Deval Patrick Wins Massachusetts!

[Brandon]

Deval Patrick has taken the governor's race in my state and I couldn't be more upset. With both the governor's office and the legislator controlled by Democrats, I see no checks and balances on the taxpayers money. I see it becoming similar to the Republicans on the federal level. Were Deval will act as a rubber stamp to all legistlative actions (Just like Bush now).

My other issue is Deval's stance on healthcare and labor. I would hate to imagine Massachusetts becoming the Sweden (nothing against swedes, I just hate your welfare state) of the United States. That idea makes me wan't to move out of the state. I can only hope he doesn't turn Mass into a nanny state.

 

[louisgodwin]

Feel free to come on down here to Texas. There's lots of Republicans who hate paying taxes.

 

[dong]

For want of something actually insightful to say, I will instead drop a partially related article link:

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/30/is-social-democracy-a-viable-model-for-the-european-future/

 

[Brandon]

I am not a Republican but I do like fewer and lower taxes!

 

[BlackGarden]

You don't get something for nothing. If I'm earning a fair amount one day (and I hope I will!) I'd rather pay a fair, progressive tax on that, and know that if I get ill and an unable to work, the welfare state will be there to hold me up. I'm not saying people who earn a lot aren't entitled to that money - they obviously work for it. However, if you're earning a lot more, then you can afford to give a higher percentage of that away to help people who need it. You might need that help too one day, it's not like you're not getting any benefit by paying your taxes (like erm... if your house burns down and you have to jump from a second storey window... you might appreciate having a fire department and health service at that point).
Welfare state does not equal nanny state. Nanny state would be the point at which you're being told what you can and can't do, and a welfare state can exist without the need for a nanny state.

 

[mamab]

That idea makes me wan't to move out of the state. I can only hope he doesn't turn Mass into a nanny state.

You know, moving out of an area to avoid something we don't like seems to be about the only way to handle things anymore. Shame more people don't do that instead of complain.

 

[Brandon]

Welfare state does not equal nanny state. Nanny state would be the point at which you're being told what you can and can't do, and a welfare state can exist without the need for a nanny state.

I believe they are the same. A welfare state is giving control to the government in the form of social programs. In essence you are allowing the government to make decisions for you. Hence you are being treated like a child, since you cannot make the decision for yourself.

Once social programs are put in place, citizens begin treating them as rights and not privileges. After generations pass, the citizens rely on those services and can't seem living in a world without those services. By doing so, you are creating generations of people who are dependents. Basically you are a child and the government is mommy and daddy.

 

[dong]

I'm not sure slippery-slope arguments, however empirically valid they are, gives the actual distinction justice. I do not think that allowing people to make their own economic choices wholly in our current climate is a wise thing. And therein lies the important consideration- in our current climate. Temporality in government is essential to acknowledge as obviously our population is dynamic, and one measure will not always be the best or worst or anything in between.

 

[framed]

Brandon do you really get the feeling that republicans spend less than democrats lately? I used to be a very republican-leaning voter but I've found lately that they spend as much as democrats just in different areas. (the different areas being defense vs social welfare) If I have to pick between the two I'd rather have the social welfare since the defense spending seems to do nothing but make us feel comfortable going to war.

I mean if the money is going to get wasted, why not have it do something that helps people live rather than helps them...explode?

If you havent seen this graphic, it shows you what areas of federal spending have increased and decreased since republicans have had control of government. When I sit back and think about it it just doesn't add up as a good use of my money as a citizen. I'd rather have conservative fiscal policies, but if my money is going to be spent anyway id rather it were spent where democrats spend it over where republicans spend it.

 

[Brandon]

I think Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same party, except for social issues. They both spend like drunken sailors!

Framed, you are just picking the lesser of two evils. You are picking between a strong defense (which is important IMHO) or social programs (I think are less important IMHO).

Why should we be settling for gross oversights with our money? Why can't we have a balanced budget and a large amount of personal freedom?

Social programs do nothing to enhance your freedoms. Why you are given things or services from the government, you are only allowing yourself as much freedom as the government will grant you.

Freedom can only be taken, never given! (from a government - citizen standpoint)