Thanks to Pauline B. for sending this gem in to us:
1. America is capitalist and greedy, so says our left - yet a third of our population is heavily subsidized and half receive at least some subsidy.
2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims?
3. They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer?
5. The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries can only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries? We’re not exceptional, says the left.
Next, these three short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:
1. We’ve posted this one before, but it’s worth repeating. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What’s interesting is we know the first group “worked for” their money, but too many in the second group have never worked and virtually grew up welfare as an entitlement.
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, halting pay raises for our military and cutting our military forces to levels lower than before WWII, but in California we are finding creative ways to provide benefits to illegal aliens?
This is a conundrum… can anyone explain it?
Re: “This is a conundrum… can anyone explain it?”
Oh, c’mon, this is an easy give away fer crying out loud! Who else would create such a ridiculous and asinine situation?
Answer: “Progressives” and the Democratic party.
The bottom three I’ve explained before, just a few weeks ago. They’re not serious, thoughtful questions. They’re ignorant memes that are meant to put different groups of people against one another.
1. Muslims v. gun owners (probably some overlap)
2. The elderly vs. the poor (lots of overlap there)
3. Veterans vs. immigrants (also some possible overlap)
Most of the questions also have really obvious answers anyway. For example, Social Security is funded through a specific tax, while the rest of the named programs are not. Veterans’ benefits have been cut by both parties. And almost no one is saying we should judge all gun owners by the actions of a few.
The questions above aren’t any better. It’s a fact that most Western democracies have much more heavily subsidized populations than the U.S. The result over the past few decades has generally been less income inequality, better healthcare and quality of life, and more social mobility in those more heavily subsidized countries than in our own. I find it disappointing that ignoring this fact has become a central tenet of conservatism.
I know rhetorical question, but couldn’t resist.
Yes, the progressive Democrats and left-leaning/moderate Republicans have been in control for decades resulting in all of the above.
The only solution is to take away control of our lives from the feds and return our freedom of choice and rights to individuals and local governments, as our Founders designed our system of governance.
And the ONLY way to accomplish this is to have representatives in DC who support the rights of the individual over those who desire to control the collective.
Stinkin’ thinking.
The inability to think.
Radical left activism/propaganda/manipulation.
Compromised media/education system.
General apathy.
Loss of moral compass.
All of the above can be figured in to the conditions characterized above.
One more…application of moral/practical relativism as exemplified in# 2 above.
How exactly is my comment an example of “moral relativism?”
As an aside, there is good news on the CEO compensation issue, Jack. A number of investment groups are starting to demand of boards that they reconsider their compensation practices. Coke and Berkshire Hathaway have been singled out by one to have possibly failed in its fiduciary responsibilities to share holders. Don’t know whether this will grow into anything significant or whether it will succeed but it is a move in the right direction. The big investment houses have the clout that the little guy doesn’t and we’re on the same side. Just thought you might not have heard this news…we know it won’t make big headlines, lol.
Chris The Negro Burner makes an ass out of himself again!
Thank you!
Chris your comment pretends there is nothing morally or practically questionable about holding people to different standards in the situations articulated. It’s a typical leftist tactic to deflate the truth of the statements. You see no conundrum; holding people to different standards can be explained away by pretending the different standards are morally or practically equivalent.
Dewey I have no idea how the figures you have were determined. I do know they were from 2006. I did a search and found very different numbers for 2006 regarding subsidies and transfer payments for the poor/working poor.
2006 US “budget:
This is only what the federal government spends on transfer payments to the poor. States also spend on medical and other programs for the poor.
In order to simplify I will dismiss the food stamp and state numbers. I will also leave out tax payments made to working families that pay no federal tax which is another subsidy. The remaining figures in the budget add up to $220 billion that the federal government spent that year on programs for the poor.
That’s a lot more than the figure you have ($59 billion). It’s also a whole lot more than the figure your site has for corporate subsidies ($92 billion).
CATO cites the corporate figure at $92 billion also, so I imagine that’s accurate).
There is another point to be made. The subsidy that oil companies have received is given to help them find where the oil is. The money is a drop in the bucket compared to the tax revenue that the federal government gets from both corporate taxes and the taxes we pay on gasoline and natural gas. Also, this get expenditure benefits all Americans and our economy so there is a national purpose for it. having said that I would be in favor of eliminating the subsidy and lowering corporate tax rates and/or gas taxes.
One of the problems with the federal budget is that a lot is hidden in the complex pasted together laws and regulations. I’m amazed that anyone could wrap their arms around the federal budget and feel confident that they know what they are talking about.
