Two Americas

[Boca]

by Bob Lonsberry
Dec. 9, 2013

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.

That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.

The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.

It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.

Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”

Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.​

 

[Lukey]

Well I don't think the collectivists are so much about supporting those who don't contribute, so much as they are about punishing those deemed too successful, as they seem to assume that in each and every case the person used deviousness or unfair advantages to succeed. Subsidizing sloth seems to be a price they are willing to pay in order to eliminate "undeserved" success. As is wiping out genuine success. The ends justify the means...

 

[Dino]

Well I don't think the collectivists are so much about supporting those who don't contribute, so much as they are about punishing those deemed too successful, as they seem to assume that in each and every case the person used deviousness or unfair advantages to succeed. Subsidizing sloth seems to be a price they are willing to pay in order to eliminate "undeserved" success. As is wiping out genuine success. The ends justify the means...

Subsidizing sloth is certainly not a "price" Democrats feel they need to pay. It is purely a political strategy designed to keep people needy and voting Democrat.
They don't bear it, despise it, or even want to eliminate it. They require it.

 

[Lukey]

Subsidizing sloth is certainly not a "price" Democrats feel they need to pay. It is purely a political strategy designed to keep people needy and voting Democrat.
They don't bear it, despise it, or even want to eliminate it. They require it.

For some in the political elite class, yes. That is a tactic they use to amass political power. I'm talking about the voter class. If you ask them they will assail welfare cheats, and deadbeats in general. These are merely unwanted side effects of their anti-capitalist jihad against wealth. It will all be fixed once the collectivists are firmly in charge - the able body will be given work to do, and punished if they refuse the bonds of slavery collectivism requires.

 

[middleview]

by Bob Lonsberry
Dec. 9, 2013

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.

That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.

The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.

It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.

Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”

Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.​

What crap! More of the Mutt Romney 47% bullshit. What is it that this post does if not divide us? So just how accurate is it? Yes there are people who do not work...Of that group there are those who want jobs and can't find them and there are those who don't. The latter group is certainly made up of some people just too lazy to get off their asses...but they are the ones too lazy to vote as well.

Then we get into the group, much larger than that, who work and struggle to make ends meet. They are all around you. They haul your trash. They wait on you at the super market. They are the nurses who take care of you at the hospital or watch your kids at daycare. They deliver your paper in the morning and wait on you at lunch.

The party preaching hate is the one you are most likely to vote for. They told us that Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered over a hundred people. They've told us that Obama wasn't born in the US. They are people like you who think they are being patriotic by accusing half of the country of being lazy thieves......Your party spends millions on investigations into bullshit accusations....how many times do republican investigations into Benghazi have to admit that there was no wrong doing, no order to stand down....before you realize what the investigations are meant to do?

The party you support has people like Sheldon Adelson putting $100 million into elections and the party leaders troops to Las Vegas to kiss his ass to get more. Your party has the Koch brothers polluting the water and air around their refineries and they kick in millions to buy legislation to let them pollute even more. All Adelson wants is more money and weapons for Israel....and the politicians he buys will gleefully promise to obey....The Koch brothers want anti-union people on the NLRB and to dismantle the EPA....and every attempt by democrats to do away that "dark money" is stopped by republicans. No. They don't mind a country run by the 1% and their servants.

Evidence that you guys are divisive? It is all there in the dishonesty on display as you argue that there are death panels in the ACA or that democrats are going to take your guns or dismantle the military.....how about when you guys predicted that Obama wanted to bring ebola to the US? You've subjected us to 6 years of that kind of propaganda. Holy shit you still think he hasn't released his birth records.....

 

[UPNYA2]

What crap! More of the Mutt Romney 47% bullshit. What is it that this post does if not divide us? So just how accurate is it? Yes there are people who do not work...Of that group there are those who want jobs and can't find them and there are those who don't. The latter group is certainly made up of some people just too lazy to get off their asses...but they are the ones too lazy to vote as well.

