Liberal policy is unsustainable - which is why it ALWAYS leads to collapse

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This is liberal sustainability:

It isn't "anarchy" since it was what built the United States. It was legal for over 200 years in this country and we weren't "anarchist" at any point, unless you count the failed Confederate rebellion when the South went to war to keep their slaves working in the hemp fields.

How about someone blow PCP smoke into your system? Would you have problem with that? How about cyanide gas? Or tear gas? Or pepper spray? Mace?

Are you seriously trying to compare Cannabis to PCP, cyanide, or even pepper spray?

Yes. Do you think those substances are safe for you? You obviously think THC is safe for others. Reconcile that.

 

[KNB]

How about someone blow PCP smoke into your system? Would you have problem with that? How about cyanide gas? Or tear gas? Or pepper spray? Mace?

Are you seriously trying to compare Cannabis to PCP, cyanide, or even pepper spray?

Yes. Do you think those substances are safe for you? You obviously think THC is safe for others. Reconcile that.

Except that the US Federal government doesn't currently have a website set up explaining that PCP and cyanide may potentially cure cancer the way it does for Cannabis. If you can find a link to a government website which says otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it.

So yes, compared to PCP and cyanide, Cannabis is safe for you.

Who did you vote for in 2008 and 2012?

Myself.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Was I supposed to vote for either of the two corporate muppets who ran on the major party tickets, or should I vote my conscience?

 

[S.J.]

Are you seriously trying to compare Cannabis to PCP, cyanide, or even pepper spray?

Yes. Do you think those substances are safe for you? You obviously think THC is safe for others. Reconcile that.

Except that the US Federal government doesn't currently have a website set up explaining that PCP and cyanide may potentially cure cancer the way it does for Cannabis. If you can find a link to a government website which says otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it.

So yes, compared to PCP and cyanide, Cannabis is safe for you.

Myself.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Was I supposed to vote for either of the two corporate muppets who ran on the major party tickets, or should I vote my conscience?

No, no, by all means vote your conscience. And thank you!

 

[FJO]

We'll gee there is an easy solution for this. Raise the wages! 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. Surely corporations can afford it. If people earn too much money they do not qualify for welfare. Why don't you wingers comprehend this? Most people on welfare have jobs you kooks.

Actually, there is a much better solution than communism (ie unconstitutionally forcing private industry to give people money). End the unconstitutional entitlement nightmare. Eliminate welfare. Eliminate SNAP. Eliminate Social Security. Eliminate Obamacare. Problem solved.

Do you ever notice that liberals cannot come up with even a single solution that does not include placing a gun to the head of a citizen and forcing them to do something?

Man you have the worst critical thinking skills and apparently have no earthly understanding what communism even is. How is it asking for fair wages communism? It's okay with you that the mega wealthy are greedy and are reaping most of the rewards done by low wagers? It's okay with you that productivity in the lower classes has increased 2 fold since the 30s yet wages have remained flat and below inflation? It's okay with you that 95% of the income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners? Why is it justified in your mind? Asking for higher wages is not communism. I am not even close to suggesting we get rid of the wealthy class. I totally support capitalism. I just want reforms made. Why is that so treacherous to you?

Seriously dude, the mega wealthy in this country have you totally fooled.

The best indicator of an incompetent and lying coward is the frequency by which he uses the word: FAIR.

To these malcontents, nothing, ever is fair.

Ever noticed that they NEVER give number as to what would be "FAIR"?

If the reviled 1% paid 99% of their income into taxes, that would not be "fair", those bastards could afford to pay 99.99%. Hell even 100%! And don't be too sure that even that would satisfy those leeches who blather about "FAIR".

If the minimum wage was raised to $50.00/hour, why not 51? 75? or 100?
Anything else would surely not be "FAIR".

If there were no more "rich" people (wish fulfillment of the freeloading whiners), they would still think that just because the now poor former rich were once rich, they should be executed for their colossal nerve of having been rich, once, in the name of "Fairness", of course.

To these worthless crybabies there are only two things that are "FAIR": Everybody lives in equal misery or living off somebody else's fruit of labor.

 

[JoeB131]

Census Bureau says 86 million private sector workers are supporting 148 million benefit takers...

Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.

These are the people who built America, and these are the people who can sustain it as a free country. The liberal media have not made them famous like the polar bear, but they are truly a threatened species.

All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who "received benefits from one or more programs" in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

]

The only people screwing working folks are the 1%ers you worship and insist shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes.

