Credit Peggy for this fantastic opinion piece written in December 2013. I’ll give you the tease; please read the entire article:
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, to obey the law and support themselves and contribute to society, and others don’t.
That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth.
And it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display last week as the president said he would pledge the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He notes that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
It was the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.
Vote Democrat.
It is the electoral philosophy that gave us Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
And it conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense. It ends up not being a benefit to the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them – in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope. continues.
Thank You Mr. Lonsberry, this cannot be said often enough!
“The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts.”
Divisive, ugly, and callous.
You cannot get upset when liberals correctly point out that you are callous and disdainful of the poor, when you are practically shouting from the rooftops how much you hold them in contempt. You cannot call the poor lazy, unmotivated, and entitled and then cry to your mama because the Democrats rightly said you were being mean to the poor.
You’ve learned nothing from the fallout over the 47% comments, and that’s why you’ll lose again.
You’ll also lose because you don’t understand what income inequality even is, let alone why it’s the defining issue of my generation:
“The politics of envy was on proud display last week as the president said he would pledge the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He notes that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.”
If you actually think that income inequality means “some people make more than other people,” you are stupid. If you don’t actually think that’s what income inequality means, but are saying it anyway to convince people stupider than yourself, you are a liar. Either way, making these types of strawman arguments is immoral, wrong, and a complete embarrassment to your movement.
Oh Chris you are just too predictable and pathetic.
We CAN do all of the things above you say we can’t because we have the right to say them. It’s called freedom of speech which is based in freedom of thought not directed or forced upon by others.
We are not going to do what you and your fellow progressives want, so you just best get used to it.
I agree, Chris, that we may lose but the conclusions you draw are a result of your constant war against conservative ideas and values and the ugly pandering your party engages in in order to establish power and control. The pretense is that democrats care about the little guy.
I did not use the words lazy, unmotivated or entitled nor did Mr. Lonsberry. When we do use these words they are not directed AT the people but against the policies that trap them in these conditions. We can do that because we have empathy for them…we can see ourselves in that position finding it easier to take the money and the help instead of working to achieve a better life.
It is you who makes them other!
YOU inserted those words and then deemed what the gentleman was saying as “callous and ugly” from your own prejudiced mind.
The facts are:
Liberals throw the little guy crumbs to keep him happy and meanwhile refuse to fix their schools (Union votes are more important)
They refuse to address violence and gangs in the inner cities even though they are in power in most of them (new immigrant votes are more important)
They refuse to do whats necessary to support a good economy and jobs (they took a stand against Reagan and can’t afford to admit he was right even after almost six years that show they are wrong)
They demonize the right and its message (because if poor people ever found out how easy it could be to uplift the entire community of the poor Democrats would never win another election)
The party you support is a horrible bunch of deceivers manipulators and control freak managers…you fit right in.
None of you has a clue about the power of freedom, the power of the individual spirit and you don’t mind blunting both with your restrictive, controlling programs and all of their debilitating rules for qualification.
The welfare state is a sad legacy that has denied thousands and thousands of otherwise capable people the dignity and satisfaction of a self-determined and successful life.
Anyone who is genuinely interested in the conservative message would do well to tune out (temporarily) all left voices and tune in to voices on the right with the strong intention to get the message and what it can mean to millions of Americans in all walks of life…all races and classes of people.
I’m sorry you have chosen to box yourself in the way you have, Chris. It’s a shame you have become such a closed minded person who sees his role as someone who monitors speech to pervert and destroy. What you believe to be the truth about the right is ugly and callous and completely wrong.
Oh yeah…and income inequality is the latest leftist buzz word to create class envy and division. if you cannot see that you don’t want to…you choose to play the destructive liberal game. SAD…what a waste of potential.
Thankful I just saw this and wasn’t drinking my morning coffee.
Here’s Debbie…Listen to what she says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q9RzeOHGfY
This fellow has F*** You All Chris nailed.
Oh WOW, after Debbie we have Annie from Calif.
If You Lost Your Insurance Due to ObamaCare Regulations, You Won’t Like This Democrat’s Advice:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/163354-democrat-voted-obamacare-sick-whining-lost-insurance-obamacare/
Peggy, the Congresswoman you gave us the link to is based in Palo Alto and her district goes down to Santa Cruz and up the coast. This is the heart of marijuana country and liberalism. Still its hard to believe she represents our country. She’s a terrible person that is clearly lacking in compassion, wisdom and common sense. Everybody here should use your link to her video…I was stunned.
Jack, She and Pelosi should be the poster ad campaign for dividing Calif. in to six states.
With Reid, Pelosi, Debbie, Annie and a whole bunch more it’s no wonder this country is in the mess it is.
Looking forward to tomorrow to see what the House comes up with since Cruz whipped the members and Boehner had to pull the immigration bill.
Peggy that congresswoman has some nerve talking about Republicans trying to change Obamacare; the President has exceeded his authority to change it multiple times!
And Debbie is just a ditz. The House announced yesterday that there are over 200 bills that they have passed with bipartisan support that are being blocked from ever being brought up in the Senate for discussion and a vote. Republicans and Democrats are working in the House and Senate. Harry Reid is blocking in the Senate…He and President Obama are playing games with the country and preventing legislation from reaching Obama’s desk.
Obama’s whine, that the Republicans won’t do anything to “help him” is a big fat lie.
Bottom line, Obama wants to act, with his pen and his phone, like an emperor.
Your views are a minority in this country, let alone a disgrace to the rest of us and the founding fathers.
Avoiding that Tea Party is a Koch overthrow of democracy by crying out it’s propaganda…is over..
At least there is 1 not rich long time senator who just says it for all to see….
To try and dispute the facts printed here? Well take it up with the Congress…see if they will file ethics charges…start another tax payer funded scam to fund raise..but the truth is in the actual history of the United States..
You are free to hold your views but this attack on the United States of America and Democracy will not be taken lightly anymore…
We will get voters to the polls….no repeat of 2010. The great harm this party has done to the country and the wasteful spending on false investigations and theatrical stunts must end….
Forcing the Majority to follow an ideology held by an extreme minority is bordering on dictatorship.
The policies and hate are so bad and unchristian like the Catholic Church has to speak out
You are calling me names, telling me the agenda I repeat is false…well clutch your social security and vets checks tightly while you vote against them!
