Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on May 03, 2012, 11:15:55 AM
-
Who the hell is "Julia" and why am I paying for her whole life?
Human Events ^ | 05/03/2012 | by David Harsanyi
In the new Barack Obama campaign piece The Life of Julia, voters can "Take a look at how President Obama's policies help one woman over her lifetime -- and how Mitt Romney would change her story." It is one of the most brazenly statist pieces of campaign literature I can ever remember seeing.
Let's, for the purposes of this post, set aside the misleading generalizations regarding policy in the ad (no one is innocent on that account, obviously). What we are left with is a celebration of a how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people's money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I'd say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have -- outwardly, at least -- shunned.
It is also a mindset that women should find offensively patronizing. When they're old enough, I hope my two daughters will find the notion that their success hinges on the president's views on college-loan interest rates preposterous. Yet, according to the "Life of Julia," women are helpless without the guiding hand of Barack Obama.
Julia can enroll in a Head Start program to help get her ready for school. Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve the program … Julia can take the SATs because she was trained by the useless “Race to the Top” program, yes, implemented by President Obama … During college, Julia undergoes surgery, which is thankfully covered by her insurance due to parents' coverage until she turns 26 … thanks to Obama.
Julia works as a full-time web designer, and thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, "letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health..."
...because children are bad for your health, obviously.
And so on and so forth.
Julia then has a son named Zachary (who has no father around, as far as I can tell) and we can start the entire storyline again.
Finally, Julia retires. “After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she'll run out of savings...
This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.”
If you think Social Security benefits allow you to live your retirement without worry, you deserve Barack Obama.
Most decent people believe that government should be there to assist and help those who find themselves in legitimately rough or desperate circumstances. But an adult Julia, from what I can tell, does not qualify.
-
http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia
Any doubt left he is a communist looking to run every aspect of your life?
-
Obama woos ‘Julia,’ other single women with promise of lifelong subsidies
Daily Caller ^ | 3/5/12 | By Neil Munro
Republicans, conservatives and aides to Gov. Mitt Romney are deriding the Obama campaign’s latest pitch to women — a video slide show that describes how progressive politicians aid a fictional woman named Julia throughout her life.
The slide show follows an apparently unparented Julia who is enrolled in Head Start, gets free contraceptives while she works as a 20-something web designer, has one child, retires around age 65 and finally volunteers in a community garden.
“That’s their dream for women?” asked Wendy Wright, a social conservative leader and acting director of the conservative Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute. “That she be alone, without family, struggling as a single parent, dependent on a government that is going broke?”
“This is not the American dream,” Wright told The Daily Caller. “It’s creepy. … It’s what China promises its people.”
“The fact that President Obama’s campaign has to create fake people to distract from how his abysmal policies have failed real people is sad and extremely pathetic,” added Ryan Williams, a spokesman for the Romney campaign.
The Obama campaign’s online pitch is part of its overall effort to boost turnout by single women, who are a vital bloc of the Democrats’ coalition. Single women tend to vote for Democratic politicians who are eager to provide them with money, security and personal autonomy.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Promises Women A Lifetime Of Dependence
IBD Editorials ^ | May 3, 2012
Posted on May 3, 2012 8:09:06 PM EDT by Kaslin
Election 2012: The Obama campaign website has a feature that's supposed to show how his policies will help a fictional "Julia" during her life. What it really shows is Obama's vision of cradle-to-grave government dependency.
The campaign's "Life of Julia" interactive feature tries to depict how Obama would help, and Romney would hurt, women in America.
It's so ridiculously amateurish, you have to wonder who's in charge of the $170 million the campaign has spent.
Still, it provides a window into Obama's warped worldview — one in which everything good that happens in America is due to some federal program or other.
Julia, for example, gets a good start on education only because of Head Start, and does well on her SATs only because of Obama's education programs.
She manages to get into college thanks to still more federal help. And when she gets a job, she can "focus on her work" because under ObamaCare "health insurance is required to cover birth control."