The question is not "how many people are receiving benefits", but "how much are they receiving in benefits?"

For instance, an unemployed person would count as part of the 147M you mention if he is collecting unemployment insurance for the four weeks between jobs, but he would also count as the 86M for the other 48 weeks he worked.

Conversely, if you have a single mother of three who works for WalMart, and Walmart only pays her minimum wage so she has to collect food stamps, her family counts as one of your sainted Taxpayers, and four "welfare recipiants".

Now, Poodle, realizing that you are too dense to see the problem, but when government is doing more for this woman and her family than the people she slaves away for 40 hours a week, you can kind of see why she has an interest in more government, right?

 

[JoeB131]

[

I wonder what sources you turn to for your information...

• Republican's warned the world that Social Security was a nightmare in 1935. Dumbocrats rammed it down the throats of the American people anyway. Conservatives have since offered endless reform solutions and all have been ignored by the Dumbocrats.

• 
  
  Hey, maybe we should just put our old people on Ice flows like the Eskimos used to do.
  
  Oh, wait. no, thanks to global warming, we don't have enough ice floes... Sorry about that.
  
  I do agree that Social Security IS a problem in that when it was instituted, the average lifespan was only 65, so not a lot of people lived to collect it. Today it's 78. But given a 60 year old who finds herself unemployed has very poor prospects of getting ANY job, it's not like we can raise the retirement age to 70 and call it a day.
  
  
  
  
  

  [*]Republican's warned the world that Medicare and Medicaid was a nightmare in 1967. Dumbocrats rammed it down the throats of the American people anyway. Conservatives have since offered endless reform solutions and all have been ignored by the Dumbocrats.

  
  Actually, most Americans supported Medicare and Medicaid because they were good ideas. And most of your "solutions" involve this.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  [*]Republican's warned the world that Obamacare was a nightmare in 2009. Dumbocrats rammed it down the throats of the American people anyway. Conservatives have since voted to repeal it many times in the House and each has been ignored by the Dumbocrats.

  
  Well, if we went to a single payer system and treated health care like a public service LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY, it wouldn't be a nightmare. INstead we instituted the "Free Market" solution Romney and the Heritage Foundation insisted on, and surprise, surprise, we had plutocrats acting like plutocrats.
  
  
  

  [*]And worst of all - despite all of these warnings which history has proven the Republican's were right about - Dumbocrats have driven jobs overseas, hammering the proverbial nail into the coffin of these unsustainable communist "ideas" of the Dumbocrats.

Again, guy, I like breathign clean air, I like drinking clean water and I like knowing when I go to work tomorrow, a faulty machine isn't going to slice off my arm. You might want to live in Mitt Romney's dream world where Chinese babes live 120 to a shitter to make him rich, but I don't think we can race that far to the bottom.

You claim you want to "grow the economy"? Then repeal Obamacare. Approve tax reform and authorize a fair flat rate (which also eliminates all deductions and loopholes). Make that flat rate 10% on individuals and 25% on corporations. Eliminate the costly regulations and red tape. Approve all permits for domestic energy productions. Approve the Keystone Pipeline.

Why do all your solutions involve giving the Rich More? Because, honestly, we've been doign that for 30 years now, and the prosperity isn't coming.

After these steps, the economy would be running like a Lamborghini on steroids. But Dumbocrats will never take any of these steps. Why? Because it would take people off of the government plantation. And Dumbocrats need the masses dependent on the government plantation because it ensures them votes for the oppressive power they crave.

Guy, I've been hearing this shit from you guys since Ronnie Ray-gun. And we deregulate and give tax cuts to the rich, and things never really get any better for the working class, much less the poor.

Make the rich pay their fair share, put American Workers ahead of Multi-National Corporations, and THAT'S the path to prosperity.

 

[editec]

Yeah, Rottie we all know you believe the rich just aren't rich enough.

Get off you knees lad.

 

[Seawytch]

The federal government has emerged as one of the most potent factors driving income inequality in the United States - especially in the nation's capital....Redistributing Up

The Unequal State of America: a Reuters series

 

[midcan5]

Friday we were up in the land of the haves, Princeton, NJ. If you open your eyes you see cars of all makes and models none made in the US, none made by Americans, but all contributing to so called socialized medicine in Europe and Japan. Also supporting union workers in Germany that make twice the wage of the few remaining American union laborers. So as Pogo noted long ago we have met the enemy and not only may he be us he is us.

But add the fact our companies hide monies overseas and the last republican presidential candidate had money hidden overseas. Anyone who votes republican today has no need to look no further than their mirror for the problem.

