If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   A modern form of slavery has been embedded within the welfare state. And no matter how you slice it, property theft to promote a false ideology of "fairness" or advance a twisted form of "compassion" to gain power is abhorrent   (americanthinker.com) divider line 131
    More: Obvious, welfare states, income redistribution, compassion, Sowell, moral clarity, ideology, private property, human dignity  
•       •       •

1336 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 09:43:25 AM
So this middle-aged guy at work who I've gone out to lunch with a few times sent me an American Thinker link the other day. Something about how black kids steal iPods because Obama. Now, I just feel pity for him.
 
2012-12-18 09:45:31 AM
Makers and takers.

How fresh. This language is certain to get you back into the White House.

Push on, you perpetually offended, eternally victimized white wealthy males.
 
2012-12-18 09:56:50 AM
I happen to think that the wealthiest society in the history of the world that simply resigns itself to the reality of homeless children as an acceptable condition is abhorrent. And I'm more than happy, as a high wage earner, to pay more to eradicate that condition, as well as build roads, care for veterans, etc.

And I didn't read the article because I refuse to give American *cough* Thinker any page views.
 
2012-12-18 10:00:04 AM
I thought all Stinker links were to get the [satire] tag.
 
2012-12-18 10:00:45 AM
Great headline, submitter. Well-crafted and original.
 
2012-12-18 10:06:41 AM
Tee hee.
 
2012-12-18 10:09:04 AM
Because promoting selfishness and apathy to gain power is just hunky dory?

You want less crime? You want kids taken care of? You want folks returning to values that promote compassion and love for your fellow man--which is technically what that kooky Bible in the second half that seems to get folks all rapturous about likes to promote--then we need to look at how we deal with our society.

We are no longer a frontier nation. We no longer have any boundaries to push against. There are no more territories to settle. There are no more homesteads to found. We cannot continue in a manner that assumes such things. We cannot simply up and leave whenever things get hinky and hope that there is something better over the horizon. We are bound within the nation, and by our own borders. We cannot assume growth by dint of simple numbers of people, and resources to be hacked out of the ground. We have to be smarter. We have to look at what we are building.

The big issues of crime, tend to focus on domestic crime--because no one likes to discuss corporate malfeasance, embezzlement, fraud, or the large crimes that cost us billions in a single go--and that tends to be focused further on urban areas. You want less of that, then we need to improve education and shore up opportunity for folks in those areas. That means development. That means investment here at home. That means education, that means a better social safety net, that means actual economic opportunity and not simple McJobs, and that means real investment in communities. People who have decent jobs, don't tend to focus on how much MOAR they could get by ripping off their neighbors. You'll notice "tend" there because there are always asshats, and the corporate malfeasance that goes on in this country is proof of that, but that is an issue that folks tend to gloss over, because while it costs us all billions as a nation, it looks at folks who really don't want to see a lot of reform, because they have their noses dipping into that well often enough that it would be uncomfortable. Rather than look at that, then maybe we can do do something about crime and economic insecurity, which can cut down on a lot of mental health issues, domestic abuse issues, violent crime, theft, and pesky murder.

You want less crime? More folks in churches and buying homes and investing in our communities and teaching their children family values? Then we need to invest in education and shoring up the economic security of our population. Leaving them to hang in the wind? That has worked so well, hasn't it?

At some point, we have to acknowledge, that the folks who advocate this sort of approach are simply afraid that if we provide some measure of economic security, then they aren't going to be able to profit from the volatility and the fortunes lost, and the predatory practices that feed off the insecure and poor who are being skinned over and over again, and then we wonder why folks snap or turn to crime to try to get a bit back. Creating desperate people isn't an answer for any form of societal stability...
 
2012-12-18 10:25:30 AM
Preventing the poor from literally starving in the streets is slavery.
 
2012-12-18 10:26:27 AM
and furthermore comma

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-18 10:34:49 AM
When your economic plan consists solely of robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on enthusiastic support from Paul.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:19 AM

hubiestubert: Bunch of smart stuff.


And once again they prove that their entire moral system is predicated on "I've got mine, fark you."
 
2012-12-18 10:48:43 AM
Yeah this article is idiotic.
 
2012-12-18 10:50:05 AM
If the rich guy take\s your benefits and pensions and cuts your pay, that's ok, because capitalism.

But if the poor guy fights against it, and demands the rich guys give back what was taken from poor guys, that's wrong because socialism.

Got it.
 
2012-12-18 10:50:29 AM
d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net
 
2012-12-18 10:51:06 AM
Hubie if you find yourself in san Francisco you shall not want for a beer.
 
2012-12-18 10:51:18 AM
Or as the rest of us call it since the beginning of civilization, "Government". It just this time, we redistribute the taxes downward instead of to the lords, ladies, kings, and chieftains of old.
 
2012-12-18 10:51:26 AM
t.qkme.me
 
2012-12-18 10:52:16 AM

SlothB77: When your economic plan consists solely of robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on enthusiastic support from Paul.


The GOP plan has been to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class for years so I see your point.
 
