Hitler gained power because the German people craved order after the chaotic years following the armistice. During this time armed paramilitary groups of every stripe clashed frequently---so frequently that many Germans were willing to give up their freedom and bargain with the devil. They lost their freedom through fear and not because they were not sufficiently armed.
Many of the rules you've noted have been effectively put in place by corporate America. Watch some of the movies and television shows that are being served up today.Respect for leaders? Fox news is culpable. Talk radio is culpable.To varying degrees all of televison and radio is culpable.And what of the Koch brothers and Citizens United? And what of those confused and frighted Americans who conflate capitalism and fascism oblivious to the very real differences.And what of the very ugly makers and takers trope stolen from the godless, antidemocratic and ultimately anti-American Ayn Rand?
Some of the other rules sound otherworldly .Get them interested in sex? Nature will have its way.Do you remember all of those raging hormones when you were a lad? Where do parents figure in all of this? If the young are superficial,if they are godless, if they are enervated and lazy, the odds are that their parents haven't bothered to instill any morality in them.
We are destroying ourselves without any assistance from foreign enemies or dark conspiracies. The true enemy resides within.
I hope your history teacher took the time to teach and not to indoctrinate. If indoctrination was more important to him than teaching, he did not understand the value of history.
The first law that Hitler and the Nazis passed was the confication of all guns from the German people. Disagreeing with a politician's policy is far different than telling lies about their charcater. Have you ever read anything of Ayn Rand? Getting youth hooked on sex, what is going on with the internet,MTV, and social media with phones, facebook, and all the teenage out of wedlock births. Yes we are destroying ourselves from within. My teacher never injected bias in his history lessons. He wrote what I put in this blog in the Faculty bulletin. The question fly is do you see any of this happening to us?
Yes, I read Atlas Shrugged, Rand's magnum opus. Have YOU read Ayn Rand?
Yes, it is happening to us. Read what I wrote. We only differ on the theory of causation.
My point was that the German people allowed Hitler to gain power while their country was awash with guns.Guns do not guarantee freedom. Freedom requires morality.The Germans were willing to rationalize the bad bargain they made until it was too late to turn back ,and ,by that time, no citizen militia could save them.
The diatribes that I am referring to go far beyond disagreement so when Bill O calls someone a pinhead or Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter harangue liberals or those who deviate from the cause of the day, those purveyors of "news" can no longer claim to be engaged in journalism.And , yes, If you counter that liberals engage in the same sort of sniping, you would be right. The point is that PUBLIC figures have polluted the public sphere, motivated to a great degree by the mad scramble for a commanding market share of the public airwaves.
Lets get serious about the idea of someone protecting themselves from a government that is going to take away their freedom. This is not something that will happen at the end of a gun. The average housewife or guy about the neighborhood would have no chance against a well armed and trained military.
We also have to acknowledge that the only way it would get to that point is because people sat on their couch complaining and doing nothing. Corporations, talk radio and groups like the Tea Party have done a great deal to instill hate and fear of our government. While our leaders and government may be flawed it is still the best game out their.
The only way the government could ban guns is through a declaration of martial law. That was something that was considered after the 9/11 attack, though it never happened because of the possible political backlash. The only way we can protect ourselves is through thoughtful action, not with a gun.
The Taliban and Alquita tried to get people to believe that the only way to change a governement is through violence. The Arab Spring shot that idea down fast. There will always be those that preach fear and violence. These are no the people remember fondly in the view of history.
One good thing about the youth of today: when they hear a claim that sounds funny, many look it up immediately on a smartphone to see if it is valid or not. Unfortunately, their attention is less on the government that would probably be healthy in a well functioning democracy, and so it's a lot more likely that they're looking up sports stats or movie endings. However, it is a whole lot tougher to pass on "historical facts" to the apparently corrupted younger generation than older folks, who tend to believe anything they want to regardless of factual accuracy.
Good point, Climegeist, unless the postive info is about the current administartion or most any progressive agenda item. If that is the case then it MUST be true, because it is on the internet, researched and written by french models who appear to be sexy AND smart!
SMH - seems it is always easier to take the speck out of someone else's eye than to remove the board in your own eye.
Call it quits now before you actually have to admit the Left might actually be what you claim to despise.
I don't blame you, Jake. After the administration sets Bob Woodward up for an 'accident,' you could be next.