Then we get into the group, much larger than that, who work and struggle to make ends meet. They are all around you. They haul your trash. They wait on you at the super market. They are the nurses who take care of you at the hospital or watch your kids at daycare. They deliver your paper in the morning and wait on you at lunch.

The party preaching hate is the one you are most likely to vote for. They told us that Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered over a hundred people. They've told us that Obama wasn't born in the US. They are people like you who think they are being patriotic by accusing half of the country of being lazy thieves......Your party spends millions on investigations into bullshit accusations....how many times do republican investigations into Benghazi have to admit that there was no wrong doing, no order to stand down....before you realize what the investigations are meant to do?

The party you support has people like Sheldon Adelson putting $100 million into elections and the party leaders troops to Las Vegas to kiss his ass to get more. Your party has the Koch brothers polluting the water and air around their refineries and they kick in millions to buy legislation to let them pollute even more. All Adelson wants is more money and weapons for Israel....and the politicians he buys will gleefully promise to obey....The Koch brothers want anti-union people on the NLRB and to dismantle the EPA....and every attempt by democrats to do away that "dark money" is stopped by republicans. No. They don't mind a country run by the 1% and their servants.

Evidence that you guys are divisive? It is all there in the dishonesty on display as you argue that there are death panels in the ACA or that democrats are going to take your guns or dismantle the military.....how about when you guys predicted that Obama wanted to bring ebola to the US? You've subjected us to 6 years of that kind of propaganda. Holy shit you still think he hasn't released his birth records.....

Ok, middle, the right is the ones who are evil, who are divisive, the noble left seeks ONLY love and support from and of every soul............ Lets go with that...........

Care to offer up an example of exactly what it is the left is so gallantly fighting to obtain which would NOT be viewed to be divisive by it's very definition? What is it the damned near holy liberals want put into place that would NOT involve the taking of what one has to provide for another who may not?

Something that is just naturally divisive, in spite of the fact those of you fighting for more of other people's monies try to convince yourselves it is not.

Obamacare?

"Free" Junior College?

More people on food stamps?

More "free" child care?

More "free" or government "assisted" homes?

What is it you on the left seek that we can all, every American, do or sacrifice a bit more to accomplish together?

 

[Addy]

We know the attitude of the wealthy haves too. They gripe about giving assistance to those struggling to make it. But when a dem president wants to offer them a way out... improving their quality of lives by advancing their education, wage increases, etc.... the repubs' attitude is much like Romneys' .
--------
January 18, 2015

For Romney, Income Inequality Talk No Longer Just for "Quiet Rooms"
Speaking to an RNC audience in San Diego on Friday, potential three-time GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney explained how version 3.0 would differ from the first two voters previously rejected. But when Governor Romney announced that he would put fighting poverty and income inequality at the center of a 2016 run, he wasn't just reversing course; he was making himself into a laughingstock. After all, it was only three years ago that candidate Romney proclaimed "I'm not concerned about the very poor" and insisted income inequality should only be discussed in "quiet rooms."

Nevertheless, Friday's RNC gathering abroad the USS Midway provided the latest example of the Romney Uncertainty Principle in which Mitt's positions change when observed. There, he laid out the "three principles I think should form part of the foundation."
"First we have to make the world safer. Second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all Americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. And finally, we have to lift people out of poverty."

But Mitt felt differently after winning the Florida primary on February 1, 2012:
"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it."

At the time, no one doubted Romney's "let them eat cake" attitude. But the "I'll fix it" part immediately got him into trouble. After all, his economic plan didn't just include a massive tax cut for the wealthy, but would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and slashed Medicaid spending by almost 40 percent, costing as many as 40 million Americans their health insurance coverage. And with his huge increases in defense spending, Romney would have to tax an axe to almost everything else. That's why under President Romney, America's record-setting income inequality would have inevitably gotten much worse.

