Is Government deteriorating into a "race to get and give more favors"? [Archive] - Debate Policy

Little-Acorn

01-22-2013, 11:59 AM

Voters have realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights. Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another. With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented). Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.

We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the coutry, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.

It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?

ConHog

01-22-2013, 12:02 PM

Is that an original work? Damn fine piece of writing man.

Little-Acorn

01-22-2013, 12:07 PM

Is that an original work? Damn fine piece of writing man.

Yes, thanks. A slight mod of something I wrote several months ago.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 12:17 PM

Yes, thanks. A slight mod of something I wrote several months ago.

An excellent piece. And quite true. Sometime in the last 30 years. Ask not what your country can do for you has morphed into hey wheres mine?

Little-Acorn

01-22-2013, 01:51 PM

It's the fundamental reason why liberalism is bad for countries.

It causes people to not try as hard to pull their own weight. And this essay explains how it happens, and why.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 02:00 PM

It's the fundamental reason why liberalism is bad for countries.

It causes people to not try as hard to pull their own weight. And this essay explains how it happens, and why.

I don't think liberals are the correct party to blame at all. I think there are plenty of conservatives out there with a hand out as well LA.

It may be a CORPORATE handout they are after rather than an individual one, but a handout is a handout.

Little-Acorn

01-22-2013, 02:14 PM

I think there are plenty of conservatives out there with a hand out as well LA.

Conservatives, by definition, are the people who DON'T have their hands out. Are you mistaking Republicans for conservatives again?

Only time conservatives extend a hand toward government, is to slap it upside the head and tell it to get out of their faces and mind its own damned business.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 02:18 PM

Conservatives, by definition, are the people who DON'T have their hands out. Are you mistaking Republicans for conservatives again?

Only tim conservatives extend a hand toward government, is to slap it upside the head and tell it to get out of their faces and mind its own damned business.

no, but I may be confusing those who say they are conservatives with those who actually ARE conservative. :coffee:

fj1200

01-22-2013, 02:21 PM

Is Government deteriorating into a "race to get and give more favors"?

No. The vast majority of the people are not out to get nor to give. They want to live their lives not dependent on the government. They may want government to regulate but that is not the same thing.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 02:22 PM

No. The vast majority of the people are not out to get nor to give. They want to live their lives not dependent on the government. They may want government to regulate but that is not the same thing.

vast majority may be overstating it just a bit.

fj1200

01-22-2013, 02:24 PM

no, but I may be confusing those who say they are conservatives with those who actually ARE conservative. :coffee:

Beware those conservatives and constitutionalists who will stake their claim to what they are owed from... say... I don't know... Social Security and Medicare because they paid into them for so long be damned their tenuous fiscal underpinnings.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 02:27 PM

Beware those conservatives and constitutionalists who will stake their claim to what they are owed from... say... I don't know... Social Security and Medicare because they paid into them for so long be damned their tenuous fiscal underpinnings.

I don't think that is what I was referring to lol.

fj1200

01-22-2013, 02:32 PM

I don't think that is what I was referring to lol.

Of course, I was expanding on your comment. Also beware those who get to be the ones who define the terms. :poke:

Little-Acorn

01-22-2013, 02:44 PM

Beware those conservatives and constitutionalists who will stake their claim to what they are owed from... say... I don't know... Social Security and Medicare because they paid into them for so long be damned their tenuous fiscal underpinnings.

And someone who has been mugged once a week for the last 40 years, when offered a chance to get some of the money back from the mugger, will accept.
And fj1200 and his ilk will announce this means the guy supports the mugger's scheme of taking it from him for the last 40 years! :lame2:

fj1200

01-22-2013, 02:54 PM

And someone who has been mugged once a week for the last 40 years, when offered a chance to get some of the money back from the mugger, will accept.
And fj1200 and his ilk will announce this means the guy supports the mugger's scheme of taking it from him for the last 40 years! :lame2:

Yeah, I didn't suspect you would be able to defend your post. And perhaps you missed the all important modifier in my post, "tenuous fiscal underpinnings." Are you saying you would demand the return of your contributions, even though you have benefited from them for those 40 years via other Federal spending? Sounds like your demanding your "favor" and are becoming the self-fulfilling prophecy you just proclaimed to be higher than.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 02:58 PM

Yeah, I didn't suspect you would be able to defend your post. And perhaps you missed the all important modifier in my post, "tenuous fiscal underpinnings." Are you saying you would demand the return of your contributions, even though you have benefited from them for those 40 years via other Federal spending? Sounds like your demanding your "favor" and are becoming the self-fulfilling prophecy you just proclaimed to be higher than.

So you're essentially saying that because the system is on it's way to being broke people shouldn't be expecting the return they were promised when they were forced to invest?

I actually SORT of agree with you, in that I believe that those who have earned in excess of $1M per year over the last 10 years of their working lives should be absolutely ineligible to collect. That is your above and beyond contribution for having the success you had. I think that is more than reasonable.

fj1200

01-22-2013, 03:04 PM

So you're essentially saying that because the system is on it's way to being broke people shouldn't be expecting the return they were promised when they were forced to invest?

I actually SORT of agree with you, in that I believe that those who have earned in excess of $1M per year over the last 10 years of their working lives should be absolutely ineligible to collect. That is your above and beyond contribution for having the success you had. I think that is more than reasonable.

I certainly couldn't tell you how it's calculated but there is already some progressiveness built into the benefits calculations, the more you pay in the less you get relatively, and one fix would be to magnify that even more. SS has been one of the worst government programs, in terms of influencing behavior, because it reduces ones incentive to invest and save for their own future and has basically turned the middle, and higher, classes into welfare recipients.

Little-Acorn

01-22-2013, 03:12 PM

Voters have realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights. Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another. With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented). Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.

We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the coutry, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.

It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?

