When people rail against campaign spending, they should, instead, consider who benefits --all the people in these industries: transportation, media (reporters on the road), signs, paper, printing, restaurants, hotels, food in general, post office, fashion (for the candidates --like Sarah's expensive wardrobe), luggage, phone services.
Campaigns turn money back into the economy.
We rail against their high cost like we do against lavish Christmas and other holiday spending --but it's all money back into the peoples' pockets, isn't it?
We rail against the spending of the rich, in general, their self-serving extravagances --but even those enrich others as they buy their luxuries and hire services. Giving away our money is good --best --but so is spending! But not to the point of debt. That is foolishness.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Barb, when I think of all the money spent on the last presidential election (Obama spent about 3/4 of a billion dollars) and the just finished mid-term elections I can't help but wonder how much more good could have been done with the money.
The losing candidates for Senate in California and Connecticut and the losing candidate for governor of California spent millions from their own pockets for a job that pays a fraction of what it costs to get there.
The woman in Connecticut did say she would serve without pay so she's rich, but how many jobs could have been created by the private wealth spent in a losing cause by just these three women?
How many jobs could have been created by all the millions and probably billions spent by supporters of both sides?
Sarah Palin does not buy her clothes at the second-hand store anymore, I am sure. She no longer is supporting a small business with her clothing purchases but a large business that may or may not pay their employees well.
I just have a special spot in my heart for those who want to work and cannot find a job, or children who go to bed hungry with their only meals the ones provided by the schools.
We have a program to get enough food together for these kids on the week-ends too so they won't go hungry in our city.
Not all poor people are poor by choice. Not all single mothers are drunks or addicts.
As Christians and as human beings we have a responsibility, a duty, to help those people and not just at holiday times.
The hotels and press people will survive. What about John Q. Public?
Hopefully the new Congress will implement measures to get employment back in full swing again very soon and we can then enjoy talking about the luxuries of the fancy clothing stores etc.
Just because we are spending and putting people to work doesn't mean it is a good direction for the economy to go.
After all, Paul was persecuted in a city because his railing against idolatry threatened the economy of the local idol makers.
Election finances isn't comparable to idol making, but there is a degree of frivolity to it.
And it doesn't support sustainability. What's good for the economy is what is sustainable, not just something that's going to role around every couple of years.
Also, while spending on campaign finances, porn, sports, entertainment is all economically positive in one way, it remains to be said that all that money could be put to more worthwhile economic pursuits.
I don't agree that campaign spending (and donating to campaigns) is wrong --as long as we are also donating to charity and helping the needy. I certainly wouldn't compare it, Rob, to spending on vice.
Moreover, campaign spending IS free speech by those of us who really want a pro-life, pro-marriage candidate to win. We want him to have some tv time, to get around to political rallies , to buy some mailings. Annoying as it all is --imagine places where elections are not existant or certainly not free.
In fact, putting the money into WORKING PEOPLE is good --again, those businesses I listed.
You say it's not sustainable Rob --but people who get a business boost every 2 years during election cycle may actually be sustained for that year --and just before Christmas when they will fire some of their earnings back into the economy.
It's like all the "savings" in healthcare --the reformers think healthcare will be cheaper if they don't give doctors pens and gifts to help them remember their product names -- and food for their workers along with the free drugs they stock for the doctor's patients. It's part of free enterprise.
Drug reps are losing jobs right and left in the effort to cut down on costs --so what do THEY do for a living then?
Everybody who loses a job or gets fired sits on the employers payroll.
I know a woman who told a doctor to "go ahead --fire me!" because she knows she can have a year's vacation or more on the doctor's payroll while doing nothing before it runs out and she gets another job. so she continues a pattern of high truancy for which she should lose her job because it's expensive to fire her.
Post a Comment