Besides the fact every thing is in print by your party take a look at David Koch’s 1980 VP candidate agenda..the conservative libertarian agenda you support
Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:
“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America’s railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called “self-protection” equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
America is better than this! America includes all religions, people, race, and we will repeal the fascist country we have become
I am ashamed of America
In 1980 the republican Party had some sense in them to see this was the destruction of Democracy to corporate power… well They got Citizens United and we are officially ruled by foreign corporations who are denouncing their USA citizenship as fast as they can
we are being colonized…. time to join the real world folks.. everything I have said is a fact!
Harry Reid is another goon squad leader who is the real cause for stopping Congress from acting on bills passed with bipartisan support in the House. He “fills the tree” with ridicules stuff like naming post office and lets the important bills that would create jobs sit on his desk.
Those of us who follow what is happening in DC know this, but with the help of the liberal media as another “goon squad” it’s not reaching the every day public. The public is hearing only lies about the Republicans.
This immigration bill in the House is another example of Reid and Obama saying if they don’t get what they want he’ll veto it. With 68% of the voting public not in favor of amnesty the House is trying to do the will of the people while trying to stop Obama from granting amnesty to 5 million more illegals.
Obama has already proved he’s a serial liar who can’t be trusted to carry out any law passed by Congress. So the House not willingly to just rubber stamp what he does want and taking a stand against, knowing they’ll be attacked in the media, to do the will of the people is to be commended in my book. Doing what’s right isn’t always easy and for some it may cost them some votes.
We all know without the media’s support the Republicans will always be in the wrong and the cause of everything that goes bad. Obama, being the “Teflon” president will continue to be blameless with the help of the media.
I wonder if Obama will let Brennan go after he just admitted to spying on the Senate and lying to Congress about it? If not, will their be a bipartisan support to impeach him? Diane Feinstein did not appear to be very happy about this latest scandal.
Dewey everything you said is distorted and your conclusions upside down.
The United States of America was founded on freedom.
Bernie is an avowed Socialist.
The Koch’s opinions align with the ideals of the founders.
Bernie is fond of Scandinavian socialism.
The founders had quite a lot to say about economics. Check it out:
Our republic has been taken and too much of our industry squandered through socialism. We the people want our republic back. It’s not scarey or dangerous…it would set us free.
Peggy: “We CAN do all of the things above you say we can’t because we have the right to say them. It’s called freedom of speech which is based in freedom of thought not directed or forced upon by others.”
Well, on the most literal level, Peggy, of course you CAN act like an oblivious hypocrite all you want. You have that right. Correct! You win!
Obviously my point was that you cannot act like an oblivious hypocrite without being called on it.
The current right wing movement doesn’t just want the right to say terrible things. You’ve always had that right. You want the right to say terrible things without anyone holding you accountable for it. You mistake freedom of speech for freedom from criticism. See also: Duck Dynasty, impeachment, Palin’s entire career, every homophobic statement ever justified by “religious expression.”
Tina: “I did not use the words lazy, unmotivated or entitled nor did Mr. Lonsberry.”
Here is what Mr. Lonsberry did say:
“The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, to obey the law and support themselves and contribute to society, and others don’t.
That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.”
You are correct that Lonsberry did not use the words “lazy, entitled, and unmotivated.” But those words clearly match his description of the half of America he claims do not work, do not contribute to society, and do not do their civic responsibility.
Your claim that this is an attack on policies rather than people is ludicrous. Lonsberry made it clear that he is criticizing half of all Americans. Those are people, not policies.
Why is it only class warfare when the richest 1% is attacked? Why is it not also class warfare when HALF THE COUNTRY is attacked as being a bunch of lazy slobs who don’t work?
Your attempt to discredit income inequality as something that shouldn’t even be discussed reveals how much you are beholden to conservative political correctness, and disqualifies you from ever being able to express a worthwhile opinion on the economy. Income inequality is THE defining issue of our time. If you don’t understand it, you don’t understand anything.
Bill Whittle’s latest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJV00yDwMH8
Chris: “You are correct that Lonsberry did not use the words ‘lazy, entitled, and unmotivated.’”
Yes! Thank you.
“But those words clearly match his description…”
Do they? I admit they could but I don’t agree that was Mr. Lonsberry intent or is the intent of anyone else on the right who attempts to discuss this issue.
YOU decided that is what he meant. YOU cannot accept it as criticism of a system, socialism, that helps to create and foster that condition and the divide.
YOU prefer to think as a victim.
It is (unfortunately) true that a large portion of people who live on assistance never try to better themselves, remain stuck in poverty their entire lives, and do not take adult responsibility for themselves. It is true that often they pass this life on to their children. These are facts. I don’t like them but I won’t pretend they aren’t true.
“Those are people, not policies.”
Those are people that have been conditioned (And harmed) by the welfare system.
“Why is it only class warfare when the richest 1% is attacked?
Who is talking about the 1%?
And who is “attacking?
Mr. Lonsberry is dispassionately discussing what he perceives to be the divide in America. It bothers him. He would like to see it change. He would like to see Americans treated the same by our government instead of our government taking from some to give to another.
YOU are the one thinking in negative personal terms and those terms seem to flow from deep resentment or anger.
I would say this condition is what naturally follows after our nations failure to heed Benjamin Franklin’s warning and advice: ““When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
A 2012 report from CATO summarizes the insanity of the condition quite well:
Your unwillingness to even consider there might be a better way to deal with poverty quite frankly puzzles me. Why, when socialism has resulted in worsening conditions, would you not want to try something different, something that offers opportunity and gives people more dignity?
Socialism depends on covetousness and greed. It is administered politically by ambitious opportunists that use people’s misfortune and suffering to gain personal power. Its incredible that these so-called caring individuals also control the schools that help keep poor people stuck in poverty…a shameful reality.
“Your attempt to discredit income inequality as something that shouldn’t even be discussed reveals how much you are beholden to conservative political correctness”
You do not understand income. If you did you would see the ludicrousness of the newly fashionable term “income inequality.”
Socialists refuse to honor property rights. They believe that whatever is produced belongs to the collective and should be distributed equally regardless of effort, risk, or invention.
In America the right to keep what you earn was once sacred…a founding principle born of the oppression experienced living under a King. The only thing the people who built this baton wanted was the freedom to pursue their dreams and create their own wealth. They were also, for the most part, religious and so believed in charity to help those in need…but the expectation of both giver and receiver was that the one helped would return to being productive.
“… disqualifies you from ever being able to express a worthwhile opinion on the economy.”
Who decided you were king? Do you not get the arrogance of your words? I hate to say it but when you do this the word that comes up is pipsqueak…who do you think you are?
