The Obama campaign’s “Life of Julia” ad is a disturbing sign. It suggests that political strategists, pollsters, and campaign advisers must think that the people living off government are getting to the point where they can out-vote the people paying for government.
If that’s true, America is doomed to become another Greece – which would be an appropriate fate since, for all intents and purposes, Julia is the fictional twin of a real-life Greek woman who thought it was government’s job to give her things.
In general, I think the best response to Julia is mockery, which is why I shared this Iowahawk parody and this Ramirez cartoon.
But we also need a serious discussion of why dependency is a bad thing, which is why I’m glad the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has produced this new “Economics 101” video.
It’s narrated by Emily O’Neill, who contrasts the moocher mentality of Julia with how she wants her life to develop. To give away the message, she wants the kind of fulfillment that only exists when you earn things.
Emily’s view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. That’s because there’s a common moral belief in both philosophies that government-imposed coercion and redistribution erode the social capital of a people.
This is perhaps the key issue for America’s future, which is why I hope you’ll share this video widely. Otherwise, we my face a future where this Chuck Asay cartoon becomes reality. Speaking of Asay, this cartoon is a pretty good summary of what the Julia ad is really saying.
afrofitz1976@gmail.com
Julia C
6782580375
I’m not envious of poor people
I think Julia has worked hard for her SSDI earnings , plus you’ve got to stoop low in the u.s , and she’s not trying to make those sacrifices .
It is truly sad that the country re-elected President Obama probably because of the goodies that he promised.
[…] You’ve Met Julia the Moocher, Now Meet Emily […]
[…] You’ve Met Julia the Moocher, Now Meet Emily […]
Reblogged this on The Busy Post.
Thanks, will watch the video later at home…
Meanwhile here’s a great breakdown of this Julia nonsense by Stephan Molyneux
I have seen this movie before (I’m European) and what will happen is that two Julia’s will outvote one Emily. After that tipping point of no return, soon both Julias and Emily will run out of money. The fact that, once mooched-on, Emily herself is more likely to become more like the Julias, greatly accelerates the process – unless, of course Emily belongs to the Unicorn people of the left who are permeated by such greed that she will happily continue leaving her children every morning to go work (July through December of every year) squeezing her brain in high productivity and exceptional work so that she can benefit two Julia’s living a few streets down the neighborhood, a few blocks down the city, a few cities down the state, a few states down the country.
The persistent opportunity and desire to vote other peoples wallets away, proves irresistible in the mid-term. In the long term, the ever present laws of permanence take over and the ensuing bottom and decline precipitate the predictable catharsis — and, in some cases, regeneration ensues. But even that relatively optimistic final outcome is a long and painful way down. Most counties get down and never recover. That is a fate that most other nations have suffered in their past at one time or another, but which Americans have never really experienced — so far. Now, however, they are poised to finally and deterministically go down that path — having passed the point of no return. Boy are they due for a painful awakening!
So the only question remains whether America’s decline will temporarily stall once it gets to the French-European faux-equilibrium, or whether there is now enough momentum in the once most prosperous nation’s decline to blow past the gates and get straight to Hellenic demise (BTW, the Greece’s demise is far from over – they are still only in the middle chapters of the Gospel of Collectivism – known in America as the Book of HopNChange).
I said before that Europe (France Germany Sweden and the other supposed “tiger” economies of Europe – so low has indeed the bar fallen in Europe) are at a Faux-Equilibrium point because they are merely in a steady decline – probably about to turn turbulent though.
As I do not tire saying, the overriding equation of mid-long term prosperity is simple: Any country that is riding a long term growth trendline that is severely BELOW the world average growth trendline of FIVE PERCENT annual growth, IS TOAST. Even a two percent growth trendline – a wet dream for Europe – means that you are declining at an annual rate of ONLY three percent compared to the rest of the world.
I mean, realistically, does anyone believe that Europe will ever grow along anything like a 5% annual growth trendline? How? With more HopNChange? Their HopNChange journey is complete, beyond this is the Breznev five year growth plan, something they are about to gradually start adopting to cement and further accelerate their collective continental decline. Pay attention to Europe because you will deterministically and predictably walk along the same path. Every new step along the road of HopNChange you initially took makes the next step inevitable (almost logical from the new vantage point of decline).
Will America ever go back on a sustained even three percent growth trendline ? Just wait for 2014 when the “Make less than 90k per year and someone else will pay for most of your medical insurance” incentive kicks in. That is when the slippery slope of decline will really start accelerating.