Which is why in 2012, Mr. 47 Percent didn't want to talk about it. When NBC Today Show host Matt Lauer (around the 0:55 mark above) asked whether criticism from President Obama or anyone else about Wall Street and the distribution of wealth was legitimate, Romney insisted all such talk should be left to Americans' betters.
LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?
ROMNEY: You know, I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like, but the President has made this part of his campaign rally everywhere we go, or where he goes.
Ultimately, Mitt Romney can talk about anything he wants in 2016 and he will still lose. Not because voters don't know the real Romney, but because they do.

 

[middleview]

Ok, middle, the right is the ones who are evil, who are divisive, the noble left seeks ONLY love and support from and of every soul............ Lets go with that...........

Care to offer up an example of exactly what it is the left is so gallantly fighting to obtain which would NOT be viewed to be divisive by it's very definition? What is it the damned near holy liberals want put into place that would NOT involve the taking of what one has to provide for another who may not?

Something that is just naturally divisive, in spite of the fact those of you fighting for more of other people's monies try to convince yourselves it is not.

Obamacare?

"Free" Junior College?

More people on food stamps?

More "free" child care?

More "free" or government "assisted" homes?

What is it you on the left seek that we can all, every American, do or sacrifice a bit more to accomplish together?

Care to discuss how it is that tax cuts for the wealthy is not divisive? How is it not divisive to tell people who can't afford healthcare that they are on their own...
Faith based healthcare...pray you don't get sick. Imagine your child dying from cancer and you unable to afford the best care....are you saying you would not feel resentment?

Picture having worked your ass off your entire life, someone like Bain Capital comes along, buys the factory and closes it...and you lose everything as the stockholders in Bain clean up on selling the property for it's real estate value.....I worked for a company that was bought and closed by a larger company because they didn't like the competition. I had already quit before that happened....but that was clearly the case of some wealthy folks making a decision that could have devastated working middleclass families...did they worry about it being class warfare? Nah. Did they worry about it being divisive?

Some of these things are just good business. I'm in favor of free college, in the form of a loan that is forgiven over time, after graduation....but only for those in the 3.0 GPA and up in High School. Because this country must compete against nations that do have free college educations for all. Child care is an economic issue that makes it tough for some people to get jobs....you want them to work? I do. Obamacare replaces a system where insurance companies kick people out of their healthcare plan for getting sick....it takes the place of a system that forced a large number of people to use the E/R for their care...something we paid for out of tax money...I guess you didn't know about that Ronnie Reagan policy. That too was good business. We were the only industrialized nation where people went bankrupt due to medical bills....Because there is a requirement for all to have insurance, both with and without some subsidy...but largely it makes people responsible for their own care instead of using the E/R and walking away from the bill.

I'll reserve judgement on the ACA until it has had time to actually show the results as more people sign up....but remember that if your insurance was not paid for out of your own pocket....then the rest of us subsidized you in one way or another.....If it was provided by your employer then it was paid for by your customers and subsidized with a tax break for your employer. Otherwise you are on tricare or medicare.....

More people on food stamps? Are you kidding? The last economic recession, courtesy of the republicans, resulted in a lot of people at the bottom being hit very hard. How did that happen? It happened because we had republicans (Phil Gramm for one) who wrote legislation that was paid for by companies like Travelers and Lehman....We had fraud that was abetted by that legislation. Wall Street crashed because of theft on a grand scale and a government that was complicit or incompetent...take your pick.

I don't know what you are talking about with the government assisted homes crack, but it was republicans who passed and signed the Downpayment assistance act....which gave federal guarantees to no-down mortgages for the first time. That was in 2003 and combined with the relaxation of banking rules resulted in the derivatives mess that put millions of people out of work and made a few people very rich.....