“Income inequality is THE defining issue of our time”
Income inequality is THE issue that Socialist radicals have chosen as “the defining issue of our time” because its all they’ve got. They have had over seventy years to prove this stuff works and in the last six have pushed it in living color on the big screen. It is a total failure! It is in particular a failure for minorities and women and as such, is visited upon their children and their childrens’ children.
“If you don’t understand it, you don’t understand anything.”
I understand it and see it for what it is. I reject it as a gimmick. It will be used as an appeal to the covetousness nature in some of our citizens, the guilt in others, and the sympathies in still others. But do not be fooled into thinking the goal is to better the lives of those who live in poverty.
Anyone who would actually like to see poverty levels decrease dramatically and children in poverty realize brighter futures would appreciate the CATO analysis at the link above. Apparently the Census Bureau has a new way of evaluating poverty that takes into consideration things like the value of non-cash welfare benefits…taxes or employment costs…or the different costs of living in different parts of the country and they think the poverty rate could be higher than the traditional measure by 16%.
It’s time we focused on ways to encourage and educate so people move out of poverty and choose to be responsible contributing…EQUAL citizens.
Chris, what is sad is your failure to see the difference in freedom of speech and your progressive view that what you say is always correct and any thing conservatives say is always wrong. If conservative dare to disagree we are attacked and called, bigots, racist, homophobic, etc.
We believe morality and how to treat others comes from individual beliefs, not dictated from the government. When the Bible was removed from the schools metal detectors had to replace them. My generation understood what greed, coveting, honor and the value of life meant. Your generation was taught to covet your neighbors possessions and that humans are just apes with pants. Taking a candy bar without paying for it was very rare when I was a kid. Now mobs of kids swarm into stores looting and filling their pockets. What happened at Columbine and other schools since, Chicago and other cities every day is proof this country is headed in the WRONG direction.
What is really sad is to read your vile attacks every time you write something and seeing just how brainwashed you are. YOUR progressive point of view is always right. You are driven to prove them wrong and will verbally abuse them until they surrender to YOUR will. And if they don’t you keep attacking. The mere thought that anyone would have a differing point of view is absolutely unacceptable for you.
Did you see Nancy Pelosi charge across the House floor the other day, because she didn’t like what a republican rep. said? That’s what you do here on PS.
Believe what you want Chris, cuz I really don’t care what happens to you. You have chosen your path with your own free will. Your future is up to you as they say, “You made your bed now lay in it.”
My concern now is for my grandkids who had no choice in the world you progressives have made for them. I want them to have a better life based on individual freedom and the individual consequences that goes with it instead of the socialist collective no individual freedom or punishment, coveted entitlement and lack of human life value of your generation.
Have a good day…have a good life.
Tina: “Do they? I admit they could but I don’t agree that was Mr. Lonsberry intent or is the intent of anyone else on the right who attempts to discuss this issue.
YOU decided that is what he meant. YOU cannot accept it as criticism of a system, socialism, that helps to create and foster that condition and the divide.”
Tina, aren’t you the one always saying that words means things?
Dividing the country into “the America that works, and the America that doesn’t” is exactly the same as calling the latter group lazy. I didn’t “decide” that. The English language did.
“It is (unfortunately) true that a large portion of people who live on assistance never try to better themselves, remain stuck in poverty their entire lives, and do not take adult responsibility for themselves. It is true that often they pass this life on to their children. These are facts. I don’t like them but I won’t pretend they aren’t true.”
I don’t pretend it’s not true either. Of course SOME Americans on assistance are lazy and don’t work. (Some rich Americans are lazy and don’t work, too.)
There is a difference between recognizing this reality, and acting as if this group somehow represents half the country, as Romney did.
There is a difference between criticizing Americans who remain in the system due to their own lack of effort, and acting as if all or most welfare recipients are there because of some moral failing.
There is a difference between believing we need some reforms to prevent welfare fraud and abuse of the system, and acting as if welfare abuse is the number one problem with our country today.
There is a difference between acknowledging that some Americans will choose not to work, and blaming Americans who don’t work for all of our country’s ills.
We are just barely coming out of an unemployment crisis. The notion that our country’s problem is that people simply don’t want to work is prima facie ridiculous. For the most part, Americans do want to work. The problem is a lack of well-paying jobs.
I know conservatives like to leave out this fact, but a very large percentage of welfare recipients DO work. It’s. Not. Enough.
“Those are people that have been conditioned (And harmed) by the welfare system.”
I was not harmed by the welfare system. The welfare system allowed my mother to be home at 5 to cook dinner and spend time with her kids rather than having to take a second job. It allowed us access to healthcare in hard times. It put me through college, which is why I’m no longer working at Wal-Mart and will instead be starting my first permanent teaching job this month, at a school where the starting salary is higher than either of my parents have ever been paid.
What would have harmed me would have been if this system were done away with, or drastically cut.
It’s time you stop telling people on gov’t assistance what’s best for them, and start listening. You may not see it this way, but your insistence that you know what’s best for these people is, in its own way, quite dictatorial.
“Who is talking about the 1%?
And who is “attacking?””
I thought my question was clear, Tina. The chain e-mail posted in this article is criticizing the poor for not working hard enough. Whenever such criticisms are lobbied against the rich, you cry “class warfare.” But you never use this same term to apply to critiques of the lower class. Why is that?
You can’t even admit that Lonsberry is insulting actual human beings, Tina. You’ve said before that you see poor people merely in terms of “symbols” and what they represent. You criticize me for taking this issue personally, because you believe it’s unfair to bring personal concerns into the debate over poverty. What a nice luxury that must be for you! I don’t have that privilege, and neither do millions of Americans. This is not some abstract debate for us. This is our lives.
“I would say this condition is what naturally follows after our nations failure to heed Benjamin Franklin’s warning and advice: ““When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.””
And yet you say nothing about the corporations who have been able to lobby for billions of dollars in money transfers to themselves! (Unless, of course, those corporations are “green” or otherwise perceived to be liberal and thus outside the tribe.)
Cato says:
“Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.”
This is simply false. Throwing money at the problem HAS reduced poverty. Even CATO stealthily admits this, by saying “the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.” Well, if it hasn’t gone above where we began more than 40 years ago, then obviously, the poverty rate has been reduced at least somewhat.
CATO also doesn’t compare our welfare spending as a percentage of GDP to that of other countries, so they fail to answer Reagan’s big question: “Compared to what?”
