The one word politicians don't use anymore

[IcemanSK]

Sacrifice.

The US is in rough shape, financially (duh!) We (as a country) have written a lot of checks that we can't cash. We're spending $700 Billion on items to be named later, in addition to the amount we spend on a war on 2 fronts. The one thing that I don't hear much if at all from politicians is that we all need to tighten our belts, pitch in to help, &/or sacrifice anything in order to get out of the hole we're in.

During WW II, that was the rallying call, if you will, pay for the war (& in turn) get the country financially back on it's feet after the Depression.
The country pitched in & made it happen.

I don't think that type of talk would fly today. We're too comfortable maintaining our lifestyles & we really don't like to sacrifice for anyone.
But if we all work at it as a country, I think we could right the financial ship again. But it would take sacrifice. It wouldn't be easy.

 

[girlbug2]

What would all that money pay for exactly?

Personally I wouldn't mind sacrificing more if I had confidence that the plan was going to work. But the politician would have to make a good case for their plan first.

 

[exile]

I think Obama actually said something very much like this in his victory acknowledgment speech on Election Day evening. I know he mentioned the necessity for sacrifice, in just those words.

 

[MA-Caver]

Sacrifice... for whom and who does it? Of course politicians aren't going to use that word (very often) because that's usually the question(s) asked by the voters when they hear it. And they know the answer is usually... them.

We all must sacrifice at one time or another for one thing or another. Our time, our resources, our lives if we must (not necessarily by dying either though sometimes that does happen). Sacrifice is one of the things that made this country. The world wars and others, the great depression, the natural disasters, and so on. If you want something bad enough you're going to have to sacrifice sometimes to get it.
This shouldn't be a taboo word for politicians but they should be clear about what they're saying when they use the word. Mature people will understand what is meant by it if put into it's correct context, and, mature people will do it, grudgingly or willingly but they'll do it... because they know by experience that it's sometimes necessary for the greater good or the achievement of a worthy goal.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I don't think that type of talk would fly today. We're too comfortable maintaining our lifestyles & we really don't like to sacrifice for anyone. But if we all work at it as a country, I think we could right the financial ship again. But it would take sacrifice. It wouldn't be easy.

New word for a new millennium. Entitlement.

 

[IcemanSK]

New word for a new millennium. Entitlement.

Not such a new word. Heck, it's been our country's motto for a few decades, now.

 

[Big Don]

Sacrifice. Yeah, good word. Personal Responsibility is a nice little pairing too...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I was thinking there's a few words that the don't use, then I realized they do, but they define them differently than Mr. Webster did.

Words like Honesty, Honor, Accountabilty, Frugality, Self Control, Respect.

As the bailout nears the 10 Trillion Dollar mark, my biggest concern is, will I be able to pack enough hundred dollar bills into the car to buy both bread and milk when this is all done. At least the Germans in 1938 had larger bills to pile into their push carts.

 

[punisher73]

It's one thing to ask for sacrifice and everyone is on board and it helps everyone out.

But, why should I sacrifice my hard earned dollars just to have them given out to someone who chooses not to work? Why should the government pay for some people's heating and electric bill because they "don't have the money" yet, they are allowed to have a big screen TV that they have from a rent to own place and have satellite tv service?

 

[Phoenix44]

But, why should I sacrifice my hard earned dollars just to have them given out to someone who chooses not to work? Why should the government pay for some people's heating and electric bill because they "don't have the money" yet, they are allowed to have a big screen TV that they have from a rent to own place and have satellite tv service?

I don't mind helping someone pay for food or heat or a place to live.

I have a better question:

Why should I sacrifice my hard earned dollars to have them given out to some Wall Street CEO earning $32 million per year?

Or, why should I sacrifice my hard earned dollars so that ExxonMobil, which earned more profit--PROFIT, not gross receipts--this year than any corporation in the history of corporations can get tax breaks?

BTW, exile is right, Obama did mention sacrifice and service in his speeches.

 

[Empty Hands]

Our economy is based on consumer spending and consumption. A call to belt-tightening and sacrifice would only be counter-productive, and further depress the markets and the economy as a whole. Now, if you wanted to base our economy on a broader platform, then I am all ears, but as it stands spending money on useless crap makes this ship sail.

