-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 12:44 AM
Before I make my statement, I want to make the point that my statement is not meant in any way to deny the grievous injustice done to the black race by the legal institution of slavery. The degree of injury done by that institution is different than that done by the 'slavery' referred to in the article. Nevertheless, the core problem is the same. Any time that a government entity takes on an individual's responsibilities that same govrnment restricts the individual's choices and liberty. In order for a person to be truly free that person must be willing to accept the consequences of his/her actions; be they good or bad.
Another form of enslavement is when the fruits of a person's labor is taken from that person without recompence or against that person's will. When government exceeds it's constitutional authority and taxes excessively it, in essence, enslaved it's citizens.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 4:46 AM
Good article OJ. The bible also says the borrower will be the lender's slave. It's not a new concept, but we either don't learn or it is an orchestrated plan to enslave the sheep. I believe that we (almost) all fall into the trap at one time or another because we want something new or we want something better for our kids. Thing is, our wants are going to wind up being our downfall. I don't remember if it was stnmsn8 or BC or who that repeated a few times to "not be in debt" when the fall happens. I appreciate the advise and suggest that everyone that has any debt, but especially unsecured, to eliminate it as quickly as possible.
There are those on here who may or may not chime in that will say this is a bunch of hooey and because there are biblical references will disregard it. Good advice and concepts can come in many different forms and venues.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 6:50 AM
Old John good article. I have said this all along we the working middle class are out numbered by the welfare masses that refuse to work and be responsible citizens they continue to try every avenue to see what government program they can get on. It has got to a point where some of these people bragg to you because they are on some type of government assistance and what is so sad these people are able to work but refuse to work so they can continue to draw the benefit. The Modern Day Democratic Party are not doing the welfare masses any good at all they are hurting these people and keeping them under their thrumb. Right here is a prime example why I will be voting for the republican nominee in November of 2012.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 6:55 AM
90% BS. More later.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 7:42 AM
I like Thomas Sowell's quote.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 8:15 AM
90% BS. More later. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 7:42 AM
common - did you mean "More 90% BS later" ? :-)
Wealth envy is clearly a big campaign theme for Obama this year. He started it in year 2 of his presidency and is playing it over and over this year. He supports the anarchistic "OWS" movement. He criticizes the 1%er's yet he is one and is very comfortable hiring them, giving them government funds all while cultivating more wealth for himself.
Defend, deflect, attack. When your record is as abysmal as his you must focus the voting population on some other straw man - something other than your own failures.
He - and others posting here - clearly want higher taxes and redistribution of wealth. After working with many asian, indian and latinos I'm ready to support a program where the US allows hard working immigrants to become citizens if their home country will take 2 of our entitled citizens. It's a great trade. There's a large number of the entitled class in this country that want absolutely nothing to do with a job. And liberals support that lifestyle through welfare programs.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 8:43 AM
Common you can deny that this is happening and call it bs all you want, but that doesn't make it so. When people are willing to allow the gov't or some other entity to provide for them and not to work for what they have, they are then slaves to that entity. If I provided everything for you, whether I required anything from you, you are still beholden to me if there is something that I would need from you. That would make you my slave/servant. Don't get caught up in the oft used racial connotation of the word.
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 9:02 AM
"Some estimate that more than 50% of the population in the United States is now on some form of government welfare."
That's the very first sentance from the link.
Who is "some?"
It also then goes on to say 150 million Americans are on welfare. Does that means that each and every one is poor, jobless, unwilling to work, and sponging off of the government.
If you take the 300 million population and divide by a 75 year life expectancy, you get about 4 million Americans at each age. That would mean that 72 million Americans are of high school age or younger, about 40 million Americans are probably retired and not on welfare. That leaves about 188 million Americans of working age, or only 38 million working Americans (after subtracting the 150 million on welfare.)
That would equal about a 20% employment rate and 80% unemployment. Even conservatives have not made that kind of claim.
And that's only the BS in the first sentance.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 9:30 AM
Commonsense,
It is possible to be employed full-time in this society and yet draw some form of welfare (government subsidy). That is how those who desire big government (government control) expand their influence. It is a seductive lie that you (anyone) gets anything free from the government. But it sucks many people into a dependent lifestyle and causes many to vote to continue the welfare state. Most people make excuses for their own government subsidies but complain about their neighbors' dependence on government.
