Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ High: 32°F ~ Low: 27°F Friday, Feb. 10, 2012 |
|
War on ProsperityPosted Sunday, April 26, 2009, at 9:54 PM
We have been since LBJ in a War on Poverty. How's it working? Does anyone think we have fewer homeless, fewer hungry children, a more prosperous Appalachia or more viable inner-city neighborhoods than in the 1960s? I think not.
Since Nixon we have been in a War on Drugs. Does anyone seriously think the "drug problem" is less today than in the early 1970s? After spending incalculable and obscene amounts of money, measured in the trillions if local, state and federal direct and indirect dollars are counted, is there a single soul out there that thinks the "problem" is lesser today than at the start? I think not. Now our present President comes with a War on Prosperity. He or other Obamaites will not accept this nomenclature as an appropriate description of their policy, but, in plain English, it in fact is. Redistribution of wealth is their euphemistic manner of stating their aim, yet in either case it means to penalize and take from the successful individual and give, key word give, to the unsuccessful. Why would anyone pay for and endure several years of post-graduate training in any field to only be able to realize rewards in keeping with those who exert themselves not at all? This has been tried many places and failed miserably. For example, many modern countries with socialized medicine as well as Cuba and all neo-past Communist governments. The mantra of Marx was,to "give according to one's abilities, take according to one's needs." (I show this as quote, but I didn't look it up so treat it as paraphrase) Is this just another way of saying redistribution of the wealth? Saying most of us should work, research, invent and produce all that is needed for the World's people, but expect no accolades or rewards. Does anyone in their right mind really think this would work to ease the human condition and/or eradicate suffering around the world? I do not. I think it would take the incentive from most capable people and lead, quickly, to a degradation rather than an enhancement of a standard of living we have achieved by abhorring this mind-set. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Narcissism(5 ~ 11:43 PM, Feb 3)
Sentencing
Election 2010
Gambling Update
Gambling Sentence
|
Email link
Read comments (18)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Too many Americans are too selfish about their own desires and don't care one whit about making someone else pay for their own poor decisions, and how that will affect the country overall.
If folks spent as much time working to correct their problems as they do complaining about how "unfair" life is, we wouldn't need a big daddy government.
I for one have actually changed my plans based on this administrations "War on Prosperity". I was going to start a small business this year, and it would have only provided an extra 2-3 jobs, but I would have made better money and worked for myself. After listening to the things coming from this administration I decided against it. It is just as easy to keep my current job, and not try to make my own way. When I get to hearing about all the taxes, fees, permits, etc, etc. Its not worth the hassle.
Dang,Carl,I'd hoped you were on to something then you had to go all pessimistic on me.
War on Poverty = More poverty
War on Crime = More Crime
War on Pollution/Overpopulation/Extinction of Species = More environmental damage
War on Oppression/Intolerance/Terrorism/Injustice = More Hate
We've declared hostilities against sin and ignorance only to have increasing amounts of dysfunction and defeatism.
If I could be sure the Bizarro effect would cause an upsurge in what we're fighting,I'd endorse a thousand years' war on Prosperity.
I'd throw in battles against Health and Liberty,Civic Virtue,Artistic Expression,Responsibility and Progress in general.
What should we fund other than this combat?
How about subsidies for littering,pornography,and running businesses into the ground?
I remember hearing of a man who was having trouble protecting his stately,old home from vandals.
One day,he stopped a couple of young hoodlums and offered them a dollar each to break his windows.
The next day,he had a few dozen more there ready to smash glass.
He told them he could only afford to pay fifty cents each to so many.
They agreed.
The following day,fewer showed up but he paid them the agreed price.
On the fourth day,he said there wasn't much left to break so he was only going to pay a quarter each.
There was much grumbling and few rocks were thrown in the short time they were there.
By day five,he was telling the remaining stragglers that he was going to limit them to twice a week and ten cents each.
The following week,he stiffed them on their second dime.
There were cries of outrage and assurances that NONE of them would ever show up to attack his house again.
They were true to their word.
None of them ever did.
What about the War on Terrorism? Since most "Wars" generated by the U.S. government why is it so easy to support one and not the other(s)... Because ultimately, they all drain our budget, and each have their respective opposition. I also think it is highly ironic to hear anyone truly say Obama is somehow punishing the wealthy, when the majority of you who did, also complained that Congress gave more than a trillion to the most wealthy institutions in the world, called banks. How many of you who blog on this, or any other site make a quarter million a year? I'd say at not many... and why didn't any of you start your businesses in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or even 2008... That's 2,920 days you had to build your fortune, yet, you'd rather blame someone else for preventing you from starting something new. I don't say that in a political way, but there again, everything is Obama's fault, so lets look retrospectively at what you could have been doing...