 

[Lukey]

We know the attitude of the wealthy haves too. They gripe about giving assistance to those struggling to make it. But when a dem president wants to offer them a way out... improving their quality of lives by advancing their education, wage increases, etc.... the repubs' attitude is much like Romneys' .
--------
January 18, 2015

For Romney, Income Inequality Talk No Longer Just for "Quiet Rooms"
Speaking to an RNC audience in San Diego on Friday, potential three-time GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney explained how version 3.0 would differ from the first two voters previously rejected. But when Governor Romney announced that he would put fighting poverty and income inequality at the center of a 2016 run, he wasn't just reversing course; he was making himself into a laughingstock. After all, it was only three years ago that candidate Romney proclaimed "I'm not concerned about the very poor" and insisted income inequality should only be discussed in "quiet rooms."

Nevertheless, Friday's RNC gathering abroad the USS Midway provided the latest example of the Romney Uncertainty Principle in which Mitt's positions change when observed. There, he laid out the "three principles I think should form part of the foundation."
"First we have to make the world safer. Second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all Americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. And finally, we have to lift people out of poverty."

But Mitt felt differently after winning the Florida primary on February 1, 2012:
"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it."

At the time, no one doubted Romney's "let them eat cake" attitude. But the "I'll fix it" part immediately got him into trouble. After all, his economic plan didn't just include a massive tax cut for the wealthy, but would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and slashed Medicaid spending by almost 40 percent, costing as many as 40 million Americans their health insurance coverage. And with his huge increases in defense spending, Romney would have to tax an axe to almost everything else. That's why under President Romney, America's record-setting income inequality would have inevitably gotten much worse.

Which is why in 2012, Mr. 47 Percent didn't want to talk about it. When NBC Today Show host Matt Lauer (around the 0:55 mark above) asked whether criticism from President Obama or anyone else about Wall Street and the distribution of wealth was legitimate, Romney insisted all such talk should be left to Americans' betters.
LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?
ROMNEY: You know, I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like, but the President has made this part of his campaign rally everywhere we go, or where he goes.
Ultimately, Mitt Romney can talk about anything he wants in 2016 and he will still lose. Not because voters don't know the real Romney, but because they do.

It's because almost without fail, the Democrats' plans to address the plight of the working class and the poor are anti-market efforts that just end up choking off economic opportunity by making hiring more expensive and/or difficult.

 

[UPNYA2]

We know the attitude of the wealthy haves too. They gripe about giving assistance to those struggling to make it. But when a dem president wants to offer them a way out... improving their quality of lives by advancing their education, wage increases, etc.... the repubs' attitude is much like Romneys' .
--------
January 18, 2015

For Romney, Income Inequality Talk No Longer Just for "Quiet Rooms"
Speaking to an RNC audience in San Diego on Friday, potential three-time GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney explained how version 3.0 would differ from the first two voters previously rejected. But when Governor Romney announced that he would put fighting poverty and income inequality at the center of a 2016 run, he wasn't just reversing course; he was making himself into a laughingstock. After all, it was only three years ago that candidate Romney proclaimed "I'm not concerned about the very poor" and insisted income inequality should only be discussed in "quiet rooms."

Nevertheless, Friday's RNC gathering abroad the USS Midway provided the latest example of the Romney Uncertainty Principle in which Mitt's positions change when observed. There, he laid out the "three principles I think should form part of the foundation."
"First we have to make the world safer. Second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all Americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. And finally, we have to lift people out of poverty."

But Mitt felt differently after winning the Florida primary on February 1, 2012:
"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it."

At the time, no one doubted Romney's "let them eat cake" attitude. But the "I'll fix it" part immediately got him into trouble. After all, his economic plan didn't just include a massive tax cut for the wealthy, but would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and slashed Medicaid spending by almost 40 percent, costing as many as 40 million Americans their health insurance coverage. And with his huge increases in defense spending, Romney would have to tax an axe to almost everything else. That's why under President Romney, America's record-setting income inequality would have inevitably gotten much worse.