The feature goes on until, after Julia spends the rest of her career dependent on government, Social Security lets "her retire comfortably, without worrying that she'll run out of savings."
That's Obama's vision, anyway. Here's what Julia's life will really be like under his policies:
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
I see that you finally started an Obama thread.
I knew you would get around to it one of these days.
-
Even Morning Joke is pissed off over this.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
;D ;D ;D
-
-
Awesome! ! ! !
FUCK OBAMA
FUCK OBAMA
FUCK OBAMA
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/03/Obama-Campaign-Women-Are-Helpless
Anyone who votes for this communist thug in november deserves to be sent to China and repleaced by Chen.
Chen wants freedom - you communist pieces of trash voting for thugbama want slavery.
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/julia-becomes-vehicle-for-obamas-messaging
LOL - the twitter blitzkrieg is destroying this bogus nonsense from Team Lenin
-
33, for the 90th time -
is MJoe a credible person, or no? Is he a conservative, or not?
-
33, for the 90th time -
is MJoe a credible person, or no? Is he a conservative, or not?
Not really - but when even Mika is bemoaning this crap - you know its bad.
FNG please 240 - even you can't spin this communist shit.
-
Not really - but when even Mika is bemoaning this crap - you know its bad.
FNG please 240 - even you can't spin this communist shit.
i know its crap. but if i'm gonna argue it with someone, i need more than just emotions.
Can you show me in 2 sentences - with proof - how obama fudged UE numbers? that's what i seek.
-
i know its crap. but if i'm gonna argue it with someone, i need more than just emotions.
Can you show me in 2 sentences - with proof - how obama fudged UE numbers? that's what i seek.
-
fewer people are participating in the labor force - Agreed.
But what does this mean? Why? Fewer jobs? Or an aging population that shows more ppl retiring each year? Or more kids back in school instead of making $8 an hour to bag groceries, thanks to obama's student loan breakthrus?
Stop insulting me and give me something better I can use to argue with.
-
fewer people are participating in the labor force - Agreed.
But what does this mean? Why? Fewer jobs? Or an aging population that shows more ppl retiring each year? Or more kids back in school instead of making $8 an hour to bag groceries, thanks to obama's student loan breakthrus?
Stop insulting me and give me something better I can use to argue with.
Hey idiot - they are counting less people as looking for a job based on pure assumption in order to keep the rate artificially down.
Question for you jackass - if the rate at one point was 10% two years ago, and it is 8.1% today yet the population is larger and less people overall are working, what do you call that?
-
Hey idiot - they are counting less people as looking for a job based on pure assumption in order to keep the rate artificially down.
WHO is counting HOW MANY fewer jobs, and WHY? Who ordered the change? when did it start? Were any extrenal factors in play? school cheaper now, perhaps? aging population? please discount both of these?
Cause when I deliver an argument to someone, I ALSO give them the obama defense lines (like student loans and aging population) - and refute them immediately.
But you cannot refute them - so you call me a jackass and ask me to answer something you cannot.
-
WHO is counting HOW MANY fewer jobs, and WHY? Who ordered the change? when did it start? Were any extrenal factors in play? school cheaper now, perhaps? aging population? please discount both of these?
Cause when I deliver an argument to someone, I ALSO give them the obama defense lines (like student loans and aging population) - and refute them immediately.
But you cannot refute them - so you call me a jackass and ask me to answer something you cannot.
The change to U3 started with ol' Jimmuh when he tried to save his presidency. Either way, it isn't relevant to the numbers today and is nothing more than a stupid game you're playing trying to change the subject.
Fact of the matter is that people who were on UE (read: not part of the "aging" population) fell off the rolls and are no longer counted.
-
http://blog.heritage.org/a-better-life-for-julia
Awesome - FUCK YOU OVOMIT!
