La Revolution...

steingar said:
I do personally know some folks on welfare, and they aren't eating lobster or driving new vehicles.
Click to expand...
I do personally know a guy who owns a trucking company, and he got caught trying to steal a live lobster from the grocery store. I have never even seen a live lobster at a grocery store, but I had him on probation when I was a probation officer. He also only had to serve half his year's probation because of good behavior. That right there shows that the system is broken.:yes:
 
Jay Honeck said:
The percentage of Americans with a family member receiving federal money is at an all-time high -- 49%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/NA-BQ884_Number_E_20120525153402.jpg

Now add in the number who work for the government, or have family members who work for the government.

Now add in contractors who depend on the government for work. Now add in the university professors who receive "grants".

We are already WAY beyond 50% of Americans who benefit from the gross expansion of government. Why do you think the debt keeps growing?
Click to expand...

Your point is noted. What are you going to do about it? Leave the Country? Or do you generally turn away customers at your hotel who are federal income recipients?
 
One of the issues of most concern to the authors of the constitution was that of tyranny of the majority, i.e., the trampling of the human rights of the minority. The republican principle was thus invoked in the design of the Senate, whereby each state would have two senators. So low population states like Rhode Island would have an equal voice in governance that states like New York and Pennsylvania had.

This system worked well for over 200 years until the median voter ended up on government assistance. The composition of the Senate now is such that the majority represents a population that takes more from the public coffers than they contribute. As a nation we have crossed the Rubicon. It is remarkable that the House is still in the hands of the constituents who are not on the dole in any form or fashion. That condition is politically unstable and it is unlikely to continue.

Hawaii is an interesting example of what a big government society looks like. The largest component of the Hawaii gross state product is government (national, state and local). The bureaucratic class dominates every aspect of life there. Without federal government spending in the state the state's economy would not be capable of sustaining the population. So the reality is that the economy of the state of Hawaii is subsidized by taxpayers in the rest of the nation. The reason it is tolerated is that it is in the interest of national security which is assured by the concentration of the largest command units of the Army, Navy, Air Force & Marine Corps, than anywhere else in the world. It's also why there are "interstate" highways on Oahu, but that's a whole 'nother story. There is a dark undercurrent of class and ethnic friction in paradise compounded by a general dislike of the privileged bureaucratic class.

The problem with the Hawaii model is that it can't be projected to the rest of the nation without a reversion to the tranny of mercantilism or exploitive colonialism. But those who may have spent their formative years there will generally not think that far ahead to the end game.
 
DrMack said:
This system worked well for over 200 years until the median voter ended up on government assistance. The composition of the Senate now is such that the majority represents a population that takes more from the public coffers than they contribute.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's actually backwards. The majority in the senate is D and the blue states receive less in federal dollars than they send to DC. Weirdly, it's the red states that are the beneficiaries of federal largess beyond their contribution. I will note that I actually don't have an issue with this and have some level of understanding of the structural reasons why it's the case. But it is still very ironic that the loudest and angriest of the right also happen to be the ones who come from areas that profit the most from the current setup. It would be awesome if they would lead the way by reducing their spend to the level of blue states.

Cite: http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005
 
DrMack said:
One of the issues of most concern to the authors of the constitution was that of tyranny of the majority, i.e., the trampling of the human rights of the minority. The republican principle was thus invoked in the design of the Senate, whereby each state would have two senators. So low population states like Rhode Island would have an equal voice in governance that states like New York and Pennsylvania had.

This system worked well for over 200 years until the median voter ended up on government assistance. The composition of the Senate now is such that the majority represents a population that takes more from the public coffers than they contribute. As a nation we have crossed the Rubicon. It is remarkable that the House is still in the hands of the constituents who are not on the dole in any form or fashion. That condition is politically unstable and it is unlikely to continue.

Hawaii is an interesting example of what a big government society looks like. The largest component of the Hawaii gross state product is government (national, state and local). The bureaucratic class dominates every aspect of life there. Without federal government spending in the state the state's economy would not be capable of sustaining the population. So the reality is that the economy of the state of Hawaii is subsidized by taxpayers in the rest of the nation. The reason it is tolerated is that it is in the interest of national security which is assured by the concentration of the largest command units of the Army, Navy, Air Force & Marine Corps, than anywhere else in the world. It's also why there are "interstate" highways on Oahu, but that's a whole 'nother story. There is a dark undercurrent of class and ethnic friction in paradise compounded by a general dislike of the privileged bureaucratic class.