You have to wonder how many liberals don't realize that this is what the result of having a government "help" people, will be, and so push it thinking they are doing something "good"....

And how many of them DO realize what the result will be... and keep pushing for it anyway.

gabosaurus

01-22-2013, 03:46 PM

Government has ALWAYS been about giving and getting favors. Some of you seem to think it started with Obama.

Acorn, you didn't list a source for your right-wing diatribe.

jimnyc

01-22-2013, 03:58 PM

Government has ALWAYS been about giving and getting favors. Some of you seem to think it started with Obama.

Acorn, you didn't list a source for your right-wing diatribe.

I believe he is the source himself, no need for a citation if you wrote it yourself. :)

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 04:16 PM

Voters have realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights. Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another. With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented). Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.

We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the coutry, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.

It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?

My thanks goes to Little Acorn who posited it just right.

I believe when I read the book A TIME FOR TRUTH, by William E. Simon, his book was very valuable. We sure waste a lot of time on the wrong type president.

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 04:24 PM

Conservatives, by definition, are the people who DON'T have their hands out. Are you mistaking Republicans for conservatives again?

Only time conservatives extend a hand toward government, is to slap it upside the head and tell it to get out of their faces and mind its own damned business.

I agree with that. I do not figure that business needs a hand out. I feel they want to be left alone. They won's seek handouts but for those in congress who curry favor and pass them around. Like the New deal never stopped.

When Obama wanted infrastructure, who got the money? It was not paid to the middle class nor the poor. That money goes to the rich. The rich fund our highways and byways and get paid BACK when the job progresses. When I used to do Government work, do you know how much later I got paid for the work?

You have to be rich to deal with the Feds. The rest of us have to take scraps.

A lot of republicans are conservatives. But if you think big business plans to be heavily taxed by government and not show up expecting that hand out, we need to guess again.

It is like why do some guys run traffic lights at midnight.
Cause they can and no cop shows up.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 04:25 PM

I agree with that. I do not figure that business needs a hand out. I feel they want to be left alone. They won's seek handouts but for those in congress who curry favor and pass them around. Like the New deal never stopped.

When Obama wanted infrastructure, who got the money? It was not paid to the middle class nor the poor. That money goes to the rich. The rich fund our highways and byways and get paid BACK when the job progresses. When I used to do Government work, do you know how much later I got paid for the work?

You have to be rich to deal with the Feds. The rest of us have to take scraps.

A lot of republicans are conservatives. But if you think big business plans to be heavily taxed by government and not show up expecting that hand out, we need to guess again.

It is like why do some guys run traffic lights at midnight.
Cause they can and no cop shows up.

Seems like you're jealous, not conservative.

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 04:28 PM

Government has ALWAYS been about giving and getting favors. Some of you seem to think it started with Obama.

Acorn, you didn't list a source for your right-wing diatribe.

Go back to when it started. Go back to Woodrow Wilson who happened to be one of you and he loved spending.

But the real big daddy of enormous spending is FDR and he ruined the country to the point that now everybody sees Government just as Acorn said it is.

The man clearly is brilliant and has completely thought this through.

You must still want to hang on the teat of Government.

Why is my question?

What makes your wishes superior to those of Acorn or people like him and I am like him.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 04:31 PM

Go back to when it started. Go back to Woodrow Wilson who happened to be one of you and he loved spending.

But the real big daddy of enormous spending is FDR and he ruined the country to the point that now everybody sees Government just as Acorn said it is.

The man clearly is brilliant and has completely thought this through.

You must still want to hang on the teat of Government.

Why is my question?

What makes your wishes superior to those of Acorn or people like him and I am like him.

can you post a link to where Gabby has admitted to being on welfare?

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 04:32 PM

Seems like you're jealous, not conservative.

Imagine you accusing me. WOW

Did that take you long to dream up?

And after I clearly stated I side completely with Little Acorn. And you called his post a very good post.

Then you make that claim about me?

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 04:36 PM

can you post a link to where Gabby has admitted to being on welfare?

No. But she remains very loyal to thoso who are against conservatives and I believe she said government pays her wages. But she sides with but one side. As Acorn spoke of and you praised him for.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 04:40 PM

Imagine you accusing me. WOW

Did that take you long to dream up?

And after I clearly stated I side completely with Little Acorn. And you called his post a very good post.

Then you make that claim about me?

I didn't accuse of anything. I offered my OPINION of what you wrote.

And to clarify, I actually said that LA's piece was well written, I didn't say I agreed with all of it.

See that's what SOME of you guys don't get. It IS possible to appreciate both the skill and the points made in an opposing post even if you don't agree with that post.

I in fact often thank and rep posts which I don't agree with because they are skillfully written and well thought out, and sometimes I chastise a post that I agree with because it is poorly written and makes the "side" I agree with look foolish.

I don't get this idea at all of labeling everyone you disagree with an idiot and everyone you agree with as brilliant, and I don't constrain myself in such a manner.

The OP was a well written piece, and I agree with parts of it, but not all of it.

In YOUR post, to me, you sounded jealous not conservative. I mean your post was the equivalent of an " my parents went to Hawaii and all i got was this stupid shirt" t shirt.

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 04:46 PM

No. The vast majority of the people are not out to get nor to give. They want to live their lives not dependent on the government. They may want government to regulate but that is not the same thing.

No, I do not agree.

You may feel that way, but I don't believe most people feel that way.

A simple test.

Do you expect over your lifetime to have paid more or less into Medicare than you paid into the so called system?

And on social security. Same thing. Do you believe you will have received more than you paid in?

I believe a lot of people find out from those collecting said benefits, say from people like me, that they can expect to collect a lot more out of SS and Medicare than they ever paid in.

This means of course that the future people must pay in a super amount just to keep up with inflation and what they ended up paying for our benefits.

I have two grandsons.