"Corporatism reappeared in the 1960s in such places as the British union movement, the American business group known as the Round Table and its imitative Canadian equivalent, the Business Council on National Issues. The last two can claim to have set much of their countries' contemporary economic and social agendas. The banding together of citizens into interest groups becomes corporatist, that is to say dangerous, only when the interest group loses its specific focus and seeks to override the democratic system. In the case of the British unions and the North American business councils, their every intervention into public affairs has been intended to undermine the democratic participation of individual citizens." p472 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul

"Piketty's central discovery, if we may call it that, is that contemporary capitalism is over the long run steadily transferring huge quantities of wealth from the poor to the rich, reconstituting thereby the inherited or patrimonial privilege and power characteristic of Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This fact may come as a surprise to professional economists, but it does not particularly startle those of us who have squandered our youth and idled away our maturity reading Karl Marx. All societies exist for the purpose of transferring wealth from those who create it -- the poor -- to those who do not -- the rich. The academic professions exist for the purpose of rationalizing this transfer, the churches exist for the purpose of blessing it, and the arts exist for the purpose of decorating the transfer so as to make it as charming as possible [even though this often comes to nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.]" Robert Paul Wolff in The Philosopher's Stone: THOMAS PIKETTY CAPITAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY CONCLUSION

 

[PoliticalChic]

Census Bureau says 86 million private sector workers are supporting 148 million benefit takers...

Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.

These are the people who built America, and these are the people who can sustain it as a free country. The liberal media have not made them famous like the polar bear, but they are truly a threatened species.

All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who "received benefits from one or more programs" in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

86 million Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148 million Benefit Takers

Yes, this is the reality. What are we going to do about it? Republicans want to stick their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. Well it is not going to. The world is changing and we need to grow the economy to keep up.

" Republicans want to stick their heads in the sand blah blah blah....."


Wait.....did you just blame Republicans for not growing the economy???????


What kind of idiot hasn't noticed who has been in charge for five years????






Tutorial coming up:

1.More than 6.7 million more Americans have been plunged into poverty since Obama became President.

2.Real household income is down 5%

3. Consumer prices are up 10.2%

4. Total federal debt is up 58%

5. Gasoline prices are up 82%

6. Food stamp recipients up 49%

7. Debt held by the public is up 89%

However, the Obama administration recently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and $626 billion the year after. At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency.
As of 2012, according to the most recent figures reported by the Census Bureau, median (midpoint) income for all U.S. households was $51,017, which was 4.9 percent lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was in 2008, the year before Obama took office.
The same story applies to family income, which includes many families with two earners. (The “household” figure includes single persons living alone, as well as families.) Median family income in 2012 was $62,241, or 5.1 percent below the inflation-adjusted 2008 level.
The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures.

8. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.
Obama?s Numbers, October Update

9... in today’s recovery — the slowest in the modern era going back to 1947 — private capital investment has lagged badly. ... so has the jobs situation, with 92 million dropping out of the workforce altogether. A labor-participation rate of 62.8% and an employment-to-population rate of 58% are historic lows indicative of the anemic jobs recovery. Big Business Swings Behind a Mantra of Growth - The New York Sun

10. Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama | NewsBusters

11. . ".... the... [dollar] has today a value of barely a 1,250th of an ounce of gold, a staggering plunge from an 853rd of an ounce on the day Mr. Obama took office...." Fiat Wages - The New York Sun


12. "CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made

Federal deficits have soared between 2009 and 2012, bring the total long-term debt to a level equal to 73 percent of the nation’s GDP. “Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar.”
CBO says deficits slated to shrink in coming years, but will soar again if spending or tax changes are not made | Dallas Morning News

13. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard

 

[Dante]

America was "built" way before many of today's parasites of Reagan's Greed is Good came onto the scene. Piles of cash sitting in investment pools get taxed -- this does not make the beneficiaries "workers" Many invested in selling America to the highest bidder.

Life is NOT an Ayn Rand novel

Sent from my LGMS769 using Tapatalk

 

[Dante]

The "economy" depending on If you invest rather than actually "work" Is doing just fine.

Just ask any 1% er you may bump into

Sent from my LGMS769 using Tapatalk

 

[FJO]

The "economy" depending on If you invest rather than actually "work" Is doing just fine.

Just ask any 1% er you may bump into

Sent from my LGMS769 using Tapatalk

Your post indicates that you cavalierly dismiss any and all result of one's using his brains, and seem to think that you only consider sweating physical labor as "work".

