My Bleeding Heart.............bleeds for everyone.

This is a post that was meant to be written back in February but never was and I have been thinking about it a lot lately. Also here is an apology to all those that have been coming to my page to see something new but haven't for well over two weeks now....Sorry! My school work has been way too hectic lately but I finally have a minute to write a post. So here it goes. Warning this one involves political theory, and may be boring to some and very entertaining/irritating to others. Read at your own risk, I am very open to comments.


Back on Valentines Day my friend Christa sent me this E-Valentine Card:

Now this was meant to be a funny joke from the grand old party about the ridiculousness of liberal compassionism, but what is meant to be an insult, to me, is a compliment. Inside liberal compassionism you find the essence of the statement in the Preamble to the Constitution, "To promote the general welfare." This unique phrase is mentioned one more time in the Constitution in Article I Section 8, where it outlines the role of Congress. It says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare." After saying that it outlines the duties and rights of Congress. Under this part of the Constitution it tells Congress that they are to provide for the general welfare of the country, and in my mind (which is generally always correct) the adage is and should be defined as securing the basic rights of the individuals who reside under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

Now this is where the real debate comes in to play between conservatives and liberals, what basic rights should the government provide? I believe that the government should make sure that no child, being defined as anyone under the age of eighteen, should go without: clothing, food, shelter, healthcare, education, and the ability to achieve the Pursuit of Happiness. Children should not be held responsible for being victims of circumstance. No one chooses what circumstances that they are born into, if they did, Bill Gates would have many more children. Therefore in order to ensure that children have these basic human rights there are little things called welfare, medicaid, and social security that have been created to......well for lack of a better phrase, to promote the general welfare of the country. In order for this to happen the money, verizon card, etc. must go to the parent or guardian of that child. And I know that sometimes this will get abused. That is a risk that I am willing to take even at a personal cost to me. I believe that this should also apply to the elderly, the handicapped, and all those who cannot provide a suitable living for themselves with times of temporary assistance to those who have fallen into the depths of poverty.

Now in most debatable topics I discuss I generally think that my argument itself is compelling enough for all to fall in line with agreeance, but if not let us look at the Republican counterpart to liberal compassionism. Normally I would use a lambasting but somewhat funny word to describe the err that is Reaganomics or Trickle Down, but I think that calling it those two things does it well enough, without any sarcastic retort of my own. Through the counterpart to what I believe we have the tax cuts for the wealthy and to businesses. By granting them access to more money the theory believes they will invest it and expand businesses hence creating more jobs and more cash flow. There is one major default in this theory, it does not look at the naturalistic human trait of greed. Now I know that this can also be an argument against what I believe, so let me elaborate. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the greed of those who have nothing versus the greed of those who have much. One comes from a sense of a need to survive whereas the other comes from the need to make him/herself better than those around him/her. To prove this point I will submit Enron, for validation. I am sure that the tax cuts granted to this company were put into great use.

For those who argue that it costs so much more to provide all of the governmental assistance programs, you are wrong. It is a fact that out of the last four presidents it is three Republicans who have put our country almost eight trillion dollars more into debt, compared to the one trillion under President Clinton. It is also important to note that Clinton's last year reported an actual surplus, not a deficict. Also after each of the three Reps the country sank into a recession........whereas the Clinton years-generally economic bliss.

As you can tell this is one issue that I am a little too zealous about, but don't worry my bleeding heart bleeds for everyone, conservatives included. That is the great thing about liberal compassionism it benifits everyone.......not just a few.