I work for a fortune 500 organization and without the small businesses we cater too, we wouldn't exist. In any economy a portion of those will fail, and there is no shortage of people willing to take the risks. It simply depends on your drive and dedication, not a tax code. Dreaming of making $250,000 a year and actually doing it, are two entirely different things.
darrick_04
All of these so called "wars" are nothing more than an over-inflated government wanting to be even more over inflated; ie., these wars only serve the purpose of making the government bigger and stronger. Redistribution of wealth will not go as some suppose. It will, as you have just pointed out, go to make the truly wealthy even wealthier.
Socialism is a crock because it removes incentive for production. The only people who prosper under socialism are the politicians and their cronies.
Why would anyone think it is a good idea to take, by force, from a productive person and give the proceeds to ANYONE else, be they poor or rich?
I did not read on this blog where anyone accuses your president of being responsible for "everything". But I will say, his policies to date have not been in favor of freedoms we have historically enjoyed. Neither have his immediate predecessors performed any better. It is time for this citizenry to wake up to the fact that neither of the two political parties, as we know them, are on the side of the common man. They have, for the most part, sold out to self-serving interests. Their smoke and mirror attempt at rectifying social injustice through force is one of the most obvious outward signs of their true agenda, the enslavement of a once free people.
Well said dmcg . . . both Republicans AND Democrats are to blame and have led to a government that is bloated and useless and that endorses policies that have been and will be destructive to the future of America. People like darrick_04 suffers from the same syndrome that he criticizes in other people in that loves to point the finger at the other side but never looks at the faults on his own side of the political spectrum. He continues to shout "Well Bush did this and that" but last time I checked Bush isn't president anymore and that was the past. Again, when you have no relevant point to make then people tend to resort to tired political rhetoric and pointing fingers and playing the blame game.
I complained eight years while Bush was president about his many mistakes and blunders with government but he is no longer president and Obama is and I disagree with many of his policies also so I don't give him a free pass either. One wrong doesn't make another wrong right. I personally don't see how anyone can believe so blindly in what is happening in our country and the direction it is going. Who knows, maybe in ten years I will be proven wrong and I truly hope I am because it only benefits me that things turn around and get better but I just don't see it happening.
The difference being.. You complained AFTER you gave Bush a chance.. You haven't given Obama more than three months to do anything. I don't expect him to save the world, nor does anyone who voted for him. We do, however, expect an effort, and at this point I see one. Don't be so quick to reject a policy that has not had time to see the effects. I am not going to agree with everything Obama does.
And again, I didn't blame anything on Bush.. Jax. If you are going to assume that is my position then PLEASE, point it out. I simply stated that all of these people who are fearful of starting their own business or quick to cry the sky is falling, had ample time to get their business underway and they failed to do so. Don't blame a president who has made it EASIER to get small business loans, and provided liquidity to the markets. I don't agree that the Fed should give money to these banks, however, that is what the Fed was designed to do.
I don't see anyone getting a free pass, and all of the people here who complain about the supposed tax burden on the rich, probably have never and will never be in that tax bracket. Again, dreaming of making $250,000 and actually doing it, are two different things. At least Obama is willing to increase his own taxes in the process, rather than the middle class (presumably, all of you), who rail against him.
I simply stated that all of these people who are fearful of starting their own business or quick to cry the sky is falling, had ample time to get their business underway and they failed to do so.
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Apr 28, 2009, at 7:40 AM
The reason I did not start my business in previous years is because I have been saving money and building a business plan. I did not wish to start a business already in debt. I have also been seeking out more training and education in my particular field of interest. It is not just the "war on prosperity" it is also other restrictive laws that are sure to come down the pike in my particular field of interest. I am also not prepared to take a risk now when it seems that the current administration is determined to further choke out the middle class with things like cap and trade and new "green" regulations. These types of poor decisions will make it almost impossible to afford basic neccesities such as lights and water.
I don't see anyone getting a free pass, and all of the people here who complain about the supposed tax burden on the rich, probably have never and will never be in that tax bracket. Again, dreaming of making $250,000 and actually doing it, are two different things.
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Apr 28, 2009, at 7:40 AM
First off, I am in the 25% bracket, so I am not speaking purely from theory.