Tina: “Chris your comment pretends there is nothing morally or practically questionable about holding people to different standards in the situations articulated. It’s a typical leftist tactic to deflate the truth of the statements. You see no conundrum; holding people to different standards can be explained away by pretending the different standards are morally or practically equivalent.”
HOW am I holding people to different standards? Show me exactly where. I literally have no idea what prompted these accusations.
The OP makes these specific claims:
“America is capitalist and greedy, so says our left – yet a third of our population is heavily subsidized and half receive at least some subsidy…
…They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries? We’re not exceptional, says the left.”
This is simply dishonest. It implies that America is an extremely generous and heavily subsidized country, which is simply not true when compared to other Western democracies. Again, I am not holding different people to different standards; I’m making a comparison between America and other similar countries, and showing how America comes up short.
Earlier, I said “I find it disappointing that ignoring this fact [that more subsidized countries have higher social mobility, lower inequality and better healthcare] has become a central tenet of conservatism.”
Thanks for proving my point. You still refuse to address this basic fact, instead resorting to vague and untrue accusations against me.
Typical.
Chris your view of America is sad and pathetic.
Progressive elites gather and compare our country to others in order to make America seem greedy and selfish and our aid to the poor/needy substandard for their own greedy, controlling agenda!. Those who create these comparisons begin from a central planning, one world government perspective; taxation and redistribution is their game. They manipulate and cherry pick statistics to make bogus comparisons about the one nation that, up until the last five years or so, has been the biggest producer and the most prosperous. Rather than redistributing the model they seek to bring America down.
There is no other country that has done more to uplift, rescue, assist, liberate, and defend others. NONE!
If America offends you so much why do you remain here?
It offends me that the left (you) believes taxation, redistribution and dependency are better, more noble, more workable, than freedom, self reliance and charity. The thing I find interesting is that for all the high hat ambition to help the poor it is always someone else’s money the progressive uses to do his “good work”.
Dewey you might try to join us in the current decade.
Bernie’s national debt figure is old and much too low. Since his socialist buddies took over the debt has increased by leaps and bounds, currently sitting at $17.5 trillion
You are ignorant about oil discovery and how the price is set. There are three commodities exchanges where buyers and sellers set the price of oil. There are many factors that can affect the price, including shortages, war, weather, politics and policy, etc. The three excahnges are:
New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX, http://www.nymex.com)
International Petroleum Exchange in London (IPE, http://www.ipe.uk.com)
Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX, http://www.simex.com.sg)
Nothing more sinister than companies attempting to cover their bottom lines against losses and risk takers throwing their butts off a cliff to try to make a profit. People win big and lose big in this high risk game.
Again, try to stay with the subject and one subject at a time.
Lots of ad hominem attacks in Tina’s comment, still zero acknowledgment of the fact that countries with stronger social safety nets are living what used to be the American Dream.
Useless. Absolutely useless.
Is that right?
Well Mr Smarty Pants let’s start with a few sticky fact:
1. Living off of others IS NOT the American Dream!
2. Countries with stronger safety nets have been forced to move to the right and cut tax rates because their generous systems were drowning them in debt, killing their economies, creating unemployment…and when they tried to raise taxes to fix the problem, caused the wealthy to flee!
3. Reports call attention to the people being apathetic, uninspired, less creative.
“Useless” is calling dependency the American Dream…shame on you!
Tina, I believe the American Dream means the ability to reach one’s full potential. The best indicators of this are social mobility and income inequality. The U.S. fares worse in both these areas than countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. Poor people in America are far more likely to remain poor than poor people in Sweden. We like to think of ourselves as a country without social classes, but that’s just not true anymore, if it ever was. The fact that poor Americans are having such a hard time moving up the economic ladder when compared to our European counterparts is not an issue of personal irresponsibility or laziness, as Romney argued before the election. It is a systemic problem. You posted an article a while back about how the U.S. economy is growing more slowly than European countries, but you never stopped and thought that this might mean we should follow their examples.
In these countries welfare isn’t seen as people “living off of others,” it’s seen as a way to benefit everyone. You have to stop looking at citizens as potential parasites and start looking at them as investments. It’s not about dependency, it’s about opportunity. Social welfare programs provided me a lot of opportunities that I wouldn’t have otherwise had. Cuts to welfare pose a real threat to families like mine. J.K. Rowling was on welfare, and she credits the generous UK system for allowing her to take time off to raise her kids and work on her creative pursuits. You’ll have to show me what reports you are referring to when you say these countries are less creative. I’m not sure how you’d measure such a thing.
It’s true that these countries have made reforms to welfare in recent years, but they still haven’t cut welfare spending as a percentage of GDP to American levels, so your argument is not all that convincing.