Jake Hallman, I have been reading your stuff for a long time and I am stunned that we have reached the point i have to ask this question...
Have you become (gasp)... thin-skinned?
Ok, there for a minute I thought you might be getting ... old.
Have been in those shoes (completely exasperated with the idiots on the other side), I will let you be for now.
Have a good night Jake. Catch you later Bryant.
This is so mind-numbingly banal as to hardly warrant more than a casual "did you get an extra helping of paranoid at breakfast this morning" zinger. But some of y'all got my main man Jake riled up, not because you disagreed with him or wanted to challenge his points but because, dammit, fighting fact with rhetoric is like playing with a football bat.
Some of us have actually devoted large chunks of our no-longer-insignificantly-short lifetimes learning how to separate fact from fiction. We learned to gather disparate accounts and reconcile them and to present these convoluted findings to people with less time or capability to do the work themselves. This is journalism. And if you think there is a vast left-wing media conspiracy threatening to tear down the country, keep digging your bomb shelter and lining your hats with tinfoil. It's okay. You're easier to spot and avoid that way. There are left- and right-wing factions of the media, but good reporting (not the same as commentary) can still be easily differentiated from biased propaganda or flimsy rhetoric couched in the weeds of numerous logical fallacies.
Those of you willing to traipse along with shoddy, logically-challenged bits comparing modern liberal politics with Nazi policy or other bean-headed bits of mental excrement are not going to shift gears any time soon. Please understand, though: you've been thrown into the "dolt" bin alongside such visionaries as Joseph McCarthy, the Unibomber and (I suspect) Scientologists.
As for those with opposing viewpoints willing to use logical argument and accepted rhetorical technique to exchange ideas, please carry on. But perhaps we might ALL just ignore the unwashed for here on out, okay?
(I know. Not likely.)
Well, Scott, I feel .... meh.
As I stated in my earlier comment, I have read Jake's work (journalism, rhetoric, and caustic rants) for many years. I have seen (read) him mercilessly (IMO) berate those who disagree with him with a rancid mix of fact and opinion encased in the bitter pill of mocking elitism. If he is upset about the mild teasing he got from me tonight, then he is much more thin skinned than I would have ever imagined. If it wasn't me, then... it wasn't me.
As for all your journalistic education and training, all I can say is that there is more than one way to acquire a sharp and discerning mind. I took a different path.
Let us not forget the words of Lenin!
Lenin stated that the communist movement needed millions of useful idiots willing to think they were fighting for just causes. They would march in the streets demanding justice for all their causes, justice for all! The just causes would be attacks against the virtues, mores, and morals of the society as being unjust. Once they paralyzed the government, and the economy, and the chaos broke down all law and order, the leaders of the communist take over would step forward as the saviors that could put a stop to the riots and chaos. Now, the people would be willing to sell their freedom for a return to law and order. The cycle towards tyranny, dictatorship, with the communists as the ruling class protecting the dictator, would be complete.
Ironside, you post "something my high school history teacher wrote in 1967, the year I graduated" which was a lie. Whether the lie was yours or your history teacher's is irrelevant. How can I believe the statement you attribute to Lenine?
All movements, whether Communist, Socialist, Tea Party, or what have you, need useful idiots. And God knows there are enough of them in America today. Idiots who believe everything they hear on Fox News. Or on Rachel Madow. Or that they read on the internet. If you like Obama, he's a great President. If you dislike Obama, he couldn't get credit if he cured cancer (Bush started the funding!).
Personally, I don't believe we're on the road to Hell (often paraphrased as the road to Socialism), as many bloggers and political pundits preach. I do believe the Federal government must reduce spending and simplify the tax code to raise revenue by eliminating or limiting some deductions and lowering overall rates. But continually llikening our situation to those of Germany in the 30's or the Soviet Union in the late 40's is ridiculous. Might as well liken the United States to the Assyrians.
Again, you and I are closer on this issue than we may realize. I do not share all of Ironside's concerns, but I do share some of them.
The extreme edges of both parties preach their twisted version of the 'truth' 24/7. As I tried to communicate to Jake, the choice of whether or not a specific claim will be vetted and verified seems to depend on whether a particular "fact" supports a person's beliefs or not.
