I don't agree with John McCain 100%, but I do disagree with Hillary Clinton 150%.
According to Hillary Clinton (and Obama believes much of the same), we are to:
"Strengthen the middle class."
My response: Yes, that's good. But I don't think we should go about doing it by punishing people who worked hard enough to actually get rich. In my view, over-taxing the rich is redistribution of wealth. If someone responds with, "The rich got wealthy by oppressing the worker," or, "They have too much money," then I'd think I was reading the Communist Manifesto. Don't you think Marx, and all the other countries who failed using this ideology, would be proud?
"Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care."
My response: Yes, that's wonderful. But I don't think it's the government's responsibility to provide everyone with health coverage.
Do people really think that the government would handle our health efficiently? The government already is doing a swimmingly good job with our DMV, IRS, Dept. of Public Welfare, CBP (Customs and Border Protection), why not give them our health too! It would be a remarkably efficient department, with absolutely no red tape, and I'm sure no one would abuse the system like they're abusing Emergency Rooms right now.
I'm not even going to argue how much our taxes would skyrocket... the sheer inefficiency of this ideology should be enough make people question the fantasies Clinton and Obama are dreaming.
Canadians are already coming here for emergencies... where are we going to go when we have the same system? Mexico?
"End the War in Iraq."
My response: Yes, that's wonderful. But I don't think we should do it by cutting of the Iraqi government's firepower ("us") and then throwing money at the problem.
Funding the UN to mediate the "problem," as if the sectarian parties are but mere school boys is not realistic. I've seen why the Maoist Rebels in Nepal will not dare attack Kathmandu, thus establishing complete Communist dominion over the country. Is it because there are United Nation SUVs frolicking about, spreading peace and tranquility? No. It's because there is a Royal Nepalese machine gun nest on every street corner.
Peace between Iraq's Government and sectarian gangs ("terrorists") is a nice thought, but it's not realistic. Think about it: peace would require comprise. When the Kamikaze started to be implemented, do people really think that we should've "dialogued" with them? No. They wanted to annihilate us. Bombing the Japanese (twice) not only influenced, but it brought about the Japanese surrender. Not all our enemies, past and present, have our same morals or Christian values about life. There are people out there who kill for pleasure. A lot of people refuse to admit this, because it's uncomfortable and tough to handle. No, the insurgents aren't being "misunderstood." Americans need to realize that terrorists aren't lying when they say, "We will destroy the USA."
(Oh, and please drop me a line when someone has thought up a good comprise with death. They would get the Nobel Peace prize every year for the rest of eternity.)
"Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming."
My response: Yes, that's wonderful. Oil sucks because our economy is reliant on other countries. At this moment, oil is the most cost efficient (very cost efficient) method of power, especially for vehicles. We've been running on this stuff for years, and until something better comes along, no one's going to bother investing in an alternative. The cliche, "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones" rings true. It's because iron was more efficient, not because the government outlawed stones or because people felt guilty using rocks. We need to get our priorities straight.
In a nutshell:
1. Profit drives investment.
2. Fuel alternatives need investment.
3. Thus when fuel alternatives reap profit, it will flourish and become more efficient due to investments.
A Green Fad driven by guilt will not drive people to find a fuel alternative (guilt is not a lasting motivation). Forced government stipulations will not make people more willing to invest in fuel alternatives. Last time that happened people had a massive Tea Party in Boston. And just half of the world's scientists and a politician saying it will destroy the earth will not make everyone more willing to invest in fuel alternatives, at least not in the long run.
Here's the motive that needs to be emphasized: Money. It's a sad motivation, but it's realistic. The US will be more independent, more free, more efficient, more profitable (thus more money), if we had a fuel alternative. That's the way to convince people to be Green. Not guilt, a fad, or government stipulations.
Admit it... when we get down to brass tacks, people buy energy-saving lightbulbs because it saves money.
No comments:
Post a Comment