Tina: “Your unwillingness to even consider there might be a better way to deal with poverty quite frankly puzzles me. Why, when socialism has resulted in worsening conditions,”
Socialism has NOT resulted in worsening conditions. Again, poverty was higher before the Great Society programs, so this claim makes no sense. You know this already.
It’s also a fact that most of the socialist countries in Europe are doing better than we are right now by nearly every metric–healthcare spending and quality, income inequality, social mobility…the American Dream has migrated over there. It’s also a fact that nations which responded to the global recession by implementing austerity (cutting social welfare programs) did much worse than nations which embraced stimulus.
“would you not want to try something different, something that offers opportunity and gives people more dignity?”
Raising the minimum wage and increasing the power of labor offers workers more opportunity and dignity, but you don’t favor either of those either.
Again, your insistence on discrediting the idea of income inequality puts you beyond the pale of intelligent discussion. The fact is that income inequality in America is higher today than at any time since the 1920s. We all know what happened there. If you want to stay in the dark, then go ahead. But you’re not going to win.
I see your Franklin quote and raise you a couple Lincoln quotes:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/Lincoln.html
“Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of the community exists within that relation.”
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/lincoln3.htm
Peggy: “Chris, what is sad is your failure to see the difference in freedom of speech and your progressive view that what you say is always correct and any thing conservatives say is always wrong.”
That is simply not true. I have favorably quoted numerous conservatives on this blog, especially recently. I clearly do not believe conservatives are always wrong. I have also apologized and admitted error before when I am proven to be wrong–which is more than I can say for the conservative commenters here (you do this some times, but more often you refuse to admit when the facts don’t square with your rhetoric.)
“If conservative dare to disagree we are attacked and called, bigots, racist, homophobic, etc.”
No. You are not called bigots, racist, homophobic for “disagreeing” with me. You are called this for saying racist, homophobic, and bigoted things. That is fair. I am always very careful to explain WHY I believe a certain statement is bigoted, often to the point where I have to explain the obvious (like last week when I had to explain why baselessly associating a moderate mosque with terrorism and brutality was wrong.) I do not throw around those words lightly.
The problem is that you are not very good at countering the facts I bring to the table. You misinterpret this as “abuse” or intolerance because that makes you feel better.
“What happened at Columbine and other schools since, Chicago and other cities every day is proof this country is headed in the WRONG direction.”
There is sworn testimony from the young woman who supplied guns to the Columbine kids in which she says she would not have bought the guns from a gun show had she been required to undergo a background check and put her name to paper. Which party was it that torpedoed universal background checks last year? It wasn’t mine.
The rest of your comment is mindless nostalgia.
Great Idea!
Before You Take The ‘SNAP Challenge,’ You Should Really Read This To Prevent Embarrassment:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/164052-take-snap-challenge-really-read-prevent-embarrassment/
Chris: “Dividing the country into “the America that works, and the America that doesn’t” is exactly the same as calling the latter group lazy.”
No! Absolutely NOT! Today we have hundreds of thousands of people who are not working because the policies Obama and his cohorts used to fix the economy have failed. That doesn’t make them lazy! There are thousands of kids every year who drop out of school or graduate without being able to read because they were educated in lousy schools with lowered standards and incompetent teachers…they are not lazy they have been let down!
We have twice posted the opinions of a well respected Democrat, about the damage The Great Society would wreak on the poor. His predictions have born out and had nothing to do with thinking poor people are lazy.
Chris you should be ashamed of your own prejudice. Is laziness the only thing you can think of to describe the conditions that keep people in poverty?
The second element that is central to this idea of a divided America, whether you call it a divide of workers and non-workers or haves and have nots, and that is exploitation. Democrats exploit the poor by pandering to them for power. They create “the villain” and then gin up anger and resentment so they will come out and vote. they falsely tell them that rich people, the privileged, corporations, have taken the piece of the pie that rightly belongs to them out of greed. this is a flat out lie! This is not how our economy or our free nation works. There is no pie to be divided and nobody is taking anything from others that they do not give freely in exchange for something they want. Bill Gates got rich because people wanted his products, not because he took too big a slice of pie!
You don’t know the language, Chris. You know only what you have been conditioned to think.
“Of course SOME Americans on assistance are lazy and don’t work. (Some rich Americans are lazy and don’t work, too.)
I shouldn’t even dignify this comment it is so incredibly inane. Americans that are rich can afford a leisurely life. Whether they worked to attain that position, inherited it, married into it, or got lucky winning the lottery, it is among their many choices to live in leisure. On the other hand, someone who cannot rub to dimes together needs to do something about that so as not to become a burden to society. Kids in school should work hard and graduate…adults should make sure they do. Adults should work hard themselves and get whatever training they need so they can move up, otherwise, they are irresponsible and failing their civic duty. It is astounding that this seems to be a foreign concept to you.
“There is a difference between recognizing this reality, and acting as if this group somehow represents half the country, as Romney did.”
Romney said he could not worry about the 47% of voters who would vote for Obama “no matter what”. In the 2012 election</a 57.5% of registered voters voted. Children don't vote and not all Americans who are eligible register. Romney was not talking about "half" of the country.
It should be noted that under Obama's policies poverty has increased substantially and we now have 46.2% of the total population living below the poverty line.
All of your "there is a difference" statements amount to the very things Democrats say to stop the conversation about how to remedy poverty. They have nothing to do with what conservatives think or intend. The brainwashing process has worked perfectly with you and you see and hear what you want to see and hear. You need an enemy, someone to blame, someone to hate…its the progressive way. Divide and conquer. This year the buzz word is income inequality. Before that it was it was Wall Street and the 1%.
"We are just barely coming out of an unemployment crisis."
And there is absolutely zero excuse for the length of time it has taken to reach this still dismal level of unemployment AND underemployment! Don;t preach to me as if conservative policy is to blame!
"The notion that our country’s problem is that people simply don’t want to work is prima facie ridiculous"
Of course it is but only YOU have suggested such a ridiculous notion!
" The problem is a lack of well-paying jobs. … I know conservatives like to leave out this fact…"
Conservatives DO NOT leave out this fact! Conservatives have been screaming it from the rooftops! Our nations economy could be roaring by now! Opportunities for advancement should be abundant! It is government policy that has held it back and squandered six years.
"I was not harmed by the welfare system."
This discussion is not about you. It is not about what you experienced. No one disputes the fact that welfare benefits people. It is also true that many people have been harmed because of the way we structured (and grow) the system. Your experience does not represent every experience. It also does not represent the only option possible.
