Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:




    Do you have a point in there somewhere?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Eleven states: California, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico and Hawaii have more takers than people in private sector jobs. 

    Takers are people who depend on the government for their livelihood. This includes people on welfare, government workers, and retired government workers on pensions. This does not include people on Social Security. 

    We are spending more than 100 million dollars per hour on our national debt. Obama has made laws to get more people dependent on the government for their livelihood. The federal government advertises “benefits.gov” to get more people on government programs. The more people he can get dependent on the government, the more people will vote Democratic. 

    Benjamin Franklin said “When people find they can vote for money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We are now nearer to being a socialist country than a republic.



    Teachers, first responders, front line military personnel, and astronauts are now takers.  Have I got that right?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Eleven states: California, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico and Hawaii have more takers than people in private sector jobs. 

    Takers are people who depend on the government for their livelihood. This includes people on welfare, government workers, and retired government workers on pensions. This does not include people on Social Security. 

    We are spending more than 100 million dollars per hour on our national debt. Obama has made laws to get more people dependent on the government for their livelihood. The federal government advertises â€ÂÂœbenefits.gov” to get more people on government programs. The more people he can get dependent on the government, the more people will vote Democratic. 

    Benjamin Franklin said â€ÂÂœWhen people find they can vote for money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We are now nearer to being a socialist country than a republic.


    Teachers, first responders, front line military personnel, and astronauts are now takers.  Have I got that right?

     

     

     

    I do not believe military is included in this calculation. Whether they are or arent, all  public sector workers take from the public treasury, that is correct. They are supposed to be our servants, not our masters.

    The greedy public sector unions, the bankrollers of their poodles the Democrat politicians who open the treasury on their behalf,  always hide behind the skirts of 'first responders' and "teachers" and "brave soldiers" to justify the 95% bloated, inefficient, overpaid, entitled, can-never-get-fired-absent-murder absurdly-pensioned public sector...payroll patriots. 

    Keep the astronauts and the best teachers who can show results with educating children, and keep first responders.......dump the other 5 million useless paper pushing bureaucrats.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Eleven states: California, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico and Hawaii have more takers than people in private sector jobs. 

    Takers are people who depend on the government for their livelihood. This includes people on welfare, government workers, and retired government workers on pensions. This does not include people on Social Security. 

    We are spending more than 100 million dollars per hour on our national debt. Obama has made laws to get more people dependent on the government for their livelihood. The federal government advertises â€ÂÂÂœbenefits.gov” to get more people on government programs. The more people he can get dependent on the government, the more people will vote Democratic. 

    Benjamin Franklin said â€ÂÂÂœWhen people find they can vote for money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We are now nearer to being a socialist country than a republic.


    Teachers, first responders, front line military personnel, and astronauts are now takers.  Have I got that right?

     

     

     

    I do not believe military is included in this calculation. Whether they are or arent, all  public sector workers take from the public treasury, that is correct. They are supposed to be our servants, not our masters.

    The greedy public sector unions, the bankrollers of their poodles the Democrat politicians who open the treasury on their behalf,  always hide behind the skirts of 'first responders' and "teachers" and "brave soldiers" to justify the 95% bloated, inefficient, overpaid, entitled, can-never-get-fired-absent-murder absurdly-pensioned public sector...payroll patriots. 

    Keep the astronauts and the best teachers who can show results with educating children, and keep first responders.......dump the other 5 million useless paper pushing bureaucrats.

     



    You want to live in the 17th Century.  The rest of us want something better.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    17th century, you say? Even back then, in England, there was a recognition that state paternalism didnt work to help the poor as well as capitalism...the modern liberals's approach failed in the 17th century, and fails today...

    "even in that period [in England] , there was a resurgence of private charity and a resentment of state paternalism.

    "To many merchants, particularly those who had risen from little or nothing, paternalism was anathema . . . Paternalism produced the poor laws, but this generalised form of relief was no more acceptable to the merchants than indiscriminate monastic almsgiving had been. They set an example by contributing more than half of the vast sums of money provided for private charities which were, in the long run, probably more effective than state aid for the poor" Lockyer, ibid 152.

    The philosophy of these enlightened merchants was that the people should be helped to help themselves..."

