Welfare State Devouring Prosperity

[tyroneweaver]

Farm "welfare" wouldn't be necessary if the farmers were allowed to farm. They aren't and the government pays them for not farming.

at current bushel prices that is not likely

btw the epa mandates 10 pct of corn crops go to ethonol

 

[thanatos144]

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

I'll go along with that.

Who the **** said we should live in a democracy???? We are a constitutional republic.

 

[DiamondDave]

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

I'll go along with that.

Who the **** said we should live in a democracy???? We are a constitutional republic.

And since when does 'democracy' require people giving up their earnings?? Well, except to the ones who's only goal is wealth redistribution anyway... And I think our newb there4eyeM is indeed another in the long line of greedy little jealous twits who want something for nothing

 

[thanatos144]

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

I'll go along with that.

Who the **** said we should live in a democracy???? We are a constitutional republic.

And since when does 'democracy' require people giving up their earnings?? Well, except to the ones who's only goal is wealth redistribution anyway... And I think our newb there4eyeM is indeed another in the long line of greedy little jealous twits who want something for nothing

It is shocking how ignorant the young is about our country....And if there4eyeM is not young thats even more shocking.

 

[DiamondDave]

Speaking of welfare state... one of the welfare supporters favorites, ain't like it used to be....

Social Security not deal it once was for workers - Yahoo! News

 

[The T]

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

I'll go along with that.

The Founders opted for a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is nothing but mob rule, and they knew it.

 

[Darkwind]

Working Americans have seen flat wages for about thirty years. Who exactly is responsible for their plight? Who sets wages? Who decides to offshore their workers? Since Capital Gains dropped to the 15% tax rate, why has almost as many jobs been created offshore versus jobs created domestically?
Why is this recession"s recovery been sluggish while corporations have seen record profits, yet no jobs have been created? Why has the working class seen their share of the National Income drop to record levels? Why has the concept of upwards mobility in America declined?
Something is causing our welfare state? Exactly what is it?

Ah yes...another progressive totally baffled by economics and life in general! Why IS progressive policy not working? Why WON'T the Private Sector cooperate? How come I'm not dating a super-model? Why isn't life FAIR?

Is being part Main Street America being progressive? Isn't Main Street America the backbone of America?? Isn't Main Street America made up of working Americans from all political persuasions?
The private sector hasn't been cooperating for quite awhile as noted by Offshoring (or Offshore Outsourcing) and Job Loss Among U.S. Workers that was put together by the Congressional Research Service. ( http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32292_20110121.pdf )
So is it progressive to live in reality? It's a fact, the private sector hasn't been cooperative for decades and now America's economy and the working class are paying the price.

Cooperative with what, and to whose benefit?

 

[there4eyeM]

So, you disagree with Brandeis? You have the right. In fact, you seem pretty far to the right.
Laughable, childish tantrums don't replace debate.
Republics function democratically.
I suppose you are just clearly saying you are for the grotesque distortion of democratic processes caused by hyper-concentration of riches (not necessarily 'wealth'). Why do you think anti-trust legislation happened?
Exaggeration is also transparent lack of intellectual force. No where have my posts suggest anyone be forced to give up their 'earnings'.
Some people are so exclusively dichotomous that nuance is invisible. They will not understand me.

 

[DiamondDave]

If you are for the elimination of the 'concentration of riches' you are indeed for wealth redistribution.. hence giving up earnings and/or accumulated wealth

You don't get to talk out of both sides of your mouth without getting called on it

 

[Full-Auto]

If you are for the elimination of the 'concentration of riches' you are indeed for wealth redistribution.. hence giving up earnings and/or accumulated wealth

You don't get to talk out of both sides of your mouth without getting called on it

sorry to see the nannies got to you brother.

 

[there4eyeM]

"If you are for the elimination of the 'concentration of riches' you are indeed for wealth redistribution'

Once again, either the inability to understand or the willful distortion of what is said. Go back and read!

 

[DiamondDave]

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

I'll go along with that.

Uhhh yeah... you're not for the wealth redistribution plan

 

[there4eyeM]

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."
"Uhhh yeah... you're not for the wealth redistribution plan"

Where does this say that? Do you understand English? It says there can be one of two conditions, but not both. It says nothing about re-distribution. Do you need it translated into French? C'est faisable!

