The root of all evil - Free Stuff.

[dorminWS]

I just thought I ought to pass this along:

The democrats are waging unfettered class warfare - with free stuff.

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 236 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuffoutnumbers the people paying for thefree stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!


For all our sake PLEASE Take a Stand!!!

Obama: Gone!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

[AlanM]

I have, for many years, paraphrased my favorite author, R. A. Heinlein, with the statement that democracys survive right up until the people realize that they can vote themselves cake and circuses.
I just located the actual quote and book it's from:

"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."

from: To Sail Beyond the Sunset

Now, is there a solution?
How can we prevent politicians from using freebies from buying votes?
Well, just off hand, we could declare anyone nursing on the government's teat to be a ward of the state and unable to vote until they release their lips from the teat.

Note: social security is NOT a freebie, it is a paid for insurance plan. All tax payers are REQUIRED to pay into it. Note: I do recognize that longer life spans is messing with the original plan.

[Reverenddel]

"Note: social security is NOT a freebie, it is a paid for insurance plan."

I beg to differ. It's not like insurance, because I pay for my own insurance, and collectively, we have coverage.

Social Security is a PONZI SCHEME! YOU PAY FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY IN IT, and HOPE there is someone to pay for it when YOU get ready to DRAW!

Originally? FDR wanted a tiered system that eventually, those who pay into it, draw on what they've paid into it. Not this...

[Wallace]

Large corporations lobby the federal government for billions of dollars in bail out money.
The government doesnt actually have that much money to lend, so they borrow/print it.
That causes inflation, and a devaluation of the money in my pocket. So now my money is worth less and stuff costs more, sweet.

Then, on top off that, the "bank" that the government borrowed the money from charges interest, that is paid by........ the taxpayer.

So NOW not only is my money worth less than it was and stuff still costs more, but I am on the hook for the interest on the loans given to the big companies who pays their ceo's more money than my family will ever see in a lifetime.

I am not saying I support the occupy protestors, but, they are stealing from me and my kids when they make money, that aint right. The blame can be spread all around.

And Robamny isnt going to fix a !@#$%^&* thing.

[dorminWS]

Social security, never a completely sound vehicle to begin with, has been conveted into a welfare scheme with "social security disability" and liberalized standards for eligibility to collect. So I would suggest it is not a PURE "entitlement".

As to the “bread and circuses” problem and what to do about it, Senators were originally elected by state legislatures, if I’m not mistaken; which not only was intended to insulate small states from the influence of large ones, but also to insulate the government from tyranny of the majority. The other big differences at the time of the founding of the republic were that the vote was confined to freeholders; which is to say (in simplified terms, you had to own land to be able to vote. The following information outlines the timeline of the expansion of suffrage in our country:
When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process allegedly fairer and undisputedly easier. It went down like this:
In 1790 only white male adult property-owners had the right to vote.
In 1810 the last religious prerequisite for voting were eliminated.
In 1850 property ownership and tax requirements were eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
In 1855 Connecticut adopted the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts followed suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
In 1870 the 15th Amendment was passed. It gave former slaves the right to vote and protected the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
In 1889 Florida adopted a poll tax. Ten other southern states would implement poll taxes.
In 1890 Mississippi adopted a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also established literacy tests. However, the tests also excluded many whites from voting. To get around this, states added grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.
In 1913 the 17th Amendment called for members of the U.S. Senate to be elected directly by the people instead of State Legislatures.
In 1915 Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement (1910). In Guinn v. United States the Supreme Court ruled that the clause was in conflict with the 15th Amendment, thereby outlawing literacy tests for federal elections.
In 1920 the 19th Amendment guaranteed women's suffrage.
In 1924 the Indian Citizenship Act granted all Native Americans the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections.
In 1944 the Supreme Court outlawed "white primaries" in Smith v. Allwright (Texas). In Texas, and other states, primaries were conducted by private associations, which, by definion, could exclude whomever they chose. The Court declared the nomination process to be a public process bound by the terms of 15th Amendment.
In 1957 the first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
In 1960 in Gomillion v. Lightfoot (Alabama) the Court outlawed "gerrymandering."
In 1961 the 23rd Amendment allowed voters of the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections.
In 1964 the 24th Amendment banned the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
In 1965 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., mounted a voter registration drive in Selma, Alabama, to draw national attention to African-American voting rights.
In 1965 the Voting Rights Act protected the rights of minority voters and eliminated voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act was expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
In 1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminated the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
In 1966 the Court upheld the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
In 1970 literacy requirements were banned for five years by the 1970 renewal of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, eighteen states still had a literacy requirement in place. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upheld the ban on literacy tests, which was made permanent in 1975. Judge Hugo Black, writing the court's opinion, cited the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race" as the reason for their decision.
In 1971 the 26th amendment set the minimum voting age at 18.
In 1972 in Dunn v. Blumstein, the Supreme Court declared that lengthy residence requirements for voting in state and local elections was unconstitutional and suggested that 30 days was an ample period.
In 1995 the Federal "Motor Voter Law" took effect, making it easier to register to vote.
In 2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act required states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.
So it appears to me things went from too restrictive to so unrestricted that fraud and abuse is rampant. I would argue that in today’s technical world, any citizen, no matter what color the skin, should be required to demonstrate literacy to be allowed to vote. And I would also argue that any person on welfare should be denied the right to vote. But the big rub comes for me on government employees. Should THEY be allowed to vote?