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    17th century, you say? Even back then, in England, there was a recognition that state paternalism didnt work to help the poor as well as capitalism...the modern liberals's approach failed in the 17th century, and fails today...

    "even in that period [in England] , there was a resurgence of private charity and a resentment of state paternalism.

    "To many merchants, particularly those who had risen from little or nothing, paternalism was anathema . . . Paternalism produced the poor laws, but this generalised form of relief was no more acceptable to the merchants than indiscriminate monastic almsgiving had been. They set an example by contributing more than half of the vast sums of money provided for private charities which were, in the long run, probably more effective than state aid for the poor" Lockyer, ibid 152.

    The philosophy of these enlightened merchants was that the people should be helped to help themselves..."



    What nonsense you spew.  Of course, centuries ago, governments did not provide for their citizenry and as a result the vast majority had miserable lives.  We were lucky in America at that time as we had an abundance of land to support a small population.  Still, it was a very tough life for a lot of people (slaves? indians? women?).  Over the years we have seen PROGRESS in making the lives of (all) people better.  And often we have used government to effect this change.  And you think it is a bad thing...  You are living a conservative fantasy that mythologizes the past.  Worst, you want to recreate this mythology today.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    Or to spread the good life of the third world, while railing against all of today's failed socialist states.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    17th century, you say? Even back then, in England, there was a recognition that state paternalism didnt work to help the poor as well as capitalism...the modern liberals's approach failed in the 17th century, and fails today...

    "even in that period [in England] , there was a resurgence of private charity and a resentment of state paternalism.

    "To many merchants, particularly those who had risen from little or nothing, paternalism was anathema . . . Paternalism produced the poor laws, but this generalised form of relief was no more acceptable to the merchants than indiscriminate monastic almsgiving had been. They set an example by contributing more than half of the vast sums of money provided for private charities which were, in the long run, probably more effective than state aid for the poor" Lockyer, ibid 152.

    The philosophy of these enlightened merchants was that the people should be helped to help themselves..."

     



    What nonsense you spew.  Of course, centuries ago, governments did not provide for their citizenry and as a result the vast majority had miserable lives.  We were lucky in America at that time as we had an abundance of land to support a small population.  Still, it was a very tough life for a lot of people (slaves? indians? women?).  Over the years we have seen PROGRESS in making the lives of (all) people better.  And often we have used government to effect this change.  And you think it is a bad thing...  You are living a conservative fantasy that mythologizes the past.  Worst, you want to recreate this mythology today.

     

    "centuries ago, governments did not provide for their citizenry and as a result the vast majority had miserable lives"

    ....this is what you teach? Government as God, and individuals as poor helpless pawns, awaiting their handout....

    We just have a basic philosophical disagreement. You believe in the State, I in the individual. You tell the individual "you didnt build that". You think our rights are a gift from Government, to be taken away at their whim; I believe our rights come from Nature and God.

    The Founding Fathers believed what I believe; Karl Marx, for one,  believed what you believe.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "centuries ago, governments did not provide for their citizenry and as a result the vast majority had miserable lives"

    ....this is what you teach? Government as God, and individuals as poor helpless pawns, awaiting their handout....

    We just have a basic philosophical disagreement. You believe in the State, I in the individual. You tell the individual "you didnt build that". You think our rights are a gift from Government, to be taken away at their whim; I believe our rights come from Nature and God.

    The Founding Fathers believed what I believe; Karl Marx, for one,  believed what you believe.

     




     

    Where exactly is this awesome safety net free society that you and your fellow conservatives would like the US to be modeled after? Where is this utopia, with no need for social insurance programs because the jobs and wealth are so plentiful from being free of the constraints of the much decried "job killing regulations and taxes"? Where is this great society in which the environmental and health hazards are addressed voluntarily by the free market? Where is this fantastic place where the populace all receives adequate health care based solely on the free market providing them access?

    Maybe it doesn't exist, because it can't exist.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    17th century, you say? Even back then, in England, there was a recognition that state paternalism didnt work to help the poor as well as capitalism...the modern liberals's approach failed in the 17th century, and fails today...

    "even in that period [in England] , there was a resurgence of private charity and a resentment of state paternalism.