"What would have harmed me would have been if this system were done away with, or drastically cut."
I understand your feelings. I'd appreciate it if you could set aside your feelings for a moment to consider there might be ways to reform the system so that fewer people need assistance and for less time. I don't understand, given your experience, why you wouldn't welcome improvement. The only thing I can think of that makes sense is that you are absolutely conditioned to think we on the right hate the poor, which is just not true.
It is true that we are getting tired of being accused of greed and hate. We are tired of being asked to give more when the dollars we send to Washington and our states has been used so poorly and produced such negligible results. We are also not very happy with a system that pits one group against another and demonizes the most productive in the process. They are the job producers…they are the wealth producers. It is upon them that the entire economy relies. We should be proud and grateful.
Your success is wonderful. I credit your effort and your mothers support more than the welfare she received. If her welfare was in the form of the earned income credit all the more…that is a reform that at least encourages work and self-reliance. Giving people money is no guarantee that it will be used well and obviously she used it well.
"It’s time you stop telling people on gov’t assistance what’s best for them, and start listening."
There is no discussion directed at people on government assistance that hasn't been generated by Democrats. Conservatives don't tell people how to live. We do care about the policies that our government has in place and the overall effectiveness of those policies. That is very much our business as taxpayers.
“…your insistence that you know what’s best for these people is, in its own way, quite dictatorial.”
Give me a break. The progressive movement has dictated social policy for well over seventy years and brought us to this end. Not only are the numbers living in poverty much to high but the overall social and civic condition in our cities has deteriorated to an alarming degree. Trillions have been spent, not just in welfare but in failing schools, and the result overall is dismal. Anyone who is not willing to look at reforms is just not serious about alleviating poverty and seeing our citizens better served by the education, training, and assistance they receive.
“this article is criticizing the poor for not working hard enough. Whenever such criticisms are lobbied against the rich, you cry “class warfare.” But you never use this same term to apply to critiques of the lower class. Why is that?”
If that’s what you need I’ll shout it out now…“It’s class warfare to criticize the poor”
There’s a problem of course. Class warfare is waged by Democrats. Conservatives talk about freedom and opportunity. when we do criticize welfare it is the system we deplore…a system that traps people in poverty…a system that creates lousy conditions in the inner cities…a sytem that has contributed greatly to large numbers of men in prison…a system that supports the continuance of lousy schools. We also talk about a pop culture that fosters all of the wrong things, further enticing the poor to lifestyles that will not help them move toward self reliance and success.
” This is not some abstract debate for us. This is our lives.”
And you care so little for others in that circumstance and condition that you would stay in the same broken system by jumping on the bandwagon to silence the voices of others who see problems that need to be solved. Why such a closed mind, Chris? Why would you not listen to people who have been successful and know what it takes to achieve…many of them from nothing. Why would you not listen to people who see a problem and would like to do something about it? Why is the welfare state the only possible way to go?
“And yet you say nothing about the corporations who have been able to lobby for billions of dollars…”
I was not leaving that out. You decided to attack the article in terms of the poor, I have responded. In my overall defense I have said repeatedly that I favor smaller government and that smaller government would eliminate corporatism and lobbying!
“Well, if it hasn’t gone above where we began more than 40 years ago, then obviously, the poverty rate has been reduced…”
We’re talking about rates of poverty Chris…it has not changed enough to be even mildly celebratory, especially given the money we have invested over a long period of time.
“CATO also doesn’t compare our welfare spending as a percentage of GDP to that of other countries, so they fail to answer Reagan’s big question: ‘Compaired to what.'”
Now you are reaching. Why would we want to compare our system to other countries whose defense the USA has ensured for decades and that depended on American economic success for their own. One of the complaints of Europe now is that America can’t get it together!
“Socialism has NOT resulted in worsening conditions.”
Chris that’s nonsense. Of course it has. It has denied many people the dignity of self reliance and self respect that might otherwise have achieved personal success. It’s criminal that lousy schools, welfare and pop culture have contributed so much to conditions that adversely effect the poor. A rich guy whose near-do-well son is living on drugs and pop culture pleasures can afford to cover for his son’s misspent life. A poor man doesn’t have that luxury, if you can call it that. Both parents are devastated on a personal level but the poor parent will be harmed more when his child fails to achieve as will his entire community.
“It’s also a fact that most of the socialist countries in Europe are doing better than we are right now by nearly every metric–healthcare spending and quality”
Only if you measure “doing better” by the numbers of people who depend on others. If this is the greatest measure of success you can imagine then we are all indeed doomed.Social systems depend on other peoples money. That golden goose is sickened and eventually dies. It is a slow death bit as the last six years have shown in spectacularly fashion, socialism is a path toward death of the economy. It leads to the very wealthy taking steps to keep what they have and invest (risk) a lot less. It is a really really stupid system, especially when there are better ways to achieve both a vibrant economy and issues of poverty.
Assuming socialism is the only answer is a very narrow minded approach.
“nations which responded to the global recession by implementing austerity (cutting social welfare programs) did much worse than nations which embraced stimulus.”
So now we measure success by how much worse one plan is than another? Ridiculous!
Forbes:
“Raising the minimum wage and increasing the power of labor offers workers more opportunity and dignity, but you don’t favor either of those either.”
No Chris. Doing better because the government stepped in and coerced a higher wage from an employer and helped make unions more powerful does not deliver dignity. Personal achievement delivers confidence and dignity. We need to provide opportunity and incentive to achieve…and that includes political and social rhetoric that teaches and celebrates personal achievement and meritorious success and compensation.
Right now we are teaching and preaching covetousness and entitlement…that doesn’t lead to dignity and self respect.
“Again, your insistence on discrediting the idea of income inequality puts you beyond the pale of intelligent discussion.”
What is it with you, Chris? What is this NEED to insult my intelligence? Is it insecurity?
“The fact is that income inequality in America is higher today than at any time since the 1920s. We all know what happened there”
YES WE DO! We are experiencing a repeat performance. And you ain’t seen nothing yet. As Janet Yellen eases up on QE and interest rates begin to rise like crazy the poor and middle classes will be in another big pickle…the economy, according to many in the know, could very well crash…again!
Federal Reserve President “Worried” About Potential Crash
Adverse Effect of Quantitative Easing
Will Expected End of QE Lead to Bond Meltdown?
4 Headwinds That Could Cause a Stockmarket Crash
Just how well do you think the poor and middle class will do in future if this happens? We are six years into a recession followed by non-recovery in which the government printed money to stimulate the economy. Stocks are doing well based in part on phony investment rather than value, jobs are scarce and too may people are working only part time who want full time, too many more can’t find a job, poverty levels have climbed and the middle class is disappearing.