The problem with the Hawaii model is that it can't be projected to the rest of the nation without a reversion to the tranny of mercantilism or exploitive colonialism. But those who may have spent their formative years there will generally not think that far ahead to the end game.
Click to expand...

Excellent assessment of the dynamics of island economies. My native Puerto Rico is an identical case study to Hawaii, even as an unincorporated, though de facto incorporated, territory.

My question to you is what should be done about it? Cut these islands loose and let 'er rip? That's just angry bantering.

Continental economics allow the ability not to revert to such economic subsidies that remote islands suffer from. The problem is that the capital owning class in this Country has RAPED our labor resources by leveraging a labor surplus created in the 1970s against a population with decreasing purchasing power, but with the social and cultural expectation to MEET OR EXCEED the quality of life standard of their parents. It's hard to be the first generation in 150 years to have to downgrade from the boomers. That's essentially where we are.

You have to refund much of the labor value back to the proletariat in order to avoid a de facto banana republic economic wealth distribution in the Continental economics we are seeing today. Otherwise you are correct, we will continue running to the last rope of wage parity (the government), until we all lean against it and collapse it. The capital owning class laughs all the way to their international banks and we get stuck with a bitter island of intra-proletariat animosity and dispossession the size of a continent. This outcome is NOT a product of rational self-interested economic behavior on the part of millions of individuals, this is the product of our capital owning class robbing the proletariat and then telling them the enemy resides amongst themselves. To quote ol Bushie 43: "Fool can't get fooled again..."

From the perspective of a prole, I sincerely don't know what we can do to reign in the multi-national capital owning class. Bemoaning the insolvency of island economics does nothing to provide a solution though.
 
Last edited:
rwellner98 said:
Hmm, that's actually backwards. The majority in the senate is D and the blue states receive less in federal dollars than they send to DC. Weirdly, it's the red states that are the beneficiaries of federal largess beyond their contribution. I will note that I actually don't have an issue with this and have some level of understanding of the structural reasons why it's the case. But it is still very ironic that the loudest and angriest of the right also happen to be the ones who come from areas that profit the most from the current setup. It would be awesome if they would lead the way by reducing their spend to the level of blue states.

Cite: http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005
Click to expand...

We're not talking aggregate, it's the median voter. In the aggregate a blue state may send more to DC than they receive but that is because they are " eating their rich". It is unsustainable.
 
DrMack said:
We're not talking aggregate, it's the median voter. In the aggregate a blue state may send more to DC than they receive but that is because they are " eating their rich". It is unsustainable.
Click to expand...

In your original comment you were talking about the aggregate, making sweeping generalizations about the majority party in the senate and those who put them there. But ok, let's change focus.

The rich took 10% of the GDP for themselves in 1980 and 24% in 2010. They seem to be doing fine.
 
timwinters said:
Do you really expect us to believe that story Ben?

You need to enter that one in a creative writing contest, seriously...bravo!
Click to expand...

I see no reason to doubt the story. I have personally observed very similar occurrences and, to be blunt, they should surprise no one.

By no means can we conclude that each beneficiary of government aid is a leech, but it is nuts to believe that each person desires to be productive, to stand on their own two feet. Many people desire only to get by or, if possible, to live well, without measurable effort. The difference is, for the first time, a significant proportion of the populace can actually manage it.
 
SCCutler said:
I see no reason to doubt the story. I have personally observed very similar occurrences and, to be blunt, they should surprise no one.

By no means can we conclude that each beneficiary of government aid is a leech, but it is nuts to believe that each person desires to be productive, to stand on their own two feet. Many people desire only to get by or, if possible, to live well, without measurable effort. The difference is, for the first time, a significant proportion of the populace can actually manage it.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows that there are plenty of slime ball ambulance chasing lawyers who are only concerned with making a buck. It is really too bad that lawyers in general get pegged with that image when most of them are hard working honorable people.
 
Maxmosbey said:
Everyone knows that there are plenty of slime ball ambulance chasing lawyers who are only concerned with making a buck. It is really too bad that lawyers in general get pegged with that image when most of them are hard working honorable people.
Click to expand...

My point, exactly.

---

Edit:

Invalid analogy; lawyers get that way after four years of college and three years of law school. Leeches get that way without the irritating nuisance of hard work or effort.