Which is why in 2012, Mr. 47 Percent didn't want to talk about it. When NBC Today Show host Matt Lauer (around the 0:55 mark above) asked whether criticism from President Obama or anyone else about Wall Street and the distribution of wealth was legitimate, Romney insisted all such talk should be left to Americans' betters.
LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?
ROMNEY: You know, I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like, but the President has made this part of his campaign rally everywhere we go, or where he goes.
Ultimately, Mitt Romney can talk about anything he wants in 2016 and he will still lose. Not because voters don't know the real Romney, but because they do.

Really?

"We know the attitude of the wealthy haves too. They gripe about giving assistance to those struggling to make it."

I beg to differ my left leaning friend.

I may be wrong but for the life of me I honest to God have never seen nor heard of anyone, a member of those evil 'ol, "wealthy haves", (defined HOW exactly?), or anyone else for that matter, who gripes about "giving assistance".

I've heard complaints about being forced to give up MORE of their monies in order for di m/l ibs to provide more for their life-long victim-hood voter base, no doubt about that, but never about providing any assistance.

(Oh, and by the way, assistance and a living are 2 distinctly different things, that could also be something that is confusing you here, look into it, 'K?)

"But when a dem president wants to offer them a way out... improving their quality of lives by advancing their education, wage increases, etc.... the repubs' attitude is much like Romneys' ."

Soooooo.........the dems way of giving people an out from having to give more to others is to offer them the chance to,.............well,........Hell,.............give more of their monies to provide stuff for others.........?????????


Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself to try to justify your bizzaro lust for more and more of other people's monies, huh..........

 

[middleview]

It's because almost without fail, the Democrats' plans to address the plight of the working class and the poor are anti-market efforts that just end up choking off economic opportunity by making hiring more expensive and/or difficult.

Hmmm....so the republican plan resulted in millions of people losing jobs...750,000 per month. The R's passed legislation that said the free market was sufficient...no government oversight was needed for the derivatives market....

That didn't choke off economic opportunity, did it. In fact raising the minimum wage has not been a problem in the past, in spite of the chicken little republican warnings of imminent economic collapse....

 

[Addy]

Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself to try to justify your bizzaro lust for more and more of other people's monies, huh..........

I don't lust for other people's money... fortunately.

 

[connieb]

by Bob Lonsberry
Dec. 9, 2013

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.

That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.

The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.

It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.

Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”

Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.​

My kids are 6 and 8. One of their favorite games is LIFE. I hadn't played it since I was a kid until this past summer. And honestly, I think it should be mandatory part of every child's education.

Looking at it from a critical point of view of someone who has now grown up, its truly genius. Yes, there are all sorts of randomness in there. You can land on a space and have an accident. You can land on another and have to buy a bigger house and mortgage. You can't pre-determine how many children you will have for instance. But, you get to experience first hand sort of the consequences of those decisions. You start off choosing not to be a Dr. or a Lawyer, you end up making less money through the game generally. You buy a house that is more than you make, and you end up in debt or bankrupt at the end. You have too many children, and you run out of money.

It is actually a wonderful teaching tool because we are able to talk with the kids about how making this choice, means you exclude other options. How if you don't save and prepare for something - you are in big trouble if tragedy occurs. After ending up with 6 kids in one round of the game and having to keep paying for 6 of them every time there was something to pay for, my son said, now I know why you guys only have two of us.

I honestly don't think anything else that they could do as young kids could teach as well that yes, so much of life is based on in many cases the luck of the draw - but the choices you make along the way, have a huge impact on whether or not you can weather the storms as they come up and where you will ultimately finish the game.


connie

 

[middleview]

Really?

"We know the attitude of the wealthy haves too. They gripe about giving assistance to those struggling to make it."

I beg to differ my left leaning friend.

I may be wrong but for the life of me I honest to God have never seen nor heard of anyone, a member of those evil 'ol, "wealthy haves", (defined HOW exactly?), or anyone else for that matter, who gripes about "giving assistance".