And in answer to Scott's position, I believe that many 'journalists' suffer from the same fact checking disease as the rest of us.
Why just yesterday, I learned that Bradley Manning was an "intelligence officer" (He is not, he is an E-3 intelligence specialist). Small difference to most folks but that difference matters. Calling him an "intelligence officer" who is trained to read, interpet, and deseminate intelligence data, is like saying a 1st year lab technician is qualified to not only draw blood, but test it, analyze the results, make a diagnosis and discuss treatment with the patient.
Did the 'reporter' take the time to understand what she was writing? Apparently not.
Will people read her article and believe Bradley Manning had a full understanding of everything he read, stole and gave away. Maybe, all the way up to Probably.
Does that faulty reporting which leads to a faulty understand potentially undermine the credibility of the government in the eyes of the general public. Likely, all the way to Yes.
Is it a left wing conspiracy? Probably not. Is it sloppy reporting and editorial control? Probably so. Are lines between those two statement getting blurry? Yes, I believe they might be.
Bryant I wish the president agreed with you on cutting taxes...
Is capitalism the lesser of evils when compared to socialism I think so.
Is the nation leaning to a socialist state? yes.
Can alerting facts come from a crazed mans-womans lies and assumptions? yes
I believe that there is a hiden agenda with the Obama. Can radical professors lie about things they have said or there relations with Obama? Yes and visa versa. Maybe I get my opinion from facts maybe I derive to the conclusion by the way he walks on stage. Im entitled to my on conclusions.
The lowering of overall rates sounds fair and looks good on paper ,but one of the deductions to be given the ax, at least according to more than one conservative, is the interest deduction for home mortgages, one of the only deductions available to middle class Americans who are paid a salary.
It is really very simple.We can cut some government programs ,but we can only cut so much since some government obligations like interest payments on the national debt are fixed.Social Security can only be tweaked so much.And given some of the rumblings from the Chinese and the Russians,military expenditures can only be cut so much. The people who have money will simply have to pay more because ,as the saying goes, it is impossible to get blood from a turnip, a sad reality but true.
A lot of people are going to find out that you can take all of the money from the people who have it and you still can not out pay the over whelming burdern placed on government by the takers.
Give them food give them health care give them a phones give them reason to take more. This would never lead to a social state!!
You have good points as well. I will add some to your list of cuts, though.
Unproven technology (maybe not a total cut, but a cap).
Welfare-type aid to illegal immigrants, their children, families, etc.
Welfare-type aid to any person using illegal drugs.
I do not believe I am the heartless bast-d many of you may think I am. I know there are many reasons to continue funding those programs. I just cannot find a sane reason to reduce a working person's pay while continuing to feed, house and provide medical care to a drug user or an illegal immigrant.
Charlie, Scott. (I think it's adorable when y'all do this and thought I'd adopt the practice.)
I have no doubt that journalism is hardly the only path to a discerning mind. It's been handy for me, but I suspect anyone born after 9/11 will probably need to learn the same skills just to wade through the increasingly cyclopean wasteland of bullsh... you know, that *stuff* comprising about 3/5ths of the Intertubes.
One lesson escaping more Statesboro Herald posters than not (and most Internet commenters overall) revolves in the clear division between "reporting" and "commentary." Anytime someone refers to an "article" in the Op-Ed section of the newspaper, a kitten dies a horrible death.
Reporters doing real reporting (and if you're as discerning a mind as I hope you are, you can probably spot the genuine stuff) sift through a lot of the aforementioned BS. People lie to reporters. Constantly. In an effort to be even-handed (and to meet deadline), the reporters write up many, many lies, put quotation marks around them and expect "an informed citizenry" to evaluate those quotes on their own merits. Only an increasing portion of the public believes the lies unblinkingly. Lies from every direction. From Republicans and Democrats and Actors and Cyclists and "lovestruck" linebackers with "dead" girlfriends.
Attempted course corrections through the use of editorial comment or analysis have been rendered ineffective as an increasing number of analysts and pundits enter the ring either with no real grounding in actual on-the-ground reporting or as spokesmen/women from within the "machine." When a significant portion of the email-forwarding, facebook-sharing public regards these political position papers with the same reverence as actual reporting, we have a problem.