[dorminWS]

Large corporations lobby the federal government for billions of dollars in bail out money.

They should have been allowed to fail. That’s what bankruptcy is for. But the Wall Street specvulators that bankrolled Obama in 2008 and the Auto Workers’ Unions who also were his big supporters wopuld not have been around to support Obama in 2012, so they got bailed out. Political necessity.

The government doesnt actually have that much money to lend, so they borrow/print it.

True.

That causes inflation, and a devaluation of the money in my pocket. So now my money is worth less and stuff costs more, sweet.

Also very true. And it’s gonna get A LOT worse on the inflation.

Then, on top off that, the "bank" that the government borrowed the money from charges interest, that is paid by........ the taxpayer.

It’s not banks, by and large. It’s people (natural persons and corporations) who are looking for a minimum-risk place to park money and foreign governments – the biggest being China.

So NOW not only is my money worth less than it was and stuff still costs more, but I am on the hook for the interest on the loans given to the big companies who pays their ceo's more money than my family will ever see in a lifetime.

So what? The shareholders control that; not the government. If the government wanted to, I guess they could condition a bailout on reducing CEO compensation. But would it really be a good idea to hire the guy who will work the cheapest to turn around a company in trouble? The thing to do is not worry about CEO pay, but let them GO bankrupt instead of bailing them out.

I am not saying I support the occupy protestors, but, they are stealing from me and my kids when they make money, that aint right. The blame can be spread all around.

And Robamny isnt going to fix a !@#$%^&* thing.

…………………………………………………………………..
Yes, they are stealing from you and your kids. But that’s what government does. It takes from those who produce and gives it to those who do not.

If Romney gets elected and just stops it from happening any more it would be a big, big help. Obama wants to keep on borrowing and spending. He either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care that it must be paid back. Or maybe he’s like to see the country willing to go communist so it could declare all capitalist-generated obligations void and NOT pay it back.

[Kreutz]

Two unnecessary wars transferring billions from the Treasury into a corporation a certain VP happened to run sure sounds like free stuff to me.

yet its never welfare when corporations get it, be it wasteful contracts or subsidies or tax breaks.

Puzzling.

[ratherfish]

[stricken]

Sorry, that's all my fingers would type in response to that assenine comment.

[dorminWS]

Two unnecessary wars transferring billions from the Treasury into a corporation a certain VP happened to run sure sounds like free stuff to me.

yet its never welfare when corporations get it, be it wasteful contracts or subsidies or tax breaks.

Puzzling.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[allingeneral]

ratherfish - that's really unnecessary. If you feel the need to type an apology before you hit the submit button, then please reconsider your pressing of the submit button.

[ratherfish]

Sorry rick,

I don't react well too the liberal change the subject and attack troll routine.

I'm learning from dormin how to say the same thing by posting a tactfull cartoon.

[allingeneral]

I'm learning from dormin how to say the same thing by posting a tactfull cartoon.

[dorminWS]

Ratherfish, I'm real worried about you, boy.....................

Because that's the first time in all my borned days that I've EVER been accused of teaching tact to anybody.

And it occurred to me that it must be because anybody with less tact than me had done and been shot.

So you'd best be REEEAL careful, OK?

[ratherfish]

One old fart to another...

Shot at and missed...
Sh!t at and hit.

[grumpyMSG]

Two unnecessary wars transferring billions from the Treasury into a corporation a certain VP happened to run sure sounds like free stuff to me.

yet its never welfare when corporations get it, be it wasteful contracts or subsidies or tax breaks.

Puzzling.

Kreutz, I am sorry you feel like going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan was wrong, because "George Bush started it...", Let me help you cut that in half with the truth. I will grant you that the war in Iraq may have been a war of choice and we didn't have to go in when we did. We probably could have continued to spend billions over the years to contain Hussein and sons for years, but how has that strategy worked out for us and the world with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

As for Afghanistan, how should we have proceeded there? Ignore a country that allows an organization to train, live and recruit from there with the expressed purpose of attacking the U.S. and other countries? You would have a hard sell to convince me that fight wasn't justified. I would even say that we should have focused all of our energy on Afghanistan before even looking toward Iraq. If we had focused more resources on Afghanistan it might have already been long over with at a lower cost for America.

As for your accusations about Dick Cheney, a lie based in the truth is still a lie. Dick Cheney was a part of the leadership at KBR/ Halliburton but divested his interest after being picked for V.P. and before the election. He was also accused of insider trading not long after that, because the company had an issue with Asbestos law suits right after his divestiture and stock prices tanked. Like Mitt Romney right now, while Dick Cheney was V.P., his stock portfolio was being managed "In blind trust". He picked the managing company, but couldn't direct the investment. Just like Bain Capital does for Mitt Romney.