If a Republican were leading this parade you and your buddies would be incensed and marching with pitch forks on Washington. It is insulting to both of us that you attempt to claim the high road in this discussion.
I agree with your Lincoln quotes. Does this surprise you?
Nothing in what Lincoln has said suggests a welfare solution or government determining wages. In fact, you left out the following Lincoln quote about labor over capital:
His words were meant to preserve American freedom and the industry of the individual to grow his own wealth and acquire his own nest egg, whether great or simply sufficient to his needs and wants.
Use it Chris, as an example of the context in which Republicans think. We think of all Americans as equal. We think they should all be free to pursue their interests unencumbered. We believe in property rights as one of the foundations of liberty and so believe all Americans should be able to keep most of what they earn. We believe that when Americans are free and unencumbered they create opportunity for others, opportunities to work, opportunities to save and invest, opportunities to help others.
We don’t believe that the fruits of individual labors are the property of the collective to be divided and dispersed by elitists in Washington who think they know what is fair. And we believe the poor will do a
heck of a lot better looking out for their own interests taking advantage of opportunities made possible by freedom and their fellow Americans’ efforts.
So true!
An Extremely Simple Guide to the Democratic Party: 10 Reasons It Doesn’t Protect America’s Freedom:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/163645-10-absolutely-clear-reasons-democrat-party-leaders-dont-care-precious-freedom/
Tina, you keep saying that I am against reforms to the system. But I haven’t said anything about any specific welfare reforms, since you haven’t brought up any; I was responding to the rhetoric in this piece, which I found insulting.
I understand that my experience doesn’t represent everyone’s, and I have conceded many times that there are people who abuse the system, or who get trapped in it, and I would be willing to consider specific reforms to address that problem. My problem is that it is hard to get to that discussion when you talk about poor people the way that this particular article does, or when you act like the widening gap between the rich and the poor is not even a problem.
The fact is that it is hard for many people on welfare to trust that reforms will be handled well by a party that so frequently talks about us as if we are “parasites” and “takers” who do not work and do not take responsibility for our own lives. You say you have no contempt for the poor, but the language used by the Republican party makes that very difficult to take seriously.
That said, if you suggest specific reforms to the welfare system, I’d be willing to consider them.
Chris since we both agree that “there are people who abuse the system, or who get trapped in it,” there is no reason that we cannot also agree that the divide is between those who work and those who don’t or those who believe working to support oneself is a civic duty or the responsible thing to do and those who don’t (Whether because gaming the system has become their work or because they find it easier to live on the state)
“… it is hard to get to that discussion when you talk about poor people the way that this particular article does:
I don’t see it as any more offensive than the more elitist income inequality, that assumes our property is collective and there for the taking.
It is also difficult to discus anything when anything that is said is immediately reformed to make the speaker appear to be saying something else.
It is also difficult to discuss when you are being labeled racist or greedy.
” it is hard for many people on welfare to trust that reforms will be handled well by a party that so frequently talks about us as if we are “parasites” and “takers” who do not work and do not take responsibility for our own lives.
1. I don’t agree that the Republicans talk about the poor in the way you describe and particularly not frequently. If it has happened it is a lot less frequently than Democrats talk about the greedy rich, the wealthy corporations, those that want to deny the little guy a “fair shake”. Class envy is the mantra used by both the Democrat Party and the union bosses to get their numbers up. I could respect them if they handed out their own money but they do this promising to take money from others and every election season represents another need for more money or another program…it never ends and there is never enough.
2. Republican and bipartisan reforms have been implemented and do work. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), started under Gerald Ford, has motivated single parents to leave welfare and go to work. It also lifted the next generation:
3. Economic policies that have been implemented under both Republican and Democrat presidents have increased productivity and opportunity.
There is no valid reason not to trust that Republicans would intentionally set out to harm the poor. In fact there is evidence that our policies and reforms have helped them.
It does require that citizens look beyond the rhetoric of politicians to discover the truth. People that have been conditioned to hate will have difficulty learning to trust. If the experience of the last five or six years and the information we have posted about how economies grow hasn’t given you at least a small inkling and desire to take that risk then I certainly don’t know what will. Republicans believe in people. We believe they have within themselves a great capacity to care for themselves. some of us get that sense from our belief in god as our creator.
Mitt Romney was a decent, well qualified man who had we elected him, would have the economy of our nation humming by now. The world would be a much safer place. America would still have the respect of our allies and our enemies and the poor would have significantly more opportunities to advance than they have now. He didn’t deserve anyone’s scorn then and he doesn’t now.
I won’t discuss language with you anymore now. The language used by Democrats is counterproductive and designed to create class envy and class warfare. As long as they do that there is little chance that language can be understood or improved upon in elections and politics in general. The Democrat Party does not compete for office, it plays games. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that term, used in psychology, but it fits.
As to reforms I would welcome any reforms that would ensure a better education for our children, the poor in particular. Unions will block them, including those you may already have joined.
Reforms to welfare that encourage marriage or work I would also favor. I’m sure when actual bills or policy ideas come up again we will have plenty of time to talk about them. Tonight I would rather not take the bait…nice try though.
Tina: “As to reforms I would welcome any reforms that would ensure a better education for our children, the poor in particular.”
Remember it was the republicans in control of Congress who developed the Welfare work force initiative that required all able-bodied individuals to enroll in school and/or work a part-time job while receiving their assistance. And it was Obama who amended that unamendable law allowing states to do away with or revise the requirement.
I do not know of any republican who has said all Welfare recipients are lazy bums who don’t want to work. What we have said is, in a civilized society we are required to help those who can NOT help themselves and those who need help on a temporary bases. Those on SSI are to be cared for as long as they need.
The Welfare regulations needs to be changed back to reflect the requirements singed in to law by Clinton. But, for it to work we need an economy that has jobs for them to obtain.
Tina: “Chris since we both agree that “there are people who abuse the system, or who get trapped in it,” there is no reason that we cannot also agree that the divide is between those who work and those who don’t or those who believe working to support oneself is a civic duty or the responsible thing to do and those who don’t (Whether because gaming the system has become their work or because they find it easier to live on the state)”
Certainly this is a divide. I still have two problems with this, though.
