From Rachel Maddow's show last night, here's a jaw-dropper from the woman who brought you, "We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what's in it." As I keep saying, the Democratic message mavens are working overtime, apparently to woo the all-important swing vote in Williamsburg to health care:We're doing everything we can to build dependency into our population, but among the many problems with that is dependent people won't get their unearned dollars if the producers stop producing. At some point the whole system collapses into a pile and you're stuck with millions of people who are suddenly cut off from Mother Government."Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."
If Pelosi wants us to imagine it, let's do it with a few caveats, shall we? If liberal Boomers such as Nancy Pelosi insist on creating government incentives for a generation of people to be unemployed artists who nonetheless have their health care paid for by productive members of society, there will be fewer productive members of society.
If they insist on creating a generation unable to care for itself up to and past the ripe old age of 26 by incentivizing "children"—and I use to term loosely— to stay on parent's health insurance policies until they're turning the corner from Clearasil to Botox, there will be fewer educated, able-bodied people who ever learn to take care of themselves.
If they insist on creating a generation incentivized to "move out of the money-making industry" entirely and "into the helping industry," as Michelle Obama put it, with student loans forgiven by government if and only if students stay away from icky, profit-making industries, there will be fewer people making a profit.
These are the workers—and I may soon be using that term loosely— upon whom liberal Boomer Pelosi must rely to pay her Social Security through their working years. The ratio of workers to retirees has already shrunk from 41:1 in 1942 to 3.3:1 in the mid-2000s, and is expected to dip into to 2:1 in the next decades. Does Pelosi really want one or more of those young people supporting each worker to be a really keen charcoal sketch artist whose earning potential went as thoroughly unrecognized as his genius?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Pelosi: We Need Obamacare So People Can Be Starving Artists
The rationale for passing Obamacare just gets sillier and sillier (from The Weekly Standard):
Democrats won't be happy until they've spread misery equally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
In San Francisco the idea of an "artist" is a bit different than it's been in the world throughout the history of civilized people. Provincial Mrs. Pelosi is unfamiliar with people like Joseph William Mallord Turner, poor scamp who could draw anything turned very rich artist by dint of hard work and amazing talent -- or of Peter Paul Rubens who was a genuine intellectual, as well as an important diplomat and still had time after his "day job" to create more works of art than historians can catalog.
Okay, perhaps she's heard of Picasso? Picasso, ring any bells, Nancy? The Spaniard who was so rich he could literally, as he noted, mint his own currency. All he had to do was sign his name on a piece of paper and people would take it to the bank.
You know, come to think of it, the best thing artists could do to improve their fortunes would be to stop listening to idiots like Nancy Pelosi.
Post a Comment