I expect both boys to have to pay a super huge amount to pay for the mistakes made by the politicians. With all the prsent value of Federal debt then add in the unfunded but promised payments and we doom our own kids and their kids.

Democrats of course don't mind putting the kids out as slaves to pay our way.

A damned shame too.

That is what Acorn is talking about.

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 04:57 PM

I didn't accuse of anything. I offered my OPINION of what you wrote.

And to clarify, I actually said that LA's piece was well written, I didn't say I agreed with all of it.

See that's what SOME of you guys don't get. It IS possible to appreciate both the skill and the points made in an opposing post even if you don't agree with that post.

I in fact often thank and rep posts which I don't agree with because they are skillfully written and well thought out, and sometimes I chastise a post that I agree with because it is poorly written and makes the "side" I agree with look foolish.

I don't get this idea at all of labeling everyone you disagree with an idiot and everyone you agree with as brilliant, and I don't constrain myself in such a manner.

The OP was a well written piece, and I agree with parts of it, but not all of it.

In YOUR post, to me, you sounded jealous not conservative. I mean your post was the equivalent of an " my parents went to Hawaii and all i got was this stupid shirt" t shirt.

You did it again.

And wasn't it you saying I am jealous of the rich?

That is so far off the mark I simply tried to dismiss it as I did.

I happen to entirely agree with LA. The man is very smart.

And for the record, I do get it.

If you actually opposed Little Acorn, what is the post number so I can study your own opposing words?

Another for the FYI is you called some of my posts dumb. Do you think I employ a robot to do my writing? When you call a post dumb, you are accusing the poster.

Look, I will try to say this in short sentences.

I am not writing for grades. I don't need praise. I damned sure don't need insults or taunts either.

I fully admit I have flaws in my sentences but techincal flaws on rules of English, but not in thinking flaws.

And but of course, I offer my opinions. So does Acorn.

I have a tip for you.

Write up your insults and taunts and don't submit. Step back and ask if this is how you want to be remembered? Do you wish to be recalled as a jerk or a decent human being?

Taunts don't go far with me. I resist like a mfer.

tailfins

01-22-2013, 05:06 PM

Go back to when it started. Go back to Woodrow Wilson who happened to be one of you and he loved spending.

I hope you didn't sit out that election! How did it feel to vote against Wilson? Were there more horses or horseless carriages in front of the polling place?

All snark aside, It was Wilson who implemented the Federal Income Tax.

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 05:07 PM

I certainly couldn't tell you how it's calculated but there is already some progressiveness built into the benefits calculations, the more you pay in the less you get relatively, and one fix would be to magnify that even more. SS has been one of the worst government programs, in terms of influencing behavior, because it reduces ones incentive to invest and save for their own future and has basically turned the middle, and higher, classes into welfare recipients.

I have collected SS now going back to when Bush was in his first term. I can tell you that the sum you collect will be a whopping more than what you paid in so long as they don't change the law.

I fot all of my investment into SS back in maybe one year.

That is awesome for me and theose like me. But it sure plays hell on the rest of the payers.

With the masive debt of the Feds, i don't see how if they stole every dollar from the Rich they have as income or weealth they can pay off those massive debts. They will come to get thre middle class and then the poor.

Math proves that.

Somebody says about the rich, stop paying them. Fine but also stop collecting from them and let them use their own funds to retire.

They won't hurt the country by stop paying for SS and we will easily make up for it by not oweing the rich a staggering debt.

gabosaurus

01-22-2013, 05:10 PM

I believe he is the source himself, no need for a citation if you wrote it yourself. :)

If Acorn composed that himself, I am very impressed. I didn't agree with it, but it was well written and articulate.

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 05:12 PM

I hope you didn't sit out that election! How did it feel to vote against Wilson? Were there more horses or horseless carriages in front of the polling place?

All snark aside, It was Wilson who implemented the Federal Income Tax.

I am not that old. I was born during FDRs 2nd term. I can't say for certain but it is possible I am the only poster on this forum that recalls his chats on the radio and remember the day he died in office. Wilson is the president that signed that amendment and started carrying it out. Back in those days, the citizens simply would not tolerate the debts we now endure. They were individuals and not collectivists.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 05:13 PM

You did it again.

And wasn't it you saying I am jealous of the rich?

that certainly is my opinion, yes.

That is so far off the mark I simply tried to dismiss it as I did.

I happen to entirely agree with LA. The man is very smart.

And for the record, I do get it.

If you actually opposed Little Acorn, what is the post number so I can study your own opposing words?

who said I opposed him. I often read posts with no agreement nor opposition, this one such post

Another for the FYI is you called some of my posts dumb. Do you think I employ a robot to do my writing?

Let's keep shit from one thread out of another, shall we?

When you call a post dumb, you are accusing the poster.

That may be true for you, but it is not the case for me at all. I differentiate very clearly when I write. If I write that a post or thread is dumb, that is entirely different than if I write that a poster is dumb; and in fact can happily point you to some posts that are dumb by posters who I do not think are dumb

Look, I will try to say this in short sentences.

I am not writing for grades. I don't need praise. I damned sure don't need insults or taunts either.

I fully admit I have flaws in my sentences but techincal flaws on rules of English, but not in thinking flaws.

And but of course, I offer my opinions. So does Acorn.

I have a tip for you.

Write up your insults and taunts and don't submit. Step back and ask if this is how you want to be remembered? Do you wish to be recalled as a jerk or a decent human being?

Taunts don't go far with me. I resist like a mfer.

How odd that I didn't taunt or insult you at all, yet you respond by taunting and insulting me and then suggesting that I shouldn't behave in the manner that you yourself have

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 05:17 PM

Hoping to find Conhogs disagreement with Little Acorn, I did find this. Does anybody see him not agreeing with LA?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=609421#post609421)
Yes, thanks. A slight mod of something I wrote several months ago.