The first is that this divide is often made out to seem much larger than it actually is. It’s true that 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax, but oftentimes in discussions with conservatives I’ve seen everyone in that 47% lumped in with the “takers,” with many arguing that half of all Americans are simply not working because they’d rather live on the dole. This ignores that a large chunk of that 47% does work, but they still rely on gov’t assistance because they don’t get paid enough.
My second problem is that so often it is the poor who are singled out as “gaming the system,” when the more pressing problem is the way that wealthy corporations and politicians rig the system in order to monopolize power. That is a MUCH bigger deal in our economy, and it’s something conservatives simply don’t talk about as much.
“I don’t see it as any more offensive than the more elitist income inequality, that assumes our property is collective and there for the taking.”
The concept of income inequality does not rely on that premise at all. It simply relies on the understanding that when the gap between the highest paid members of society and the lowest paid members of society gets too large, all of society suffers. Especially when the middle class starts drifting downward as well. The number of Americans making between 75-125% of the median income is smaller now than it’s been in generations. If you acknowledge that this is bad for the economy, then you are acknowledging that income inequality is a problem, even if you don’t want to call it that.
Income inequality is a real thing, not something liberals made up. The only question is whether we’re willing to talk about it or not. Identifying problems by name is important. Most conservative and liberal economists would agree that income inequality is a large problem right now. The debate is over what to do about it.
“I don’t agree that the Republicans talk about the poor in the way you describe and particularly not frequently”
I think you just aren’t processing what you don’t want to hear, Tina. You can hear talk radio stars and FOX News pundits pushing the “makers v. takers” line nearly every day. I’ve provided countless examples in the past, and you usually defend them and say they are right. There was a FOX News special a while ago called “The Face of Food Stamps,” which alleged that an unemployed surfer bum who splurged on lobster with his EBT should be the poster boy for the entire program. I remember you and Peggy standing up for FOX. Do you see why this is offensive to people on government assistance?
I agree with you on the benefits of the EITC, and I’m glad that in my experience conservatives and liberals mostly agree with this policy.
“There is no valid reason not to trust that Republicans would intentionally set out to harm the poor.”
I don’t believe it’s intentional.
“Mitt Romney was a decent, well qualified man who had we elected him, would have the economy of our nation humming by now. The world would be a much safer place.”
Do you not see this as a bit…embarrassingly rosy? A “humming” economy? All the devastation you believe Obama inflicted on us in his first four years…you think Romney could have undone it in two? And why do you believe the world would be a much safer place? What foreign policy experience did Mitt bring to the table?
According to the UC Berkeley Data Center, 75% of welfare recipients are from working families:
“Nearly three-quarters (73%) of enrollments in America’s major public benefits programs are from working families. But many of them work in jobs that pay wages so low that their paychecks do
not generate enough income to provide for life’s basic necessities.”
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/publiccosts/fastfoodpovertywages.shtml
CBPP has more:
“The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year.
The number of SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has been rising for more than a decade, and has more than tripled — from about 2 million in 2000 to about 6.4 million in 2011. The increase was especially pronounced during the recent deep recession, suggesting that many people have turned to SNAP because of under-employment — for example, when one wage-earner in a two-parent family lost a job, when a worker’s hours were cut, or when a worker turned to a lower-paying job after being laid off.”
Welfare is not the problem. Wages are the problem.
Another interesting tidbit:
According to a Pew poll, more than three quarters of conservatives believe that “the poor have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything.” The more conservative the respondent, the less likely they were to say that “the poor have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently.” Only 7% of “steadfast conservatives” chose the latter option. The responses from liberals are almost exactly opposite, with 86% of liberals saying that “the poor have hard lives.”
Christopher Ingraham of the Washington Post responds:
“For context, here is a brief and wildly incomplete list of the ways life is “easy” when you’re poor:
Compared to middle and upper-income Americans, the poor are three times less likely to have health insurance coverage, and more likely to put off or skip necessary medical treatment as a result;
They are three times more likely to be victimized by crime;
The daily stresses of living under poverty impose a cognitive burden equivalent to losing 13 IQ points;
Poor children are three times more likely to be affected by food scarcity and obesity;
Poor children receive a lower quality education in public school, and the ones who make it to college are more likely to drop out;
Poorer Americans breathe dirtier air, they sleep less, and the even have less sex;
And in the end all this “easy living” literally shaves decades off their lives.
The notion that poor people have it easy is at odds with the data.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/26/more-than-three-quarters-of-conservatives-say-the-poor-have-it-easy/
Chris can we agree that “people” talking about any issue tend to speak in general terms rather than qualifying every statement down to the hundredth of a percent?
The substance of your two issues at #28 is that you don’t trust Republicans to be caring people and this is based on your belief that a) they will step on the poor the first chance they get, and b) they will look the other way or offer more loop holes to corporations.
I am so sick of this class envy garbage I could scream. I am really tired of defending and explaining again and again only to have you come back with the same complaints.
This is the bottom line. I believe in a much smaller federal government and ultimately the elimination of federal programs (see below). I think it would be much healthier for our nation for many reasons including the two you mention. The federal government has no business creating tax laws that create a financial burden beyond the tax due any more than they have choosing which businesses they will reward with favors. Our tax law is a mess and we must simplify it and make the rate competitive in the world. I have never been in favor of corporatism and I have always hated the complex tax law that makes abuse possible and that chases business and jobs from our shores. More than one republican has called for a simplified tax code and devised many plans from which to discuss and choose.
The states should be free to create their own plans for dealing with the poor and the mentally and physically challenged. (and many other things) The first priority should be to support the capable and able in moving into, or back into, the work force as quickly as possible. The responsibility for seeing that citizens are prepared to work might give some incentive for better schools! That would also make caring for the the remainder who are unable to work much easier and cheaper and eliminate fraud and abuse.
“he concept of income inequality does not rely on that premise at all. It simply relies on the understanding that when the gap between the highest paid members of society and the lowest paid members of society gets too large, all of society suffers.”
But the solutions always involve taking resources from one to give to another (higher taxes, more programs, higher min wage) rather than solutions that either offer incentive or train people outright for a better job. Liberals never put the responsibility on the person who is capable…or the state that wastes billions of dollars every year including on unnecessary things like lavish conferences and unearned bonuses recently given at the IRS or loans to companies that fail.
Here’s another bottom line. I don’t have an issue with income inequality as it describes the condition. My problem is that it is being used to create class warfare and gin up votes for programs and policy that has delivered five years of sub-par growth, lousy job growth, and lost wealth building opportunities for young people.