Of course, sacrifice (taxes) would be a useful topic of discussion when it comes to fixing the huge governmental deficits we have, but that is a separate topic.

 

[punisher73]

I don't mind helping someone pay for food or heat or a place to live.

I have a better question:

Why should I sacrifice my hard earned dollars to have them given out to some Wall Street CEO earning $32 million per year?

Or, why should I sacrifice my hard earned dollars so that ExxonMobil, which earned more profit--PROFIT, not gross receipts--this year than any corporation in the history of corporations can get tax breaks?

BTW, exile is right, Obama did mention sacrifice and service in his speeches.

How have any of your tax dollars gone into their pockets?

I don't mind helping someone out who NEEDS the help. I remember talking with a friend that worked in the "cash assistance" office of the Michigan welfare system. If Michigan would have passed their welfare cut-offs (one of only two states that don't have a cut off limit as to how long you can be on it) she said her case load would have gone from over 200 down to less than 10 people.

She was constantly disgruntled because the people who REALLY needed help with things couldn't get the help they needed. Her days were spent mainly dealing with people trying to defraud the gov't out of more "free money". If you were caught committing fraud, they would not cut you off, the state would simply "penalize" them and take 3-5 dollars off of what they got to pay it back.

Until this country fixes the welfare system and requires people to work somehow for a living I'm not too inclined to give more of my money away. I will donate to charities where I choose to help those who need it. I don't want my gov't making that choice for me.

People also keep talking about the economy and the unemployment rate. But, in some places (Michigan for example) there are more jobs than people to fill them. The problem is that people are not quailified for the jobs and won't take oppourtunities to get free education to fill those rolls. Guess what? This causes companies to move elsewhere that people are willing to work.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I would say politicians don't use the word because voters don't want to hear it. I have a brief story to share, and I hope it doesn't disrupt this thread...

<drift begins>
In 1998 Ontario teachers and their principals walked off the job for two weeks in protest of unprecedented policy changes in education that are still being felt today. As it was a walkout unconnected to collective bargaining, the strikers received no salary or strike pay -- it was an act of civil disobedience, intended to bring attention to legislation that was being rushed through with little or no debate. Normal issues, such as wages or working conditions, were not on the table.
<drift ends>

In response to this, the Premier ordered that all families with children were entitled to a single payment of $40 per day for the ten days: $400, payable by school boards, to make up for child care costs. Even if the walkout didn't cost the parent a dime, all one had to do was ask. No proof required. It was an interesting move from a government that professed to despise handouts, and, in fact, eviscerated people on welfare.

Realistically, such an expenditure per family went far beyond what board's saved in wages, essentially cutting into funds for education at the classroom level. People grabbed up the 'free money' left and right, whether they were put out by the walkout or not. My wife and I were actually chided by acquaintances for not collecting our our 'share' -- which we refused to do in principle. At that exact moment, I was unemployed as a result of cuts to the funding of community colleges.

I don't know the Toronto figure, but I happened to be in Sudbury, Ontario, when it was announced that 90% of parents there grabbed the handout. (For the sake of argument, I assume my own city's numbers to be comparable.)The same overwhelming majority of people that voted for a strict, no-handouts-cut-taxes-at-all-costs-government, were knocking each other over for a handout that could actually harm their children's education.

Perhaps cynically, I concluded from this that everyone will take a handout when offered.

 

[Ramirez]

Until this country fixes the welfare system and requires people to work somehow for a living I'm not too inclined to give more of my money away.

Why don't we start with guys like Richard Fuld, worth some 350 million dollars, in charge of now bankrupt Lehman brothers, destroyed billions of dollars in wealth and plunged the entire world into an economic crisis. It seems to me all the upside of his risky decisions were privatized and the losses socialized.

I get tired of hearing about the "welfare" queens the real welfare is in the corporate boardrooms.

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/


I doubt all that welfare you are talking about is any where near the 750 billion that Wall Street just got or the 135 billion that AIG took in...all US taxpayer money that could well be lost completely.

 

[IcemanSK]

In bringing up the idea of sacrifice, I never mentioned Welfare. But I did mention the war. Whether you agree with the war or not, the question that was never thought through (nor brought to the American people) was "how are we gonna pay for it?" So, the money is being spent & the bill given to our kids & grandkids.