-
This is really scary to watch. Some guy on the Medved show just called and he said it best - that it really gives you a lens into thier mindset. Utterly sick.
-
This is really scary to watch. Some guy on the Medved show just called and he said it best - that it really gives you a lens into thier mindset. Utterly sick.
And I am the zealot right? These are open communists and socialist freaks and the ones who want to be left the fuck alone from these tyrants are now the crazies?
1984 is here.
FUCK OBAMA!
-
The Life of Julia
By Yuval Levin
May 3, 2012 4:25 P.M.
I don’t think I have ever seen a cultural artifact that so desperately begs to be parodied and ridiculed, and is so ill-suited to the audience it is intended to reach, as the Obama campaign’s “Life of Julia.” If you haven’t seen it yet, you really need to.
From the overarching narrative of drab dependency to the comically blunt and clumsy contrasts with Romney, the utterly unironic pseudo-edginess (“Julia starts her own web business”), the self-caricaturing lifestyle liberalism (“this allows her to volunteer at a community garden”), the un-self-conscious intermixing of the vocabularies of liberty and entitlement (“thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control”), the imagery of studied nonchalance, and the whole look and feel of the enterprise, it appears to have been created by people deeply immersed in the culture of overeducated twenty-something hipster self-effacement but unaware that it is all intended sarcastically. It’s like Portlandia earnestly offered up as a drama.
It’s not just that each of its elements can be easily parodied, it’s that every single one of them is a perfectly common feature of contemporary satire, and the whole thing — right down to the fact that it is a web slideshow that can be very easily aped by countless clever and tech-savvy smart-alecks sitting underemployed in front of computers right now — feels like a joke and yet isn’t.
It’s going to be very very difficult for the purveyors of knowing sarcasm in the hipster-industrial complex to resist this provocation, even though openly mocking Barack Obama will feel uneasy and unnatural at first. And that’s what could make this a genuine misstep for the Obama campaign: Obama’s 2008 campaign was very careful to keep itself on the side of the culture of cool, so that the agents of that culture would turn their guns against John McCain but mostly lay off Obama, even as he offered up embarrassingly vapid nonsense about turning back the oceans. If they begin to make the culture of cool uneasy about Obama, and increasingly comfortable treating him (as it is inclined to treat everyone) as a self-important windbag, they could do serious damage to his standing with precisely the intended audience of the Life of Julia: young liberals, who must turn out in uncharacteristically large numbers if Obama is to have a decent chance of re-election. If those young liberals come to see the president not as a cool modern idealist in on the joke but as a bloviating panderer who buys his own shtick, he’s in big trouble. If you puncture Obama’s balloon, there is not much left of him, and he seems to be running the risk of puncturing that balloon himself.
Above all, though, the Life of Julia is deeply telling of the view of American life underlying contemporary progressivism. Mitt Romney has taken to describing President Obama’s vision of America as one of a government-centered society. It’s hard to imagine a more perfect illustration of what he means than this.
-
Obama's Vision for Julia: Statism
By Rich Lowry
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.
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Olga and Julia: Moochers of the World Unite!
Townhall.com ^ | May 5, 2012 | Daniel J. Mitchell
Posted on May 5, 2012 6:57:05 AM EDT by Kaslin
Back in 2010, I declared that Olga Stefou was a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the Greek welfare state.
She was one of the protesters and – if the story captured her thoughts accurately – she displayed an unlimited entitlement mentality. Sort of helps one understand why this cartoon is so accurate.
Now we have an American version of Olga. Her name is Julia, and she is just as much of a moocher.
The good news, though, is that Julia is only a make-believe leech. She’s been created by the Obama campaign to show how big government can provide cradle-to-grave handouts.
The full series can be found at this link, and here’s a screenshot of the handouts that Julia might take at age 31.
Poor Julia is getting mercilessly mocked as everything from a deadbeat to a New Soviet Woman. But I realize my circle of friends, acquaintances, and contacts are not a representative sample.