Reply by Conhog: An excellent piece. And quite true. Sometime in the last 30 years. Ask not what your country can do for you has morphed into hey wheres mine?

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 05:27 PM

Hey Conhog

When you got attacked by some posters, I wondered why.

I now know why.

When you try to be a wise guy, such as calling my posts dumb and trying to defend yourself by saying posters can be smart with dumb posts, you set that example.

I now know what you mean since I read your posts.

FYI, there is no reason to state as either fact or opinion that a post is dumb. Maybe it is you that does not get it.

My opinion of course. But there is a right and wrong way to say you are confused.

You got confused and stated your belief I am against the rich. I no more said that than Acorn did.

So why did I have to see your opinion which is 180 degrees dead wrong?

I believe the rich take care of themselves very well. I do not resent them or what they do.

Can that be more clear?

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 05:37 PM

If Acorn composed that himself, I am very impressed. I didn't agree with it, but it was well written and articulate.

May I so humbly suggest that the reason you don't agrew with him is that he told the truth?

I want to elaborate. I once was also a Democrat. If this was say 1960 or up to 1980, i would as blindly follow Obama as you follow him. I admit I used to be a pud and try to elect democrats.

Then something I read got me to thinking.

Did I want to be an honest man or a stubborn taker from society.

I decided that society did not owe me a living. I started thinking and departed the democrats who love to use government as charity so long as they find some sucker to do their paying for them. Make no mistake, and see who Obama targets.

Not the poor. Oh hell no. But the poor get a lot of benefits.

So does he go after the middle class who will collect a hell of a lot more benefits?

No, he as Acorn said goes after the rich. They supposedly are both our enemy and employer. We in effect bite the hands that feed us. They got rich by knowing now to use the publkc. They will take each deduction and pay accountants to save taxes.

But that is not wrong. Wolves eat sheep. They are not wrong.

The rich perform a valuable function for society. Stop being a wolf and fighting them.

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 05:55 PM

Beware those conservatives and constitutionalists who will stake their claim to what they are owed from... say... I don't know... Social Security and Medicare because they paid into them for so long be damned their tenuous fiscal underpinnings.

As Acorn says, if you were earning funds that were confiscated, not by your agreement, but by the one sided deal we get from the Feds, damned straight one is that pissed off that one will gladly take back all he can get and much more. When one encounters a greedy fed system, one has to fight back with the same tactics. Once the Feds learn that lesson, only then is there hope that over time things from Government will actually be done fairly to all. We will have true equal treatment.

I would not be such an ass about this except I see the future and it is very bleak. I hate to even admit that.

Try this on for size.

Project to the future. Figure that those now going onto SS recover every penny they spent in maybe less than 5 years if they started out working say in 1980. Before that, SS and Medicare deductions were very low.

Book mark when Reagan and Tip O'neil made the grand bargain that favored we old timers and gave you guys the shaft.

Figure what you paid to SS. Figure you get that back sooner. Then figure who supports you for the rest of your life. Based on benefits, I take this guess that we would all have to pay in maybe 30 percent of our incomes just to Social Security for the deal to be balanced. And the public will not stand for that much paid to SS.

Here is another light bulb.

Take a cop who retires today. He will likely collect close to 90 percent of his regular income.

Can the system stand that too?

I know a cops situation very well and can tell you for a fact he is retired at age 50 and gets about 81 percent of his normal wages which were over $100,000 per year. He collects from PERS and of course paying that much they must invest wisely. But add up say $81.000 per year for close to another 30 years of his life. People are paying him to stay home and not work.

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 06:09 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=609487#post609487)
No. The vast majority of the people are not out to get nor to give. They want to live their lives not dependent on the government. They may want government to regulate but that is not the same thing.

Conhog says: vast majority may be overstating it just a bit.

I believe those who voted should be the measure since the rest do not care or feel like a vote matters anyhow.

If you take ther voters that voted for Obama, a bit more than half handed him the election.

Based on that, the majority did vote for somebody else to do their rightful paying for them. Clearly that was Obama's premise. To soak the rich.

What is that rule again about those who know?

Some do know. Most often those do not get listened to. Witness what happened to Acorn's post. Some don't know. They don't mind screwing a group of humans as Acorn says. I have to say they don't know or else I have to call them some terrible names. If they do know, and abide what he does, they are evil humans in my book.

Then we have people who don't know and don't care to know. Those did not vote for anybody.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 06:39 PM

Hoping to find Conhogs disagreement with Little Acorn, I did find this. Does anybody see him not agreeing with LA?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png

Hey Conhog

When you got attacked by some posters, I wondered why.

I now know why.

When you try to be a wise guy, such as calling my posts dumb and trying to defend yourself by saying posters can be smart with dumb posts, you set that example.

I now know what you mean since I read your posts.

FYI, there is no reason to state as either fact or opinion that a post is dumb. Maybe it is you that does not get it.

My opinion of course. But there is a right and wrong way to say you are confused.

You got confused and stated your belief I am against the rich. I no more said that than Acorn did.

So why did I have to see your opinion which is 180 degrees dead wrong?

I believe the rich take care of themselves very well. I do not resent them or what they do.

Can that be more clear?

May I so humbly suggest that the reason you don't agrew with him is that he told the truth?

I want to elaborate. I once was also a Democrat. If this was say 1960 or up to 1980, i would as blindly follow Obama as you follow him. I admit I used to be a pud and try to elect democrats.

Then something I read got me to thinking.

Did I want to be an honest man or a stubborn taker from society.

I decided that society did not owe me a living. I started thinking and departed the democrats who love to use government as charity so long as they find some sucker to do their paying for them. Make no mistake, and see who Obama targets.

Not the poor. Oh hell no. But the poor get a lot of benefits.

So does he go after the middle class who will collect a hell of a lot more benefits?

No, he as Acorn said goes after the rich. They supposedly are both our enemy and employer. We in effect bite the hands that feed us. They got rich by knowing now to use the publkc. They will take each deduction and pay accountants to save taxes.