If you think Jake has a thin skin, you haven't worked in a newsroom before. All of us have the occasional crisis of confidence in our fellow man because even at a little paper like the Herald, we are confronted by a tsunami of stupidity, deception and willful ignorance. Sometimes, in the midst of such crises, op-ed pieces are written where myopic ignorami are fired upon. And sometimes, writers discover they have dropped an atom bomb where a roach motel would have sufficed. Even great op-ed writers have an off day. Try putting your name at the top of your work every day and showing it off to thousands of folks, especially when working at a paper where staff constraints sometime equal flying virtually without a net. I made an ass of myself more than once and to much larger audiences than the Herald blogs.
The point, circuitous as the journey has been: the willing idiots are not the ones calling out rhetorical and factual dishonesty like the intellectual Slinky at the top of this thread. They're the folks who read the lies and merrily chug along when the facts are there in front of them.
My name goes on everything I write.
Don't you think I get fed-up, aggravated, etc. All of us working stiffs have deadlines etc. My boss will tell me to write a position paper in a day because it is due tomorrow. 15 editing sessions later he finally approves it because we are out of time.
More to the point of these blogs, I have dealt with my share of brainless folks from the left side of the street. Stupid crap, defended by a dozen anonymous parrots. Get mad, get over it. I guess it just wasn't Jake's day.
I am truly disturbed that he (apparently ) deleted his profile. I would NEVER do that. Learned that lesson reading 1984- Written words should be preserved, so we can always go back and re-read who said what.
Oh well, have a nice night, Scott.
I sure get your brand of frustration, Charlie. To my point, though, it's pretty different being edited and re-edited by one guy higher up the organizational ladder than thousands (and sometimes tens of thousands) of backseat journalists.
I would have liked Jake to keep his material online, too, for what it's worth. And I also agree on the existence of brainless human tape-recorders on the left. They're there. As for the anonymity, you don't have to look any further than my (and your) screen name to see where I (we) stand on that issue.
Like you say repeated to my dad, I think we probably have a little more in common in our positions than might be assumed.
Good night to you, too.
A while ago NPR commissioned a survey that asked two simple questions. The first was, "which dept or agency should have their funding cut?" and "which dept or agency should have their funding increased?" In the end both lists were identical, all depts and agencies should have their funding cut and increased at the same time.
It is this conflict that I believe clouds the water in many of the discussions that happen. There are many verbal attacks on the government and what/how they do things. I see many comparing things to their own finances or ways that they do things. Comparing the government finances to your home finances is like comparing an ocean liner to a bass boat and expecting them to have the same response times. So many of the arguments make no sense what so ever.
A recent news story is illustrative. Citizens of Garden City,Kanas initially cheered news of the impending sequester only to learn that the cuts imposed by the sequester would affect them directly.When told that the cuts would mean the closure of the regional airport, increased isolation and economic pain, the reaction was one of surprise,anxiety and regret: the scales had fallen from their eyes.
The story reflects the attitude of too many Americans: cuts are desirable but only if the consequences affect someone else. It is important to remember that business and government are two very different things.Citizens are not consumers bargaining for services. Citizenship requires a much higher standard. Dysfunctional government is a direct consequence of the erosion of civic responsibility.
You could not be more correct in what you are saying. Everything wants everything and a tax cut to boot, only if someone else pays for it.
If our tax money was spent wisely then we would have a bigger return ever year. Allso sooooooo many people do not pay taxes other than a consumers tax. They take take take. More people take that pay its not rocket science. You said it SC. "only if someone else pays for it" exactly!!!!
Most of the people that cry over taxes dont pay them. I bet you that 80 percent of the people for taxing the rich more dont pay any or very little taxes at all. This attitude and Dysfunctional government is a direct consequence of the erosion of civic responsibility.
From the things you say 22 I doubt you ever tried to make ends meet on minimum wage. There are millions of people/families that have not been able to find work that pays more than minimum wage. That puts them well below the federal poverty guidelines. In a recent report it showed that the minimum wage would have to be $9 - 10/hr to rise to poverty.
There are millions of working poor and you fault them. When you are working hard every day and still cannot make ends meet no matter how much you cut. You feel as if you have failed your family and trapped with no way out. Then if you get food stamps or medicaid because you cannot afford private insurance or your employer does not offer it. Someone comes along and accuses you of being a taker, of being lazy or not doing their share, or not paying taxes.