The only way this country will continue to exist in even a shadow of what the founders intended is if each of us recognizes our dependence on government and eliminates it. Each of the major political parties uses it's own form of subsidies to sell it's candidates. We need true reform NOW lest we continue down the road on which Greece and Italy are now foundering.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 9:48 AM
""Some estimate that more than 50% of the population in the United States is now on some form of government welfare"."
I'm not sure where the estimate comes from, but the Census Bureau says 48.5% of the U.S. population lives in households receiving some type of assistance:
The Bureau of Labour Statistics put labour force participation at 64%.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 10:09 AM
Caddy: Everyone in this country has the opportunity to succeed and better themselves only if they want too that is left up to the person but many have chosen to remain in the "rut" refusing to do anything about it and blaming others for there problems that they have themselves apparently chosen. Any time you have government dependency this is what happens.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 10:56 AM
'Powers that be'. Caddy used this phrase frequently. This is a very general statement but if we are to solves problem we must be able to identify/describe it with specifity.
While we often disagree I think we could find common ground on this subject if he would be more specific hconcerning the identity of these 'powers that be'.
I would definitely agree with him that our problems have roots in both major political parties and many organizations which influence government.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 11:19 AM
What a bunch of BS--not worth responding to, but I sincerely hope that your family find themselves in a situation of need. Then we can tell them they are unworthy of the help of a "civilized" nation.
-- Posted by fremdschamen on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 11:36 AM
If you believe that any class of people don't want equal chances and rights, you are a fool.
-- Posted by cadillacman on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 10:40 A
Then maybe I'm a fool by your definition although I wouldn't classify people the way I believe you are. There are those that will give up their rights as long as the check keeps coming in. There are those that will commit crimes and then give up their rights, knowing full well that this can happen if caught.
We all begin with the same chances and rights. Some have to work harder to make things happen for them. Some just want handouts because of past real or perceived grievances to them or others.
Just a few words from a fool
-- Posted by Knoblickian on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 11:37 AM
Caddy: I don't really know where you are coming from no doubt you are bias and never want to debate both sides it is always the other persons fault. We are really in a whole bunch of trouble in this country with a massive debt we haven't even started to bring down you cannot borrow yourself out of debt this administration has accumilated over six trillion dollars in total debt in just 3.5 short years the most of any administration in history, do you have a solution to this massive debt problem that we continue to ignore like it is not even there. I know the total debt has accumilated long before the President was elected to office but he has no doubt increased it with a tremendous amount of increased social welfare programs that is a matter of public record, and yes it was approved by both parties. The borrowing has got to stop in order to stay afloat each year we have 2.2 trillion in annual revenues but we have going out the door 3.7 trillion dollars each year how would you suggest we fix that problem and get serious about it before it is to late and were all out of business.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 11:51 AM
What a bunch of BS--not worth responding to, but I sincerely hope that your family find themselves in a situation of need. Then we can tell them they are unworthy of the help of a "civilized" nation. -- Posted by fremdschamen on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 11:36 AM
A number of my family have found themselves in a situation of TRUE need. Not very often but it happens. And, as family, we have helped them. Didn't cost you a dime did it. But the entitlement mind set is envious and wants more of everyones money. Sad.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 12:02 PM
Equal opportunity? In my experience we all have the same opportunities in life. But, because of upbringing, differences in perspective, personal attitudes, differing levels of ambition, etc. many of us fail to recognize and take advantage of the opportunities which are available. And opportunity often does not knock twice.
The entitlement mentality so prevalent in society causes many not to invest the energy required to successfully take advantage of opportunity.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 12:16 PM
"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; the limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those they opress."
This from Frederick Douglas I think applies also to the form of slavery the justice speaks of.
Everything that can be done by government and rule of law, in my opinion, to ensure fairness in opportunity has been done and then some. The then some has given people reason not to seek opportunity at their fullest potential.
Look for more Barn yard Science deductions later. It takes time to glean all the DNC talking points and seek out the corresponding tactics of deflection and deception.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 12:53 PM
"many missed the whole point. it not people who are mad becasue somebody else has more than they. it is about opportunity."....Caddy
In my experience, opportunity comes to those who make it happen. Save a nickel here, a dime there, join with others who are willing to do the same. Combine resources and start a small business,live on a pittance, use profits for a second business. That's opportunity.