I've heard complaints about being forced to give up MORE of their monies in order for di m/l ibs to provide more for their life-long victim-hood voter base, no doubt about that, but never about providing any assistance.

(Oh, and by the way, assistance and a living are 2 distinctly different things, that could also be something that is confusing you here, look into it, 'K?)

"But when a dem president wants to offer them a way out... improving their quality of lives by advancing their education, wage increases, etc.... the repubs' attitude is much like Romneys' ."

Soooooo.........the dems way of giving people an out from having to give more to others is to offer them the chance to,.............well,........Hell,.............give more of their monies to provide stuff for others.........?????????


Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself to try to justify your bizzaro lust for more and more of other people's monies, huh..........

It was lust for other people's money that caused the last recession....and the republican party made it happen.

 

[Lukey]

Hmmm....so the republican plan resulted in millions of people losing jobs...750,000 per month. The R's passed legislation that said the free market was sufficient...no government oversight was needed for the derivatives market....

That didn't choke off economic opportunity, did it. In fact raising the minimum wage has not been a problem in the past, in spite of the chicken little republican warnings of imminent economic collapse....

Raising the minimum wage doesn't increase economic activity. Any positive economic effects are offset by job losses due to the development of technology to replace low skill jobs:

http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/2906/next-outsourced-job-fast-food-order-taker

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/22/technology/innovation/fast-food-robot/

http://www.qsrmagazine.com/exclusives/burgers-design

Raising employment levels and driving up median incomes through more economic opportunity does, however, tend to raise the price of entry level workers.

 

[Addy]

Informative read, brings another aspect into the discussion ,unions, re low wages and slow economic activity.
------------
News Analysis
Our Economic Pickle
excerpt
Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages nearly always accounted for more than 50 percent of the nation’s G.D.P., but last year wages fell to a record low of 43.5 percent. Since 2001, when the wage share was 49 percent, there has been a steep slide.
says Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. “What we’re seeing now is very disquieting.” For the great bulk of workers, labor’s shrinking share is even worse than the statistics show, when one considers that a sizable — and growing — chunk of overall wages goes to the top 1 percent
snip ----
“We went almost a century where the labor share was pretty stable and we shared prosperity,” says Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. “What we’re seeing now is very disquieting.”
MANY economists say the stubbornly high jobless rate and the declining power of labor unions are also important factors behind the declining wage share, reducing the leverage of workers to demand higher wages. Unions represent just 7 percent of workers in corporate America, one-quarter the level in the 1960s.

“There are very few occupations or industries where unions are strong enough where they can set standards,” says Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute. “There are no standards being set, so companies can push down on wages for all workers, union and nonunion alike.” When the Detroit automakers secure two-tier contracts, that enables them to pay new hires $16 an hour, far less than the $28 an hour earned by longtime workers. This also pushes down labor’s share.
Pamela Waldron, a cashier at a KFC restaurant in Manhattan, earns $7.75 an hour after eight years on the job and says she last received a raise in 2007. “Being here eight years, I think I should be getting more,” she said. “You can fight for a raise, but I don’t think you’re going to get it.”

It is often thought that college graduates can escape these unfortunate wage trends. But college graduates — hit by the bursting of the tech bubble in the late 1990s and then by the deep recession — have been hit hard, too. Seventy percent of the nation’s college grads have had their after-inflation hourly wages decline since 2000, according to the Economic Policy Institute, with the typical graduate experiencing a 3.1 percent decline.
Jared Bernstein, who served in the Obama administration as executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, said many steps should be taken to increase labor’s income share, including raising the minimum wage, pushing down the jobless rate, enacting laws that make it easier for workers to unionize and increasing wage subsidies for those on the bottom. He also said the federal government, in spending hundreds of billions on health care, might insist that providers pay home-care aides or lab technicians $20 an hour rather than $10. “There’s no reason why a lab technician with a few years of community college shouldn’t be able to find her way into some segment of the middle class,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/s...ductivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0

 

[Boca]

What crap! More of the Mutt Romney 47% bullshit. What is it that this post does if not divide us? ....