So I do wonder whether this new gimmick from the Obama campaign will be successful. If it does work, it will show that this Chuck Asay cartoon was depressingly prescient. Heck, this cartoon about government as Santa Claus also will be accurate.
The European Version of “Welfare Cuts Are Racist”
There’s occasionally silly and dishonest demagoguery in America by those who want to equate small government sentiments with racism. The most infamous example from recent years were the malicious accusations that anti-Obamacare protesters used racial epithets.
And one of my first blog posts that actually got some attention dealt with the tortured assertion that the Obama Joker-socialism poster somehow was racist.
The same type of careless rhetoric exists in Europe, as seen by these excerpts from a report in today’s EU Observer.
EU austerity measures are helping to feed racism and intolerance, according to a report by the Strasbourg-based human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe. In its annual survey out on Thursday (3 May), the council’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), said welfare cuts and shrinking job opportunities are factors behind the recent rise in intolerance and violence directed at immigrants and other vulnerable minorities. …Some vulnerable groups – such as the Roma, the largest ethnic minority in Europe – endure popular social stigma despite national and EU-level rhetoric on equal rights.
Even by left-wing logic, I’m not sure I follow the chain of reasoning. Maybe it’s the whole English-as-a-second-language thing, but the article seems to say that welfare cuts are leading to intolerance. In the United States, by contrast, the left reverses the causality and says that “welfare cuts” are the result of intolerance.
Regardless, it’s a bit silly to say that long-overdue restraints on big government somehow are the same as racism. But don’t listen to me. I’ll defer to Walter Williams on the topic.
The one semi-accurate part of the excerpt is the part about the Roma – what Americans would call Gypsies. I’ve been in several nations with large Roma populations and had many conversations about their status and almost universally find that white Europeans feel hopelessness and resignation about Roma populations. No actual malice is expressed, but there’s definitely a form of “social stigma.”
-
Obama Ditches JFK's Legacy
By Debra Saunders
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," President John F. Kennedy famously said in his inaugural address.
In his bid for re-election, the hope-and-change president, Barack Obama, clearly has decided to ditch JFK's country-first approach. The Obama-Biden campaign is all about what this country can do for voters.
Last week, the Obama campaign introduced "The Life of Julia," a slide show about a fictional American that contrasts and compares the programs and services that would be available for her from age 3 under an Obama administration with those that would be available under a Mitt Romney White House.
GOP budget hawk Paul Ryan called the "Julia" infographic "creepy" and "demeaning."
He's right. Creepy? Until her son goes to kindergarten, Julia's cartoon world does not depict any males, except one, as shown in this quote: "Under President Obama: Julia decides to have a child."
Demeaning? The slide show sends the message that Julia needs Obama to protect her from cradle to grave -- which, in Julia's world, means from Head Start to Medicare.
When Julia does succeed, it's not because she worked hard and prevailed but because a paternalistic program was there to support her. She gets into college, for example, because her high school is enrolled in Obama's Race to the Top education reform.
When Julia graduates, she easily pays off her student loans because "Obama capped income-based federal student loan payments and kept interest rates low." Under what Team Obama calls a "Romney/Ryan" budget, however, student loan interest rates double. PolitiFact.com found that claim to be "false," as Romney supports keeping Stafford loan interest rates at 3.4 percent.
What happens if Julia cannot pay off her low-interest loans because she cannot get a good job in a moribund economy? "The Life of Julia" does not illustrate its heroine moving back into the home of her parents, whom we never see.
Does Julia ever pay federal income tax? Don't know.
The Tax Foundation estimates that 41 percent of tax filers pay no federal income taxes. The infographic is mute on how much Julia pays in taxes. Thus, all benefits appear as if conjured by a wave of Obama's wand, not thanks to American taxpayers.