"you cannot tell me that everyone has the same opportunity even if they play the game fair. swamp, now i know you don't really believe that everybody has an equal fair shot at succeeding. i know you don't really believe that. Swamp your first line is simply not true." ...Caddy
No Everyone doesn't have the same "opportunity". Some have opportunity because their families made an effort before they were born. Others have to start somewhere down the line and they have to find another item or business that will fill a need.
"rick, you keep using your same ole excuse to...by blaming President Obama for all your faults and denials. If your life was so messed up and you act as if it just really fell apart since President Obama took over. Those who are using him as an excuse for your failures are only fooling yourself. "....Caddy
I agree. We use Obama as an excuse just as some use the Bushes, Reagon, Carter, and Clinton. It isn't a president's fault. It is the fault of the people who elect him.
"You need to stop blaiming him for your own faults. What were YOU doing before he became president.
I know, i know you guys are OWG guys who get on here and post how bad your life is, so what were you doing before? You know, i am really just curious, not that it really matters to me."....Caddy
I was enjoying my work, my hobbies, and my life in general. I still am only, now, it costs entirely too much.
. Weren't any of you successful at anything, or has your poor lives become so bad now that President Obama is in charge. I mean take responsibllity for some of your own mistakes...please! You give my man way too much credit for your failures in life now......even he would tellyou that. (hahhhaha)
-- Posted by cadillacman on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 11:32 AM
I guess I'm just fortunate. I've always been successful at anything I tried. Obama and his ilk do not define me. I have even been a successful failure at times....entirely my own doing. But the same should be true of you and your friends and acquaintances. None of you should allow government to define you. You have the opportunity to "TRY" the same as all men. Some of us will be big successes, some of us will just make it, and some of us will fail. The important thing will be that it will be the individual, or a group of like-minded individuals, who do it.
-- Posted by InReply on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 12:55 PM
Caddy is the far left always blaming some one else. Give me, give me and give me hand out at all times, rest of you fools pull me up the hill while I ride in the wagon. This is the mentality many of these people have sit on the front porch BBQ, drink beer and party while the rest of us are working hard each and every day to support our families. Take a drive down Bloomfield and South Hanover and look at that mess in the afternoons don't go in the morning because they are all still in bed.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 1:44 PM
Now Spaniard is chiming in all the far left liberals coming out today, must be the nice weather.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 2:59 PM
How do you figure it's inaccurate?
Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the total number of employed persons (i.e., those who work for a living) in the United States is about 150 million, or about 48% of the population. As noted earlier, the Census Bureau reports that about 48.5% live in households that receive some type of social security income.
Keep in mind that not all working Americans are eligible to vote, although Mr. Sowell did not specify eligibility to vote as a criteria. However, when we factor those who 'vote for a living', it is only reasonable to compare that against the working population that is eligible for the vote.
There are 40.2 million persons over the age of 65 in America, which would be represented in the 'votes for a living' group, and an additional 20 million local, state, and federal workers who also constitute those who 'vote for a living', putting us over 60 million before we've factored in the welfare recipients and other workers.
It's also significant to note that the 20 million local, state, and federal workers could be deducted from the 150 million total workforce, reducing that number to 130 million, leaving a deficit of 70 million to be overcome by non-Social Security, non government employees.
I do not know what other criteria Mr. Sowell may apply to count as those who 'vote for a living', but he is usually pretty good with his statistics.
The
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 3:08 PM
It's also significant to note that the unemployed, at least those who vote to keep the unemployment benefit extensions coming, can be subtracted from the 'work for a living' column and added to the 'vote for a living' column.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 3:23 PM
The Census Bureau reports that, in the 2010 election there were about 137,350 registered voters, representing 59.8% of the total population.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 3:27 PM
I like Thomas Sowell's quote.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 8:15 AM
It's entirely inaccurate but it sounds catchy so I am sure you do. -- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 2:47 PM
And this is from someone who wants to have a serious discussion on Afghan with me? Pot shots and one-liners? I welcome that conversation.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 3:36 PM
Would that be the Charlie Rangle Plantation Caddy is speaking of?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 3:37 PM
Thanks for the chuckle, Old J!