In WW II, we were asked to tighten our belts, pitch in, do without, & share in the sacrifice "our boys were making over there." The US not only did what it took to pay for the war, but it wasn't a question. Heck, we became a nation that learned how to sacrifice for the greater good.

I'm really bothered by how we are so willing to send our neighbor's sons & daughters, but we leave the tab to their kids. Hey, it ain't my kid...& it really ain't my money.

I heard Obama mention sacrifice (thanks for the reminder!) & I hope he can help make that idea contagious in this country again.

To get us out of this mess, I see only two ways to do it. 1) Print more money (& devalue the US dollar) or 2) Raise taxes to pay for what we've already spent. We've made our bed, we need to lie in it.

 

[BrandonLucas]

In bringing up the idea of sacrifice, I never mentioned Welfare. But I did mention the war. Whether you agree with the war or not, the question that was never thought through (nor brought to the American people) was "how are we gonna pay for it?" So, the money is being spent & the bill given to our kids & grandkids.

In WW II, we were asked to tighten our belts, pitch in, do without, & share in the sacrifice "our boys were making over there." The US not only did what it took to pay for the war, but it wasn't a question. Heck, we became a nation that learned how to sacrifice for the greater good.

I'm really bothered by how we are so willing to send our neighbor's sons & daughters, but we leave the tab to their kids. Hey, it ain't my kid...& it really ain't my money.

I heard Obama mention sacrifice (thanks for the reminder!) & I hope he can help make that idea contagious in this country again.

To get us out of this mess, I see only two ways to do it. 1) Print more money (& devalue the US dollar) or 2) Raise taxes to pay for what we've already spent. We've made our bed, we need to lie in it.

If I may...

From my perspective, this isn't a war that I signed up for. Not the way it's being fought, anyway.

We started by going over to the middle east, again, and looking for Osama, who is still at large 7 years and some change later.

The war suddenly changes direction, and now we're looking for weapons of mass desctruction. We catch (finally) Saddam Hussein (sp?) (never cared to know how to spell the bastard's name), kill him, and now we're still over there....but what are we doing, exactly? Keeping the peace? Still looking for Osama?

Now, I agree that something needed to be done about the terroristic attacks against our country...but how many of the decisions made were in our best interests as a country? I mean, I don't think we should still be over there right now, but that's just my opinion...I understand that we're trying to prevent another attack, but there's just got to be better ways of going about that than keeping our troops over there waiting to be attacked.

I know for a fact that most of the people who live around here who have members of their family in the military who are involved in all of this would rather see them come home than fund their stay for an indefinite amount of time.

WWII was different in that it was a war that needed to be fought, and most of America was on board for that...(at least that's what I remember from history). The war we're presently in has gone on for far too long with promises of an end in sight that we just haven't seen yet. You can't reasonably expect people to keep throwing money at something that they want to see end, keep hearing promises of an end, but never see any results.

I don't know...maybe it would have been different if we had pitched in at the beginning...maybe it would be over by now, and Osama would have either been captured or killed. But I doubt it, given the decisions made by the politicians placed in charge of the war.

This is just my .02 worth....and I could be way off base here, and I could be misinformed in how I'm making my opinion...if I am, feel free to let me know.

 

[SA_BJJ]

If I may...

From my perspective, this isn't a war that I signed up for. Not the way it's being fought, anyway.

We started by going over to the middle east, again, and looking for Osama, who is still at large 7 years and some change later.

The war suddenly changes direction, and now we're looking for weapons of mass desctruction. We catch (finally) Saddam Hussein (sp?) (never cared to know how to spell the bastard's name), kill him, and now we're still over there....but what are we doing, exactly? Keeping the peace? Still looking for Osama?

Now, I agree that something needed to be done about the terroristic attacks against our country...but how many of the decisions made were in our best interests as a country? I mean, I don't think we should still be over there right now, but that's just my opinion...I understand that we're trying to prevent another attack, but there's just got to be better ways of going about that than keeping our troops over there waiting to be attacked.

I know for a fact that most of the people who live around here who have members of their family in the military who are involved in all of this would rather see them come home than fund their stay for an indefinite amount of time.

WWII was different in that it was a war that needed to be fought, and most of America was on board for that...(at least that's what I remember from history). The war we're presently in has gone on for far too long with promises of an end in sight that we just haven't seen yet. You can't reasonably expect people to keep throwing money at something that they want to see end, keep hearing promises of an end, but never see any results.