"The Life of Julia" closes when Julia is 67. She retires and signs up for Social Security. With no fear of running out of money, thanks to Obama, Julia is free to volunteer at a community garden. Under Romney, the infographic warns, Julia's benefits could be cut by 40 percent. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler found that frame to be "fairly misleading" -- as the Social Security system is on the road to insolvency. Social Security will need to be cut one way or another; the only question is when and by whom.
Back to Julia and Obama's role as her champion in what Democrats like to call the GOP's war against women. "From cracking down on gender discrimination in health care costs to fighting for equal pay," the infographic ends, "President Obama is standing up for women throughout their lives." Yes, he's standing up for women as men have done for millenniums: He'll say anything.
dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
-
Obama would enable a nation of Julias
The Columbia Daily Tribune ^ | May 7, 2012 | Rich Lowry
In the competition for the creepiest campaign material of 2012, we might already have a winner. It is "The Life of Julia," the Obama re-election team's cartoon chronicle of a fictional woman who is dependent on government 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 Department 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 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 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.
-
FUCKING AWESOME!
FFFUUCCCKKK YYYYYOOOUUUU OBBBAAAAMMMAAA!!!
-
The Morning Joe makes a good point.
The govt. is handing Julia everything, paid for by someone else. Does the govt. think that Julia is simply incapable of advancement on her own? And the next question is: "Dude, where's my free stuff?" And down the drain we go.
I'm sure strong, independent women will just eat this up.
-
Can We Taxpayers Expect Anything From “Julia?”
Flopping Aces ^ | 05-08-12 | Warren Beatty
On Thursday, April 3, 2012, the Barack Obama re-election campaign released “The Life of Julia.” In it are 12 stages in the life of “Julia,” a fictional woman used to demonstrate how Obama’s policies would help her. Throughout the stages in her life, Julia is depicted as someone who benefits from the programs either created by or funded by Obama. The obvious message is that a vote for Obama will keep the largesse flowing for all, not just fictional Julia.
One very real problem with the “Julia” concept is that throughout the 12 stages nowhere is it mentioned that “Julia” ever gives back for any of the benefits she receives. That is particularly true when “Julia” is 27 years old, when she is 31 years old, when she is 37 years old, when she is 42 years old, and when she’s 67 years old.
The ad says that when “Julia” is 27 years old, she “…has worked full-time as a web designer.” Nowhere is there a mention of her “giving back,” to, as Elizabeth Warren says, “…pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
The ad continues, “Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control ….” Now, as a man, I cannot put myself in “Julia’s” shoes, but I can think of only one reason why she would need birth control – promiscuity (women readers, please help me here). Assuming that I am correct, I (and about half of US citizens) should see some direct benefit from the money we (involuntarily) spent. Does the ad mention that? As (the late) John Belushi used to say on SNL, “Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.”
The ad says that when “Julia” is 31 years old, she “…decides to have a child.” Nowhere is a husband mentioned, so the assumption of promiscuity is supported. Again, we taxpayers who are forced to support her decision receive no direct benefits, no giving back. At this time I think it best to say that a vast majority of taxpayers would not want direct benefits from “Julia.” But that’s not the point here. We taxpayers would like to see some direct benefit from money we are paying. But the ad fails to mention how we, who pay for HER decision, will ever receive or even see the benefits.
The ad continues, “Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform.” Focus on the word “free.”
First, nothing is free. Someone, somewhere, somehow paid for “Julia’s” free services. That is true unless she somehow got the doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and office workers to donate their time, efforts, and supplies to support her decision. And that doesn’t include all the other people she had to get to donate time: the cement workers, carpenters, electricians, and roofers who built the office where she received “free” services, the banker who financed the office, the salespeople who sold all the supplies to build the office, all the people who manufactured the building supplies, or the people who provided transportation to the office. The list is literally endless.
Second, there is no free lunch, as the old saying goes. Some quid pro quo is expected. As the Merriam-Webster dictionary so well puts it, “In politics nobody does something for nothing: there’s always a quid pro quo involved.” The quid pro quo here is rather obvious: “Julia” (and all like her) should vote for Obama in order to keep all the free services coming.