Else, you are just green with envy that you never had the brains to earn money by wisely investing.

In other words, you are an elitist liberal.

 

[Seawytch]

The "economy" depending on If you invest rather than actually "work" Is doing just fine.

Just ask any 1% er you may bump into

Sent from my LGMS769 using Tapatalk

Your post indicates that you cavalierly dismiss any and all result of one's using his brains, and seem to think that you only consider sweating physical labor as "work".

Else, you are just green with envy that you never had the brains to earn money by wisely investing.

In other words, you are an elitist liberal.

Oh, so you think they should be taxed the same then? Okay.

 

[Billy000]

Actually, there is a much better solution than communism (ie unconstitutionally forcing private industry to give people money). End the unconstitutional entitlement nightmare. Eliminate welfare. Eliminate SNAP. Eliminate Social Security. Eliminate Obamacare. Problem solved.

Do you ever notice that liberals cannot come up with even a single solution that does not include placing a gun to the head of a citizen and forcing them to do something?

Man you have the worst critical thinking skills and apparently have no earthly understanding what communism even is. How is it asking for fair wages communism? It's okay with you that the mega wealthy are greedy and are reaping most of the rewards done by low wagers? It's okay with you that productivity in the lower classes has increased 2 fold since the 30s yet wages have remained flat and below inflation? It's okay with you that 95% of the income gains have gone to the top 5% of earners? Why is it justified in your mind? Asking for higher wages is not communism. I am not even close to suggesting we get rid of the wealthy class. I totally support capitalism. I just want reforms made. Why is that so treacherous to you?

Seriously dude, the mega wealthy in this country have you totally fooled.

• First of all, you didn't say "ask for fair wages" you said "raise the wages" (ie force corporations)
  
  
• Second, who decides what constitutes "fair wages"? You? Are you so arrogant as to believe you know what's best for America? If not you, who? Obama? Please tell me A.) what the magic number is that dictates "fair" and B.) who sets that magic number?
  
  
• Third, who decides what constitutes "greedy"? You? Are you so arrogant as to believe you know what's best for America? If not you, who? Obama? Please tell me A.) what the magic number is that dictates "greedy" and B.) who sets that magic number? I mean, somewhere in the U.S. right now are a slew of hungry, cold, and homeless people (including children) and what are you doing about it? Spending a fortune on computers and internet service so you can hurl insults at people who have more facts and form better arguments than you. Talk about greedy! If those unfortunate people are ever empowered to decide what constitutes "greedy", you are so fucked. But hey, just keep ignoring those people as you hoard your own income you selfish hypocrite.
  
  
• Fourth, what constitutes "reforms" in your mind? All you said in your initial post was "raise the wages" (I have bolded it in red above so that there is no confusion) but you follow that up with "I'm not asking for communism, I just want reforms" - yet you outlined no "reforms".
  
  
• Fifth, why do you feel the need to meddle in the free market? If you don't like the wages Walmart is paying, why don't you open your own retail chain and pay the wages you want to see people paid? If you don't like the wages McDonald's is paying, why don't you open your own fast food chain and pay the wages you want to see people paid? Answer: because you are lazy. You find it easier to place a gun to the head of your fellow citizen and insist they obey you (like all communists such as Stalin & Castro) than be excited about the opportunities of the free market and make the changes you want to see by starting your own business and paying your own employees the wages you desire.

I would say I eagerly anticipate your response to these very fair questions, but we both know all we will see is your hurling more personal insults out of your frustration due to your inability to back up your very absurd position.

Yeah no shit. Raising wages is the only way to make them fair.

Actually yes there is a mathematical way to determine fair wages. PRODUCTIVITY. Because productivity has doubled since the 30s and wages have remained flat, the logical solution is to double wages.

It's interesting that you are so concerned with me being objective yet you think we should just put an end to welfare. Who are YOU to decide that? Most people would agree that 1% of the top earners owning 40% of the nation's wealth is greedy.

I've already made it clear what I mean by reforms.

Don't give me this open my own business bullshit. If I did and paid my employees fairly it would not fix the over all national problem and you know it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Are you seriously trying to compare Cannabis to PCP, cyanide, or even pepper spray?

Yes. Do you think those substances are safe for you? You obviously think THC is safe for others. Reconcile that.

Except that the US Federal government doesn't currently have a website set up explaining that PCP and cyanide may potentially cure cancer the way it does for Cannabis. If you can find a link to a government website which says otherwise, I would be very interested in seeing it.

