While watching Connecticut's gubernatorial debate I came to a realization regarding the basic economic difference between the two major political parties.
Connecticut is facing a major deficit in the next fiscal year and the two candidates have two nearly opposite solutions to this dilemma. The rational of both falls directly in line with the thinking of each party.
The Republican candidate has talked about cutting spending, possible layoffs of some state workers, and strictly adhering to budgetary mandates.
The Democratic candidate has practically promised higher taxes. He doesn't want to remove any of the services the government provides, nor does he want to take away anyone's job.
When whittled down to their lowest common denominators, the core of these plans can be explained in the following statement:
At a glance, one can conjure up several instances of either viewpoint. Neither side can claim rightness or declare wrongness. The question is: On which side do you stand?
11 comments:
On the side who wants a few to sacrifice for the good of the many.
I'm with Stu!
I can speak for myself only, I am willing to sacrafice for others, and hope that leads others to do the same.
Great observation! I would add, in describing the sacrifice, that one wants to expend an incredible amount of resources that could be used for those in need, including the few who would lose out, for the "good" of those few; the other wants a few to give up clinging to the incredible amount of resources that are wasted for their "good" in order to allocate the most amount of resources to the most amount of people.
isn't gubernatorial such a funny word :)
Interesting... I'm actually not sure which describes which party better. (It depends greatly which services get cut and which taxes get increased) To play the other side, one could argue: "One wants the most privileged to sacrife for the... most vulnerable. The other wants the most vulnerable to sacrifice for the most priviledged." I wish our country was producing more moderates: If anyone can figure out how to protect the needs of the vulnerable AND grow the economy (protecting the jobs of the many), he or she is my candidate!
I would agree with you if it were only (and truely) the most vulnerable taking advantage of said services, but it's not. I had an unfortunate time when my family needed some help. I couldn't believe the things I saw at the social services... office! From the cars people drove up in to the brand name clothes they were wearing to the bling they had around their necks! Not only that, but when I did get a job and I called to let them know I would no longer be requiring their services, they asked me who much I was making and how many hours I was working. When I told them they encouraged me to take fewer hours so I could continue leeching off of the state! That is a broken system. Finally, I'd be certainly in the group of people being asked to sacrifice, and, I assure you, I am not among the "most privileged."
A good point. Nothing makes me sadder than people getting trapped/corrupted by the services intended to help.
Marc, truly is spelled with no 'e'.
ECeleste, Thanke youe fore correctinge mye spellinge. Ie knowe Ie cane alwayse counte one youe! :)
no probleme!
Post a Comment