I find it amusing that people speak about things they know nothing about. The more that gets cut the more the poor and working poor will suffer. So much of the conversation is about how the cuts will affect the middle class. I believe about 80% of the country does not earn enough to make the $50,000 starting point of the middle class. No one talks about the about the single earner family that makes $25,000 a year or the multi income family that makes $40,000 a year. For the record at the $7.25/hr minimum wage and works 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year, a person only makes $15,080 a year. That is if they never miss a day because they are sick or their kid get sick, if that happens they make less.
They "minimum wage" actualy make less than that fed, state, ss etc taxes. And then they pay .07 on the dallor for food etc. so yes its much harder for them than you last poat suggest. And the latto tax. What is not fair is a goverment spending and wasting. SC I went from 4.25 to 6.25 as a mininmum wage. All though I did not have a family to support. I met a lady that worked and had worked 3 jobs for years and years she did not look for someone to blame as does much of the Obama party. Because of her,I, me or you none can say we cant.
Me saying I went from 4.25 to 6.25 minimum wage is not correct. I made 6.25 in and around 96. That statment is
I did not know there was an Obama Party. I also do not know anyone making minimum wage that blames anyone. I do know a lot of people that make minimum wage or work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. They do get offended when people speak about them in condescending tones and accusing them of being lazy or not applying themselves because they aren't wealthy. There is a lot of miss information out there and a shame that people do not take the time to find out the facts before spouting off about things they know nothing about.
I think you know what I ment when refering to the Obama party. "From the things you say 22 I doubt you ever tried to make ends meet on minimum wage." why should I be so special? Or are you just spouting?
The use of the word "taker" has certain condescending meanings to it. So your use of it implies your looking down at anyone that receives any funds from the government. Since the housing bubble burst there are record numbers of people getting assistance. If you just look at the numbers of Baby-boomers reaching 65 each day the numbers of people getting government money will only increase.
Your use of the term "taker" does not do justice to those whose lives were destroyed by the financial collapse of 2008. The term "taker" is only a way to dehumanize people and ignore the pain and suffering of those that have paid the price for the greed of others.
22, you are wrong. When you use the word "taker" you are being insulting and condescending. You insult the woman who has to resort to food stamps and pantry assistance because her son was molested at a party and her husband blamed her. And left - with all the money in their joint bank account.
You want to talk about takers? Tell me about a real one - not some fiction promulgated by conservative pundits making and talking heads making more in a year than most people make in ten.
I used to bag groceries as a teen in downtown Savannah - FoodTown at the corner of Price St and Oglethorpe Ave.
First of the month comes and I would bag $200 worth of groceries (A LOT in 1980)for a customer. Usually one or two of these per hour. The 'taking' part? The woman just paid for $150 in groceries with food stamps and then took a wad of $20s out of her bra to pay for beer and wine. A wad being more $$ than I ever saw my parents, brother, or anyone else carry.
The killer moment came when I rolled half those groceries out to a brand new Lincoln or Cadillac. I'd get a 50 cent tip - not bad. Then one of other boys would bring the rest and get a dollar. I should not have to explain that further.
I have a VERY clear image of a 'taker.' You know me. I am telling the truth. Let me know when you would like to sit and discuss welfare fraud.
Welfare fraud is a crime, Charlie. I've seen people dealing drugs (and taking them, too!). You're argument is moot, because you are confusing the enforcement mechanism with the policy.
Yes, stealing is bad ,but the welfare cheat , the shoplifter, even the poor dope who robs the liquor store are the small fry. The real theft occurs at the top of the food chain. The small fry blight communities and destroy individual lives. Some of the so called captains of industry are steering us all onto the rocks. In far too many cases ,the only difference between the makers and the takers is the magnitude of the theft, yet in some perverse corruption of the Protestant work ethic, the grafters have become heroes.
Bryant asked for a real 'taker;' I provided one.
Scott - I am not confusing policy with enforcement. Policy is that women and children who appear to need assistance are given assistance. The policy has rules that are 'intended' to help folks who need help. The 'takers' in the case I described used (and still use) those rules to their advantage. A single woman with multiple children supported by several men (baby daddies) who work cash jobs and have no reportable income. The woman has no reportable income, lives in a housing project, has kids and claims more assistance. I have seen this up close, Scott. It is reprehensable, to say the least!