[Kreutz]

It is irrelevant who started the war, who knows how culpable Bush was? I wasn't there.

I do know Obama is guilty of continuing them as long as he did.


I consider all foreign wars wrong, fiscally and morally. If we kept to ourselves in the first place we wouldn't be putting a giant target on ourselves. Empires don't come cheap after all.

[Wallace]

Large corporations lobby the federal government for billions of dollars in bail out money.

They should have been allowed to fail. That’s what bankruptcy is for. But the Wall Street specvulators that bankrolled Obama in 2008 and the Auto Workers’ Unions who also were his big supporters wopuld not have been around to support Obama in 2012, so they got bailed out. Political necessity.

The government doesnt actually have that much money to lend, so they borrow/print it.

True.

That causes inflation, and a devaluation of the money in my pocket. So now my money is worth less and stuff costs more, sweet.

Also very true. And it’s gonna get A LOT worse on the inflation.

Then, on top off that, the "bank" that the government borrowed the money from charges interest, that is paid by........ the taxpayer.

It’s not banks, by and large. It’s people (natural persons and corporations) who are looking for a minimum-risk place to park money and foreign governments – the biggest being China.

So NOW not only is my money worth less than it was and stuff still costs more, but I am on the hook for the interest on the loans given to the big companies who pays their ceo's more money than my family will ever see in a lifetime.

So what? The shareholders control that; not the government. If the government wanted to, I guess they could condition a bailout on reducing CEO compensation. But would it really be a good idea to hire the guy who will work the cheapest to turn around a company in trouble? The thing to do is not worry about CEO pay, but let them GO bankrupt instead of bailing them out.

I am not saying I support the occupy protestors, but, they are stealing from me and my kids when they make money, that aint right. The blame can be spread all around.

And Robamny isnt going to fix a !@#$%^&* thing.

…………………………………………………………………..
Yes, they are stealing from you and your kids. But that’s what government does. It takes from those who produce and gives it to those who do not.

If Romney gets elected and just stops it from happening any more it would be a big, big help. Obama wants to keep on borrowing and spending. He either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care that it must be paid back. Or maybe he’s like to see the country willing to go communist so it could declare all capitalist-generated obligations void and NOT pay it back.

Only Congress can spend the money.

All I am saying is that just because someone is getting something from the government for free does not mean they are a freeloader. I am sure there are millions of people that suck from the government tit because they have no choice.

Until "the sheep" demand massive restrictions and reforms on the government to take away the gross unbalance of power they wield nothing will change. And Robamny isnt it.

This class warfare crap is just a way to keep people divided while our futures and our freedoms slowly vanish.

[grumpyMSG]

It is irrelevant who started the war, who knows how culpable Bush was? I wasn't there.

I do know Obama is guilty of continuing them as long as he did.


I consider all foreign wars wrong, fiscally and morally. If we kept to ourselves in the first place we wouldn't be putting a giant target on ourselves. Empires don't come cheap after all.

Who started it is irrelevant? If somebody punched you in the mouth (1993, World Trade Center), and you did nothing. Then they gave you two black eyes (1998, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings) and you did nothing. Next they stabbed you in the hand (1999, USS Cole) your response was to threaten them if they tried to hurt you again. Now you get a broken nose and a black eye (2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon).

Do you still say retaliation is not justified? Wouldn't you have fought sooner if it occurred to you in high school? Do you have blind faith that your wonderful communication skills would have prevented yet another attack? We all know how you never tick anybody off on this forum. I can't remember exactly who gets credit for this quote, but it is applicable: "When two people get into it, it's a fight. When one doesn't fight back, it's an @$$whipping. I don't take @$$whippings."

[Kreutz]

Who started it is irrelevant? If somebody punched you in the mouth (1993, World Trade Center), and you did nothing. Then they gave you two black eyes (1998, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings) and you did nothing. Next they stabbed you in the hand (1999, USS Cole) your response was to threaten them if they tried to hurt you again. Now you get a broken nose and a black eye (2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon).

Oh God, don't tell me you really believe they "hate us for our freedom"?

This reminds me of this old thing, "if you walk into a bar and get your ass kicked after five minutes, they were probably buttholes....if you walk into fifteen bars and the same thing happens every single time, well, chances are you're the butthole"

Point being of course its our actions that get us attacked; they don't happen without reason.

People don't fly planes into buildings for fun. Those attacks were a direct response to our presence in Saudi Arabia and support of Israel, as Osama himself said in many of his tapes.

[ratherfish]

The terrorists aim is to rid the earth of infadels or enslave them and rule the world by sharia law.

The notion that we provoke them by anything other than our existance is innane and stupid.

They should be exterminated like the cockroaches they are. BTW that's an opinion shared by many in the Arab world too.