Reading this entire blog made me grateful that I didn't know, when we were Dirt Poor, about government 'help.' If we had, might have been tempted to take advantage of it ... and might consequently have never worked hard enough/long enough to become reasonably self-sufficient.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 11:20 PM
Hi Mom.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 11:40 PM
uh...isn't that an example? Kind of like you making fun of someone with tattered pants when you have none? -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 6:11 AM
"I welcome that conversation" is an invite to a conversation. An opening to discuss. Not a "pot shot or one liner".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 7:59 AM
The second sentence in the link reads....
"We have an entire culture in our nation who believes that basic needs such as food, housing, transportation, medical care, etc. should be paid for by someone else."
What does "an entire culture" mean?
Does it mean all African-Americans, all native Americans, all poor people, all liberals, all non-conservatives, all under-educated????
Simply citing "an entire" culture is meaningless. Clearly there are some Americans that abuse the welfare system. It is not 50% of all Americans. It is probably less that 5% if you define "abuse" as being "the use of something in a bad, dishonest, or harmful way." Almost all people on welfare want to get off of it, and they all do eventually.
The inclusion of "food, housing, transportation" as being things that the "culture" believes that others should pay for separately is also childish and deceitful. The fact that most that may be out of work and on welfare use their payments for food, housing and transportation does not say they are demanding additional money of these items.
The subject of medical care is a more complex issue in that the US is the only country that refuses to provide medical care for all of its citizens on a non-emergency basis. If a young family is on welfare they may get care for its members. If a member takes a low paying job without insurance, the family does not have health care protection. Obviously this is a powerful disincentive with respect to taking the first job that comes available.
So just the second sentence in Mr. Sherman's opinion on "The New Culture of Slavery" is fully stocked with misleading suggestions and vague accusations.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 11:00 AM
The culture of slavery of recent history includes several facets and is not peculiar to a particular race or political persuassion as Common and Caddy cite to skew the discussion so that their points appear to have meaning.
If what I just wrote sounds senseless and absurd it is but a sampling of the tactics of distraction and diversion used by some that have no other purpose than to defend their wrong headed thinking and justify loyalty to such degregation of our society.
Anything written or any point made by a so called conservative must be challenged and defeated by what ever means necessary and Spaniard is on ready.
That said:
It is easy to see the institution of slavery. The lower and middle income working people are enslaved with inflation. Many poorly taught young folks are enslaved by their own ignorance, paying rental fees for basic conveniences such as washers and dryers, furniture etc.
A young lady with a great work ethic recently confided to me that her whole pay check of 70 hours per week goes to pay for her smart phone, cable bill, car payment, credit cards and appliance rental. All this and she still spends $35 on her nails and $55 on her hair ever so often. Also $5 per day in the break room snack machines is normal for so many of the folks that enslave themselves.
One of the purposes of the Federal Reserve was to regulate and maintain the value of our currency. Based on 1913 dollars they have erroded most of that value. I don't think this is the time to call for government action to protect and regulate our standard of living given that and many more failures can be cited in those regards.
Bottem line is the point made in the article about running out of payers in favor of all takers is undisputable if we continue in the "handbasket" we are in.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 12:40 PM
commonsensematters, If this helps; those from the so called far right are just as supportive of welfare as their (so called) liberals or left. Many support such large beneficiaries of welfare as the military-industrial-complex, farm subsidies, mercantilism, and bailouts for large banks. Their support for Bush's drug prescription plan, the largest entitlement since Johnson, is telling. -- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 12:16 PM
More liberal arguments. "They're all the same", "don't look at differences", "military industrial" - on an on liberal talking points.
I (and many many conservatives) did not support Bush and the democrat congress drug prescription program. I hope you're not a surgeon - your better with a meat cleaver than a scalpel! Pretty broad brush you paint with there! :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 12:59 PM
Even Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial-complex. -- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 1:08 PM
I remember that (in history class - wasn't around then!). You're way ahead of the political curve for me. I guess I'm more focused on keeping the far left out and trying to restore some semblance of a free country with what is available on the right. Don't know if that makes any sense.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 1:12 PM
BC, Isn't the FMOC and the Fed as a whole supposed to independent of politics in general? Am I wrong to think the present day Fed is being influenced by the administration policies? And, not being that up on my history, did the Fed cater to Roosevelt regarding his gold take over setting precidence?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 1:30 PM
As I noted elsewhere, the prescription drug programme enacted by President Bush was not a 'conservative' plan, and most conservatives opposed it. It was, however, more conservative than the plan offered by Mr. Gore. It was pretty much a given that we were going to be saddled with a prescription drug plan, as it was a necessary component of the 2000 election. Many seniors, those who 'vote for a living', were demanding it, and winning their voting bloc pretty much meant enacting such a programme.