Fly - take the above example, multiply it by millions and you have fraud and corruption on a MASSIVE scale. I could suggest some very draconian policies to fix this, but by their very nature, they are out of the question.
I have no use for the corporate thief either, but they are more inclined to steal from their own company and not the government. Again, I could suggest some draconian measures to fix that problem, but they would be all or nothing solutions. Big business would likely take the 'nothing' option and close all their facilities and move overseas.
freighted with meaning
Billions. Taken by takers.
SC, Bryant You both accuse you are being insulting and condescending. Bryant you say “You insult the woman who has to resort to food stamps and pantry assistance because her son was molested” Your accusations and assumptions are weak at best. Informal fallacy and weak inference.
Charlie: Your inference, and 22's, is that welfare is a broken system because of "takers." If this is the problem it is purported to be by some pundits and politicians (and you, but your evidence is anecdotal and the anecdote is 30 years old), then it is an enforcement and implementation mechanism failure and incongruous with the conservative idea of "smaller government is better." If you want to have a discussion about welfare fraud, please familiarize yourself with the current iteration of government assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. You might also want to brush up on generational poverty, the education inequity between low- and middle-income families and corporate welfare, ie silly tax breaks the federal and state governments have been handing out at net loss to the people.
And 22... If you are getting your information from YouTube and your classes in rhetoric from the Wikipedia page on logical fallacies, well, I just can't really deal with anyone so baffled by semantics and oblivious to critical thinking. "Takers" as an argument against government assistance, by the way, is "post hoc ergo propter hoc." That's probably on the Wikipedia page, too, although there's an episode of the West Wing that is a more entertaining way to pick up the concept. The YouTube stuff is simple circular reasoning.
So, yeah, you're going to need to get a much better handle on semantics And Internet forum etiquette--you're killing me with the multiple posts to make arguments (poorly).
The system is broken by takers and by policy, and while all of my firsthand knowledge is anecdotal, it is both true and firsthand. Lastly, not all of it is 30 years old. I have children who have friends, their friends have families, and I have eyes and ears.
Policy = women and children who report less than a certain income level receive state funded benefits. If the women CONTINUE to have children, they continue to receive benefits. My logic is this:
1) there is a policy that provides benefits to poor women with children
2) That policy applies as long as the woman has eligible children
3) some women abuse this policy by continuing to bear children
4) extended families and acquaintances encourage and participate in the abuse by caring for some of the children of the child bearer
5) while better enforcement might help, the root cause of the abuse is an open ended policy
Lastly, I know what generational poverty is. The first step to escape it is a desire to escape. If there is no initiative to better yourself, then the poverty perpetuates. I am skeptical of “the education inequity between low- and middle-income families” in terms of the study methods, assumptions, and conclusions. In short, I wonder if the researchers had an expectation of what they would find, went and did the study and found exactly what they anticipated. All children receive the same BASIC education; are you going to tell me that poor kids are not capable of learning?
Corporate welfare is a different animal, and I am skeptical of that as well
Scott, The you tube post I posted are not fake in any way and are factual happenings and recordings of statements of truth and ideology. If I can get some handle of semantics from the back of a cheerios box, then should I not! As for the study of philosophy I know that I know nothing at all. I see your statements directed to me as hogwash an atempt to under mind the facts and opinions of the you tube links. My use of the word "Takers" in this case has never been about defiling the many great reasons for walfare. If you think other wise go talk see the devil. Philosophy is only the perceived wisdom of the individual. After all "it's faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, and more money" to one old man. So outside of your truths there is only fallacy.
Scott, Bryant and SC
You took my words and twisted them. In NO way did I disrespect the tired, weak or poor. You all owe me an apology. If you do not see that I NEVER disrespect the tired, weak or poor the woman whos son was molested. Im still in awe over that statement Bryant. Then you are all bigots.
Bigots? All three of us? And, just what sort of bigotry would we be guilty of? Poorly worded and often nonsensical arguments? Perhaps. Other than that, I fail to see how the word bigot is germane.
I asked for and example of a program that had not been abused for personal gain and none has been offered. Instead you have focused your attacks on the poor and needy and how they are all takers. So let me point out and example or two of the makers actually being takers.