2012-12-18 10:52:23 AM
If you don't want it taken, then you need to consume it quicker.
 
2012-12-18 10:53:15 AM
Ah yes, the latest Rightwingistan talking point...

According to the lamebrains of Rightwingistan, the Democratic party is pushing an agenda wherein they actually want people to remain poor and thus, dependent on the government for their "freebees" (paid for by bootstrappy, hard working Conservatives, mind you) which will keep them secured as a voting block, AND it makes them easier to control. Step two, start taking guns.

This is what Republicans really believe.
 
2012-12-18 10:53:17 AM
Oh good an article about the virtual enslavement of the working class under the guise of Capitalism by using the government to set up rules so that the rich get richer and the poor STFU and work till they're dead.

(checks article)

Oh it's an article that biatches about how rich people have to pay taxes because our f**ed up economy doesn't adequately compensate the workers fairly for how much they contribute, but if you twist all the facts around, and sprinkle some herpa derp, it's like the rich ones sucking the life out of the economy are actually victims.
 
2012-12-18 10:53:56 AM
"People who are not me should be left to flap in the breeze."

"Oh also I like Jesus."
 
2012-12-18 10:54:35 AM

Jackson Herring: Preventing the poor from literally starving in the streets is slavery.



we don't hear the American Stinker whining about all the theft that was perpetrated on Wall Stroke in 2008/09. odd, how that theivery was ignored as millions lost home equity, etc.

their memories are very selective.
 
2012-12-18 10:54:49 AM
Smh.
 
2012-12-18 10:55:11 AM

Jackson Herring: and furthermore comma

[i.imgur.com image 553x768]


The most ridiculous thing is our government can legally steal our property from us. But it's not in the form of taxes. Where's the outrage on the right about that? Taxes versus actual seized property. And yes, I'm mostly talking eminent domain, but I'm also talking about seizures of cash and cars in the war on drugs.
 
2012-12-18 10:55:28 AM
So, the middle and working class banding together and demanding fair pay...be it directly via unions or indirectly via social programs...equals teh ebil soshulizms.

But funding PR machines to turn the working class against itself, and doing everything possible to get them to work for exorbitantly poor pay, that's a-OK.

So in summary, middle/working class working in their own best interests is wrong, but it's OK for the rich to do the same?

Yeah. F*ck off.
 
2012-12-18 10:55:59 AM

Linux_Yes: Jackson Herring: Preventing the poor from literally starving in the streets is slavery.


we don't hear the American Stinker whining about all the theft that was perpetrated on Wall Stroke in 2008/09. odd, how that theivery was ignored as millions lost home equity, etc.

their memories are very selective.



a whole bunch of bankers, hedge fund mangers, laughed all the way to the bank on that one. yet, none will ever see the inside of a Prison.

what say you, American Stinker???
 
2012-12-18 10:56:12 AM
i194.photobucket.com

"I have potato slaves. Your argument is potato."
 
2012-12-18 10:56:31 AM
Markets have a natural tendency to concentrate wealth 'up' into fewer and fewer hands. The government must on occasion apply a downward pressure or else the desperate will club together and redistribute their poverty(this part can get loud)


Any talk of "fairness" is beside the point.
 
2012-12-18 10:57:01 AM
I Know

here we go.........

SFW

Link
 
2012-12-18 10:57:09 AM
www.troycitydesign.com
 
2012-12-18 10:57:15 AM
Funny, I thought the modern form of slavery was the for-profit prisons paying pennies to the incarcerated and bribes to the legislators to ensure the prisons were kept full.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:11 AM

zappaisfrank: Ah yes, the latest Rightwingistan talking point...

According to the lamebrains of Rightwingistan, the Democratic party is pushing an agenda wherein they actually want people to remain poor and thus, dependent on the government for their "freebees" (paid for by bootstrappy, hard working Conservatives, mind you) which will keep them secured as a voting block, AND it makes them easier to control. Step two, start taking guns.

This is what Republicans really believe.


The people who plant the seed for this talking point don't believe a word of it. They're relying of the stupidity of the masses to buy into it. I've often thought being a right-wing think tank talking-point manufacturer would be a fun job, if I had no soul.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:30 AM
You want less people on welfare? Pay them a goddamned living wage so they don't have to stay on welfare while working.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:56 AM

Howie Spankowitz: And I didn't read the article because I refuse to give American *cough* Thinker any page views.


I have yet to see a single link to a Stinker article (greened or red) where you could not get the entire point from just the headline.
 
2012-12-18 10:59:05 AM
What Freedom looks like to American Thinker:
dwellingintheword.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-18 10:59:18 AM

MisterBill: Funny, I thought the modern form of slavery was the for-profit prisons paying pennies to the incarcerated and bribes to the legislators to ensure the prisons were kept full.


prisons are overflowing actually. not much to have to pay for at this point.

decriminalize drugs and our prisons would be over half empty.
 
2012-12-18 10:59:23 AM
As I have pointed out to more than one Rightwingistan dolt, if you want people off the public dole, tell the "makers" to put people to work and stop exploiting sweatshop cheap overseas labor to fatten up their bottom line.