The ad says that when “Julia” is 37 years old, “Julia’s son Zachary starts kindergarten.” This means that the entire “Julia” cycle begins anew.
The ad says that when “Julia” is 42 years old, she, “…starts her own web business.” That’s great for “Julia,” but did she design a web page for me or any other taxpayers? The ad continues, “President Obama’s tax cuts for small businesses like Julia’s help her to get started.” Again, great for “Julia,” but do we taxpayers see any direct benefit from the tax cuts? Nothing mentions anything about her giving back to any taxpayers who supported her.
The ad says that when “Julia” is 67 years old, she, “…retires.” The ad continues, “After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably,….” There are at least two things wrong with this concept.
First, there is the “retire comfortably” concept. As can be seen here, many seniors are not able to retire comfortably. Here are two examples:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
-
.
-
.
Hey dipshit - you voted for this communist thug - you take ownership of this fiasco.
-
Hey dipshit - you voted for this communist thug - you take ownership of this fiasco.
Time to double down.
-
Time to double down.
Agreed - that is what your messiah is doing - doubling down on socialism, communism, statism, etc.
-
Does it make you feel tough to call me names on the internet?
-
Does it make you feel tough to call me names on the internet?
Yes. :P
-
Romney mocks Obama for using Julia ‘cartoon’ to sell economic record
By Justin Sink - 05/08/12 01:21 PM ET
www.thehill.com
Mitt Romney returned to Michigan Tuesday with a retooled stump speech that included blistering new attacks on President Obama's economic record, calling the president's platform "a throwback to the discredited policies of the past."
Romney went on to lampoon a new website from the Obama campaign — which uses a fictionalized woman named Julia to illustrate how the president's policies help female voters — as a "cartoon."
"Julia progresses from cradle to grave, showing how government makes every good thing in her life possible. The weak economy, high unemployment, falling wages, rising gas prices, the national debt, the insolvency of entitlements — all these are fictionally assumed away in a cartoon that is produced by a president who wants us to forget about them," Romney said in an address in East Lansing, Mich.
"What does it say about a president's policies when he has to use a cartoon character rather than real people to justify his record? What does it say about the fiction of old liberalism to insist that good jobs and good schools and good wages will result from policies that have failed us, time and again?"
In his speech, Romney was looking to pivot off a shaky start to his week of campaigning on Monday. The Obama campaign pounced on controversial comments made by Romney supporters in Ohio, including a woman who told the presumptive Republican candidate that the president should be tried for treason. But back in the state where Romney's father served as a popular governor — and that dealt him a crucial win to stave off Rick Santorum's challenge in the Republican primary — Romney spoke confidently from prepared remarks and with renewed emphasis on the president's economic record.
The former Massachusetts governor sought to paint a picture of Obama seeking "to apply liberal ideas of the past to the 21st century."
Romney contrasted the president's platform on welfare and healthcare to former President Clinton's, arguing the previous Democratic president had recognized that "old-school liberal" policies and expansive government were outdated.
"President Clinton said the era of big government was over. President Obama brought it back with a vengeance," Romney said.
He also played off Obama's new campaign slogan, declaring America "headed in the wrong direction. Not forward, but sideways, or worse."
"For a lot of folks, things like vacations, movies, and restaurants are things of the past … his four years have been a disappointment for all of us and a catastrophe for some of us," Romney said.
Romney's speech mostly avoided the hot-button campaign controversies of the day, focusing instead on an attack of the president's record. Although he mentioned the effect that the shuttering of the Oldsmobile automobile brand had on the East Lansing community, he did not reiterate his claim, made in Ohio Monday evening, that he would "take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back."
That assertion drew howls from the Obama campaign, who argued the recovery of the American auto industry would have been impossible without loans championed by the president and opposed by Romney.