We have seen and heard the energy industry begging for the opening of federal lands for drilling. They make the argument that they cannot be profitable if that does not happen and we will all suffer. Mean while they have been drilling more and more on private land and they have been very profitable, record setting profits at that.
The difference between drilling on federal land and private land comes down to this. On federal land they get the oil and gas royalty free and on private land they have to pay the land owner a royalty for all the product they extract. On federal land they get a subsidy to help cover the cost of getting the product out of the ground and on private land they do not.
They lobbied to have the subsidy for ethanol dropped because it is a mature industry after a few years. Yet they claim that after a 100+ years they cannot not survive without their subsidies. So in the end we give them the oil and gas for free and pay them to take it and then they jake the price up at the pump every weekend and holiday because of some "issue" at a plant.
They coal industry has claimed they political policy has resulted in their product becoming too expensive. They fail to mention that the introduction of fracking has dropped the price of natural gas and made it much cheaper for electrical generation from natural gas the buying coal. This is a unit cost vs unit cost not a policy vs policy issue.
The poor are easy targets for people to attack as "takers" yet when we are "taker" by the captains of industry we bend over and say thank you. How many of the corrupt people that generated bad loans or fraudulently inflated home values went to jail. I still wait to hear of a program that has never been abused.
All three yes. In NO way did I disrespect the tired, weak or poor. You all owe me an apology. If you do not see that I NEVER disrespect the tired, weak or poor the woman whos son was molested. Im still in awe over that statement Bryant! To put the word "you" implying "me" in frount of that statment about the woman and her child. Though I have and never will give the widows mite. I assure you on an individual level of charity I am compelled. So Bryant please ad more insult to injury.
Scott, The fact that you attack me for posting the links without acknowledging the facts and content of the links is prof positive of what is wrong with this country and why more systems and programs are doomed to fail. 22
Now mule this over with all of your cohorts. Present your argument. Belittle my intelligent by my on use of free resources. Such as the enlightenment on might find on the back of a cheerios box. And again I will tell you that you owe me an apology.
OK, all programs have been abused. I will concede that.
I will also add my own spin. I (I, me, myself) can be tolerant of abuse, misuse, etc if I (I, me, myself) deem the reasoning behind those acts to be worthy and justifiable. Using a generic example, I would not charge nor prosecute a person who stole food out of necessity to feed their hungry family. The crux becomes what is necessity.
A man and woman who lost their jobs, lost their home, and is living on the street would seem to fit the bill. If they are searching for work, if they clearly hate their current situation and long to return to normalcy. Those people are not 'takers' in my book. They are (i hope, temporary) needy.
Counterpoint that with the unmarried woman with 6 kids by five different men who grew up in subsidized public housing on food stamps and is perpetuating that lifestyle in herself and her children with absolutely no abition to rise out of that situation, and I am NOT so merciful. And before you argue that she is living the only life she knows, I call BS. She is not so niave as to imagine that money grows on trees, or that the people who work in stores and drive buses and cabs and such don't earn their money with time and effort. Does she think twice inbetween childbirth about trying to find a job, or better herself? I don't know. Does she think twice before allowing the conception of ANOTHER child that will keep her in welfare and public housing a few more years? I doubt it.
As I said earlier, I have issues and skepticism about 'corporate welfare,' but I will give you one solid fact - most corporation produce 'something' and contibute 'something' back to the economy/society. Please tell me what the habitual, generational, long term welfare mother gives back - except children that will more likely than not perpetuate that broken, dependent lifestyle?
Charlie, just so you know - I also detest those who abuse the welfare (or any support)system and perpetuate the culture of dependence. In your example I would never argue in her support for any reason. As a matter of fact, for a person in such a situation I would support two options: Maximize the level of support at two children - regardless of how many she may subsequently have; or forced sterilization. Draconian, maybe. But, when a person reveals themself to be incapable of making sound decisions and those decisions are at the expense of others (taxpayers), she (or he) has to face consequences.
And, I have real issues with corporate welfare. But, that's a topic for another lengthy blog thread. Good debating.
I second, that, Charlie. Good points by you, although we'll have to agree to disagree over generational poverty and education inequity a bit.
As for you, 22, you make my head hurt. YouTube posts aren't fake and they aren't stupid. In fact, many of them are very cleverly designed to seemingly make a conclusive point concerning a given issue.
As for apologies... Okay. I'm sorry I don't suffer foolish drivel with more grace.