The so called "poor" most certainly get a free pass. They not only pay zero income tax they also are given money that is stolen from more productive members of society. Earned-income tax credit anyone? Then they use government services FAR more than "regular" people.
Yes dreaming of making that much and doing it are two different things. Meaning putting yourself in that position takes hard work and sacrifice... so why punish folks who are willing to work that hard to reward lazy people??
Darrick......I read your comments to say we should always be aware and help the poor but if we are not "wealthy" why should we care about these folk. Are they lesser citizens. Can't wrap my brain around the concept that poor is good and worthy of all assistance but wealthy is dispicable and not worthy of any consideration.
What am I missing?
I just believe in common sense but unfortunately Americans dont want to subscribe to that anymore.
"At least Obama is willing to increase his own taxes in the process, rather than the middle class (presumably, all of you), who rail against him."
-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Apr 28, 2009, at 7:40 AM
I guess it is easy for Obama considering he is profiting from being president(millions of dollars in book deals) and also receives free perks and amenities that regular Americans don't(aka White House, Air Force One, etc). Comparing his situation to the rest of America no matter how rich or poor they are doesn't work. When the cap and trade legislation passes, who do you think will pay for increased utility bills. Taxes on cigarettes . . . who do you think is paying that increase? People are paying whether you admit it or not. We shouldn't be increasing anyone's taxes in a recession . . . PERIOD!
Can't wrap my brain around the concept that poor is good and worthy of all assistance but wealthy is dispicable and not worthy of any consideration.
What am I missing?
-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Tue, Apr 28, 2009, at 11:47 AM
I guarantee you, the corporations of the world benefit more from the U.S. government than any individual. I think we should assist the wealthy and encourage them to continue stimulating the economy.. and considering banks and U.S. automakers have received upwards of trillions of dollars, I suffice it to say, they aren't suffering due to the governmnet.. they are suffering due to poor business models, poor decision making and lack of vertical integration.
Darrick....I have, and always have had, a problem with the notion a corporation and business's fail to pay their fair share and/or are decorated generously with various subtle and not so subtle licenses to use loopholes available only to them.
As a matter of fact and definition a "corporation" or a "business" does not exist in the three dimentional world we call reality. They are a "person" in a legal sense only. They are intangible. They are not Eden-like edifices whereby a few devious folk spend their days trying to screw over other folk.
A corporation, a business, a building, a truck, a cow or a telephone pole do not, and never have and never will pay taxes. ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
And the major corporation including banks are owned, in the main, by working people. Primarily through their 401(K)s and IRAs plus individual investment accounts. Any so called taxes paid by the corporations are paid by the stock holders and/or their customers. People each and every one and not some inert diety.
Glad you realize some of the real reasons why businesses are having trouble and it is not all due to that evil Bush. I agree with your accessment in general. The real losers are people not institutions.
By the way you might want to check out John D. Rockerfeller. He tried the ultimate in vertical integration and singlehandedly fostered the anti-trust laws. Vertical integration is a logical nicity in acadamia, but must be very carefully applied to be legal in the real world.
Rockefeller was a great businessman, at first... Then, he became consumed with greed, and he wanted to monopolize the oil industry, creating huge barriers to entry for competing companies. He built a company that was highly similar to what is happening today, giant corporations buying out their foes, in the form of mergers, acquisition, joint ventures, etc... thus eliminating the natural flow of the market.
He (and many companies today) was a prime example of why government is needed (but only every now and then) to settle matters that the markets themselves will not solve. I honestly wish we could let the markets be free of the government, but as we have witnessed, neither the natural market, nor the government seem to have very good control of the situation.
The underlying truth is, that regardless of who is levying taxes, or who is passing on higher prices to the consumers, we all are affected. This much is also true, government and private enterprise both have quite a few things in common: neither provide all solutions to all problems, neither can predict the future, and both are operated by human beings, none of whom are infallible.
darrick......Not trying to defend Rockerfellow....Just pointing out his aim of total monopoly control is literally vertical intergration carried to the nth degree.
Sorry about the spelling...Got into to big a hurry.......Rockefeller.
Vertical integration is more the control [monopoly] of production factors or the entire business process within a single company. For example, Exxon Mobil who not only distributes oil, but pumps the oil from the ground, refines, bottles, packages then distributes... isn't the only oil company.
This is different from a monopoly of an entire market, which means no competition. Exxon Mobil has competition, therefore they are not a monopoly of a market.
However, I see your point. ;) I didn't think you were defending Rockefeller lol.