Curiously, even after the programme was enacted, many of the Bush-bashers were calling it a 'broken promise', as they denied that the plan enacted by President Bush actually lived up to his promise of providing a prescription drug plan for seniors. It was several years after it was in place before the Bush-bashers would even acknowledge that he had fulfilled the promise.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 2:19 PM
Part D of Medicare , the "conservative" program , requires private supplemental insurance that is bought by the Medicare recipient . I believe Humana is one of these supplement insurance companies .
For one , Part D is not mandatory , it is the Medicare recipient's disgression whether to participate or not .
For two , the Medicare recipient has the opportunity to shop around for the best deal .
And last , this is not a "free" entitlement .
-- Posted by ~~Rick on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 1:15 PM
Isn't it strange that drug prices took such a soaring increase, and the FDA allowed big pharm to discontinue selling some lower priced alternatives in the United States and banned others(we can still get them in Canada), while promoting higher priced replacements just prior to the enactment of Medicare Part D. Many of us wondered why. The answer seems to be that it causes more people to participate in Medicare Part D, thereby driving up insurance company profits.
Anytime I see government passing new legislation that gets into the citizen's pocket, I automatically look for the lobby behind it.
-- Posted by InReply on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 4:36 PM
Caddy: Don't count your chickens before they hatch. You need to go and make your self useful and try to figure out why your people are shooting one another every single day in this country, do something constructive for once and stop blaming all of us for being conservative and believing in what made america great through hard work and not depending on the government to take care of you all the time and most of all help us bring our country back to what she once was, you know get out of the wagon and help us pull it up the hill instead of getting a free ride.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 7:48 PM
Does this fit in somewhere with the "culture" part?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 11:45 PM
"When they run short on money, they don't take personal responsibility for it, they blame someone. When times are hard, they don't look for a job, they look for a handout. Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell puts it this way:
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are out numbered by the people that vote for a living."
-Dr. Thomas Sowell
Checking sentences three and four, you see the same nebulous quality in the accusations. Who are the "they?"
Are they blacks? Native Americans? Whites? Poor people? All Democrats? Liberals? Mr. Sherman also leaves it open as to who "they" blame. They blame someone, is that the government? Only whites? Republicans? Conservatives? Progressives?
When statements of this character are made without any detail or data at all, the words become meaningless. Dr. Sowell takes this condition of inconclusiveness to another level. Does his "we" mean the entire nation, or only like-minded individuals that agree with Mr. Sherman and Dr. Sowell? Obviously there are people who work and vote, but the implication appears to be that those who "vote for a living" are in the majority and they don't work.
Does this mean that over 50% of the population does no work and subsists solely by voting. The quote may have an attractive ring to some minority of Americans, but it is invalid and totally illogical to conclude that half of all Americans are unemployed and subsisting on welfare.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 7:04 AM
"The Increasing Welfare State
Some estimate that more than 50% of the population in the United States is now on some form of government welfare. We have an entire culture in our nation who believes that basic needs such as food, housing, transportation, medical care, etc. should be paid for by someone else. When they run short on money, they don't take personal responsibility for it, they blame someone. When times are hard, they don't look for a job, they look for a handout. Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell puts it this way:
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are out numbered by the people that vote for a living."
-Dr. Thomas Sowell"
Common,
Perhaps if you read the whole statement, instead of picking out a sentence here and there, it would help your comprehension, which gets very low marks for accuracey.
I furnished it for you in quotes above. You can thank me later.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 9:06 AM
Common takes this condition of conclusiveness to another level.:)
If it is thought to be a conservative comment or idea, it must be challenged and defeated by what ever means necessary.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 9:08 AM
Yeah, Spaniard's right. The country would have been much better off with the liberal more oppressive plan the dems were pushing. :)
"... and Spaniard is on ready."
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM
"But your beef is with the rhetoric of the other side, not with the GOP President and GOP Congress."
No, I have expressed my opposition to the nanny-state big government entitlement law many times. I don't think I should have to restate it time and time again.
