For Parents and Government, ‘No’ Is Often the Best Answer
Just announcing that the federal government was on the job made many parents breathe a sigh of relief. I don’t know if they don’t believe in their parental capabilities or if they just don’t want to have to expel any energy to teach their children if the government will do it for them. What I do know is that they should be terrified to allow Timothy Geithner and the federal government to teach fiscal responsibility to the generation that is going to be paying for our Social Security and Medicare.
Would you trust the federal government to balance your checkbook or set up your household budget? Would you allow Congress to make the tough decisions for you on what expenses constitute necessity and what expenses need to be cut in hard times?
I’m no economist, but in my experience, if you have no money, yet continue to spend money, you will end up with more and more debt. So, when Obama says that we have to spend our way out of this recession, what sort of message does that send to this “younger generation” of financial illiterates?
And with so many tax-evading government officials, the federal government is sending the wrong message about consequences of fiscal irresponsibility. Lying and cheating are promoted to pinch pennies, instead of saving. I do not want to teach my children that the only way to get out of paying taxes without penalty is to get elected to public office.
Another important fiscal message for children is that you can’t have it all, so you have to choose your expenditures wisely. What message do children learn about financial prioritizing with a Congress that has passed over 8,000 earmarks this year? I’m not asking Congress to provide financial literacy to my children, but it would be nice if they didn’t act counterproductive to my efforts.
I have so often heard the argument that if parents are not parenting, the government has to step in. Although this idea was most likely born of the best intentions, it is the very type of apathetic and entitlement thinking that got us into this fiscal mess in the first place. The best parenting to the nation the government can do is with tough love — and making use of the word “no.”
Imagine if Congress said, “No, this is not our job,” and they gave parenting back to the families. By saying “yes” they perpetuate this line of thinking that parents are not capable of parenting their children. Human beings have been raising their offspring since, well, the beginning of human beings. Convincing parents they are not up to the task robs them of the dignity, pride, and joy that accompany the most rewarding job on Earth. We need leaders helping parents believe in themselves, not teaching people they can’t do it so the government has to do it for them. If government help and guidance are needed anywhere, it is not in teaching children, but in making resources available to help parents teach their children.
More than once I’ve heard someone else’s child ask that immutable question, “Can I have this?” Usually, it is followed by the word “no,” followed by a tantrum of crying, and suddenly “no” changes to “yes.” I suppose the mother believes it’s easier that way. In an age with so many working mothers, no mother wants what little time she has with her child to be spent arguing. But what she should know is that if she sticks to her guns and endures a few tantrums, she’ll reap the long-term benefits of gaining her child’s respect. Eventually, the response to “no” will taper down as the child gains the understanding taught through parental consistency.
The same can be said of government. “No” may not be easy for the nation to hear at first. But in the long run it strengthens families and sends a message that the people of this country can believe in themselves. “No” may be the best answer in helping us raise a new generation of self-sufficient adults who understand challenges, learn from mistakes, and take personal fiscal responsibility.
It’s even worse than you say. Imagine if the kids were screaming at the parents not to spend any more money on toys and the parent just keeps buying them. That’s where the American people are with this government. We’re screaming “stop” and they just keep spending on things that we don’t want or need like government run healthcare. Of course it’s all ok because after spending at record deficits,Obama will say we have to be fiscally responsible. Then the media reports what he says and some people actually believe he is fiscally responsible.
Sarah , please go over to Breitbart .com and look at the Katie Couric interview . This is what happens when you do alot of drugs.
We’re NOT the party of no!
We ARE the party of no!
Stay the course!
It’s NEVER been stay the course!
Tell you what, get back to us when you develop a spine.
How noble. Where was this sentiment when it was time to have a war with no taxes? Do you think they’re free?
Precisely- liberalism is the mindset of a child.
N&T: Sometimes ‘no pasaran’ is precisely the right position.
5. Bohemond:
Conservatism is the mindset of the dead.
“How noble. Where was this sentiment when it was time to have a war with no taxes? Do you think they’re free?”
I would say, to have a war without slashing Federal spending elsewhere. GWB was no conservative.
N&T: Boy, that was weak. In fact, downright childish. Try again.
Last night, I heard an interviewer on Fox say that we need to distinguish between good and bad earmarks. Actually, I don’t agree. If the administration wants to spend some money on a project, then there is an existing mechanism: appropriate it just like it says in the Constitution. Have an up or down vote on it. In other words, do the job as you swore you would, congressman.
7. Bohemond:
Clearly, it had the desired effect. Better yet . . . it’s true! And therein I find my reward. Oh, Hosannah!
Dad of 5 is correct. Having the present government as parent is like having a drug addict or unrepentant gambler as parent, spending more money this year than we could possibly make in a lifetime. When people voted for professor utopia as president, I doubt they believed they were getting an out of control trophy wife. The dems are spending twenty years of revenues this year. Blaming Bush does not change this fact. “So what if you caught me robbing a bank, the previous guy stole a twenty!” is no defense.
Voters want something (other people’s money) for nothing (votes to put politicians onto the public trough). Politicians give something (other people’s, i.e. the taxpayers’s money) for nothing (power and porks for themselves and their buddies). The taxpayers (those who actually pay taxes) are getting nothing (aggravations) for giving their something(hard earned money).
That is: there are always something for something, depending on who is talking. Further illumination: voters are not the same as taxpayers.
