Lieutenant Colonel Allen West: Politics and Black History

[danielpalos]

I believe the right needs to get a clue and a Cause; the Only time the right has any problem with "income redistribution" is when other peoples money is not used to bailout the wealthiest.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
US Department of the Treasury

Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

He only means that, all things being equal. Otherwise, we have a general welfare clause that requires income redistribution to promote it. The same can be said of the common defense.

Only a moron would believe in the Marxist mantra, 'income redistribution.'

Raise your paw.

Only the right is that cognitively dissonant; providing for the General welfare requires income redistribution as does providing for the specific welfare, as in the example of private laws in the US.

Let's see if you are educable:


What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improvingpoliticalskills.That’swhat makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News



So much for 'income redistribution.'

Special pleading to make a point you don't have? No one is claiming we need to equalize income, just solve for simple poverty.

 

[Clementine]

1. He's not a "Lieutenant Colonel".
2. He wasn't a congressman long enough to be called "former".
3. He's frootier than a nutcake.

Congressman says ISIS will use southern border to enter US: Muslim prayer rug found on Arizona border


Written by Allen West on July 11, 2014

Share!

Share7.5K Tweet1.1K 58 Email70 Share9.4K



In fact ...

Conservatives freak out after mistaking soccer jersey for ‘Muslim prayer rug’ left at border
According to Adam Weinstein at Gawker, the “rug” is actually a diamond-patterned Adidas soccer jersey.

Did West ever publish a retraction for his knee jerk stupidity?

Let's see, ISIS has already said they are coming here. Sadly, they have made good on their threats and continue to behave in the most barbaric way possible. Our southern border is wide open. And you think it's unlikely that terrorists will come through?

Will they have the Mexicans teach them how to cram 30,000 troops into a mini-van?

They'll do the same thing drug cartels do. Start firing rounds at the border guards. When they retreat, like they are told to do, troops can swarm in. There are places along the border that are unwatched. We have 20 or 30 million illegals. 30,000 ISIS troops is nothing compared to that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's see if you are educable:


What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improvingpoliticalskills.That’swhat makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”

What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News

I have even made that argument in the past. We were a military family and had the same exact income as our neighbors on base. Even though we had more children than some, there were those deep in debt, drove clunkers and never seemed to have money for what they needed. On the other side, some people saved enough money to move out of base housing and purchased nice homes.

Most of the time, it comes down to personal decisions we make.

No one has ever said we should not help the disabled and downtrodden. For the able, it's about getting back up. Problem is that the left is quick to subsidize people, even before they fall. No one is more loyal than those who depend on someone from cradle to grave. Of course, you will vote for those responsible for your monthly check and the idea of work frightens some. Is it any wonder that welfare rolls have swelled over the years as less people make a good effort to strike out on their own. What hope is there for a person who doesn't even finish high school?

True that we will never be equal. Even if we redistributed all money and property, we would all be financially equal for one day. You can't redistribute integrity, work ethics or intelligence.

Doing it once would be like handing each person a lump of steel and telling them to get the most out of it. Some would sell it as a paperweight after having done nothing to it. Some would melt it and make nails, thereby earning more. The smart ones would melt it and create thousands of sewing needles and really earn a lot. It's all in how we approach things.

Since too many approach life with an entitlement mentality, true redistribution would be an ongoing thing and would result in less and less people willing and able to carry the load. That is why it fails every time it's tried.

That, and the Soviet endeavors, and the resultant slaughter of millions, seems to have had no effect on the brain-dead and easily led.

They still endorse the theft euphemistically called 'income redistribution.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
US Department of the Treasury

Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

He only means that, all things being equal. Otherwise, we have a general welfare clause that requires income redistribution to promote it. The same can be said of the common defense.

Only a moron would believe in the Marxist mantra, 'income redistribution.'

Raise your paw.

Only the right is that cognitively dissonant; providing for the General welfare requires income redistribution as does providing for the specific welfare, as in the example of private laws in the US.

Let's see if you are educable:


What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“….by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others.Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking.Crap.I thought wehadit this time.Fairness!And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further.Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people willstillhave more than others. And they’llkeepit.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not –cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improvingpoliticalskills.That’swhat makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth John Hawkins Right Wing News



So much for 'income redistribution.'

