America Before the Entitlement State

[Greenbeard]

We have had a recent discussion on another thread that emphasized the tendency of Leftists to rewrite history to suit themselves, while modern American conservatives seem to prefer the original versions.

The "original version"? As in, the one in which the 19th century was a time of great social justice?

Good times.

 

[occupied]

We have had a recent discussion on another thread that emphasized the tendency of Leftists to rewrite history to suit themselves, while modern American conservatives seem to prefer the original versions. After decades of up close and personal observation of policies of leftists who do not like to be instructed by history as opposed to results of policies of conservatives who appreciate history, I prefer conservatism by a wide margin.

I don't expct the leftists to agree, however, because it does bring the whole legacy of entitlements into a whole new perspective to do so.

Are you kidding? I watched Beck night after night write his own version of the history of this nation and make up his own definitions of various political terms just to hear them repeated verbatim ad nauseum on various discussion boards. History revision is an all consuming mission to some on the right especially concerning the founding of this nation. History is an interpretive exercise similar to bible study, an unscrupulous person can make it mean anything to further selfish aims.

 

[WillowTree]

[
As we now ponder our $15 trillion dollar debt, our increasingly miserable legacy from . . .

. . . our government's pandering to the very rich and refusal to demand they pay a realistic share of the nation's expenses, coupled with its insistence on having a military force equal to the combined might of the entire rest of the world and to underwriting corporate risk and subsidizing corporate profits to the tune of trillions in unnecessary government spending every year . . .

we still see the leftists thinking the solution is . . .

. . . a government that serves the interests of the people as a whole, rather than the special interests of the richest citizens.

Nor can they imagine a world that would just keep turning and people managing to make things work if the government . . .

. . . continued its current course of being of, by, and for the rich at the expense of the rest of us.

So very true.

well, since the government doesn't charge the poor a damn dime but gives them all the same roads, bridges, education, medical care representatin , etc etc how can you say the rich are treated as special. the rich pay,, the poor don't,, now who is special?? doyathink????

 

[Foxfyre]

We have had a recent discussion on another thread that emphasized the tendency of Leftists to rewrite history to suit themselves, while modern American conservatives seem to prefer the original versions. After decades of up close and personal observation of policies of leftists who do not like to be instructed by history as opposed to results of policies of conservatives who appreciate history, I prefer conservatism by a wide margin.

I don't expct the leftists to agree, however, because it does bring the whole legacy of entitlements into a whole new perspective to do so.

Are you kidding? I watched Beck night after night write his own version of the history of this nation and make up his own definitions of various political terms just to hear them repeated verbatim ad nauseum on various discussion boards. History revision is an all consuming mission to some on the right especially concerning the founding of this nation. History is an interpretive exercise similar to bible study, an unscrupulous person can make it mean anything to further selfish aims.

I'm quite sure Beck's version of history is not the same version of history that many on the left subscribe to these days. I have listened in on some of Beck's history 'lectures' and, as something of a historian myself, I haven't caught him in any errors. I don't always agree with his interpretation of what historical events meant, but that is a different thing.

So. . .if you're going to hold up Beck as the poster boy for conservatism's distortion of history, you'll have to give specific examples, in context, with a link.

 

[Dragon]

I'm quite sure Beck's version of history is not the same version of history that many on the left subscribe to these days. I have listened in on some of Beck's history 'lectures' and, as something of a historian myself, I haven't caught him in any errors. I don't always agree with his interpretation of what historical events meant, but that is a different thing.

The interpretation, and not the bare facts, is where accounts usually differ.

 

[daveman]

Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.

And it couldn't work today because...?


Oh, yeah...the left has created too large a population utterly dependent on government.

...by lawful theft.

...not because they care about "the people", but solely in the interests of amassing and retaining political power.

 

[occupied]

I'm quite sure Beck's version of history is not the same version of history that many on the left subscribe to these days. I have listened in on some of Beck's history 'lectures' and, as something of a historian myself, I haven't caught him in any errors. I don't always agree with his interpretation of what historical events meant, but that is a different thing.

The interpretation, and not the bare facts, is where accounts usually differ.

The interpretation is the point of the study of history, Beck is no historian, he is a history data miner, digging back to cherry pick events to present as proof he is right.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm quite sure Beck's version of history is not the same version of history that many on the left subscribe to these days. I have listened in on some of Beck's history 'lectures' and, as something of a historian myself, I haven't caught him in any errors. I don't always agree with his interpretation of what historical events meant, but that is a different thing.

The interpretation, and not the bare facts, is where accounts usually differ.

No, you suggested Beck rewrote the bare facts. Interpretation is something entirely different. I haven't caught him in any mistakes in the bare facts. And, he usually gets the interpretation correct, at least in my opinion, but every now and then I come up with a different take on why something went down the way it did.

Many leftists, and even a few of our more uneducated on the right, will distort the bare facts as well as the interpretation, however, in order to further a particular ideological perspective. We've seen evidence of it on this thread even.

 

[The T]

And it couldn't work today because...?


Oh, yeah...the left has created too large a population utterly dependent on government.

...by lawful theft.

...not because they care about "the people", but solely in the interests of amassing and retaining political power.

Precisely.

 

[daveman]

New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable. Not sure when lib/dems will realize it, if ever. I have no doubt that as we've fallen off the economic cliff and are on our way down, the lib/dems will be blaming the con/repubs for not raising taxes higher.

Europe is in free fall now, and the libs still want to emulate their policies.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

I'm so glad Democrats are here to get on your nerves, LOL.

