You live in a teeny town and there is only one restaurant. You can't cook well so you eat at that restaurant a LOT.
One day there's a change of ownership and you notice that the quality of the food has gone down...but the prices have gone up. There's also less staff working and portion sizes are smaller. You sadly note your favorite meals on the menu are now gone and replaced with new items that the patrons agree are not their favorite. Security in the parking lot is lax at best and incidents of crime are up.
At your next visit you realize that the new owner has divided the dining room in two and is offering free meals to people on the opposite side of the room. When you get your bill, there is a surcharge added to it. Despite the additional charges, the quality of the food, service and security continue to diminish.
The next day you read in the paper that there's a new restaurant opening in town. It promises great food, better prices, and efficient service. You've heard about this restaurant from friends in other towns who have eaten there and they seemed to like it. You read reviews online by foodies and the reactions are also positive.
Curious, you attend a soft opening for the new business and observe that your bill arrives surcharge free, the dining room is not divided and there are no comped meals offered at the tables next to yours. The new business also offers attentive security so there is a much lower risk of crime.
So....when the new restaurant opens.....would you boycott it and go back to the old one?
No. No you would not. Why? Because you're not a chump.
So with that in mind...and....after the past four years of higher taxes, witnessing the nation's welfare state skyrocket, enduring policy changes that are not at the will of the people, unending unemployment, threatened national security, and the drastic division of our country....would you vote for a second term of Barack Obama?
You wouldn't. Because you're not a chump.
Don't be a chump on Election Day. Vote with your head, not your heart. The nation is depending on it.
It's the failing and non-preferred restaurant in Sara's hypothetical analogy that is divided into two dining rooms - the paying an non-paying sections. And because the paying section is subsidizing the costs of the non-paying section, the prices are more expensive in the paying section, thus it's completely conceivable that the guy busing the tables in that restaurant would not be able to afford to eat at that restaurant. In Sara's preferred successful restaurant, "the dining room is not divided and there are no comped meals offered at the tables next to yours." Everyone pays and prices are lower across the board because of this, thus that guy busing the tables at that restaurant is able to afford to eat at that restaurant. Are you saying that you prefer the unsuccessful lower quality divided dining room restaurant to Sara's preferred everyone pays, lower prices, and better quality restaurant? Hoffa thinks that you're not understanding the analogy correctly.
Please define "empowerment programs," giving concrete examples of such programs in our current system of federal government.
But in all of these, as I wrote earlier, assessment is key. There has to be forward movement or understanding for the inertia and another plan made and implemented. There is potential for reclamation and success in every person.
Yes, but then you went on to bash business, and Mitt Romney in particular. Do you want to do a little more backpedalling and tell your boss how great he is?
It wasn't so very long ago when a successful person was gauged by their ability to chase a critter with a spear or gather berries from the upper vines. ; )
Never realized how much religion supposedly governs your life - interesting!
Are you saying that the government is in danger of being ousted by a competitive private sector that will only institute monopolistic controls once it has successful done away with government? Wow, the conspiracy theories are getting worse by the day!
Cow, I believe it is entirely appropriate for a government created by and for the people to care for those in need. There are some aspects of care in which religion and state can work in harmony and this is one, I believe. Caring for servicemen and women, disaster relief, etc.
Greg, I agree with Randy--I believe there are far fewer "moochers." I do believe there are people in society who are just not geared for advanced technology for example; who would have been successful 50, even 15 years ago in a trade or service. Today, without a mindset for technology or academia, this person may find themselves in a position that doesn't pay well and/or is susceptible to outsourcing. Right to Work legislation undermines trade unions and leads to wage diminishment. Is a person such as this a "moocher?" I would most emphatically disagree with that assessment. But how to give that person a boost? There are so many shades of grey in this situation.
Notice that "you" does not refer to government. It actually refers to YOU helping a non-abstract brother.
I remember someone said to me years ago that "life's losers vote Democrat". At the time I wanted to disagree vehemently. The last few years have changed my mind. Just take a look at the major voting blocks for the Democratic party and tell me most of those groups don't fall into the category of life's losers.
Sorry, but your interpretation is not possible. There is no abstract or literary "you" in Koine Greek. See Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. "You" refers to the person being addressed, and the "brother" is not abstract.
The one thing I did wrong was to do something i was good at rather than go for an MBA.