But that is not wrong. Wolves eat sheep. They are not wrong.

The rich perform a valuable function for society. Stop being a wolf and fighting them.

As Acorn says, if you were earning funds that were confiscated, not by your agreement, but by the one sided deal we get from the Feds, damned straight one is that pissed off that one will gladly take back all he can get and much more. When one encounters a greedy fed system, one has to fight back with the same tactics. Once the Feds learn that lesson, only then is there hope that over time things from Government will actually be done fairly to all. We will have true equal treatment.

I would not be such an ass about this except I see the future and it is very bleak. I hate to even admit that.

Try this on for size.

Project to the future. Figure that those now going onto SS recover every penny they spent in maybe less than 5 years if they started out working say in 1980. Before that, SS and Medicare deductions were very low.

Book mark when Reagan and Tip O'neil made the grand bargain that favored we old timers and gave you guys the shaft.

Figure what you paid to SS. Figure you get that back sooner. Then figure who supports you for the rest of your life. Based on benefits, I take this guess that we would all have to pay in maybe 30 percent of our incomes just to Social Security for the deal to be balanced. And the public will not stand for that much paid to SS.

Here is another light bulb.

Take a cop who retires today. He will likely collect close to 90 percent of his regular income.

Can the system stand that too?

I know a cops situation very well and can tell you for a fact he is retired at age 50 and gets about 81 percent of his normal wages which were over $100,000 per year. He collects from PERS and of course paying that much they must invest wisely. But add up say $81.000 per year for close to another 30 years of his life. People are paying him to stay home and not work.

I believe those who voted should be the measure since the rest do not care or feel like a vote matters anyhow.

If you take ther voters that voted for Obama, a bit more than half handed him the election.

Based on that, the majority did vote for somebody else to do their rightful paying for them. Clearly that was Obama's premise. To soak the rich.

What is that rule again about those who know?

Some do know. Most often those do not get listened to. Witness what happened to Acorn's post. Some don't know. They don't mind screwing a group of humans as Acorn says. I have to say they don't know or else I have to call them some terrible names. If they do know, and abide what he does, they are evil humans in my book.

Then we have people who don't know and don't care to know. Those did not vote for anybody.

Um what?

Robert A Whit

01-22-2013, 06:51 PM

Um what?

The classic reply to that is ... with those ears?

Another is a 250 watt bulb.

You called yourself and Gabby liberals. Maybe that is the reason we started clashing.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 06:55 PM

The classic reply to that is ... with those ears?

Another is a 250 watt bulb.

You called yourself and Gabby liberals. Maybe that is the reason we started clashing.

No, I joked. Others on here call me a liberal. I identify myself as neither a liberal nor a conservative, but rather as an individual who decides each issue on its own merits rather than based on some silly label.

And the only one clashing here Robert is you, with yourself. I have merely debated with you, if you don't like that I question your reasoning for being on a message board that has the word Debate right in the title. The big orange X in the top right corner will quickly lead you out if debating is not your thing.

Little-Acorn

01-22-2013, 08:30 PM

Yet another thread hijacked into Yes-you-said-that-you-suck-no-i-didn't etc., I'm getting tired of writing thewqhole description out. This time with occasional Acorn compliments thrown in and a few superficial references to the less important points made.

Sigh.

And I worked damned hard on that essay...

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 08:37 PM

Yet another thread hijacked into Yes-you-said-that-you-suck-no-i-didn't etc., I'm getting tired of writing thewqhole description out. This time with occasional Acorn compliments thrown in and a few superficial references to the less important points made.

Sigh.

And I worked damned hard on that essay...

Report it.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 08:38 PM

Yet another thread hijacked into Yes-you-said-that-you-suck-no-i-didn't etc., I'm getting tired of writing thewqhole description out. This time with occasional Acorn compliments thrown in and a few superficial references to the less important points made.

Sigh.

And I worked damned hard on that essay...

sorry for my part bruh, it was a well written essay and a good topic.

bingster

01-22-2013, 09:47 PM

Conservatives, by definition, are the people who DON'T have their hands out. Are you mistaking Republicans for conservatives again?

Only time conservatives extend a hand toward government, is to slap it upside the head and tell it to get out of their faces and mind its own damned business.

Good point Cohog! Oil subsidies, tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, tax breaks on big boats, Pharma subsidies, subsidies for R&D, etc..... The problem with conservatives is they aren't all about the conservative ideology. A conservative would say stay out of my health care (Abortion is legal), government shouldn't decide who gets married (damn right mind its own damned business), small government, etc.....