Although, there are those who accomplish complete dependency in spite of a great deal of education.
 
Last edited:
Maxmosbey said:
So are we agreeing that most people who are on welfare are not taking advantage of the system and that they are getting a bad rap because of those who do?
Click to expand...

My inherent faith in humanity has me compelled to agree with that premise, but the trend is not encouraging.
 
SCCutler said:
My inherent faith in humanity has me compelled to agree with that premise, but the trend is not encouraging.
Click to expand...
My experience with people on welfare, and I have lots of experience in this area, is that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system, but they aren't living high on the hog doing it. My experience with lawyers, and I have quite a bit of experience in that area, is that most of them are not slime balls. The problem is that most people form their opinions of the whole based on the few.
 
Last edited:
Those who take the dole are to be commended for being rational economic actors. To blame them for doing so is unjust. We must examine ourselves as a society to decide whether such a system does more harm than good.
 
DrMack said:
Those who take the dole are to be commended for being rational economic actors. To blame them for doing so is unjust. We must examine ourselves as a society to decide whether such a system does more harm than good.
Click to expand...

A discussion worth having.
 
SCCutler said:
A discussion worth having.
Click to expand...

I think it boils down to knowing how to play whatever hand you're dealt in whatever game you're playing. Some play with accelerated depreciation, Sec 179 expenses, IRA's, Roths, SEP's, home interest deduction, charitable contributions of appreciated property, generation-skipping trusts, etc. Some even figure out legitimate ways to expense aviation-related activities.

Others play food stamps, welfare checks, ADC, free cheese, school supplies, "daddy day" and "mama day" job tax credits, etc.
 
wabower said:
I think it boils down to knowing how to play whatever hand you're dealt in whatever game you're playing. Some play with accelerated depreciation, Sec 179 expenses, IRA's, Roths, SEP's, home interest deduction, charitable contributions of appreciated property, generation-skipping trusts, etc. Some even figure out legitimate ways to expense aviation-related activities.

Others play food stamps, welfare checks, ADC, free cheese, school supplies, "daddy day" and "mama day" job tax credits, etc.
Click to expand...

And both paths have led the greatest country in the world to economic failure........ Pick your poison.........

With that said...... The first actors usually can create jobs and fend for themselves... The last actors usually become dependent on guvmint hand outs and will NEVER break that cycle.... There are generations of them for living proof...:(
 
N801BH said:
And both paths have led the greatest country in the world to economic failure........ Pick your poison.........

With that said...... The first actors usually can create jobs and fend for themselves... The last actors usually become dependent on guvmint hand outs and will NEVER break that cycle.... There are generations of them for living proof...:(
Click to expand...
What with set asides and subsidies I wonder where farmers fall in the welfare recipient hierarchy.
 
Simply put, you need to vote for the person who says they'll stop. Problem is - there is no one with the balls to run who believes it.
 
comanchepilot said:
Simply put, you need to vote for the person who says they'll stop. Problem is - there is no one with the balls to run who believes it.
Click to expand...

Painful Truth, there...
 
wabower said:
I think it boils down to knowing how to play whatever hand you're dealt in whatever game you're playing. Some play with accelerated depreciation, Sec 179 expenses, IRA's, Roths, SEP's, home interest deduction, charitable contributions of appreciated property, generation-skipping trusts, etc. Some even figure out legitimate ways to expense aviation-related activities.

Others play food stamps, welfare checks, ADC, free cheese, school supplies, "daddy day" and "mama day" job tax credits, etc.
Click to expand...

Which one of your examples contributes to the overall GPD, tax base, infrastructure, whatever you want to call it? Of course, it could be said that the food stamp, welfare, ADC, cheese person 'contributes' from a consumption pov, but consumers are not what made the US the greatest country on earth.

Consumers did not invent the internet, airplane, miracle drugs, cotton gin, suspension bridge, etc. Individual entrepreneurs did that stuff. They should be well rewarded with lavish exemptions. The individual contributors to society make the consumer society possible.
 
I've worked all my life, from the age of 13 up to today(57). About 4.5 of those years, I got a green check from uncle for wearing a green suit and black boots. It was a pretty good exchange in all.

There has not been a day outside my armed forces service that I haven't been employed, or worked as a sole proprietor, making money for a corp, or myself, or both. Along the way, I got some letters after my name, and used them to some effect getting the younger generation ready to do the same.