If it feels like I’m screaming I am. I am beyond frustrated. The left is arguing for the same policies that delivered the depression and the current failed recovery, that will soon be like depression, if the big investor guys’ predictions come to fruition. The left never admits it is wrong…and the last five years should tell YOU that they cannot be trusted!
Republicans have NEVER created policy that hurt poor people. They have created policy that asked something of poor people and most who took advantage of it like the result…they like working. they do feel better and they do make more money.
Republicans have a good record of managing money. what they have not been able to do is make Americans realize they can do better relying on themselves. That all of America does better when our citizens rely on themsleves…and that we would all be better off with a much less involved federal government with power and money residing with the people. Its a dang gift, possibly the best gift anyone could ever get, and everyone is too afraid to risk it. Americans have lost their grit…as adults we rely on strangers in Washington to hold our hands and make things happen for us.
“here was a FOX News special a while ago called “The Face of Food Stamps,” which alleged that an unemployed surfer bum who splurged on lobster with his EBT should be the poster boy for the entire program.”
Excuse me Chris, once again it is YOU who pasted the poster boy image on the story. The guy was real and the statistics at the time revealed a lot of people that were unable to find work and had found that living on unemployment and then, when that ran out, food stamps and hanging out at the beach wasn’t a bad lifestyle. NOBODY ON FOX INDICATED HE WAS TYPICAL OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS! Also, when you consider that ABC,CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, and CNN all have the alternative story that we just are not doing enough so we need higher taxes its not such a bad story to push! At least the people are being more fully informed rather than programmed to the Democrat ideal.
Do people on assistance ever find it offensive that government punishes the very people who supply the wealth for jobs and assistance and always has its hand out wanting more? Because those paying the bill for this bloated government program that exists as much to get votes for democrats as it does to help people is offensive to me. People used to at least have the good manners to be grateful for the help…now they apologetically vote to make sure even more is taken and redistributed and none of them ever questions how much is used wisely or well, how much is wasted, or what they could do to lessen the burden.
I don’t blame the people as I have often said. I think any person would take what is offered by government whether the head of a company or the lowest of the poor. It’s the law! Politicians over many decades have created this complex mess of bureaucracy, entitlement, favors, loop holes and burden and it is killing us.
“Do you not see this as a bit…embarrassingly rosy? A “humming” economy?”
No, I do not see it as even the least bit rosy. I experienced the eighties and I saw the result of the Kennedy tax cuts and the change that happened when republicans took the House under Clinton.
Obama’s redistribution and central control policies are killing the economy. Mitt Romney would have handled the crash and the recovery much differently…like Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton he would have signed on to policies that support real economic growth. Business and workers alike are waiting for such. 18 months is the average for full recovery from recession. Yes, I do think it would have turned in two years.
“What foreign policy experience did Mitt bring to the table?”
Much more than Barack Obama had when the country elected him and much more than Clinton had when this country elected him. that argument isn’t the best one for a lefty. Romney has had business experience in many nations for many years. To do that you have to know more than just your business. You have to be aware of changing governments and their policies, the possibility of wars erupting, the price of energy and other commodities. Business people work with or meet foreign ambassadors and the work Romney did to save the Olympics a few years back when it got into financial problems required working with the governments of all of the participating nations.
I will have to address the last two comments later…no time left at work now.
Hope my internet at home is reliable! Anyone else having trouble?
Tina: “NOBODY ON FOX INDICATED HE WAS TYPICAL OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS!”
Tina, the title of the program was “The Face of Food Stamps.” Are you really disputing the fact that describing an individual as the “face” of a group indicates that that individual is typical of that group? Because…that’s ridiculous.
See, this is why I said I think you have selective hearing. I showed you a very clear statement with a very clear meaning, and you attempted to deny that it had that meaning. It’s like you’re incapable of admitting that any prominent conservative has ever spoken ill of the poor, no matter how obvious the evidence is.
Is there any evidence I could show you that could convince you that conservatives commonly speak of the poor in derogatory terms? Because it seems that no matter how clear the language is, you attempt to claim that their offensive statements don’t actually contain the meaning that most native English speakers would easily derive.
Tina, my ATT internet connection was so bad I had to get rid of it. Their lines are so old they can’t handle the new technology and speed. I switched to Comcast because other family members have and it’s a thousand percent better. And it was cheaper.
Chris I was unaware of the title. The content suggests something quite different than we would expect, however: “Food stamp participation since 1980 has grown the fastest among workers with some college training, a sign that the safety net has stretched further…”
It is always wise to look beyond the headlines.
The term “face of” has been overused. If you overreacted to it I’m not surprised. But the “new face” was college graduates…nobody was targeting the poor to be stomped upon.
” this is why I said I think you have selective hearing.”
Chris this shows you’re hearing is ultra selective and overly sensitive. Lighten up. the people at FOX are nice people with the same concerns as any other American…Democrats treat them as if they are subhuman…THAT is ridiculous.
I won’t dignify your question with an answer. Suffice it to say your prejudices and collectivist training is the prism through which you constantly evaluate and judge the right as less than you…less sensitive, less compassionate, less intelligent, less qualified, less informed.
Sorry your contemptuous opinions do not define me nor come even close to understanding what conservatives think or how they would treat others.
Tina, I find it sad that the “party of personal responsibility” refuses to take responsibility for its own words. My judgment that the right is less compassionate toward the poor is not based on any “prism,” it’s based on the facts. I showed you a poll which proves that the right is less sympathetic to the poor and more likely to say they “have it easy!” You’ve dug this hole for yourself, and I have no sympathy for your complaints that the left unfairly characterizes you as unsympathetic to the poor. That characterization has been earned over and over again.
FOX News routinely attempts to mislead people about the reality of life in poverty. Just take a look at this graph shown on FOX News:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/dishonest-fox-chart-overstates-comparison-of-we/196618
A viewer who doesn’t look carefully enough might look at this graph and think that the number of people on welfare is nearly five times as much as the number of working people! This kind of sloppiness and exaggeration is par for the course over there. I’m sorry that you refuse to notice it, but until you do you will not be able to fight the characterization of conservatives as harsh on the poor. Change must come from within.
I say this not as an ideological enemy, but as someone who believes that our republic/democracy functions better when both political parties are viable, diverse, and capable of attracting young voters as well as voters from every walk of life. You don’t have to take my advice, but the young Republicans I know give me a bit of hope that at least the future of the party is learning from the past generations’ mistakes. They are changing their rhetoric because they know that it’s not only crucial to winning future voters…but because it’s simply the right thing to do.