    "To many merchants, particularly those who had risen from little or nothing, paternalism was anathema . . . Paternalism produced the poor laws, but this generalised form of relief was no more acceptable to the merchants than indiscriminate monastic almsgiving had been. They set an example by contributing more than half of the vast sums of money provided for private charities which were, in the long run, probably more effective than state aid for the poor" Lockyer, ibid 152.

    The philosophy of these enlightened merchants was that the people should be helped to help themselves..."

     



    What nonsense you spew.  Of course, centuries ago, governments did not provide for their citizenry and as a result the vast majority had miserable lives.  We were lucky in America at that time as we had an abundance of land to support a small population.  Still, it was a very tough life for a lot of people (slaves? indians? women?).  Over the years we have seen PROGRESS in making the lives of (all) people better.  And often we have used government to effect this change.  And you think it is a bad thing...  You are living a conservative fantasy that mythologizes the past.  Worst, you want to recreate this mythology today.

     

     

     

    "centuries ago, governments did not provide for their citizenry and as a result the vast majority had miserable lives"

    ....this is what you teach? Government as God, and individuals as poor helpless pawns, awaiting their handout....

    We just have a basic philosophical disagreement. You believe in the State, I in the individual. You tell the individual "you didnt build that". You think our rights are a gift from Government, to be taken away at their whim; I believe our rights come from Nature and God.

    The Founding Fathers believed what I believe; Karl Marx, for one,  believed what you believe.



    I teach the reality of life and history not your fantasy.  The state achieved freedom and justice for all sorts of people that would not have been possible otherwise. That is the historical reality. No one says that government is "God".  That's just your ideological nonsense version of what the opposition has to say.  Really, you are intellectually pathetic in your approach to history and politics both.  

    I believe in the state (representing society) and the indivdual.  You have to have both.  The Founding Fathers knew this too.  Marx pretended we could do without the state.  Go read some books and get a better sense of things than your right wing mythologies.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to UserName99's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    "centuries ago, governments did not provide for their citizenry and as a result the vast majority had miserable lives"

    ....this is what you teach? Government as God, and individuals as poor helpless pawns, awaiting their handout....

    We just have a basic philosophical disagreement. You believe in the State, I in the individual. You tell the individual "you didnt build that". You think our rights are a gift from Government, to be taken away at their whim; I believe our rights come from Nature and God.

    The Founding Fathers believed what I believe; Karl Marx, for one,  believed what you believe.

     




     

    Where exactly is this awesome safety net free society that you and your fellow conservatives would like the US to be modeled after? Where is this utopia, with no need for social insurance programs because the jobs and wealth are so plentiful from being free of the constraints of the much decried "job killing regulations and taxes"? Where is this great society in which the environmental and health hazards are addressed voluntarily by the free market? Where is this fantastic place where the populace all receives adequate health care based solely on the free market providing them access?

    Maybe it doesn't exist, because it can't exist.



    And they pretend that the Left is full of utopian dreamers...

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

    In response to UserName99's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Eleven states: California, Illinois, Ohio, Maine, Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico and Hawaii have more takers than people in private sector jobs. 

    Takers are people who depend on the government for their livelihood. This includes people on welfare, government workers, and retired government workers on pensions. This does not include people on Social Security. 

    We are spending more than 100 million dollars per hour on our national debt. Obama has made laws to get more people dependent on the government for their livelihood. The federal government advertises “benefits.gov” to get more people on government programs. The more people he can get dependent on the government, the more people will vote Democratic. 

    Benjamin Franklin said “When people find they can vote for money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We are now nearer to being a socialist country than a republic.

     



    Teachers, first responders, front line military personnel, and astronauts are now takers.  Have I got that right?

     

     



    If they derive their income from government, they are potentially part of the problem.  Public unions, for example, demand much more out of government than comparable private sector jobs.  One might call that delta a takers portion, as it is not earned, but taken.

     

    Another example might be, do we have people on the government payrolls that are not acutally working or working up to potential?  They also are candidates for being labelled as takers.  Afterall, we have examples of both right here in good old taxachussetts.

    But that aside, the problem is that, when you combine government workers and those on entitlements, you get more than half, or nearly half of the population.  Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying it is unsustainable.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share