On recent discussions about the election - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Thursday, 6 November 2008


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
1050 - On recent discussions about the election

I've made several comments on the election and Obama's policies, and ended them with "wanna buy an airplane"? Some folks have taken that as a "let them eat cake"-style argument. That couldn't be further from the truth.

My airplane is the culmination of a lifelong dream. I've actively wanted one for 20 years; before that, I'd wanted to learn to fly, and having an airplane was a smaller part of it. Once I learned to fly, I found that yes, the average person can indeed own an airplane. There are several at the Fairmont airport owned by average working stiffs, in among the high-performance singles and light twins that the folks snarking at me would probably think are typical. I've found from experience that, as the aviation writer Gordon Baxter once observed, an airplane is the finest thing a man can own. Barack Obama has that dream firmly in his sights. Anyone who thinks I'll greet the death of that dream with anything but deep displeasure is delusional.

When my job goes away, the airplane will have to go, but it'll be just the first of lots of things.

There were a few comments about having huge medical debts, and why should I complain about an airplane? I've answered the latter; the former is something I deeply sympathize with and am sorry that the person has to deal with - but how, exactly, does that justify government sticking a gun in my face and demanding I pay the bill?

The discussion devolved into accusations of class warfare. I'm sorry if telling the truth is offensive, but I'm not going to stop doing it. The politics of envy practiced by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are just that: class warfare against the successful, by those who can buy votes by committing to "major redistributive change".

Finally, there's the question of "why don't we let the people we elected start doing their jobs before we complain"? There are two objections to be raised here: 1) The policies I'm objecting to are the promises that Obama used to get elected, along with what little legislative record he has; he's got no reason to do anything different, especially when he's aided and abetted by two Democrat leaders who've been working toward the same goals for years; and 2) If someone walks up to me with a pistol pointed at my nose, I'm not going to wait until he pulls the trigger before doing something about it.

location: 56031
current mood: [mood icon] depressed

(15 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I'd almost rather the advocates of so-called "positive rights" just eliminate the middleman and go out with guns themselves to steal from others on behalf of the needy. At least that would be honest.
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I have seen no actual evidence that your job is in danger from rising taxes; Will your company's taxes on profits really rise above 100%, which is what is required for taxes to make retaining you not worth it?
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Also, medical care is an inverse Metcalfe's Law system: the value of a communications system is proportional to the square of the number of nodes... and each person who cannot afford to get regular checkups is a node in the infectious disease communications system. The more people that cannot afford health care, the more dangerous an infectious disease is, with the square of that number of people.

Are you really willing to give disease that opportunity, just so you can make a little more money?
[User Picture]
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
That sounds like a negative externality. What's the difference between someone going around spreading disease and a company not wanting to pay the cost of cleaning up after itself, and if you think the government should pay for the individual's health care, should it pay for the company's cleanup?
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
The difference between the two is that the company can do a great deal of stuff to not make a mess, but there is no way for me to reliably protect myself from injury and disease, nor can I reliably detect when I am carrying an infectious disease.
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
At that, if I am in a car accident and I am not wearing my seatbelt, neither the other driver nor the government is liable for my injuries. If I knowingly spread disease, I can be charged with something in the assault/manslaughter/murder spectrum, depending on severity.

And a company that suffers a significant hazardous materials leak despite due diligence usually does get some help from the government, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
[User Picture]
From:tysonhood
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Class warfare. That's funny. You'll see real class warfare after the shift to universal health care, where the rich (private insurance) get diagnostic tests for potentially life threatening conditions immediately, and the poor mediX carriers have to wait weeks and reasonably risk becoming terminal.

Anyone who has health insurance now, doesn't realize the downgrade they're voting for. Homeless people here get quicker diagnostic exams than most people in Canada/UK/France.

[User Picture]
From:frijole
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Would that downgrade I voted for be the healthcare plan I don't have to take, since I'm already covered by work?
[User Picture]
From:tysonhood
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Yeah, just like how all the jobs in now universal healthcare providing countries continued to offer private insurance...

gimme a break man - companies can't continue to offer it as a perk plus paying the increase tax to cover the universal.

Maybe you do have a great job where it would still be provided, but you'd be in the minority. I know I'd lose mine, as a paramedic/firefighter. And that probably goes to anyone with any job in the public sector.
[User Picture]
From:thecanuckguy
Date: - 0000
(Link)
As I've seen you (or maybe it was vakkotaur) say before after talking about all that Obama's going to bring, "I hope I'm wrong".

Tuesday wasn't an overwhelming victory for the Democrats, and America didn't hand the keys of the country over to them. The Republicans can block any particularly egregious bill the Dems have with filibusters, "with great power comes great responsibility", they are the check to the Dems, and they are to use that wisely. If no one (read the Republican senators) don't do everything in the power the voters gave them to stop any bills by the Democrats that will be bad for the country, you know where I'm placing the blame when things go south (hint, it won't be at the Democrats) - just like I've seen you do a time or two when the President was a Republican, but Pelosi's House was responsible for lots of bad things, never mind that the President was of the "right" party.
[User Picture]
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I hope that they will do their best to stop the horrors that the Democrats will try to inflict. Alas, with the Democrat count very close to 60, there are a few that some call RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who are liable to knuckle under.
[User Picture]
From:thecanuckguy
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Exactly. The Republicans should have the common sense to know which of the Dems plans are good enough for the country as a whole to let through with their support, and which they (RINOs included) should fight tooth and nail. I'm not saying that the Republicans should automatically block each and every thing the Dems bring, using their filibuster in the most egregious cases, I want to see them work with the Dems, support stuff that's good for the country as a whole - and only use their filibuster when they ahve the good sense of recognizing that something will be very bad for the country.

I know enough about the Republicans to know that "good sense" and "Republicans" usually don't belong in the same sentence, let's hope that they make me a believer, who knows, I may publicly support the Republican nominee for president in 2012 if they start behaving again ...
[User Picture]
From:heliumbreath
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Move to Canada, maybe? I can't say for certain if the US is going to find itself off to the left of its northern neighbour, but especially around Alberta there's no shortage of Conservative politicians. And there's good flying weather.
[User Picture]
From:thecanuckguy
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I can hear Jay laughing from here. No, even our Conservatives are to the left (considerably so) of your Republicans. We're far too socialized for the likes of Jay. Even in Alberta. This is probably why you haven't tried to invade us in almost 200 years, all those extra people, who would inevitably vote Democrat, would not sit well with the Republicans. :)

I'd agree with the "good flying weather" statement, though.
[User Picture]
From:kazriko
Date: - 0000
(Link)
There's still reason for hope that you'll get to keep your airplane. Even during the height of the great depression, 80% of people were still employed. Those fired aren't going to be the good employees, they'll be the under-performing employees. Just do your job and do it well. You have to be faster than the slowest runner when trying to escape a rampaging dinosaur like socialism. ;)


> go to top
LiveJournal.com