Reversing America's Decline

We wont because the ethos of the country has changed. That's what the last election showed. We've become a nation of entitlement. We want someone else to pay for our free shit. It can be the feds. It can be the federal reserve. It can be the world bank. Doesn't matter. But someone else has to pay for our free shit. This is where Greece finds itself now, only several steps down the same path.
We're had 4 years of pitiful GDP growth. Money seeks out the best return. And that best return is less and less here. We see the results of weakened US military all over, with wars and rebellions breaking out. We have less influence.

We have always been a nation of entitlements, but who is entitled, and to what are they entitled is sometimes vague. When the American riff-raff people are entitled, it is not vague, however, it is broadcast from the highest yardarm, and fascinating stories created about lazy, shiftless people feeding at the public entitlement trough abound.
When the wealthy, the elite, corporations are entitled, however, it is a quiet secret and few Americans even know what entitlements the upper class receive. Romney mentioned he would close some of the entitlement loopholes he just never got around to naming one loopholes. I would suspect they were some of few loopholes for the riff-raff.

Your knowledge of American history sucks. Entitlements mean people expect big daddy government to pick up the tab. That has only been going on since FDR, and has only applied to the Gimme People.

You might want to go back a little further into our history and look at things like the building of the trans-continental railroad, the Homestead Act and a lot more instances of government "entitlements" that far, far precede FDR.
 
Except for a couple of folks who want to define decline on the basis of temporary economic changes, it seems to me that most here try to define it as a deteriorating culture or "ethos."

That's a pretty nebulous definition and one which begs the question of what government could do about it. It's popular to blame Obama for this supposed "decline," but if the root is culture, there's not much he or anybody else can do to change that. After all, you're describing what is essentially a spiritual issue and THAT isn't correctable through the political system.
 
We have always been a nation of entitlements, but who is entitled, and to what are they entitled is sometimes vague. When the American riff-raff people are entitled, it is not vague, however, it is broadcast from the highest yardarm, and fascinating stories created about lazy, shiftless people feeding at the public entitlement trough abound.
When the wealthy, the elite, corporations are entitled, however, it is a quiet secret and few Americans even know what entitlements the upper class receive. Romney mentioned he would close some of the entitlement loopholes he just never got around to naming one loopholes. I would suspect they were some of few loopholes for the riff-raff.

Your knowledge of American history sucks. Entitlements mean people expect big daddy government to pick up the tab. That has only been going on since FDR, and has only applied to the Gimme People.

You might want to go back a little further into our history and look at things like the building of the trans-continental railroad, the Homestead Act and a lot more instances of government "entitlements" that far, far precede FDR.

How was building the railroad an example of "entitlement"?
 
Reversing America's Decline

RoveMarch_thumb7.jpg
 
Last edited:
Except for a couple of folks who want to define decline on the basis of temporary economic changes, it seems to me that most here try to define it as a deteriorating culture or "ethos."

That's a pretty nebulous definition and one which begs the question of what government could do about it. It's popular to blame Obama for this supposed "decline," but if the root is culture, there's not much he or anybody else can do to change that. After all, you're describing what is essentially a spiritual issue and THAT isn't correctable through the political system.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that America is getting stronger. This is more than a temporary malaise ala the 1970s. This is a fundamental shift in values. What can obama do? Suicide?
 
Except for a couple of folks who want to define decline on the basis of temporary economic changes, it seems to me that most here try to define it as a deteriorating culture or "ethos."

That's a pretty nebulous definition and one which begs the question of what government could do about it. It's popular to blame Obama for this supposed "decline," but if the root is culture, there's not much he or anybody else can do to change that. After all, you're describing what is essentially a spiritual issue and THAT isn't correctable through the political system.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that America is getting stronger. This is more than a temporary malaise ala the 1970s. This is a fundamental shift in values. What can obama do? Suicide?


A fundamental shift if values? From what to what? Be specific, please.
 
Except for a couple of folks who want to define decline on the basis of temporary economic changes, it seems to me that most here try to define it as a deteriorating culture or "ethos."

That's a pretty nebulous definition and one which begs the question of what government could do about it. It's popular to blame Obama for this supposed "decline," but if the root is culture, there's not much he or anybody else can do to change that. After all, you're describing what is essentially a spiritual issue and THAT isn't correctable through the political system.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that America is getting stronger. This is more than a temporary malaise ala the 1970s. This is a fundamental shift in values. What can obama do? Suicide?


A fundamental shift if values? From what to what? Be specific, please.
From individual initiative to entitlement. Someone owes these people medical care, housing, food. And they better pay up.
 
Your knowledge of American history sucks. Entitlements mean people expect big daddy government to pick up the tab. That has only been going on since FDR, and has only applied to the Gimme People.

You might want to go back a little further into our history and look at things like the building of the trans-continental railroad, the Homestead Act and a lot more instances of government "entitlements" that far, far precede FDR.

How was building the railroad an example of "entitlement"?

Where did the land come from and who paid for it?

