pudge's Journal: Note to Tom Friedman: We Are Not Socialists

Tom Friedman, in his non-endorsement endorsement of Barack Obama, said something that should be utterly astonishing, but unfortunately, wasn't:

Never has one generation spent so much of its children's wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it as in the Bush years. Under George W. Bush, America has foisted onto future generations a huge financial burden to finance our current tax cuts, wars, and now bailouts.

So according to Friedman, when I vote to keep my money in my pockets so I can provide and save for my children, I am voting to take money away from my children, because all wealth is the government's wealth. That's the only sane way to parse this tripe: our "children's wealth" is spent when government doesn't control that wealth.

It's one thing to say spending on a war, or a bridge, or other actual spending is "spending our children's wealth." But to say that allowing people to keep their own money is such "spending," is socialism. Or worse.

It is talk like this that will make the comeback of liberty and the Republican Party that much easier in two or four years.

(Oh, and Tom, that bailout was a Democratic bill, and besides, your own favored candidate, Barack Obama, says it won't cost ANY money. Frankly, I am a little surprised you didn't tow the party line on that one, but I guess the temptation to attack Bush was stronger than your loyalty to Obama.)

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

moof

[Bill Dog]

So according to Friedman, when I vote to keep my money in my pockets so I can provide and save for my children, I am voting to take money away from my children, because all wealth is the government's wealth. That's the only sane way to parse this tripe:

Or one pretending-you-don't-understand-what-Liberals-mean way to parse it. What he's thinking is:
1. The Bush tax cuts had no offseting increase in revenues elsewhere to the govt.
2. (And the govt. sure as hell isn't going to do what's good enough for most fami

Re:

[pudge]

Or one pretending-you-don't-understand-what-Liberals-mean way to parse it.

I understand he is concerned about the increase in debt. But he still said -- and therefore presumably means -- that "allowing" people to keep their own money is "spending our children's wealth."

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Of course he does. And in the context of the non-negotiable (to Liberals) assumption that govt. spending will only increase, he is right.

Re:

[pudge]

He is right in the sense that our government agrees with him, but our government is wrong.