So far, none of them have presented an articulate response to that..
 
2012-12-18 10:59:34 AM

SlothB77: When your economic plan consists solely of robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on enthusiastic support from Paul.


Here's the thing. This modern society cost a bunch of money to run. We have two choices, we create a tax system that pays for roads, military, education, etc, or else we simply don't have roads, military, education, etc. Sure we'd still have some roads only accessible to the rich, and we'd have private security firms, and the rich would get educated. But guess what, 90% of your customer base would evaporate and you'd be left selling your wares to a third world nation. Running a modern consumer society where you have a huge consumer base like the US requires a huge and expensive infrastructure of roads, military and education (to start). We this have two alternatives, setup donations booth everywhere and HOPE that people pay. Or we expect the rich to pay their fair share (because believe it or not, the financial benefits they get from this system FAR outweighs what they have to pay for it), and unfortunately we have to do so by the force of law. Just as if you signed a contract with your HMO to pay a monthly fee to protect your home, you by birth and living within this country have signed a contract that you will pay your taxes. In the former case you'd certain appreciate the police coming and forcibly jailing the person who refused to pay, but in the late case, we are stealing?
 
2012-12-18 11:00:17 AM
They're so elementary and small-minded. They refuse to see apast their predjudices. If Barack Obama was a white German this article would be a comparison between The Holocaust and tax breaks for the wealthy. If he were Native American, they would talk about how Obamacare is like a blanket covered in small pox. If he were Asian, they'd say his administration has Tiananmen Square-like policies. Its kind of funny when it isn't sad.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:42 AM
What mental gymnastics these reactionaries can perform to convince themselves that are not selfish, entitled dick wads.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:48 AM
Other than an income tax being Constitutional since before my grandfather walked this Earth, he's spot on.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:57 AM

graggor: MisterBill: Funny, I thought the modern form of slavery was the for-profit prisons paying pennies to the incarcerated and bribes to the legislators to ensure the prisons were kept full.

prisons are overflowing actually. not much to have to pay for at this point.

decriminalize drugs and our prisons would be over half empty.


Some prisons are overflowing. Some prisons, like the Supermax in Illinois the feds just bought, sit entirely empty.
 
2012-12-18 11:01:33 AM

WippitGuud: [i194.photobucket.com image 417x288]

"I have potato slaves. Your argument is potato."


We're long past the point where association of Downs Syndrome with American Stinker is offensive to those with Downs.

Hell, we're long past the point where association of potatoes with American Stinker is offensive to potatoes.
 
2012-12-18 11:01:41 AM
If morality is defined by private property

It isn't.

Nice foundation for an article, farkwit.
 
2012-12-18 11:03:44 AM
Oh look, a worldview that was discredited centuries ago.
 
2012-12-18 11:03:44 AM
libertarianchristians.com 

He didn't shade in the "taker's" skin color, so that's progress of a sort.
 
2012-12-18 11:03:58 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: zappaisfrank: Ah yes, the latest Rightwingistan talking point...

According to the lamebrains of Rightwingistan, the Democratic party is pushing an agenda wherein they actually want people to remain poor and thus, dependent on the government for their "freebees" (paid for by bootstrappy, hard working Conservatives, mind you) which will keep them secured as a voting block, AND it makes them easier to control. Step two, start taking guns.

This is what Republicans really believe.

The people who plant the seed for this talking point don't believe a word of it. They're relying of the stupidity of the masses to buy into it. I've often thought being a right-wing think tank talking-point manufacturer would be a fun job, if I had no soul.


I have commented as well to my Rightwingistan friends how I needed to get into the right wing talking points business. It would appear there is serious cash to be made exploiting the fears and prejudices of unenlightened Americans. Thing is, you have to keep outderping yourself on a weekly basis and I would imagine that would be somewhat difficult to sustain. It's worth a try, though...
 
2012-12-18 11:04:30 AM
Okay, so it's theft to take money and distribute it for the public good.

So how about you renounce your citizenship, if you are so opposed to this very basic role of any government? Even the US Constitution, which these people claim to worship, has language about the government raising taxes and providing for general public welfare.
 
2012-12-18 11:04:49 AM

hubiestubert: Because ...


Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. The federal government currently funds 126 separate and often overlapping anti-poverty programs.

By any measure, U.S. welfare spending has increased dramatically since 1965. In constant dollars, federal spending on welfare and anti-poverty programs has risen from $178 billion to $668 billion, a 375 per-cent increase in constant 2011 dollars, while total welfare spending-including state and local funds-has risen from $256 billion to $908 billion.
Measured as a percentage of GDP, federal spending increased more than fourfold, from just 0.83 percent of GDP to 4.4 percent. Total welfare spending nearly tripled, from 2.19 percent of GDP to 6 percent.
And, on a per capita basis, that is per poor person, federal spending has risen by more than 900 percent, from $1,625 to $14,848, while total spending rose by a smaller, but still substantial 651 percent, from $3,032 to $19,743.

All this spending has not bought an appreciable reduction in poverty. The poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of 1996). And, since 2006, poverty rates have risen despite a massive increase in spending.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report