Entitlements - what's so bad about them?

Indeed, and the Randroids (nice name btw) scream that the Fed is printing money, while the stock market prints much more imaginary value in the stocks and bonds that are sold and repackaged and resold.It's all a paper house of cards that comes tumbling down with the slightest rumble at the base ...

Yes, and there are several very successful socialist democracies in Europe where they have balanced capitalism with socialism to the benefit of all their citizens.So we know the lies of Faux Noise and the Teabilly crowd are lies they fool themselves with, not ones that fool those of us with open eyes.People are entitled to a fair shake, to an even playing ground, to respect and to just treatment -- it is their basic human right to have these.

If we were a nation where 50% of the nation were starving, and the other 50% barely had enough to eat, then it would be foolish to be talking of entitlements.We can talk about entitlements because of our wealth as a country as a whole. There is way more than enough wealth in this country to fund programs that provide a basic safety net and basic services. In my opinion, it would be immoral not to have these programs.How is it moral to not have a food stamp program when we are paying farmers billions of dollars NOT to grow food?How is it moral to have a health care system where a hard working father has to choose between death and bankrupting his family?How is it moral to work hard your entire life and not be able to live out your last years with dignity and without burdening your family?How is it moral to give up all of these things so that billionaires can pay a lower tax rate?

Coyote regurgitates: This is a foul way to view our country.I'd say "The problem with unregulated capitalism is that eventually we run out of our own money [to spend]." Any kind of totalitarian pressure does this.

With all the comments and all the "likes" to those comments, I am really getting the impression that many of you folks feel you have a right to commandeer assets from anyone you choose "for the public good."Is there no limit to your greed for seizing the assets of others?Are there no limits to the excuses you can come up with to justify seizing the assets of others?But you should ask yourselves, "What happens when there are no more assets to seize?"Your whole system of existence requires someone who is productive from whom you can expropriate wealth. What happens when those productive individuals decide not to play your game any longer? What do you do then?Remember the tale of the Golden Goose?

No. It's about shared patriotism.

Is there any nation that has succesfully implemented the sort of economic system you are advocating? If so where?

quote:

---

As Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz points out, the richest 1 percent of Americans now own 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.

---

That you would attempt to spin the greed label on the poor and middle class by writing . . . makes you a major dick.http://thinkprogress.org/.../top-five-wealthiest-one-percent

Wrong, it is about recovering assets from those who have commandeered them for personal aggrandizement. Workers should get a fair and just compensation for their work, not sub-poverty wages and marked down hours. The real question is who is the proper owner of the assets, the one who steals from the workers or the workers that created the assets? The economy is made from the movement of money\assets, not by the having of money\assets: the more money\assets are moved the better the economy is.You should ask yourself "What happens when all the assets are in the hands of the few?" Who is seizing the assets then? Who will buy anything when they have no money?All money is, dear coyote, is a marker, and IOU, a piece of paper with an agreed upon value (and that agreed on value can change): it represents value, but what is the basis of the value? Wrong again. It requires that those who do the actual production share in the benefits of that production, rather than having it be expropriated by robber bosses who think they are somehow entitled to richness because they have the power to steal from the employees.It also requires that those that benefit from an economic system pay their share for the maintenance of that economic system -- a user fee if you will Production is absolutely no good without consumers, and consumers cannot buy without funds, and they can't get funds unless they are properly compensated for work they do. Ten people with a dollar each and something to sell is a better economy than ten people with one person having 10 dollars who has all the assets to sell.If selfish "producers" take all the money out of the system there will be no "game" ... and what happens when the workers decide not to play their game any longer? They go work elsewhere and spend money elsewhere -- what happens to your precious producers then?"Producers" are not magic people that are somehow better than other people, especially when you look under the covers. Yes, the greedy owner wanted more gold so he ruined the factory that actually produced it, shut it down, cut up the machinery, and laid off the workers ...... what's your point?Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Is there no limit to your appetite for paraphrasing a slogan over and over in preference to reasoned responses?I don't understand how you can discuss science like a scientist but rant at policy differences like someone leading a Luddite mob.By the way, the Killer of the Golden Goose Award would better go to the corporate/financial elite who savaged the global economy.If the wealthiest 1% were to "go Galt" because they resented taxes being returned to historical levels (the levels that made the U.S. a preeminently prosperous and powerful nation), the rest of us would do just fine. Don't confuse the wealthiest 1% with the smartest, most talented, or hardest working 1%.

I've often wondered the same thing. My answer is that political beliefs seem to be as irrational as religious beliefs. It seems that more than half of the population makes a habit of supporting political sides that are seemingly against own national interests. For example minorities are seemingly more socially conservative than is typical, yet those feelings don't cause them to vote republican in any significant numbers. Similarly, the poorest states in our country are happy to support the republicans who place GM and Exxon's interests ahead of theirs every chance they get.I spent some time last night trying to figure out to much spreading around of wealth to the masses resulted in what happened to North Korea, but I gave up once the effort as impossible. And there's not much point in asking for an explanation because Coyote rarely gives one.Coyote's as smart as anyone here, but he cites mediocre fiction when it is time to illustrate his political beliefs. Impossible to understand.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Basic services and programs can be funded without having the rich become middle class like you and I. You do understand the irony of this statement, do you not? It helps if companies aren't rewarded with wealth by cutting wages and shipping jobs overseas. You talk about greed. It cuts both ways.All we are asking for is an economy that is fair for everyone, and a government that is able to provide basic services for all people. We have nothing against people getting rich. What we are against is an economy that serves the uber rich at the expense of the middle class.

Anyone not in the top 5% should not be voting republican if they want their concerns noted. Anyone who does is wearing a "kick me" sign. Vote libertarian or independent if you can't stomach voting for the conservative democrats ... (Obama and Clinton are to the right of Reagan, and at least are concerned with fiscal responsibility).

Hi RAZD, it's always interesting to see non-creationists discuss politics! When referencing the "general welfare" clause, it's important to note "the intent of the framers" concerning it.

quote:

---

In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, 'If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one ...' Madison also said, 'With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.' Thomas Jefferson said, 'Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.'"

---

Walter Williams On The General Welfare Clause of the Constitution. If you want to know the intent of the framers, the pursuit of it is both an entitlement and a right, but an achievement of it is NEITHER a right nor an entitlement.Excluding a few posters in this thread who put fourth no clear overall political position, non-creationist liberals outnumber non-creationist conservatives by about 13 to 1 in this thread. From about everything I've seen and read throughout news reporting and political commentary over many years, that seems to be a pretty predictable ratio. Yet it's far different ratio than that of the population at large of course, it's much closer to 50/50 there.Can I ask a few innocent, thoughtful questions without being flamed and called names? Probably not, but addressing them would probably be more fruitful than just another one-sided political thread. What do you think is the reason that non-creationists tend to be liberal? Is is due more to lack of religious belief, or to scientific discoveries? Coyote is not religious and is interested in science, what do you think he's missing?

Neither, I would think. I don't see any evidence that studying science makes you liberal. I think it more likely that people with liberal mindsets gravitate towards science and away from creationist beliefs. There is also the fact that people have defined science based mindsets as liberal.There is also the issue that science generally requires a type of boundary pushing and questioning that seems incompatible with creationism. Many creationist seem to have no use for huge chunks of science, yet some scientific topics seem, to me at least, to be gateways into interest in science in general.And of course, once you've screened out a bunch of creationists you are going to screen out a bunch of at least one type of conservative.