Why the hell are you spewing at me?

Why not address your complaint to the guy who wrote it?

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=3651

If you'd like, or lack the guts, I'll forward it for you....every word intact.

I think I will anyway.

 

[Sunset Rose]

We know the attitude of the wealthy haves too. They gripe about giving assistance to those struggling to make it. But when a dem president wants to offer them a way out... improving their quality of lives by advancing their education, wage increases, etc.... the repubs' attitude is much like Romneys' .
--------
January 18, 2015

For Romney, Income Inequality Talk No Longer Just for "Quiet Rooms"
Speaking to an RNC audience in San Diego on Friday, potential three-time GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney explained how version 3.0 would differ from the first two voters previously rejected. But when Governor Romney announced that he would put fighting poverty and income inequality at the center of a 2016 run, he wasn't just reversing course; he was making himself into a laughingstock. After all, it was only three years ago that candidate Romney proclaimed "I'm not concerned about the very poor" and insisted income inequality should only be discussed in "quiet rooms."

Nevertheless, Friday's RNC gathering abroad the USS Midway provided the latest example of the Romney Uncertainty Principle in which Mitt's positions change when observed. There, he laid out the "three principles I think should form part of the foundation."
"First we have to make the world safer. Second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all Americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. And finally, we have to lift people out of poverty."

But Mitt felt differently after winning the Florida primary on February 1, 2012:
"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it."

At the time, no one doubted Romney's "let them eat cake" attitude. But the "I'll fix it" part immediately got him into trouble. After all, his economic plan didn't just include a massive tax cut for the wealthy, but would have repealed the Affordable Care Act and slashed Medicaid spending by almost 40 percent, costing as many as 40 million Americans their health insurance coverage. And with his huge increases in defense spending, Romney would have to tax an axe to almost everything else. That's why under President Romney, America's record-setting income inequality would have inevitably gotten much worse.

Which is why in 2012, Mr. 47 Percent didn't want to talk about it. When NBC Today Show host Matt Lauer (around the 0:55 mark above) asked whether criticism from President Obama or anyone else about Wall Street and the distribution of wealth was legitimate, Romney insisted all such talk should be left to Americans' betters.
LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?
ROMNEY: You know, I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like, but the President has made this part of his campaign rally everywhere we go, or where he goes.
Ultimately, Mitt Romney can talk about anything he wants in 2016 and he will still lose. Not because voters don't know the real Romney, but because they do.

Poor Mitt should forget about running for President in 2016. Does he really think people won't remember what he said in 2012? It's kinda sad to see him waste his time, energy and money. Too bad his family can't talk him out of it.

 

[UPNYA2]

I don't lust for other people's money... fortunately.

My mistake. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

So in order for me to be clear here, the things you envision assisting others, whatever that may involve be it current or future goods or services, whatever we as a society need to do for others, where is it you feel the monies to provide these things originates exactly?

When you stated, "But when a dem president wants to offer them a way out... improving their quality of lives by advancing their education, wage increases, etc....", where, exactly, is it you believe the funds to improve the quality of life for others, the monies it actually costs to advance their educations and increase their wages, where is it these funds come from in the loony little lib by LA-LA Uphoria of yours anyway?

You long to provide more/better for everyone. Hey, don't be ashamed. It is YOUR position, accept it and be proud. But at least be honest enough to face the reality that in order for you to do that it will, WILL, involve you using the government to take more and more of the monies of other folks until such a time as this longing of yours can be fulfilled.

Something I personally do not believe can EVER happen by the way.................

 

[Dawg]

by Bob Lonsberry
Dec. 9, 2013

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.

That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.

The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.

It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.

Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”

Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.​

example of the 'don't'
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/01/22/blac...eens-wait-until-you-see-who-he-apologized-to/

firing squad by next time the [Unwelcome language removed] crows