Have the Park Cities Gone Blue?
A reader is concerned:
Why do so many people in the Park Cities support either Hillary or Obama? Both propose socialist ideals that would completely destroy the foundation of hard work equals success that the Park Cities is built on. While some in the Park Cities are so rich that they will be able to ride out the change, most will suffer under the tax and legislate equality programs that they propose.
23 Comments to “Have the Park Cities Gone Blue?”
Leave a Reply
Oh, I suppose that many people realize, including a few Republicans I might add, that an economy built on gross inequality cannot be sustained. Even the PC can’t build walls high enough to isolate itself from the rest of the country.
Socialism? Not hardly.
Even the PC can’t build walls high enough to isolate itself from the rest of the country. —-
If they would put gates up on Hillcrest between the walls, it would sure help! A toll plaza charging non-residents would be a great source of income!
Charles– Thank you so much for being the voice of calm, cool sanity. Political debates are not my forte. So I’m very grateful that you’re around to iron out nasty wrinkles.
I think may of us in business also realize that we need a national health system to keep the US competitive. That doesn’t mean that most of us in the bubble will use it, like other countries with national health systems, we’ll most likely continue with private insurance and providers.
Plus, I think many of us are disenchanted by the current policies, which we’ll be paying for during many years to come.
Now there’s some sound logic: the Big Government policies of the current administration are bad so let’s have an even bigger, more intrusive, socialist government.
I hope that kind of thinking is not representative of “ma[n]y of us in business”.
Too bad that only a few voices are being heard that suggest we try the plan outlined in the US Constitution: Limited Government
It would be interesting to know how many of the Hillary and Obama signs are planted in PC lawns of trust-fund boomers or others who inherited their business, and how many, if any at all, are in the lawns of those who earned every cent they have.
Now there’s some sound logic: the Big Government policies of the current administration are bad so let’s have an even bigger, more intrusive, socialist government.
I hope that kind of thinking is not representative of “ma[n]y of us in business”.
Too bad that only a few voices are being heard that suggest we try the plan outlined in the US Constitution: Limited Government !!
It would be interesting to know how many of the Hillary and Obama signs are planted in PC lawns of trust-fund boomers or others who inherited their business, and how many, if any at all, are in the lawns of those who earned every cent they have.
Does being one or the other mean you automatically write their decision off? Just wondering.
Did you notice that one the shrewdest business people this country has ever seen, Warren Buffett, has endorsed Obama? And Eric, as I’m sure you know, Warren Buffett was certainly not born rich.
I agree with you, Eric, that many of the principles of the Constitution are being ignored. The Constitution seems to be like the Bible, though. People take bits of it to bolster their preconceived ideas and ignore the rest.
I also agree with Eric that we should have misgivings about intrusive government. I suppose it all depends on what we mean by “intrusive.”
Ultimately, though, and perhaps naively, I think “liberals” and “conservatives,” whatever those labels mean in 2008, have more in common than what separates them.
Buffett is following his own self-interest. He became rich by (brilliantly) buying on the counter cycle. He is well aware that the Dow will tank with a Obama/DNC administration and he is in a position to buy. Buffett is all about Buffett and his shareholder’s value in his hedge funds.
Words have meaning, and intrusive means exactly that. The straw-man of *labeling* words we want to be imprecise about as “labels” is just that.
Liberals want to be imprecise about what it means to be liberal because then they would have to answer questions about federal intrusion, higher taxes to pay for all their utopian schemes, fewer market choices, a disregard for the sanctity of life etc.
Conservatives, by my observation, are happy to be precise about what the word means. It means more liberties rather than less, a free market unhampered by government manipulation, and a federal government limited in power as described in the US Constitution
Nearly all the avowed liberals I know are concerned, caring, and intelligent. But their ignorance of market economics and the founding principles of this country is often stupifying.
You can talk about the economy, but abortion is the defining difference between the two parties.
