taking more from the people (even the rich) is that the people have less to spend for goods and services. When they have less to spend for goods and services they purchase less. When they purchase less, companies produce less goods and services. When companies prouduce less they usually cut costs in the labor area also. WHO suffers? The end result is that the bottom 1/5th of the country suffers. The rich just spend less and don’t really suffer.
THe results (for those of you in Rio Linda) is less employment. More unemployment. The result is a lessening of economic growth or actual decrease in economic growth depending on how much the government took from people. The result is that the government ends up having to SPEND more to HELP those dependant on the government people that the government JUST CREATED!!!
This is why it is viewed as a disengenuous power play by power hungy leftist leaders by conservatives. Most liberals are “well intentioned” and really want to give fish and conservatives should say that more often as a way of an offering of considerate words. But liberals should also realize that conservatives care also but are more inclined to “love” by teaching a man to fish. Sure the safety net should be STRONG but it is diluted by able-bodied people becoming dependant on the government with give aways.
It was hard for Democrats but Bill Clinton signed the Welfare bill given by Republicans in Congress after the 3rd time. THe RELEASE of all the dependant people into the workforce over the following years was a factor that contributed to more employment in the late 90’s and more revenue into the government. It surprised Bill (see there will be defecits as far as the eye can see) Clinton. Of course , the amount of money every corporation had to spend on due diligence for the Y2K problem was also a contributing factor in the economy overheating and bringing in revenues to the government. April - October 2000 was a lot of evidence of things turning around in the economy due to a needed correction but the agenda driven drive by legacy media failed to report the facts. The fact are on paper though.
Anyways, I went long on my lesson for those who wanted to understand economics before the election.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/19/2006 - 2:32 pm
Bottom line… It ISN’T for the common good to raise tax rates gnerally. It hurts more people and at the bottom end of the economic ladder. So the leftist leadership is peddling a message that should not appeal to anyone at the bottom.
When I learned and converted from liberalism to conservativism in 1991 (the year I went to the library 3 times a week for a year) I made $10,000 per year. I wasn’t rich. It is not hard to adopt a belief system based on facts and common sense (as I saw it).
Comment by Baklava @ 10/19/2006 - 2:56 pm
One end result of Socialism is North Korea. That should say all we need to say on the subject.
Comment by benning @ 10/19/2006 - 3:19 pm
Benning, That is the extreme end. FOr those doubters Read the Road to Serfdom to understand how it happens….
Comment by Baklava @ 10/19/2006 - 3:24 pm
Of course the other end of the spectrum (anarchy) isn’t good either.
Somewhere in the middle is good. However, this country’s government has grown every year for over 6 decades. It could use some staying the same size or shrinking. And you aren’t getting that with liberals.
Comment by Baklava @ 10/19/2006 - 3:26 pm
At a San Francisco fundraiser in 2004- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the “common good.”
Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaign.
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
The common good be damned if that is how they are going interpret it. Since when is it acceptable to “punish” people that have worked hard to earn good money, for the common good? Since when is it unobjectionable to take from the rich by simple virtue of them BEING rich or well off? Since when has any Democrat ever, ever cared about the common good of the people, except when it benefits them politically? To top it off, she dared say that to people that were taking their hard earned money and donating to her…. the woman must have borrowed her husbands balls for that speech.
With Democrats like this running, we do not NEED terrorist to terrorize us, we have Democrats!!!
Comment by spree @ 10/19/2006 - 4:29 pm
- Hmmmmm …”Common”….Rhymes with “Communism”…. More tea Komrads?
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 10/19/2006 - 4:29 pm
Common good - eminent domain……….
Comment by forest hunter @ 10/19/2006 - 6:54 pm
Taxation is only one area where the Dem concept of “common good” will prove uncommonly bad. I can easily envision more: Expansion of welfare for the common good, higher minimum wage for the common good, stifling religious speech for the common good, completely unrestricted abortion for the common good. Anyone who leans toward the despotic could rationalize anything for the common good. All in all, “for the common good” is just the latest touch-feely emotion driven drivel the Dems use to present themselves as a change. They change the bumper stickers, but never the goals.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 10/19/2006 - 11:36 pm
The dems keep up the lying mantra that bubba made Welfare Reform happen in this country …. no he didn’t, he fought it tooth and cigar, the conservatives forced him to sign it and that BIG LIE ain’t flying no more.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 10/20/2006 - 6:21 am