I added the note about how 'the left' was unsatisfied, even after they got what they claimed they wanted, not as my sole beef, but as an indication of how caving in to the demands of those who 'vote for a living' gains little in they way of favour from them, while giving them ammunition in their charges that 'conservatives' are also in favour of big government programmes.
Ron Paul, at least, has learned the lesson, and appears to have passed it on to Rand.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 12:38 PM
"Laughable what passes for reasoned analysis on this board."
Yes, it is, given that you are the one that is analyzing, whereas I was merely opining.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 1:31 PM
Thanks Old John! As usual, BCStoned, Rick, Shapley, Have Wheels, etc. have a true discussion while the likes of uncommonsense and others try to detract.
-- Posted by swift on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 1:44 PM
It would seem that those you agree with "have a true discussion while the likes" of those who disagree only try to detract from brillient conclusions such as more than 50% of American don't work but only "vote for a living."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 2:49 PM
What percent of voters owe their jobs to some form of government employer, state, federal, local, including educational?
It isn't just the non-working who vote with their own desires as their guide.
-- Posted by InReply on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 10:56 PM
"It isn't just the non-working who vote with their own desires as their guide."
Good point.
People That vote for a living include many groups. Retired, government employees, some corporate managers and business owners, people seeking favor from elected officials, the list can be long depending on who's criterior is used.
I will finish with another point later.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 11:13 PM
"Some people live in Section 8 housing , receive SNAP , get a monthly Medicaid check and HealthCare Insurance."
Again you apparently have no definition of what "some people" means. Possibly "all races" with the exclusion of conservatives (obviously they are not allowed to be part of a "poor" group.)
But for your information, Section 8 only pays a portion of rent and applies to only 1% of the population.
SNAP serves about 1 1/2 %.
Medicaid does not give the recipients a check, but pays for services received, and serves about 2% of the population.
Since these benefits are not exclusionary, the percentages cannot be simply added, but it is safe to say that less than 4% of the population receive these benefits. This hardly approaches the over 50% "majority" that Dr. Sowell claims to be "voting for a living."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 7:23 AM
"Show your sources..."
Try the internet. It's so easy to find the data, even a conservative could do it. Or maybe not...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 9:56 AM
I may be off by a factor of 10, my error, sorry you were misled. Still way below the "majority."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 10:03 AM
"I shouldn't have to look it up."
Just to demonstrate that I am not biased against conservatives, here it is...
For internet impaired conservatives with a willingness to look at the facts. In any case this is nowhere near a "majority" of Americans, since many are eligible for more than one program.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 12:28 PM
Cousin Clem's clan are many and for years we have been divided over a long line of differences. Our great grandfathers were adversaries and thus the families followed diverse roads of culture. They even joined up with a different church and dress funny. We do not like to be around any of them, they are poor, uneducated and spend all their extra money promoting their wrong headed religion.
My father's family has always hired folks from our clan to fill positions in his large business. When times got tough, he started hiring some of Clem's clan for they would gladly work the menial jobs for $3 per hour.
A politition showed up running for office promising to make Pop pay the same $4 per hour for thse menial jobs. He won and he did. Pop had to pay the $4 per hour but he fired all of Clem's clan and hired from within his own close family.
The politition was running promised to get the government to give the jobless a check each week until they found a job. The only jobs left were the $2 per hour jobs.
So did the government help or hurt Clem's clan?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 12:36 PM
All of these entitlements is a big reason were in the mess we are in. When you have this many programs you have to be able to pay for them were only taking in 2.2 trillion dollars a year in over all revenue but going out the door is 3.7 trillion so therefore we have to borrow the difference therefore creating an annual deficit and this has stacked up year after year without us doing anything about it and now we have reached the danger point of going completely bankrupt.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 12:42 PM
"...and people wonder why America is going to hell."
There is a very specific difference. I have a tremendous degree of confidence and faith in America and Americans. I certainly do not think America "is going to hell."
Nobody, especially not me, has ever claimed that "only liberals are intelligent" nor that liberals are "better than conservatives."
There is a distinction in that I do not live in the past, I accept that changes in the nation and an increasingly complex world will happen and we can make the best of them. As the saying goes, conservatives see the sun as setting, I see it as rising.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 7:24 PM
Common,
You are poorly equipped to know what conservatives think and feel! And what they see for the future!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 7:31 PM
Hello, Wheels.
I had a lot to say about the last couple of days' worth of comments. However, decided to spare everyone.