bingster

01-22-2013, 09:48 PM

Voters have realized that government's main purpose is no longer protecting people's individual rights.
Like gay rights and women’s rights?
Govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another. With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)
Other than the progressive tax policy that began with Lincoln, I miss your point on this. Most presidents have done different things for different people i.e. Reagan massively lowered the top tax percentage and, at the same time, created the EITC for the poor, etc… I think you’re taking a slap at affirmative action and conservationists which have been championed by both parties for decades in the former and over a century in the latter.
So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.
Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".
The preceding two paragraphs are just wrong. Since our political party system was born during the Washington administration, people have been voting for their self-interests. Why wouldn’t you?
Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary.
U.S. Customs, World Bank, taking care of veterans, taxing whiskey, etc…. Washington
People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.
In a superficial way, that’s true, but the president still had to be for them, Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian.
But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes).
I’m not denying our country has changed. We have become one of the biggest and the richest. We have become global and smarter. Our values have changed significantly i.e. we don’t think it’s OK to let our elderly and poor die in the streets (in most cases). I think this is a good thing. Also, I find conservatives outraged that liberals want us to be energy efficient (light bulbs) and eat better (childhood obesity) is silly. Conservatives don’t have a problem forcing Christianity on people.
And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.
I don’t see it as a favoritism issue. I think it’s a particular lack of favoritism. Why is giving gays the right to marry something significant against heteralsexuals? Can’t we just mind our own business?
So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care.
“Stops you from earning.” Obama raised taxes 3% on income over $400,000! Quit exaggerating! He’s also not only handing out free health care, he’s requiring everyone to get insurance!-that’s a conservative concept.
Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.
That has not been an issue in this administration. It was definitely necessary at its start and is probably not necessary now.
Back when such matters were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.
Funny how you’re for weights and measures but probably against the EPA and Wall Street Reform.
And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented). Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."
I think you went off the rails in the last two paragraphs, but it’s typical boilerplate.
Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".
Why can’t conservatives ever prove voter fraud? When you listen to them they will tell you about thousands of dead people who are registered to vote, but will never prove that a dead person voted. Mickey Mouse is registered, but did he vote? I think, more likely, Democrats are less likely (except in the case of old people) to have ID’s. If it was true regarding Republicans, you wouldn’t be making the argument. By the way, what’s the legitimate argument to restrict early voting? Now, Republicans are talking about changing the rules in the swing states to change the laws to give Republicans a better chance by over-turning the winner-take-all rule. Can’t Republicans win without cheating?
But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".
And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.
And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.
You poor conservatives are so oppressed. Being in the minority hurts.
Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.
But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.
1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.
We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the country, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.
It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?
Like I said, nothing has changed regarding voting for those who are for your causes. It feels bad right now because of the recession and the radical tea party gumming up the works.
I like your post. It was well written and thoughtful. I just disagree.

aboutime

01-22-2013, 09:58 PM

Yet another thread hijacked into Yes-you-said-that-you-suck-no-i-didn't etc., I'm getting tired of writing thewqhole description out. This time with occasional Acorn compliments thrown in and a few superficial references to the less important points made.

Sigh.

And I worked damned hard on that essay...

Little-Acorn. Not the first, and it looks like it won't be the last to be hijacked here.

It seems that it's only a matter of time before Debatepolicy changes it's name to Hoggin Das Forum!

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-22-2013, 10:05 PM

You have to wonder how many liberals don't realize that this is what the result of having a government "help" people, will be, and so push it thinking they are doing something "good"....

And how many of them DO realize what the result will be... and keep pushing for it anyway.

Brilliant post unappreciated by the usual people. Thanks for posting it. We would be ever so lucky to be able to read more such!!
Bravo!-----:beer::clap::beer:--Tyr

ConHog

01-22-2013, 10:07 PM

Good point Cohog! Oil subsidies, tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, tax breaks on big boats, Pharma subsidies, subsidies for R&D, etc..... The problem with conservatives is they aren't all about the conservative ideology. A conservative would say stay out of my health care (Abortion is legal), government shouldn't decide who gets married (damn right mind its own damned business), small government, etc.....

in regards to gay marriage I have said that for the longest. A conservative should absolutely believe the government has no business in marriage.

bingster

01-22-2013, 10:28 PM

Go back to when it started. Go back to Woodrow Wilson who happened to be one of you and he loved spending.

But the real big daddy of enormous spending is FDR and he ruined the country to the point that now everybody sees Government just as Acorn said it is.

The man clearly is brilliant and has completely thought this through.

You must still want to hang on the teat of Government.

Why is my question?

What makes your wishes superior to those of Acorn or people like him and I am like him.

Wow, do you two need a room?

Following Wilson was Eisenhower (yea, and a few others) who caught a bunch of grief to lower taxes (top tax rate was around 90%) but he said that we needed the high taxes. We just had two wars, for Christ's sake. Republican wisdom like that is long past..... Two wars with a tax cut? Ridiculous! And don't cut into our Military Industrial Complex (more Eisenhower).

bingster

01-22-2013, 10:30 PM

in regards to gay marriage I have said that for the longest. A conservative should absolutely believe the government has no business in marriage.

Good job!

Little-Acorn

01-23-2013, 11:45 AM

Report it.

To what end?

The mods once did the board a nice favor, moving such off-topic oposts to their own thread. But they pointed out that they would usually not do that.

Little-Acorn

01-23-2013, 11:51 AM

sorry for my part bruh,

You've said that before, ConHog. And then when the next opportunity presents itself, you go right ahead and do it again, hijacking yet another thread. Usually accompanied by your compatriots robert a whit and fj1200.

Forgive me if I don't lend much weight to "apologies" you evidently don't mean.

Little-Acorn

01-23-2013, 12:06 PM

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

Hard to tell which came first here, the chicken or the egg. But the slide into me-over-you government is distinct and major. Whewn people needed help, they used to go to their friend, to charities, etc. And that way, they had to look into the faces of the people they were taking resources from, acknowledge the difficulty they were causing them, and (usually) get major motivation to pay it back and/or help others themselves when the opportunity arose.

It still happens in some cases, but more and more people simply "receive" welfare or subsidies or etc., without the least remorse about depriving those who gave up those resources with NO hope of ever getting them back, and no particular urge to help out later, those who helped them today. And the leftists currently in power do everything they can to prevent such remedial urges, denigrating instead the peiople who pay more and more, as "not paying enough" and shouting phrases such as "soak the rich, they DESERVE it" over and over.

When was the last time you heard an ad saying, "Thank the people who built those buildings, they've done far more for you that you may know"? I can hear the snickering in the background now.

This is not a new trend. Countries have done it before... and many of those countries are no longer with us, as a direct result (see USSR). Others started in abject poverty and continue wallowing in it today (Uganda, Mexico, Bangladesh etc.). And many who used to be prosperous, are sliding downhill, with mounting debts amidst cries of "but the rich aren't paying their fair share!", usually mouthed by increasing numbers of people who pay nothing (Greece, United States).