Special pleading to make a point you don't have? No one is claiming we need to equalize income, just solve for simple poverty.

If I didn't have a point you wouldn't have made the efforts required to lift the sewer grate and stumble out to offer your vapid post.

To 'solve poverty,' try reaching into your pocket, as conservatives do.


1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."
The Giving Gap - Reason.com

 

[ogibillm]

What makes mr. west more qualified to give an opinion on these topics than any other person?

It clearly isn't his former office, or his former rank.

 

[Clementine]

What makes mr. west more qualified to give an opinion on these topics than any other person?

It clearly isn't his former office, or his former rank.

You talk as if being in Washington makes one more intelligent. It merely makes them more apt to kiss the asses of those who can help them keep their careers.

 

[ogibillm]

What makes mr. west more qualified to give an opinion on these topics than any other person?

It clearly isn't his former office, or his former rank.

You talk as if being in Washington makes one more intelligent. It merely makes them more apt to kiss the asses of those who can help them keep their careers.

So we're agreed, he's no expert

 

[PoliticalChic]

What makes mr. west more qualified to give an opinion on these topics than any other person?

It clearly isn't his former office, or his former rank.

You talk as if being in Washington makes one more intelligent. It merely makes them more apt to kiss the asses of those who can help them keep their careers.

So we're agreed, he's no expert

Depends what one means by 'expert.'

On the other hand, there is no doubt that he is smarter than you are: learn from him.

 

[ogibillm]

What makes mr. west more qualified to give an opinion on these topics than any other person?

It clearly isn't his former office, or his former rank.

You talk as if being in Washington makes one more intelligent. It merely makes them more apt to kiss the asses of those who can help them keep their careers.

So we're agreed, he's no expert

Depends what one means by 'expert.'

On the other hand, there is no doubt that he is smarter than you are: learn from him.

So do you admit that he's not an expert?
why did you try to give him credibility using his former office and rank?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What makes mr. west more qualified to give an opinion on these topics than any other person?

It clearly isn't his former office, or his former rank.

You talk as if being in Washington makes one more intelligent. It merely makes them more apt to kiss the asses of those who can help them keep their careers.

So we're agreed, he's no expert

Depends what one means by 'expert.'

On the other hand, there is no doubt that he is smarter than you are: learn from him.

So do you admit that he's not an expert?
why did you try to give him credibility using his former office and rank?

You're as dim as a ten watt bulb.

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

 

[ogibillm]

What makes mr. west more qualified to give an opinion on these topics than any other person?

It clearly isn't his former office, or his former rank.

You talk as if being in Washington makes one more intelligent. It merely makes them more apt to kiss the asses of those who can help them keep their careers.

So we're agreed, he's no expert

Depends what one means by 'expert.'

On the other hand, there is no doubt that he is smarter than you are: learn from him.

So do you admit that he's not an expert?
why did you try to give him credibility using his former office and rank?

You're as dim as a ten watt bulb.

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

It does appear I'm having trouble communicating with you.

Why do you present mr. West as a former congressman and include his former rank if not to try to add weight to his opinions-opinions on subjects his former rank and office do not give special insight?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You talk as if being in Washington makes one more intelligent. It merely makes them more apt to kiss the asses of those who can help them keep their careers.

So we're agreed, he's no expert

Depends what one means by 'expert.'

On the other hand, there is no doubt that he is smarter than you are: learn from him.

So do you admit that he's not an expert?
why did you try to give him credibility using his former office and rank?

You're as dim as a ten watt bulb.

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

It does appear I'm having trouble communicating with you.

Why do you present mr. West as a former congressman and include his former rank if not to try to add weight to his opinions-opinions on subjects his former rank and office do not give special insight?

I can tell by the fact that you are searching for any way to keep this conversation going, that this must be a treasured moment for you- actually conversing with moi- and I don't say that often- eight or ten times a day tops.

But....at the risk of providing a response that you must hear often....you're boring me.

 

[ogibillm]

So we're agreed, he's no expert

Depends what one means by 'expert.'

On the other hand, there is no doubt that he is smarter than you are: learn from him.