I don't know...maybe it would have been different if we had pitched in at the beginning...maybe it would be over by now, and Osama would have either been captured or killed. But I doubt it, given the decisions made by the politicians placed in charge of the war.

This is just my .02 worth....and I could be way off base here, and I could be misinformed in how I'm making my opinion...if I am, feel free to let me know.

I agree for the most part...It just seems like a real shady idea. And I cant stand to listen to people who have never been there preach about how we need to be there and this war is good and all this other bs. Take it from someone who has been there...3 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan...Its sucks and all we are do is getting killed by a faceless enemy.

 

[BrandonLucas]

I agree for the most part...It just seems like a real shady idea. And I cant stand to listen to people who have never been there preach about how we need to be there and this war is good and all this other bs. Take it from someone who has been there...3 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan...Its sucks and all we are do is getting killed by a faceless enemy.

I should note that I'm not in the military nor have I ever been in the military...my father was in the Navy, his father was in the Marines, and my grandfather on my mom's side was in the Army.

I've never seen military action in person.

I state my opinion as a concerned American civilian.

 

[IcemanSK]

If I may...

From my perspective, this isn't a war that I signed up for. Not the way it's being fought, anyway.

We started by going over to the middle east, again, and looking for Osama, who is still at large 7 years and some change later.

The war suddenly changes direction, and now we're looking for weapons of mass desctruction. We catch (finally) Saddam Hussein (sp?) (never cared to know how to spell the bastard's name), kill him, and now we're still over there....but what are we doing, exactly? Keeping the peace? Still looking for Osama?

Now, I agree that something needed to be done about the terroristic attacks against our country...but how many of the decisions made were in our best interests as a country? I mean, I don't think we should still be over there right now, but that's just my opinion...I understand that we're trying to prevent another attack, but there's just got to be better ways of going about that than keeping our troops over there waiting to be attacked.

I know for a fact that most of the people who live around here who have members of their family in the military who are involved in all of this would rather see them come home than fund their stay for an indefinite amount of time.

WWII was different in that it was a war that needed to be fought, and most of America was on board for that...(at least that's what I remember from history). The war we're presently in has gone on for far too long with promises of an end in sight that we just haven't seen yet. You can't reasonably expect people to keep throwing money at something that they want to see end, keep hearing promises of an end, but never see any results.

I don't know...maybe it would have been different if we had pitched in at the beginning...maybe it would be over by now, and Osama would have either been captured or killed. But I doubt it, given the decisions made by the politicians placed in charge of the war.

This is just my .02 worth....and I could be way off base here, and I could be misinformed in how I'm making my opinion...if I am, feel free to let me know.

I think a great number of Americans agree with you. It certainly wasn't the war that I "signed up" for, either. It isn't the war we were promised for the reasons we were told. It puzzles me that more Americans aren't outraged that our kids are being asked to serve in Bush's personsal war in Iraq & being asked to pay for it (whatever the cost) on top of it!

Yet we Americans don't seem to want to sacrifice our time &/or energy to say in public that maybe it's time we stop.

I think I just hijacked my own thread.

 

[BrandonLucas]

I think a great number of Americans agree with you. It certainly wasn't the war that I "signed up" for, either. It isn't the war we were promised for the reasons we were told. It puzzles me that more Americans aren't outraged that our kids are being asked to serve in Bush's personsal war in Iraq & being asked to pay for it (whatever the cost) on top of it!

Yet we Americans don't seem to want to sacrifice our time &/or energy to say in public that maybe it's time we stop.

I think I just hijacked my own thread.

I absolutely agree!

I'm just not sure what else could be done to bring awareness to the government that this war should be over...as far as I know, the government is aware of how the general public feels about the war.

I don't think picketing the whitehouse or any of the things that were tried for the Vietnam war would work here...I think that there are other agendas to this war that we haven't been notified of, and that's why our troops continue to occupy the middle east. I'm not sure what the agenda is, but I don't think it's something that the government wants to be made public knowledge.

And, as far as that goes, I can understand keeping certain things from public knowledge...but I don't agree with it in this case. It's our friends and family over there...it's our money being spent to fund this hidden agenda...I think we should at least have the right to know what we're really getting into.