Much depends upon your definition of "entitlement," doesn't it? Is it an "entitlement" when the government gives free land to railroads, the same as when it sends somebody a check? Why or why not? Is it an "entitlement" for a poor mother to receive WIC aid, but not an "entitlement" when a corporation receives a tax break to move our jobs overseas? Why and how are they different?
 
I dunno if it's reversable... you've got kids going to college so they can be successful, then voting for a multi-millionaire who demonizes the successful vowing to take them down via confiscatory tax policies.

It doesn't get any dumber than that folks.
 
You might want to go back a little further into our history and look at things like the building of the trans-continental railroad, the Homestead Act and a lot more instances of government "entitlements" that far, far precede FDR.

How was building the railroad an example of "entitlement"?

Where did the land come from and who paid for it?

Much depends upon your definition of "entitlement," doesn't it? Is it an "entitlement" when the government gives free land to railroads, the same as when it sends somebody a check? Why or why not? Is it an "entitlement" for a poor mother to receive WIC aid, but not an "entitlement" when a corporation receives a tax break to move our jobs overseas? Why and how are they different?

If you want to define entitlement as giving people money then every gov't employee is receiving an entitlement.
Fortunately only idiots would define it that way. In the railroads' case, there were national reasons to have a trans-continental railroad and doubtless that played into their reasoning,whatever it was. But it was a one time thing. A nd the landowners gave up one thing for something else.
People in entitlements receive something and give up nothing for it. Thus the term. They are simply entitled by virtue of being US citizens and meeting some criteria.
 
You might want to go back a little further into our history and look at things like the building of the trans-continental railroad, the Homestead Act and a lot more instances of government "entitlements" that far, far precede FDR.

How was building the railroad an example of "entitlement"?

Where did the land come from and who paid for it?

Much depends upon your definition of "entitlement," doesn't it? Is it an "entitlement" when the government gives free land to railroads, the same as when it sends somebody a check? Why or why not? Is it an "entitlement" for a poor mother to receive WIC aid, but not an "entitlement" when a corporation receives a tax break to move our jobs overseas? Why and how are they different?

Railroads fueled the great expansion of this country... welfare recipients don't. Yes, it is an entitlement for a poor mother to receive a gubmint check. Corporations do not receive tax breaks to ship jobs overseas.

God your ignorant.
 
How was building the railroad an example of "entitlement"?

Where did the land come from and who paid for it?

Much depends upon your definition of "entitlement," doesn't it? Is it an "entitlement" when the government gives free land to railroads, the same as when it sends somebody a check? Why or why not? Is it an "entitlement" for a poor mother to receive WIC aid, but not an "entitlement" when a corporation receives a tax break to move our jobs overseas? Why and how are they different?

Railroads fueled the great expansion of this country... welfare recipients don't. Yes, it is an entitlement for a poor mother to receive a gubmint check. Corporations do not receive tax breaks to ship jobs overseas.

God your ignorant.


Wanna bet?

Fact Check: Tax break for shipping jobs overseas? Well, sort of | Fox News
 
Where did the land come from and who paid for it?

Much depends upon your definition of "entitlement," doesn't it? Is it an "entitlement" when the government gives free land to railroads, the same as when it sends somebody a check? Why or why not? Is it an "entitlement" for a poor mother to receive WIC aid, but not an "entitlement" when a corporation receives a tax break to move our jobs overseas? Why and how are they different?

Railroads fueled the great expansion of this country... welfare recipients don't. Yes, it is an entitlement for a poor mother to receive a gubmint check. Corporations do not receive tax breaks to ship jobs overseas.

God your ignorant.


Wanna bet?

Fact Check: Tax break for shipping jobs overseas? Well, sort of | Fox News

From your link numbnutz:

Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas.

However, the deduction is not a special loophole afforded only to companies moving work out of America, as the president sometimes makes it sound. Rather, the deduction is written into the tax code pertaining to any cost companies face in the course of doing business

So, your assertion that corporations get tax breaks to ship jobs overseas is bullshit... they get a deduction for costs associated with doing business.
 

One person proves a societal shift?

Come on. You can do better than that...can't you?

ps: I could post a video of David Duke and make the claim that the whole country has gone Nazi too.

Problem... there were enough of these people to put this zero back in office... that indicates a pretty significant shift.
 
If you want to define entitlement as giving people money then every gov't employee is receiving an entitlement.

I didn't define it that way.

In the railroads' case, there were national reasons to have a trans-continental railroad and doubtless that played into their reasoning,whatever it was.

There are national reasons for that women get WIC aid too. Can you not see that?

But it was a one time thing.

No, it wasn't. And, it goes on today with the building and maintenance of the highways businesses use to move their products. We the People made the decision that we and those businesses are "entitled" to a transportation network at little or no expense to them.

We've made the same determination when it comes to taking care of the poor.

People in entitlements receive something and give up nothing for it. Thus the term. They are simply entitled by virtue of being US citizens and meeting some criteria.

Your stereotype is woefully inadequate. Do you actually know anybody receiving aid?
 

Forum List

Back
Top