"Mitt Romney may think he can fool the American people by hiding his belief that we should 'let Detroit go bankrupt,' but the American people won't let him," former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said in a statement released by the Obama campaign. "His comments today that he will 'take a lot of credit that the [auto] industry has come back' are a new low in dishonesty, even for him. Mitt Romney seems to think Americans will just forget the past and his very vocal and clear opposition to the successful auto rescue."
The Obama campaign hit that theme again in a statement released following Romney's remarks.
"Mitt Romney didn’t have the courage to bet on American workers and instead said that we should ‘let Detroit go bankrupt.’ Despite his best efforts to etch-a-sketch this position, he can’t shake away the fact that if he’d had his way, the American auto industry and the millions of jobs it supports would have been devastated," Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith said.
But Romney argued his policies would usher in further success in the private sector.
"This is a time for new ideas, new answers and a new direction. That is the only way that our future can be better than the past," Romney said.
-
bump
-
Bump
A Huge 386,000 Jobs
As if to pile on to what may be the worst two week period a presidential campaign has ever suffered, Governor Mitt Romney has now lost one of the campaign’s key narratives.
Romney can no longer claim that President Obama’s first term in office has resulted in a loss of jobs.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is out with its annual update to benchmark unemployment numbers (for the more cynical among you, the BLS does this every fall so this is not a number being ‘timed’ for the election), and the numbers reveal that 386,000 more non-farm jobs were actually created between March, 2011 and April 2012 than what had been originally reported.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/27/bureau-of-labor-statistics-revises-job-growth-upward-by-a-huge-386000-jobs/
-
Bump
A Huge 386,000 Jobs
As if to pile on to what may be the worst two week period a presidential campaign has ever suffered, Governor Mitt Romney has now lost one of the campaign’s key narratives.
Romney can no longer claim that President Obama’s first term in office has resulted in a loss of jobs.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is out with its annual update to benchmark unemployment numbers (for the more cynical among you, the BLS does this every fall so this is not a number being ‘timed’ for the election), and the numbers reveal that 386,000 more non-farm jobs were actually created between March, 2011 and April 2012 than what had been originally reported.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/27/bureau-of-labor-statistics-revises-job-growth-upward-by-a-huge-386000-jobs/
LOL!!!!!
During Reagan there were months of 600k plus jobs you stupid fucking retard
-
LOL!!!!!
During Reagan there were months of 600k plus jobs you stupid fucking retard
Internet name calling = super tough.
-
Internet name calling = super tough.
No - you are trying to spin failure
-
Bump
A Huge 386,000 Jobs
As if to pile on to what may be the worst two week period a presidential campaign has ever suffered, Governor Mitt Romney has now lost one of the campaign’s key narratives.
Romney can no longer claim that President Obama’s first term in office has resulted in a loss of jobs.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is out with its annual update to benchmark unemployment numbers (for the more cynical among you, the BLS does this every fall so this is not a number being ‘timed’ for the election), and the numbers reveal that 386,000 more non-farm jobs were actually created between March, 2011 and April 2012 than what had been originally reported.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/27/bureau-of-labor-statistics-revises-job-growth-upward-by-a-huge-386000-jobs/
its not even keeping up with the population growth....why do you think the employment rate is still sky high even with record low labor force participation?
-
romney hasn't really been able to rely upon the economy issue since he admitted things were recovering.
he can't lean on obamacare anymore - he said the fact he delivered it to his own state showed empathy, that he cares about people.
he can't lean on 'taxes' - he admitted last week that obama didn't actually raise taxes on americans.
it's like he's TRYING to lose.
-
romney hasn't really been able to rely upon the economy issue since he admitted things were recovering.
he can't lean on obamacare anymore - he said the fact he delivered it to his own state showed empathy, that he cares about people.
he can't lean on 'taxes' - he admitted last week that obama didn't actually raise taxes on americans.
it's like he's TRYING to lose.
Even Romney knows Obama is the better POTUS :)