So yes, compared to PCP and cyanide, Cannabis is safe for you.

So people should be allowed to force others into chemotherapy because it helps cure cancer.
Because, compared to PCP and cyanide, pot is safe for you, it should be legal and OK to ingest into others. That is a pot nazi perspective.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

[

I wonder what sources you turn to for your information...

• Republican's warned the world that Social Security was a nightmare in 1935. Dumbocrats rammed it down the throats of the American people anyway. Conservatives have since offered endless reform solutions and all have been ignored by the Dumbocrats.

• 
  
  Hey, maybe we should just put our old people on Ice flows like the Eskimos used to do.
  
  Oh, wait. no, thanks to global warming, we don't have enough ice floes... Sorry about that.
  
  I do agree that Social Security IS a problem in that when it was instituted, the average lifespan was only 65, so not a lot of people lived to collect it. Today it's 78. But given a 60 year old who finds herself unemployed has very poor prospects of getting ANY job, it's not like we can raise the retirement age to 70 and call it a day.
  
  
  
  
  

  [*]Republican's warned the world that Medicare and Medicaid was a nightmare in 1967. Dumbocrats rammed it down the throats of the American people anyway. Conservatives have since offered endless reform solutions and all have been ignored by the Dumbocrats.

  
  Actually, most Americans supported Medicare and Medicaid because they were good ideas. And most of your "solutions" involve this.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Well, if we went to a single payer system and treated health care like a public service LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY, it wouldn't be a nightmare. INstead we instituted the "Free Market" solution Romney and the Heritage Foundation insisted on, and surprise, surprise, we had plutocrats acting like plutocrats.
  
  
  
  
  Again, guy, I like breathign clean air, I like drinking clean water and I like knowing when I go to work tomorrow, a faulty machine isn't going to slice off my arm. You might want to live in Mitt Romney's dream world where Chinese babes live 120 to a shitter to make him rich, but I don't think we can race that far to the bottom.
  
  
  
  

  You claim you want to "grow the economy"? Then repeal Obamacare. Approve tax reform and authorize a fair flat rate (which also eliminates all deductions and loopholes). Make that flat rate 10% on individuals and 25% on corporations. Eliminate the costly regulations and red tape. Approve all permits for domestic energy productions. Approve the Keystone Pipeline.

  
  Why do all your solutions involve giving the Rich More? Because, honestly, we've been doign that for 30 years now, and the prosperity isn't coming.
  
  

  After these steps, the economy would be running like a Lamborghini on steroids. But Dumbocrats will never take any of these steps. Why? Because it would take people off of the government plantation. And Dumbocrats need the masses dependent on the government plantation because it ensures them votes for the oppressive power they crave.

  
  Guy, I've been hearing this shit from you guys since Ronnie Ray-gun. And we deregulate and give tax cuts to the rich, and things never really get any better for the working class, much less the poor.
  
  Make the rich pay their fair share, put American Workers ahead of Multi-National Corporations, and THAT'S the path to prosperity.

• 
  What makes you think the rich don't already pay their fair share in taxes? The facts are not on your side.

 

[JoeB131]

[
What makes you think the rich don't already pay their fair share in taxes? The facts are not on your side.

Beause we can't pay our debts and we were able to pay our debts before Reagan came along and fucked it all up by cutting rich people's taxes.

 

[FJO]

The "economy" depending on If you invest rather than actually "work" Is doing just fine.

Just ask any 1% er you may bump into

Sent from my LGMS769 using Tapatalk

Your post indicates that you cavalierly dismiss any and all result of one's using his brains, and seem to think that you only consider sweating physical labor as "work".

Else, you are just green with envy that you never had the brains to earn money by wisely investing.

In other words, you are an elitist liberal.

Oh, so you think they should be taxed the same then? Okay.

I believe in equal opportunity, equal responsibility and equal taxation.

You believe in equal outcome, regardless of effort and ability.

 

[Nosmo King]

Perhaps it's time we insist that the 1% get off their asses and 'create' some jobs! That's why the Right wants them to be coddled and pampered. The Right heaps tax benefits on them, the right puts them on a pedestal and lauds them for taking so much of the economic pie unto themselves. Where are they now? Is that cash sitting in an off shore account doing nothing? Because if it is, it certainly isn't flowing around our economy paying taxes and investing in new job opportunities!

The villains, according to the Right, are the elderly and disabled who are demonized as 'takers'. The sector most praised by the Right is either greedy or impotent.