Don't flatter yourself.

Besides:

DOMINIONISTS!! BOOGA BOOGA!!

This is a free market fall, daveman. Your politics at work.

I'm sure it comforts you to feel that way, but no.

 

[rdean]

Are Republicans seriously pining for the "good old days" when the elderly were eating cat food?

When people and sometimes their children had to work 12 hours a day 7 days a week in coal mines just to barely scrape by on company scrip.

You mean before those nasty unions made people's lives bearable.

 

[daveman]

Who needs a nanny state?

it appears that you tit sucking liberals need a nanny state, that's who.

Those who lived through the first couple of winters when the first settlers arrived in America and those who lived through the dust bowl had probably the worst of any group of Americans in our history. But they got through it, and as a result formed the backbone of an amazing uniquely American culture that propelled us to be the greatest nation the world has ever known. Actually we didn't start retreating from that until the entitlement mentality started kicking in.

Thanks to the left.

 

[Steelplate]

Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.

New York? Chicago? You sure the differences between then and now means that what worked then won't work now? Based on what?

You can blow it off if you want to, but the fact remains that what we're doing now is unsustainable. Not sure when lib/dems will realize it, if ever. I have no doubt that as we've fallen off the economic cliff and are on our way down, the lib/dems will be blaming the con/repubs for not raising taxes higher.

Left-wingers believe if they can mutter a few magical incarnations that they have disposed of an argument. They don't need to prove their excuse is valid. Merely uttering it is sufficient.

Really??? REALLY????

Like fuck you Commie and the like is proof of validity? How about the whole... "stop sucking the Government tit and get a job, loser"? that's valid?

You fuckers are the kings of one line posts and you want to tell us about "magical incantations"? Well, Looking yourselves in the mirror was never your strong suits. You'd just rather bitch and moan about poor folk, queers and Mexicans.

 

[daveman]

I should've known: if you can't beat 'em, demagogue 'em.

[...]

But no, the left wants a nanny state. Paid for by the rich of course, who have endless streams of money and will happily fork it over without issue. Fuck it, why don't we cut the crap and just switch over to a socialist state right fucking now and save us all a lot of time and grief. We'll be the biggest fucking banana republic the world has ever seen, but what the hell we'll by God have income equality.

Now I'm wondering who the demagogue is. You meant not you, right?

If so, your post kind of undermines that.

Not really. He's right. The left want varying degrees of socialism, up to and including state ownership of all property.

"For the children!!", don'tcha know.

 

[daveman]

Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.

Correct.

Not such a ‘nice try,’ however.

The advent of modern industrialization rendered the ‘natural regulators’ of capitalism ineffective, including the ‘labor market.’ The doctrine of ‘freedom/liberty to contract’ became moot by the First Quarter of the 20th Century.

As millions moved into cities and urban areas from farms and other rural venues, the ability to find work became more difficult and the likelihood of unemployment became greater regardless a job seeker’s efforts.

Economic crises such as the Great Depression made it mandatory for government to provide public assistance and other social programs.

Conservative dogma as to the unilateral creation of ‘entitlements’ by government as some nefarious conspiracy to ‘control society’ is rightist paranoid idiocy.

Great.So build a time machine and go back to the 19th century if you think its so great. Have fun no getting to bathe everyday!

Not to mention being subject to infection and diseases with no treatment and cure only to be dead by the age of 50. African Americans and women wouldn’t think it such a fine time, either.

Yet another leftist who believes without government holding his hand, the clock turns back two centuries.

 

[daveman]

Create a society where there is adequate work to go around and then start callously reneging on the social contract.

Well put.


Inequality in society is fine so long as the inequality serves the betterment of all.

As long as everyone is equally miserable, everyone will be happy!

 

[The T]

Create a society where there is adequate work to go around and then start callously reneging on the social contract.

Well put.


Inequality in society is fine so long as the inequality serves the betterment of all.

As long as everyone is equally miserable, everyone will be happy!

The absolute tenant of Statism: Spreading misery equally.

 

[The T]

Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.

Correct.

Not such a ‘nice try,’ however.

The advent of modern industrialization rendered the ‘natural regulators’ of capitalism ineffective, including the ‘labor market.’ The doctrine of ‘freedom/liberty to contract’ became moot by the First Quarter of the 20th Century.

As millions moved into cities and urban areas from farms and other rural venues, the ability to find work became more difficult and the likelihood of unemployment became greater regardless a job seeker’s efforts.

Economic crises such as the Great Depression made it mandatory for government to provide public assistance and other social programs.

Conservative dogma as to the unilateral creation of ‘entitlements’ by government as some nefarious conspiracy to ‘control society’ is rightist paranoid idiocy.

Great.So build a time machine and go back to the 19th century if you think its so great. Have fun no getting to bathe everyday!

Not to mention being subject to infection and diseases with no treatment and cure only to be dead by the age of 50. African Americans and women wouldn’t think it such a fine time, either.

Yet another leftist who believes without government holding his hand, the clock turns back two centuries.

Yeah...nevermind personal responsibility. That is unheard of on the left.

 

[daveman]

Well put.


Inequality in society is fine so long as the inequality serves the betterment of all.

That isn't what he said. What he said was a paraphrase straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

And I agree 100% with both statements.

 

[daveman]

Well put.


Inequality in society is fine so long as the inequality serves the betterment of all.

As long as everyone is equally miserable, everyone will be happy!

The absolute tenant of Statism: Spreading misery equally.

From what I've seen, leftists are a pretty miserable lot. They want everyone else to join them.