I think there are some other things conservatives should say not to. Enjoy this list, and congratulations, you’re ahead 3:1 in the numbers. Talk about awaking the sleeping giant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/23/the-12-most-shocking-poli_n_401609.html?slidenumber=bmDUxFyb67w%3D&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow&slideshow
Happy Merry Days
“No” is not a platform. The Right needs to get out of its cloistered enclaves and explain that “we prefer something else.” And what that “something else” is.
(1), re-take control of the teaching of history in grades 1-12. Explain WHY we don’t do things, what we prefer, and why past governments came to ruin by over indulgence); (2), get some books out that explain this too-the hsitory of Rome, Britain and France provide great examples for kids and can be taught well–of course we insist now that they spend weeks on Mesopatomia, Islam, Africa and they wind up not having the slightest idea why the US has prospered, kept its freedom etc. Indeed, they are made to feel ashamed of the US a bit. The Right has let this happen.
(2) Kids gradutate knowing Islam is a rleigion of peace, that the Us was mean to indians,I’m sorry–native americans), that capitalism was mean to workers, that….but they never learn why it makes sense that everyone pays some tax; why government conrol of business is dangerous; to be contemptuous of idle people; to avoid debt, etc. Its just not taught. Why not?
Its not “no.” That is what the left paints the right as being–the party of “no.” Its not “no” at all. Its a preference for other things that are never explained. Freedom from a encroaching government. Freedom from high interest payments. Freedom to say what you want without offending a creditor. Freedom of the industrious to do well and the slothful to do as they will, but not at your expense.
There a lot of things that are on a point-of-no-return so long as the modern world, umm, remains modern. Lack of restraint in saying, No, and meaning it, is only one. There is no helping the masses in this regard, I believe. Consider the best writers of today, or artists. They work on computers where they can cut and paste, save (with a matter of clicks), switch wording or previous work with great ease, and much more. This seems like a boon for saving time and energy, but what is it doing to how our brains organize and relay information?
How brains are developing when they don’t have to be able to lay it all down in one or two or three attempts. How many times do you go back and insert a sentence, a word, into something as insignificant as an internet post? Sometimes, quite a few, and every time is a new draft. How valuable is one word? Or how valuable is being able to see an almost complete work before you create it? We’ve lost something, but I’m not sure what it is.
I admit this is an assumption, but it seems pretty fair. I also am assuming that it is a significant loss.
You can hear the difference in say, Abraham Lincoln’s words, and Barack Obama. Barack sounds like a high school class president compared to Lincoln. All of the Founding Fathers have an elegance that doesn’t exist anymore. You can hear it when you talk to kids! I refuse to believe kids were always this dumb. At least not the majority. Just look at how slang is embraced, and by all. Also, profanity. We’re all lazy, and we’re actually thinking less, because we are not considering greatly enough the paths that we are choosing. It’s just easier to say, Yes, and when the consequences for failure just aren’t there why shouldn’t we?
The biggest government expense – bar none- is entitlements.
Good luck with saying NO to that …
Well said #13 No!
“4. Alice Nolin:
How noble. Where was this sentiment when it was time to have a war with no taxes?”
You know, the only thing worse than a Chicken hawk, is a Chicken shite. That is someone who uses the freedoms we paid for .. taxes in blood, to spout off their beserkely BS. They have to be the lowest form of life on this planet. I have more respect for Osama Bin Laden then them.
So yes, let us completely fund every war (putting aside that fdr’s war was not fully funded) with a Chicken Shite.. Er liberal tax. Like on San Fransicko and Beserkely. They do not pay the blood tax, surely they should pay the silver.
17. Yup, silver, not gold. Silver is the metal of redemption, and it has sterilizing properties. Quite an appropriate choice, whether you intended it or not.
Now and Then is a child. He thinks he is smart and he is too young to know better. Plus, the real giveaway, he plays on the blogs all time.
19 Jim Baker
“Now and Then is a child. He thinks he is smart and he is too young to know better. Plus, the real giveaway, he plays on the blogs all time.”
You wanna talk “real giveaway? Jim “The Christian Condo King” Baker wrote that at 2:40 pm on Christmas Day.
More than once I’ve heard someone else’s child ask that immutable question, “Can I have this?” Usually, it is followed by the word “no,” followed by a tantrum of crying, and suddenly “no” changes to “yes.” I suppose the mother believes it’s easier that way. In an age with so many working mothers, no mother wants what little time she has with her child to be spent arguing. But what she should know is that if she sticks to her guns and endures a few tantrums, she’ll reap the long-term benefits of gaining her child’s respect. Eventually, the response to “no” will taper down as the child gains the understanding taught through parental consistency.
Here is where Sarah unwittingly shows why her parent/child analogy doesn’t work with our system of government. When a parent says no to his or her child, a tantrum by the child is pretty much the worst that can happen as a result. The parent is in no danger of getting kicked out of his/her parenting role by the child in favor of some other, more permissive would-be parent after two, four or six years, as the case may be.
Meanwhile the long-term benefits of saying no are all fine and dandy, but they mean little, if anything to most elected officials next to the overriding imperative of keeping their jobs beyond the current election cycle. In an environment where saying no is (at least perceived as) tantamount to career suicide, it’s no wonder our politicians find it so hard to do so.
Wrong again Now and Then. Blinded, as usual, by your own childish prejudices! But then, I still bet you are a child.