The trend is pernicious, and mounting. And it is by no means imaginary.

gabosaurus

01-23-2013, 12:10 PM

in regards to gay marriage I have said that for the longest. A conservative should absolutely believe the government has no business in marriage.

Marriage is a civil ceremony. Government should NOT be legislating marriage or relationships. Neither should churches or religious leaders.
The government and churches should stay out of people's bedrooms.

mundame

01-23-2013, 12:26 PM

Marriage is a civil ceremony. Government should NOT be legislating marriage or relationships. Neither should churches or religious leaders.
The government and churches should stay out of people's bedrooms.

Well, wait ---- that's sort of a church's business, isn't it? At least since....I'm not sure when marriage became a sacrament. There was a Council....I think it might have been as early as around 400. By 1170 it was a big deal, I know, and heresies were forming against marriage as a sacrament.

I think you can say the government should get out of marriage, or religion should get out of marriage, but both? What then would be the cultural support for marriage in any form?

fj1200

01-23-2013, 02:54 PM

No, I do not agree.

You may feel that way, but I don't believe most people feel that way.

A simple test.

Do you expect over your lifetime to have paid more or less into Medicare than you paid into the so called system?

And on social security. Same thing. Do you believe you will have received more than you paid in?

I believe a lot of people find out from those collecting said benefits, say from people like me, that they can expect to collect a lot more out of SS and Medicare than they ever paid in.

This means of course that the future people must pay in a super amount just to keep up with inflation and what they ended up paying for our benefits.

I have two grandsons.

I expect both boys to have to pay a super huge amount to pay for the mistakes made by the politicians. With all the prsent value of Federal debt then add in the unfunded but promised payments and we doom our own kids and their kids.

Democrats of course don't mind putting the kids out as slaves to pay our way.

A damned shame too.

That is what Acorn is talking about.

That is in no way what he is talking about. He has made clear his support for the continuation of SS based on a repayment of "contributions." That the system has been gamed for you would actually not put you in the conservative camp.

But whether you agree or not and what you believe or not IMO the majority of people are not concerned about favors being granted to their behalf. I could certainly be wrong because many here have the opinion that SS, unconstitutional has been claimed, must continue to exist because they have paid in for so long. BTW, what I believe I may "get back" from SS is neither here nor there; the program is unsustainable at present with much more in promises made than expected funding.

fj1200

01-23-2013, 02:56 PM

I have collected SS now going back to when Bush was in his first term. I can tell you that the sum you collect will be a whopping more than what you paid in so long as they don't change the law.

I fot all of my investment into SS back in maybe one year.

That is awesome for me and theose like me. But it sure plays hell on the rest of the payers.

With the masive debt of the Feds, i don't see how if they stole every dollar from the Rich they have as income or weealth they can pay off those massive debts. They will come to get thre middle class and then the poor.

Math proves that.

Somebody says about the rich, stop paying them. Fine but also stop collecting from them and let them use their own funds to retire.

They won't hurt the country by stop paying for SS and we will easily make up for it by not oweing the rich a staggering debt.

This has nothing to do with the OP except that you have identified yourself as one receiving favors.

fj1200

01-23-2013, 03:01 PM

As Acorn says, if you were earning funds that were confiscated, not by your agreement, but by the one sided deal we get from the Feds, damned straight one is that pissed off that one will gladly take back all he can get and much more. When one encounters a greedy fed system, one has to fight back with the same tactics. Once the Feds learn that lesson, only then is there hope that over time things from Government will actually be done fairly to all. We will have true equal treatment.

I would not be such an ass about this except I see the future and it is very bleak. I hate to even admit that.

Try this on for size.

Project to the future. Figure that those now going onto SS recover every penny they spent in maybe less than 5 years if they started out working say in 1980. Before that, SS and Medicare deductions were very low.

Book mark when Reagan and Tip O'neil made the grand bargain that favored we old timers and gave you guys the shaft.

Figure what you paid to SS. Figure you get that back sooner. Then figure who supports you for the rest of your life. Based on benefits, I take this guess that we would all have to pay in maybe 30 percent of our incomes just to Social Security for the deal to be balanced. And the public will not stand for that much paid to SS.

Here is another light bulb.

Take a cop who retires today. He will likely collect close to 90 percent of his regular income.

Can the system stand that too?

I know a cops situation very well and can tell you for a fact he is retired at age 50 and gets about 81 percent of his normal wages which were over $100,000 per year. He collects from PERS and of course paying that much they must invest wisely. But add up say $81.000 per year for close to another 30 years of his life. People are paying him to stay home and not work.

I'm really unsure of your posts here. It seems that you are identifying quite a few people, seniors and government workers and the like, as those who wish their favors continue be granted. I may have to grant that the OP is true because apparently even conservatives willingly find themselves in that camp. I just wonder how much they will fight for their favors when Greece comes to these shores.

fj1200

01-23-2013, 03:04 PM

I believe those who voted should be the measure since the rest do not care or feel like a vote matters anyhow.

If you take ther voters that voted for Obama, a bit more than half handed him the election.

Based on that, the majority did vote for somebody else to do their rightful paying for them. Clearly that was Obama's premise. To soak the rich.

What is that rule again about those who know?

Some do know. Most often those do not get listened to. Witness what happened to Acorn's post. Some don't know. They don't mind screwing a group of humans as Acorn says. I have to say they don't know or else I have to call them some terrible names. If they do know, and abide what he does, they are evil humans in my book.

Then we have people who don't know and don't care to know. Those did not vote for anybody.

That's a simplistic analysis and assumes that all who voted for him are those who insist on favors; that's patently false. By your own argument though you put some Romney voters in the "favors" camp. So...

fj1200

01-23-2013, 03:05 PM

Yet another thread hijacked into Yes-you-said-that-you-suck-no-i-didn't etc., I'm getting tired of writing thewqhole description out. This time with occasional Acorn compliments thrown in and a few superficial references to the less important points made.