Now, I don't crow about this cause I want any kind of recognition, it's what I did and do. I mention it because I can look back at some things in my past and now present that make a difference.

Thinking about the takers, consumers, and functional deadbeats(physically able to work, but too lazy/drunk/stoned) all segments of society agree that they have grown too large in the past 30-ish years. So, we have all these people, who contribute very little to the US membership as a whole, but still enjoy the benefits of a plasma tv so they can watch Springer, and have a Chevy in the garage, and the house/apt is air conditioned, and when they fall down drunk go to the same ER that I go to, and get to travel on the same comm planes I do, and there is this vast middle America out there that is sorely divided between those who work, and those who take. When you think of them, they are no longer bothered by their lack of contribution. For some, it's become the ghetto equivalent of 'getting one over' on the rest of us.

The revolution is coming. In a strange twist of history, this revolution won't come from the poor, the lazy, the itinerant, it will come from the contributors. We will meet the enemy, either on the floor of the HR/Senate, or we will meet them in the street. Frankly, I don't give much hope for the welfare class/lazy/deadbeat when the contributors get fed up with it. Once the breakdown of rules begins, that genie isn't going to go back in the bottle until there are quite a few necks being stretched.
 
docmirror said:
Thinking about the takers, consumers, and functional deadbeats(physically able to work, but too lazy/drunk/stoned) all segments of society agree that they have grown too large in the past 30-ish years.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that. What's the data? What was that percentage of the population 30 years ago when Reagan took over? What is it today?
 
March into HR on July 1st and fill out a new W-4 and exempt from withdrawals. Get several million folks to do that and some heads will be turned.
 
rwellner98 said:
I'm not sure I agree with that. What's the data? What was that percentage of the population 30 years ago when Reagan took over? What is it today?
Click to expand...

What's your data? I can find a report that says anything I want. Personally, I like this chart:

http://goldtrustfinancial.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/US-National-Debt-Chart-2012_LG-530x800.jpg

Our spending on military(required) surely has gone up some since Reagan but he spent plenty on star wars. Where's the rest of the money going do you think? I know it's not in my pocket.
 
docmirror said:
What's your data? I can find a report that says anything I want. Personally, I like this chart:

http://goldtrustfinancial.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/US-National-Debt-Chart-2012_LG-530x800.jpg

Our spending on military(required) surely has gone up some since Reagan but he spent plenty on star wars. Where's the rest of the money going do you think? I know it's not in my pocket.
Click to expand...

According to that chart the debt was leveling out by 2001. Amazing what fear of a handful of terrorists can accomplish.
 
Jim Logajan said:
According to that chart the debt was leveling out by 2001. Amazing what fear of a handful of terrorists can accomplish.
Click to expand...

And the lines for 09, 10, 11, and 12? None of that is social spending?
 
docmirror said:
And the lines for 09, 10, 11, and 12? None of that is social spending?
Click to expand...

Was there a large increase in social spending versus other expenditures in those years? Or a large decrease in tax receipts? It is a debt chart and all that is immediately evident from it alone is that the deficiit was nearing zero (slope of the debt nearing horizontal) when the deficit increased around 2001.
 
docmirror said:
What's your data? I can find a report that says anything I want. Personally, I like this chart:

http://goldtrustfinancial.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/US-National-Debt-Chart-2012_LG-530x800.jpg

Our spending on military(required) surely has gone up some since Reagan but he spent plenty on star wars. Where's the rest of the money going do you think? I know it's not in my pocket.
Click to expand...

That chart is the national debt. You claimed that the debt was rising because of lazy deadbeats. That's the data I was hoping you had. Do you?
 
apynyrut.jpg
 
timwinters said:
We could kick off the revolution next March in NE Alabama and meet a few miles west of Guntersville.

And call the movement...

The Arab Spring.
Click to expand...
I like the way you think! Is the upright steel guitar barn festival still held there?
 
Re: La Revolucion...

N801BH said:
To clarify my point.... 50% of the population get some form of government subsidies, hand outs or some other type of free stuff... And keep in mind 48% do not pay a DIME in Federal Income Tax....
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. A huge part of that 50% is Social Security and Medicare, but the 48% figure does not include what people pay INTO Social Security and Medicare through payroll deductions.

Politicians do that on purpose. Don't be misled.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top