So do you admit that he's not an expert?
why did you try to give him credibility using his former office and rank?

You're as dim as a ten watt bulb.

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

It does appear I'm having trouble communicating with you.

Why do you present mr. West as a former congressman and include his former rank if not to try to add weight to his opinions-opinions on subjects his former rank and office do not give special insight?

I can tell by the fact that you are searching for any way to keep this conversation going, that this must be a treasured moment for you- actually conversing with moi- and I don't say that often- eight or ten times a day tops.

But....at the risk of providing a response that you must hear often....you're boring me.

So no answer to why you would attemp to pass mr. West's opinions off as something more than thry are?

I guess what Im asking you is why anyone should care about or for his musings? Why do you care?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Depends what one means by 'expert.'

On the other hand, there is no doubt that he is smarter than you are: learn from him.

So do you admit that he's not an expert?
why did you try to give him credibility using his former office and rank?

You're as dim as a ten watt bulb.

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

It does appear I'm having trouble communicating with you.

Why do you present mr. West as a former congressman and include his former rank if not to try to add weight to his opinions-opinions on subjects his former rank and office do not give special insight?

I can tell by the fact that you are searching for any way to keep this conversation going, that this must be a treasured moment for you- actually conversing with moi- and I don't say that often- eight or ten times a day tops.

But....at the risk of providing a response that you must hear often....you're boring me.

So no answer to why you would attemp to pass mr. West's opinions off as something more than thry are?

I guess what Im asking you is why anyone should care about or for his musings? Why do you care?

Short answer: because he is totally correct in every pronouncement I've provided.

Bet you wish that could ever be said of you, huh?

 

[ogibillm]

So do you admit that he's not an expert?
why did you try to give him credibility using his former office and rank?

You're as dim as a ten watt bulb.

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

It does appear I'm having trouble communicating with you.

Why do you present mr. West as a former congressman and include his former rank if not to try to add weight to his opinions-opinions on subjects his former rank and office do not give special insight?

I can tell by the fact that you are searching for any way to keep this conversation going, that this must be a treasured moment for you- actually conversing with moi- and I don't say that often- eight or ten times a day tops.

But....at the risk of providing a response that you must hear often....you're boring me.

So no answer to why you would attemp to pass mr. West's opinions off as something more than thry are?

I guess what Im asking you is why anyone should care about or for his musings? Why do you care?

Short answer: because he is totally correct in every pronouncement I've provided.

Bet you wish that could ever be said of you, huh?

So... because you agree with his opinion you find him to be a credible source?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're as dim as a ten watt bulb.

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

It does appear I'm having trouble communicating with you.

Why do you present mr. West as a former congressman and include his former rank if not to try to add weight to his opinions-opinions on subjects his former rank and office do not give special insight?

I can tell by the fact that you are searching for any way to keep this conversation going, that this must be a treasured moment for you- actually conversing with moi- and I don't say that often- eight or ten times a day tops.

But....at the risk of providing a response that you must hear often....you're boring me.

So no answer to why you would attemp to pass mr. West's opinions off as something more than thry are?

I guess what Im asking you is why anyone should care about or for his musings? Why do you care?

Short answer: because he is totally correct in every pronouncement I've provided.

Bet you wish that could ever be said of you, huh?

So... because you agree with hid oponion you find him to be a credible source?

Good work, Einstein.

 

[ogibillm]

It does appear I'm having trouble communicating with you.

Why do you present mr. West as a former congressman and include his former rank if not to try to add weight to his opinions-opinions on subjects his former rank and office do not give special insight?

I can tell by the fact that you are searching for any way to keep this conversation going, that this must be a treasured moment for you- actually conversing with moi- and I don't say that often- eight or ten times a day tops.

But....at the risk of providing a response that you must hear often....you're boring me.

So no answer to why you would attemp to pass mr. West's opinions off as something more than thry are?

I guess what Im asking you is why anyone should care about or for his musings? Why do you care?

Short answer: because he is totally correct in every pronouncement I've provided.

Bet you wish that could ever be said of you, huh?

So... because you agree with hid oponion you find him to be a credible source?

Good work, Einstein.

so do you generally believe people solely because they play to your confirmation biases?

do you distrust anyone that challenges those biases?