Not to worry though, only a few “bad” people will take the opportunity to supplement their standard of living through these perverse incentives – most will never figure it out (ha,ha,ha…)
[…] Dan Mitchell hails this a good instruction on the difference between empowerment and dependency: google_ad_client = "pub-5248650123369971"; google_ad_channel =""; google_ad_width = 200; google_ad_height = 200; google_ad_format = "200x200_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; google_color_border = "000000"; google_color_link = "FFFFFF"; google_color_text = "CCCCCC"; google_color_bg = "000000"; google_color_url = "999999"; But we also need a serious discussion of why dependency is a bad thing, which is why I’m glad the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has produced this new “Economics 101″ video. […]
[…] It’s narrated by Emily O’Neill, who contrasts the moocher mentality of Julia with how she wants her life to develop. To give away the message, she wants the kind of fulfillment that only exists when you earn things.<.p> More about the video can be found at the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. […]
SFOtter … do keep in mind that the location of the cash register is not necessarily where the profit is made. Just because a lot of the “owners” (i.e. investors) live in NY doesn’t mean that the profit is made there … and that holds true for the other “nine” states you consider worthy of respect, some of whom are part of the problem when it comes to expanding government intervention far beyond prudent bounds.
It used to be true that I wasn’t getting all the government I paid for, and I was glad of that fact.
Obama seems intent on giving me MORE government than I pay for!!
[…] Dan Mitchell… Emily’s view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. […]
Alas, SF Otter, nobody pays for all the government they get.
[…] […]
[…] contrasting a mentality of dependency with one of self-reliance. Which do you think is better?H/T Daniel Mitchellgoogle_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 */ google_ad_slot = […]
Only about 10 states ‘pay for the government’, all the rest get more than they give. Most Americans live in the welfare queen states that drain the profitable states like leeches. I’m surprised to see this subject brought up at all. People talk about ‘the coasts vs. the heartland’ and ‘NY vs. TX. vs CA’ when really it’s CA, NY, TX & CO and few others versus the welfare queens in the other 40 states.
[…] Dan Mitchell hails this a good instruction on the difference between empowerment and dependency: But we also need a serious discussion of why dependency is a bad thing, which is why I’m glad the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has produced this new “Economics 101″ video. […]
“Julia”-style government dependency never realizes what it ostensibly promises, but that’s never the point. The true objective isn’t to make lives better by giving an infantile, adult-ward-of-the-state class of people “free” stuff, but to get them to vote for you. And in that narrow context, the “Julia” model still works on about 40-45% of the electorate.
There was a scene in the original “Robocop” movie in which the evil corporate VP Dick Jones defends his lethally defective robot prototype by pointing out how it would have secured lucrative government maintenance, spare parts and repair contracts, and he concludes by sneering, “Who CARES whether it works?” Well, that’s a good nutshell comparison to liberalism’s approach to failed social programs and the toxic dependency they produce: as long as they benefit the program sponsors (i.e., the Democrats), whether they actually work as advertised is nothing more than a happy coincidence.
the powers that be at you+ube do not like this video – they have made it nearly impossible to watch. other videos are streaming just fine.
Reblogged this on Truth Before Dishonor and commented:
We’ve already seen radical Leftists blasting Conservatives and saying stupid stuff like “you should be appreciative of all that Government has done for you” when we rail against the enslaving power of Government and the extreme cost of all these unconstitutional “entitlements”. So, yes, the Left in this country absolutely want everyone dependent on Government for freebies.
One of the things that really irritates me about Obama is how he always talks about the need for government programs to help”the middle class”. To my way of thinking, “middle class” means you don’t NEED any help from the government. Middle class people pay their own bills.
I think this needs more emphasis. Most Americans agree that poor people who can’t provide for themselves should get help (although there is considerable scope for disagreement for how that help should be structured and delivered to really be helpful and not just enabling). What people have a problem with are those who are riding who should be pushing and those who are getting rich at taxpayer expense. That means corporate welfare AND bloated public employee payrolls. When the progressive movement got started, they were all about ending patronage, government reform, and focusing on real solutions to the problems of immigration and poverty. If they could get back to that and stop being reactionary apologists for the status quo, we could maybe start finding some real bipartisan solutions instead of just throwing poop at each other…
[…] “You’ve Met Julia the Moocher, Now Meet Emily,” by Dan Mitchell, June 11, 2012 […]
[…] MITCHELL: You’ve Met Julia The Moocher. Now Meet Emily. Unlike Julia, Emily has a face and everything. Along with some […]