Funny though: I was just thinking this afternoon about this forum, and about 'commonsensematters,' for some reason. Seemed to me that screen name might not quite accurately fit the poster?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 11:07 PM
Gurusmom, Share what you can spare!
Can someone tell me when wealth redistribution solved a problem without creating another?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 11:31 PM
Funny though: I was just thinking this afternoon about this forum, and about 'commonsensematters,' for some reason. Seemed to me that screen name might not quite accurately fit the poster?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 11:07 PM
But he/she does prove over and over that commonsense matters. Too bad he/she doesn't possess any.
Sorry common but your screenname and your posts to run contradictory to one another. You do bring up some points that bear investigating and everytime I do follow up, I'm that much more sure that you need to open your mind and consider the that no subject is one-sided or unchanging in nature.
-- Posted by InReply on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 1:23 AM
And forgive my failure to proofread my post.
-- Posted by InReply on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 1:24 AM
"When government exceeds it's constitutional authority and taxes excessively it, in essence, enslaved it's citizens."
"...we the working middle class are out numbered by the welfare masses that refuse to work..."
"...2013 is gonna be a bad year no matter who gets elected."
"It is a seductive lie that you (anyone) gets anything free from the government."
"...Communist country that controls the citizens daily life. No worries , (President) Obama's getting us there."
"...we can tell them they are unworthy of the help of a "civilized" nation."
"...entitlement mind set is envious and wants more of everyones money. Sad.
"...and people wonder why America is going to hell."
- - - - - - - - - - -
Here are just a few extracts from entries above. The essence of these opinions seems to be that Americans are slaves, that welfare beneficiaries out number working Americans, American is going to be communist, and America is going to hell.
I am firmly convinced that none of these sentiments have much or any basis in fact. Anyone's common sense should tell them that the dire predictions listed will not happen. As mentioned previously, I have a tremendous degree of confidence and faith in America and Americans. My common sense tells me very clearly that America is definitely not "going to hell."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 8:06 AM
"that welfare beneficiaries out number working Americans,"
Since the post you quoted clearly references the 'working middle class', not 'working Americans', I would say you are incorrect. We have been bombarded with news analysis regarding the 'vanishing middle class' for decades now. These are usually left-leaning commentary, faulting the 'growing divide between the rich and poor' for this reduction in middle class numbers.
Now, if the middle class were all moving upwards, then there probably wouldn't be much complaining, so I am inclined to believe the news analysis is more concerned with 'the poor becoming poorer'.
Thus, methinks the writer of the article is in agreement with the left on the status of the middle class, he just disagrees on the cause, and the solution.
So, are you telling us the 'working middle class' is not vanishing?
Now, for my part, I've never bought into the 'vanishing middle class' argument, since the 'middle class' is a largely undefined entity and, in as much as it exists, those in the middle spectrum of society will always be the 'middle class', regardless of their income or wealth accumulation. That is to say, they may be the richest of the poor, or the poorest of the rich, or a combination of the two, but the 'middle class' will always be found somewhere 'round about the middle...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 8:29 AM
""...entitlement mind set is envious and wants more of everyones money."
I think one need only look at the 'occupy' movement and its supporters, as well as the demand that 'the rich' pay their 'fair share of taxes' to realize that this has some level of accuracy.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 8:52 AM
"...the demand that 'the rich' pay their 'fair share of taxes'"
Clearly the "rich" do pay taxes. There is however one area where fairness comes into play.
When the "rich" are able to pay low tax rates by virtue of their income coming from dividends or capital gains.
Take two individuals that both earn $100,000 per year. The first from working and the second from "investments." One pays about $30,000 in taxes and the second about $15,000. This is the fairness issue that the Congressional tax committees need to recitfy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 9:50 AM
Yes indeed Common. The goverment needs to tax money earned, tax it when it is saved, tax it when it is spent and tax it because it's there. No one should be able to have money more than is required to pay their taxes and basic living expenses. Any money one has above what that is unfair!
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 9:58 AM
Take two individuals that both earn $100,000 per year. The first from working and the second from "investments." One pays about $30,000 in taxes and the second about $15,000. This is the fairness issue that the Congressional tax committees need to recitfy. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 9:50 AM
And the huge flaw in this argument is - where did the investors $100,000 come from? From his income - after he paid 30% in taxes on his income he invested the LEFT OVER amount and then he pays another 15% on the gain from what was left. You are fantastic with smoke and mirrors. David Copperfield should take lessons from you.