As I have said before look at what you post to see what you attack.
I agree with what you said 100%. The problem that I have with the way people in general wish to approach the problem. Their solutions would harm those "temp" down and out long before it would ever harms the "career" welfare person. I have no idea how to accomplish one with out the other. I will share with you and example of the frustrations that I have had with the system. I once knew a woman that matched your story. She had a boyfriend that made substantial money and they lived together while she was getting full benefits.
I called the fraud line to report them in hopes they would loose their benefits and have to make ends meet like everyone else. The fraud office asked if I could prove she ate food he bought with his money or if he ate food bought with her food stamps. I could not and they would do nothing. Stuff like that is a perfect example of why people get away with defrauding the system.
In a recent study the average 1% at the head of earn on average 380 times more than their average worker. The same people made less than 100 times their average worker 40 years ago. If this continues to happen the "temp" down and out will not be temp any more. The wealth gap is growing at an alarming rate, one that is unsustainable.
Scott, can the links I posted be found to be in any way falsehood? If the links are in fact truth. Then where is your argument? If the links are truth then feel you are speaking propaganda. Thanks for the apology, ditto.
Sc you are wrong. I was only referring to takers. Not the needy. You too Bryant.
I am sorry though when I look back at the examples of programs that are "wastes" and riddled with "takers". They were programs intended to help the needy. At no time have you offered and example of a program that is a "waste" or riddled with "takers" that benefited the rich or a business.
I have seen far too often that if abuses by the rich or businesses increase stock dividends or increased investment returns we look the other way. The poor do not generate an investment return in our investment portfolio so any funds targeting the needy tends to be viewed as a "waste". That is very said and frankly goes against all that Jesus taught.
Thank you for your apology very much. You are so right when you say that i can not list a program that is not abused. One of the biggest forms of abuse is the takers.
22, who is the woman in your first video? Do you know her name? Do you know anything about her? Have you cross-referenced any of the claims in her video against California law or Dominoes Pizza policy? Are you concerned at all by the glaring grammatical error at the end of the uncredited video you hold up as your first example of "takers?" Given your own problematic relationship with the written word, I'm going to guess you missed it.
I mean, there's anecdotal evidence (Charlie) and there's vacuous regurgitation of apocryphal Internet poo aimed at nincompoops without critical thinking skills. I'll take a vigorous debate with Charlie over attempting to undo the damage of a failed educational experience.
Her name is LaToya Hicks aka Chapter, shes not a taker you are so right Mr Garner her satire is pure comic genius! Can it be said Scott that all dyslexic people have a prolematic relationship with writen word. If so, I will not say it, I am lurning to write and read better everyday. "Your right I did miss it. Your vacuous regurgitation of apocryphal internet poo." I do know POO whe I see it.
"nincompoops without critical thinking skills" who me Scott? Judgeing by your ability to argue in defence of Ms Hicks. I would have to say you are a ninompoop.
Scott I am sorry. I also owe Latoya an a apology as well. It seems she is a comic genius. It was vacuous regurgitation of apocryphal internet poo on my part. Again i am sorry. 22
And where did you find the information about the supposed Ms. Hicks? You'll have to show your work to get credit. You can't expect me to take your word at face value because that's not how it works. Also, you failed to answer the other questions in my last post.
Stick with me, 22. You'll figure out this whole "sourcing" thing eventually. Maybe.
The clip of Ms. Hicks's was sent to my e-mail address.
Q "Have you cross-referenced any of the claims in her video against California law or Dominoes Pizza policy?" I did not take the time after reading and watching her videos on snopes. I had enough proof posative that I was wrong in posting her as an example of my use of the word "taker". This being after my emotionaly charged posts at 9:11 and 9:23 3-12-13
Q "Are you concerned at all by the glaring grammatical error at the end of the uncredited video you hold up as your first example of "takers?" Given your own problematic relationship with the written word, I'm going to guess you missed it." Mostly, the only grammatical errors I am concerned with are my own. I would miss and never catch most grammatical errors. I have watched the videos on snopes again and have yet to catch the errors and have seen few or no words at the end of the videos I am watching. What words?
Im still with ya...22
I did not apologies as I did not have anything to apologies for. You only select programs that are for the poor. You have not mentioned any program that has rich "takers".