 

[DiamondDave]

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."
"Uhhh yeah... you're not for the wealth redistribution plan"

Where does this say that? Do you understand English? It says there can be one of two conditions, but not both. It says nothing about re-distribution. Do you need it translated into French? C'est possible!

Are you or are you not against the concentration of riches?? Do you understand what it means to be against the concentration of riches?

I am for the freedom in our constitutional republic (not a democracy, and THANK GOD we are not a democracy) wherein you can succeed or fail, be grossly rich or pitifully poor, and everything in between. The accumulation of someone else's huge wealth does not prevent me from gaining more myself. Someone else's failure does not put their situation or burden upon me, for we do have the freedom to fail that goes hand in hand with the freedom to succeed.

The 'concentration of wealth' is not a concern of government in our system. For we have private property rights. And for you to be against the concentration of wealth, you are inherently against the freedoms we have that allow that. You do not, and should not, have the ability to use a democratic majority to take away private property rights.

Democracy is nothing more than the ability of the masses to vote away the rights of the minority. Using whim, envy, and numbers to bring about the tyranny of the masses and trample on every freedom we may have. Our founding fathers knew this and it is specifically why we were not set up as a democracy.

 

[francoHFW]

Speaking of welfare state... one of the welfare supporters favorites, ain't like it used to be....

Social Security not deal it once was for workers - Yahoo! News

Thanks to Pubs for chopping up SS while pandering to the rich.

OP? Thanks for the cronyism and corruption Pub World Depress- and the stupidest wars EVER.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Are you or are you not against the concentration of riches?? Do you understand what it means to be against the concentration of riches?"

If you absolutely refuse to read, reflect and understand content before hurrying to deliver what you've made up your mind to say, continuing is pointless.

Just in case anyone else was following this and is reachable, notice that nothing was said about being against accumulating more than someone else. Repeatedly, the problem has been identified as 'great wealth concentrated in a few hands', as the late Chief Justice put it, or, as I said, 'the grotesque distortion of democratic processes caused by hyper-concentration of riches (not necessarily 'wealth')'.
Again, why do you think anti-trust legislation happened? That was carried out under an administration few would call 'leftist'.

 

[DiamondDave]

1) You consider the great wealth in the hands of a few as a problem that has to be dealt with... that is very telling in itself... if it is a problem, what is the solution kimosabe??
2) To 'use the democratic process' to 'fix' the 'hyper-concentration of riches' means WHAT?? It certainly does not mean to let people exercise their freedoms to accumulate more wealth
3) Anti-trust does not mean being against accumulation or a concentration of wealth, but instead it means to have a competitive marketplace

 

[there4eyeM]

OK, just for yaks:

" You consider the great wealth in the hands of a few as a problem that has to be dealt with"
Never said that.
"if it is a problem, what is the solution"
Never used the word problem.
"To 'use the democratic process' to 'fix' the 'hyper-concentration of riches' means WHAT??"
Not my words apart from 'hyper-concentration...'.
Anti-trust was precisely adopted to resist the excessive accumulation of power by monopolies. What else would it be for?

 

[DiamondDave]

OK, just for yaks:

" You consider the great wealth in the hands of a few as a problem that has to be dealt with"
Never said that.
"if it is a problem, what is the solution"
Never used the word problem.
"To 'use the democratic process' to 'fix' the 'hyper-concentration of riches' means WHAT??"
Not my words.
Anti-trust was precisely adopted to resist the excessive accumulation of power by monopolies. What else would it be for?

Yawn.. you will babble about agreeing with this statement or that statement, then say you really have said nothing... you go on about someone like me evidently being "for the grotesque distortion of democratic processes caused by hyper-concentration of riches", which either shows your ignorance as to what our government is and shows your apparent stance against 'hyper-concentration of riches'

And when asked to clarify what you are actually for, you dodge away...

Nice ploy... not gonna fly though

Oh.. and anti-trust was indeed about sole control over the marketplace, not about concentration of wealth or riches.. but nice try... they are not inherently the same

 

[there4eyeM]

Are you for the concentration of money to the extent that it destroys the American political system?