Sigh.

And I worked damned hard on that essay...

Now if only you had the wherewithal to defend it.

fj1200

01-23-2013, 03:07 PM

Wow, do you two need a room?

Following Wilson was Eisenhower (yea, and a few others) who caught a bunch of grief to lower taxes (top tax rate was around 90%) but he said that we needed the high taxes. We just had two wars, for Christ's sake. Republican wisdom like that is long past..... Two wars with a tax cut? Ridiculous! And don't cut into our Military Industrial Complex (more Eisenhower).

Tax rates do not determine tax revenues.

fj1200

01-23-2013, 03:08 PM

You've said that before, ConHog. And then when the next opportunity presents itself, you go right ahead and do it again, hijacking yet another thread. Usually accompanied by your compatriots robert a whit and fj1200.

Forgive me if I don't lend much weight to "apologies" you evidently don't mean.

Your thread wasn't hijacked, you took your ball and went home.

bingster

01-23-2013, 04:19 PM

Tax rates do not determine tax revenues.

That's like saying your pay rate has nothing to do with your income. They have a lot to do with revenues.

Although it is funny that Republicans like to insist that spending needs to slow, but tax cuts are "revenue neutral". Ryan made that argument on Fox News during an interview last year.

fj1200

01-23-2013, 04:58 PM

That's like saying your pay rate has nothing to do with your income. They have a lot to do with revenues.

Please identify the ideal tax rate/structure then. \/

http://media.hoover.org/images/tax_rates_graph_ranson.jpg?size=large

Although it is funny that Republicans like to insist that spending needs to slow, but tax cuts are "revenue neutral". Ryan made that argument on Fox News during an interview last year.

Arguing against a boogeyman again? Nevertheless, if tax revenues are essentially static, to GDP, then how is significantly spending beyond that level for the long-term a good idea?

Little-Acorn

08-23-2015, 02:35 PM

Does the emergence of Donald Trump as a leading Presidential candidate, suggest that people are finally getting tired of the "government needs to take care of me and solve my problems" syndrome?

Trump's message contains a lot of "government should quite trying to micromanage and run everything, and concentrate on the people interfering with what hardworking Americans are trying to do, and kick those interfering people's asses."

Perhaps more and more Americans are realizing that the liberal approach, now matter how well-intentioned some of them may be, results in overall degradation of society every time it's tried. And they're responding to a candidate who says in no uncertain terms, "Screw that liberal approach! We need government OUT of the way, and protecting our rights instead of playing favorites among us!"

Kathianne

08-23-2015, 02:38 PM

Does the emergence of Donald Trump as a leading Presidential candidate, suggest that people are finally getting tired of the "government needs to take care of me and solve my problems" syndrome?

Trump's message contains a lot of "government should quite trying to micromanage and run everything, and concentrate on the people interfering with what hardworking Americans are trying to do, and kick those interfering people's asses."

Perhaps more and more Americans are realizing that the liberal approach, now matter how well-intentioned some of them may be, results in overall degradation of society every time it's tried. And they're responding to a candidate who says in no uncertain terms, "Screw that liberal approach! We need government OUT of the way, and protecting our rights instead of playing favorites among us!"

I don't know how you get there? He's going to build a wall, making Mexico pay for it. Details to follow. "They got to go," then bring back the 'good ones, the terrific ones.' He's going to 'take care' of women's health, because he adores and cherishes women. His daughter said so.

and those are just things he's said in the past week.

Little-Acorn

08-23-2015, 02:53 PM

I don't know how you get there?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

Kathianne

08-23-2015, 03:05 PM

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

That doesn't answer.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

08-23-2015, 05:57 PM

That doesn't answer.

Click here for 12 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background
on Immigration.
OpEd: businesses & Republicans condemn anti-Mexico terms. (Jul 2015)
Half of the undocumented residents in America are criminals. (Jun 2015)
Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists. (Jun 2015)
Build great wall on southern border; have Mexico pay for it. (Jun 2015)
We need strong borders; we need a wall. (Feb 2015)
Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission. (Mar 2013)
351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B. (Dec 2011)
Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment. (Dec 2011)
Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US. (Dec 2011)
Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border. (Dec 2011)
Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult. (Jul 2000)
Limit new immigration; focus on people already here. (Dec 1999)

How many other candidates(Dems included) are laying out fully detailed and completed plans, to the public, now on demand from
the corrupt, stinking anti-Republican press?--Tyr

gabosaurus

08-23-2015, 07:08 PM

Blaming immigration problems on illegal aliens is like blaming ants for a syrup spill.
It is unfortunate that too many of you prefer the POLITICAL CORRECT excuse instead of the real reasons.
Stop being stupid.

Kathianne

08-23-2015, 08:13 PM

Click here for 12 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background
on Immigration.
OpEd: businesses & Republicans condemn anti-Mexico terms. (Jul 2015)
Half of the undocumented residents in America are criminals. (Jun 2015)
Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists. (Jun 2015)
Build great wall on southern border; have Mexico pay for it. (Jun 2015)
We need strong borders; we need a wall. (Feb 2015)
Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission. (Mar 2013)
351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B. (Dec 2011)
Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment. (Dec 2011)
Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US. (Dec 2011)
Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border. (Dec 2011)
Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult. (Jul 2000)
Limit new immigration; focus on people already here. (Dec 1999)

How many other candidates(Dems included) are laying out fully detailed and completed plans, to the public, now on demand from
the corrupt, stinking anti-Republican press?--Tyr

Those are all fine quotes, I agree with the precepts too. The issue though is not micromanaging and involving government into everyday life.

sundaydriver

08-23-2015, 09:16 PM

Trump brags it's worked great for him buying influence.

gabosaurus

08-23-2015, 09:50 PM

Trump brags it's worked great for him buying influence.

All business heavyweights buy influence. It's how they control the government.