Obama's Vision for Julia: Cradle-to-grave socilaism

Barack Obama's vision of a new America is not a good one. His vision for our grandchildren has them overly dependent on the federal government and its bloated agencies providing them with cradle-to-grave socialism.

Quote:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] [HR][/HR] "The point of view of “The Life of Julia” is profoundly condescending. It assumes that giving people things will distract them from larger considerations of the public weal — the economy, debt, the health of the culture. It devalues self-reliance and looks at us less as independent citizens than as drab Julias, bereft without the succor of our life partner and minder, the state. [HR][/HR] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

"In the competition for the creepiest campaign material of 2012, we may already have a winner. It is “The Life of Julia,” the Obama reelection team’s cartoon chronicle of a fictional woman who is dependent on government at every step of her life.

The phrase “cradle-to-grave welfare state” originated with Clement Attlee’s socialist government in post–World War II Britain. Back then, it was meant as a boastful description of a new age of government activism. Subsequently, it became a term of derision for critics of an overweening government. In the spirit of Attlee, the Obama campaign revives the concept of “cradle to grave” as it highlights Obama-supported programs that take care of Julia from age 3 to her retirement at age 67.

Julia begins her interaction with the welfare state as a little tot through the pre-kindergarten program Head Start. She then proceeds through all of life’s important phases, not Shakespeare’s progression from “mewling and puking” infant to “second childishness and mere oblivion,” but the Health and Human Services and Education Departments version: a Pell grant (age 18), surgery on insurance coverage guaranteed by Obamacare (22), a job where she can sue her employers for more pay thanks to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (23), free contraception (27), a Small Business Administration loan (42) and, finally, Medicare (65) and Social Security (67). (In a sci-fi touch, these entitlements are presumed to be blissfully unchanged sometime off in the 2070s.)

No doubt, the creators of Julia — imagine a dour and featureless version of Dora the Explorer who grows old through the years — weren’t seeking to make a major philosophical statement. But they inadvertently captured something important about the progressive vision. Julia’s central relationship is to the state. It is her educator, banker, health-care provider, venture capitalist, and retirement fund. And she is, fundamentally, a taker. Every benefit she gets is cut-rate or free. She apparently doesn’t worry about paying taxes. It doesn’t enter her mind that the programs supporting her might add to the debt or might have unintended consequences. She has no moral qualms about forcing others to pay for her contraception, and her sense of patriotic duty is limited to getting as much government help as she can.

The alleged benefits to Julia are exaggerated or nonexistent. Pity the poor thing if she depends on Head Start for her launch into the world. A study by the Department of Health and Human Services last year found that positive educational effects tend to wear off by the first grade. The government assistance she gets for financing college feeds into the maw of inexorable tuition increases. The chances that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is going to boost her pay, as a web designer, are essentially nil. Julia is getting punked.

Her life is framed to show that she gets more from President Barack Obama than from Republicans. The same contrast could be achieved differently. She could lose her web-design job and go on unemployment, which President Obama always wants to extend despite Republican objections. With her family’s income dropping, she could resort to the food-stamp program, which has expanded massively under President Obama despite Republicans’ inveighing against the trend. These examples don’t suit the campaign’s purposes, though. They show government to be a poor substitute for the robust recovery that President Obama hasn’t delivered even as he has endeavored to make Julia’s birth-control pills free.

The point of view of “The Life of Julia” is profoundly condescending. It assumes that giving people things will distract them from larger considerations of the public weal — the economy, debt, the health of the culture. This view’s infantilizing tendency is captured by Obamacare’s insistence that, for purposes of health insurance, young adults are children who belong on their parents’ policies until the age of 26. It devalues self-reliance and looks at us less as independent citizens than as drab Julias, bereft without the succor of our life partner and minder, the state.

No thanks."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...sm_114052.html


Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 05-04-2012 02:40 PM

 

I predict some mighty cutting parodies of this. Just too easy, a hanging curve.

 

Good grief!!

"Giving" children things like an opportunity at EDUCATION via programs like public schools and Head Start IS SOCIETY'S JOB!

I suppose, for the Right Wing, if a child's parents aren't wealthy the rotten poor kids should go to work at age 8 in a factory to "earn" some money to buy school!

 

Get Big Fed OUT!

 

How about "giving" the "children" free food and housing and medical care even after they grow up to be able-bodied but lazy adults?

Obama who is a welfare baby himself in a family of welfare bums wants to give cradle-to-grave welfare to every hapless Obama voter in America.

 

sad but true....

 

if private schools are so good, why do most choose public schools?

 

The head start program doesn't work and that was proven by a governmental study. All it is, is a daycare for the inner city parents to go get high without worrying about the kid. when those kids get into kindergarten, they show no difference in ability over the non-head start kids. We have just allowed an irresponsible person to put their kids into the public baby sitting program called school one year earlier.

We need to stop punishing the successful (taxes) to suplament the lazy and stupid with more safety nets.

 

so your saying it benefits the child then sounds like to me, how would they be otherwise if they had not had head start?

 

The trouble with Head Start as it applies to Obama voters on welfare is that it tends to wear off pretty quickly.

Most experts would say by the 1st or 2nd grade the kids who had Head Start show no advantage over those who were not in the program.

 

Cause paying for day care is what the society should do for irresponsible people. :rolleyes. No, poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency for me. There is no reason for the head start program.

 

Obama. Just plain creepy. Cradle to grave government dependancy. If I were a woman I'd be screaming my head off telling Obama to stop making women look like they have to have a socialist government in my life to survive! I know the vast majority of Obama's 'OJ Jury' can't seem to survive without Obama but that's not every woman.

 

Why did Julia have to be white?

 

Because they have no choice. Funny you should mention "choice". You liberals are supposedly "pro-choice"- but certainly not when it comes to keeping children trapped in government indoctrination camps.

 

Wow....willfull ignorance is reaching new levels in this country.....

....probably because those who choose Private Schools.....are still FORCED to pay for the crappy subprime Union goon Public Schools.
.
.
.
.

 

they do have a choice, they choose the public schools over private schools


"government indoctrination camps."

did private schools teach you that?

 

I have no problem with you getting a tax write off for exactly the amount you paid in for public schools every year you show proof your child is enrolled in a private school - I do not think you should get a voucher worth 8k per child though

 

No WE Don't. Private Schools are expensive. Democrats will not allow vouchers. of course, putting your kid in public school means fees for this, fees for that. IF you choose to put them in another public schools with a better reputation you pay a fee for that. NOT insignificant. Last i paid was over 1000 per kid EXTRA. I don't know what it may be now.

 

I have no problem with you getting a tax write off for exactly the amount you paid in for public schools every year you show proof your child is enrolled in a private school - I do not think you should get a voucher worth 8k per child though

 

A cartoon...who is the target audience for this creation? Middle school students? Things that make you go hmmm. What exactly is his political powerbase?

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

 

Uh, Head Start is for the CHILDREN, not for the parents!

Are you saying toddlers have indulged in "poor planning"?

 

Such a cynical, condescending view ObamaCo holds towards independence and self determination....

That anyone can respect such an opinion...
suggests they're more interested in greedily cleaving a portion of the public largess for themselves...

than helping to protect your individual rights and liberty.

 

Uhh... head start is a warehouse. It offers no educational benefit according to the most recent rigorous report. It's a loser. I pay for this day care.

But it makes leftwads FEEL GOOD and that's all the reason needed to spend $billion$ per year.

 

They're here:

 

More.......