If you are truly pro-life, you will never vote for Hillary or Barack. If you are truly pro-choice, McCain is not an option. This election is not about the presidency as much as it is about the Supreme Court.
Captcha: institutions
Which is silly. I hate to say this, but the Roe v. Wade ship has sailed. If you’re basing your choice of leader of the free world on a theological similarity, good luck, and why?
I mean, do you only work for bosses that believe the way you do? Do you only buy things from places owned by people who believe the way you do?
Id, I disagree that the defining difference is abortion. I happen to know pro-choice conservative Republicans and liberal pro-life Democrats. You can’t always make generalities like that- they don’t always work. Abortion is a huge issue to me because I am pro-life…but it’s not the ONLY issue to me. I highly doubt that I’m the only American to choose a party affiliation based on reasons other than abortion.
Bethany- good to see you back, where have you been?
Eric,
You may be right about Warren Buffett being “all about Buffett and his shareholder’s value in his hedge funds,” but the man did donate $31 billion to Bill Gates’ charitable foundation. Of course, it could be he’s trying to make it back by betting on a disastrous Obama economy.
Excuse me, but where is the original poster finding so many Park Cities residents supporting Hillary or Obama, LOL? While I intend to vote for the Democratic nominee, I believe the majority of people in my neighborhood of UP are voting for McCain. With no disrespect intended towards Bethany, I disagree with her comment that the Roe vs. Wade “ship has sailed”. For most of the Dem women I know (and granted, there’s not alot of ‘em around here), that’s still a deal-breaker. Some of the dads I’m friends with consider themselves to be “social liberals and fiscal conservatives”, but since you can’t cast your vote that way, most are opting to vote Democratic. Captcha words…”$200,000 lending”. Coincidence? I think not!
Kristin, I got buried at work. Someone decided that it would be fun to see if I could do the work of three people for a week.
I still stand by comments about abortion. McCain may seem centrist, but he is solidly pro-life. The large block of evangelical Christians and Catholics built the Republican base directly on this issue.
And I agree with M about the Democratic women. No matter how many people publicly say they HATE Hillary, hundreds of thousands of them have cast their votes for her.
I think that young women cannot relate to the idea that Roe v. Wade could easily be overturned if one more conservative judge was appointed to the Supreme Court. The Roe v. Wade decision is only 34 years old!
Also, it only seems like there are a lot of Obama and Hillary signs because there aren’t many McCain signs yet. Wait until late summer and it will be a sea of red.
Before you vote, I suggest everyone read each party’s platform. It is a huge eye-opener. The two parties are NOT alike and have markedly different agendas.
The two party platforms from 2004:
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf
(How do you make links?)
Ah…The links make themselves when posted.
As the wise man said above, “Socialism? Not hardly.” Besides, we currently have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
Republican rule has brought us extremes of social conservatism and liberal spending of tax dollars they aren’t collecting. Many voters are social liberals and fiscal conservatives, and the Democrats have been closer to that ideal than the Republicans for over a decade.
If the Dems do better than usual in the Park Cities, I think it will be because some voters who tend to vote for their self-interest will not believe they are better off with the status quo this time.
It is interesting to see the issue of abortion, which I see as completely personal and non-political, turned into the definition of which political party is the correct one. It seems that the proof is in the statement that very liberal people can define themselves as pro-life and still be completely against all other conservative issues.
The further evidence is that the conservative issue of limited government and personal responsibility seems to be completely at odds with the total government intrusion into a woman’s life on the issue.
Stan, whoever said that politics was logical? Most people vote emotionally–how they relate to the candidate that they’re voting for. And abortion is an emotional issue.
Captcha: deception
Dear Anon,
Ah, my mistake. I had assumed that voting was a logical exercise that involved looking at the issues and determining if the candidate’s qualifications made him suitable for the job.
Regards,
I think limited government went out the window when Bush and Cheney took office. Remember quality jobs for the educated? Remember when most of Europe still liked US? Remember when we had a $3.4 trillion surplus? Remember when 4,100 soldiers were still alive and not in the middle east?