I obviously think a lot about Politics. In fact, one could argue that I think about politics too much. But why is it that some people on both sides of the aisle think about politics, while others drift around in oblivion to the world around them.
It seems simple why Americans don’t pay attention to what’s going on in the world while people in other nations knows what’s going on everywhere else. Our country is big, fifty states to be exact… unless of course you count Obama’s other 7. Our national news is fifty times bigger than most nation’s national news. Of course they pay attention to what’s going on the world, not as much happens in their nation as happens in our nation.
That being said, I suspect that the younger generation really doesn’t care much about politics without something to fight for. Until their livelihood, their children’s freedom or free ride is at risk, will people do something in order to preserve their way of life. It is when politics affects something that you care about that you really start to get involved.
It seems to me politics is meaningless when you’ve got nothing to fight for. Young people really don’t have that yet. They are too worried about impressing that certain somebody to actually focus on getting involved in politics. Even when young people do get involved in the political process, they tend to do so to either impress a certain someone, or appear important, so they can impress a certain someone.
It’s not until you become a little older, after you start a family, or begin to pay your own way through life that you start to pay attention to what’s going on in politics. If you earn enough money, you don’t care what is being taken out of your check. When you can’t afford a gallon of milk and the person in front of you has a basket of food and an EBT card, you do care how much the government takes out of your check. After all, you earned it, and you’re filling the shopping cart of somebody who didn’t earn it.
I suppose this is my opposition to Ron Paul, not on principle, but on practicality. Do I agree with Ron Paul that we ought to cut the IRS, Department of Education, Department of Defense, Department of Transportation? Perhaps. If there’s a Department of Toilet Paper, then I definitely would agree. Ha, laugh if you want, but give Barack Obama another four years and see if he doesn’t create that department.
You see, if Ron Paul had his way, he’d cut just about every department that he could. He would slash and burn, and use that money to audit the fed, or end the fed. He’d would slash and burn every department. More to the point, he would promise to cut every single department he could find.
Now, let’s stop and think about this not on merit, that would simply take to long. Probably every single department of government receives too much money, on that I could agree with the Vagina Doctor. It’s the practicality that I’m going to take issue with.
Imagine how the employees of any of these failed banks felt in 08. How do you think the employees of Wells Fargo felt when they learned that their company was in a financial bind? Do you think any one of them said “cut my job first so that pregnant Mary can feed her child”? I’ll bet not a single one of them thought in those terms. In fact, each of them was probably scrambling to do whatever they could to save their own jobs. It’s the reality of life, people take care of their self first, then their family, and then they think beyond that after those two have been taken care of.
A Ron Paul’s presidency would threaten the jobs of every single federal employee and each of them would more than likely get out to vote against Ron Paul. I also think that most Social Security recipients, not understanding that Social Security is a fiduciary responsibility the government has taken on, not a social program, would get out and vote against Ron Paul, as well as every eligible welfare recipient. In fact, those people might even make sure to vote twice, if not thrice.
Government workers on the state and local level would also get out and vote against Ron Paul. Teachers, Fireman, Police officers… all would be opposed to Ron Paul gutting their jobs. Ron Paul’s idea of cutting spending in every department would turn the 45% of taxpayer dependents against him, leaving Obama only needing 5% plus one in order to get re-elected.
Simply put, does government need to cut back some? Absolutely. But why not reduce spending in some departments instead of gunning for them all? Maybe take a couple and cut into their budget, and if the other departments don’t like it, have them take some of the cut to, so that other departments can have theirs… like pregnant Mary. Betchya those department leaders would back off of defending other agencies then. They will stand in unity to protect each other’s money, but they won’t take a dime less for the other. Why stir a hornet’s nest when you can take them on one by one?
Politics seems so meaningless to me now, but give me a reason to fight again, and I’d give you hell too.