========================================
I find it very sad that you feel the need to resort to personal attacks to try and justify your viewpoint. Tis worse when someone only posts to attack.... -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM
Theo - been down this road before. You are not innocent is such things.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 10:11 AM
I find it very sad that you feel the need to resort to personal attacks to try and justify your viewpoint. Tis worse when someone only posts to attack.... -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 8:33 AM
Theo - been down this road before. You are not innocent is such things.
-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 10:11 AM
Hmmmmm!
Dug,
I am surprised at you. You had the whole weekend off and you forgot the basics.
Personal attacks are only fair if carried out by a liberal.
;-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 10:49 AM
"Take two individuals that both earn $100,000 per year. The first from working and the second from "investments." One pays about $30,000 in taxes and the second about $15,000. This is the fairness issue that the Congressional tax committees need to recitfy."
Yet, it reflects your obsession with other peoples' money, which the author atttributes to the 'entitlement mentality'. That is to say, those who are on the receiving end of entitlements want to ensure that there is sufficient monies to support their demands.
You said a while back that one party was concerned with money and the other was concerned with people. I agreed, but I don't think we agree as to which party is which. Republicans, at least, are concerned only about their own money...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 11:16 AM
"When the "rich" are able to pay low tax rates by virtue of their income coming from dividends or capital gains."
Are you saying only 'the rich' earn dividends or capital gains? To the best of my knowledge, there is no income level below which you may not claim them at the lower rate.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 11:18 AM
"Take two individuals that both earn $100,000 per year. The first from working and the second from "investments." One pays about $30,000 in taxes and the second about $15,000. This is the fairness issue that the Congressional tax committees need to recitfy."
That is to say, based on your post, that the one person who makes $100,000 per year from working is not 'rich', whereas the other, who makes the same amount per year, is 'rich', since you claim only 'the rich' have access to dividends and capital gains taxes...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 11:21 AM
Congress did address that, which is why they created special tax rates for capital gains. I take it you don't like the results of their address, but it has been addressed.
Clearly, Congress wants people who earn monies to invest them, because that investment engenders growth, and that growth produces additional tax revenue from the corporations and individuals who benefit therefrom. In exchange for their willingness to invest in growth, the government 'rewards' the investor with a lower tax return on the income from his investments.
Of course, it also reflects an acknowledgement of the risk the investor assumes when he invests. The worker is paid for the work done - if he does $100,000 worth of work he receives $100,000 in compensation with little or no risk of not being fairly compensentated. The investor, on the other hand, invests his money with a risk that he may lose some or all of it. The lower tax rate is set to encourage, or at least to not discourage, the investor from assuming such a risk.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 11:28 AM
Don't forget, tax monies are skimmed off the top of corporate profit before dividends are paid.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM
True, the Senate under Harry Reid has killed a number of good ideas that originated in the Republican-controlled House.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 3:18 PM
"It's a false Economy at best and a bragging opportunity..."
Wow!! Even when things are getting better, they are getting worse by your calculating. It must be woefully sad to be such a pessimist.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 3:29 PM
"...to personal attacks now..."
Somehow I do not see identifying someone who makes pessimistic statements as a pessimist is a personal attack.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 4:27 PM
"An Elder does not scoff or belittle people who's questions..."
Sorry if you feel scoffed at or belittled, there was certainly no intent along that line. It is simply my opinion as an optimist that the country is not "going to hell." Furthermore, one can be realistic and optimistic at the same time.
How you feel about the current President is completely your business, as is why you dislike him and distrust him. Since I can safely presume that you have never met President Obama, I can only surmise that your feelings are based on what others have said about him and how you interpreted what the President actually said. There are many instances where I have read an entire transcript while others formed opinions through extracts of speeches etc. and may have been overly quick to jump to conclusions.
How you feel about the current President is completely your business, as is why you dislike him and distrust him. Since can safely presume that you have never met President Obama, I can only surmise
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM
"...he's more concerned with his place in history..."
I would contend that his place in history is already secure. In my opinion he is more concerned with what's right for Americans.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 7:53 PM
Menu
http://www.getpurpose.org/publications/perspective/NewCultureOfSlavery.html
Any thoughts?
Replies (79)