Wealth Redistribution and a Moral Imperative - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 11-10-2008, 01:10 PM

The kids thing that tends to crop up here every so often is moot since welfare families on average have the same amount or fewer children than others. Many have no children. I think what we tend to look at are the high-profile cases, or maybe it's a media misconception.

I also think there is a wide misconception that those on welfare are happy and comfortable to be there--that they aren't doing anything to get out of it--that they don't care for their children. Little do we hear about the stories of the welfare recipient who, for one reason or another (often beyond their control), lost their job(s) and is struggling to get back on their feet. And then there's the situation where the welfare recipient does have a job but can't afford to make ends meet. Single mothers often fall into this due to lack of quality and affordable childcare.

I've heard about enough regarding "suckling off the teat" and "crotch fruits" without even commenting on the most likely situations. Do you seriously think that everyone on welfare is doing nothing to help themselves or their children? Welfare isn't a long-term state for most recipients. What happens there?

There is no correlation between women having more children and receiving welfare benefits. There is no direct incentive. Often the support one receives from welfare isn't a livable amount. Why would that encourage a family to have more children?

dc_dux · 11-10-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

I don't believe they will simply stop having kids. Rather, I believe Malthus was right, and if you provide support to people who are struggling, they will just have more struggling children for you to support, and those children will grow up and continue to contribute ad-nauseum to the welfare state you have just created.

The world isn't a nice place, and bad things happen. I want to be left alone to put MY MONEY towards keeping bad things from happening to me, not to help someone who won't help themselves, or their crotch fruit.

Baraka explained it well.

This further explains some of the welfare myths...it is from before the '98 welfare reform that included tougher work requirements and benefit limits (# of yrs) that make these myths even less prevalent.

Quote:

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients
Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support
Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families
Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

Welfare to Work: Myths

Its time we stop with the myths.

smooth · 11-10-2008, 02:54 PM

facts won't sway the fuckwits because they want to believe the crap they spew. and then people around here seem to take some sort of joy from posting contrary to facts or reason because they think it annoys liberals.

normally when people discuss things I think if everyone had the facts then people would either reshape their arguments or change their minds, but no, here it's the same people for years repeating the mythical bullshit ad nauseum so any pointing out of actual facts will either go ignored or this topic will die only to be resurrected sometime down the road with yet again the same people posting the same drivel.

Slims · 11-10-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

facts won't sway the fuckwits because they want to believe the crap they spew. and then people around here seem to take some sort of joy from posting contrary to facts or reason because they think it annoys liberals.

normally when people discuss things I think if everyone had the facts then people would either reshape their arguments or change their minds, but no, here it's the same people for years repeating the mythical bullshit ad nauseum so any pointing out of actual facts will either go ignored or this topic will die only to be resurrected sometime down the road with yet again the same people posting the same drivel.

Ok, first, I have seen those figures before, and am not arguing against them nor ignoring them. I wasn't discussing the status quo, but rather Grolsh's comment, which I quoted.

I know a relatively small chunk of my tax dollars CURRENTLY supports welfare and other like programs. I don't think even that small amount should be taken from me. I support social programs...that offer opportunities rather than handouts. Whether that is a feasible position is a topic for another discussion.

I don't care that welfare receipients have 'the same number of kids' as non-receipients. If they can't afford to feed themselves, they have no business bringing another mouth into this world, period. I am in my late 20's, married, self-sufficient, and want children. That I haven't had any yet is because I cannot afford to properly support one. I am putting my money where my mouth is here. I won't be a burden to others, nor will I bring a child into this world I cannot yet properly care for. To take money away from me which I could be putting away so I can one day afford to raise a child is criminal.

I know movement off welfare rolls is frequent. But it is my understanding that people who receive welfare once, are often on and off recipients. I could very well be incorrect on this one, but that's the point of a discussion, which leads me to my next point:

Smooth: This is just a discussion. I read and am thinking about Baraka_Guru's post, and I have considered all the others I have read here. Believe it or not, these discussions both on and off this forum help me refine my opinions. Sometimes they serve to reinforce them, and sometimes they inspire change. I am constantly evolving as a person and while I understand why you might not agree with me, I don't see how you can argue that my position is somehow Amoral, and it certainly doesn't warrant the implication that I am a Fuckwit, or that I ignore the facts.

If everybody agreed with you no debate would be possible.

tisonlyi · 11-10-2008, 05:12 PM

Look, I'm sorry.

I'm from Liverpool. We controlled the slave trade, from the Exchange in my, small, city. Our small town was transformed into a cosmopolitan, well educated municipality solely on the back of the triangular trade. Look it up. Liverpool, for it's population has too many good universities, too many libraries, too many hospitals and too much history.

Liverpool has many beautiful buildings (the most in the UK outside of the square mile of london), the most art galleries (same as the last thing i mentioned), libraries, museums, art galleries, etc, etc, etc... all on the back of the suffering of other races... and the funnelling, though empire, of the wealth of the world through to European, then American (with a cross-over) hands.

Liverpool, since the end of of the British Empire, has been a basket-case.

To talk about redistribution of wealth in a nation (The US) that hasn't known famine in many, many decades is simply ridiculous in the grand scale of things.

Look around.

Don't you understand what is happening and has just happened?

Amaras · 11-10-2008, 05:30 PM

Baracka, I hope my commentary regarding children wasn't misinterpreted. I was merely trying to point out that the economic ability to afford children is not truly related to it.
Greg, Malthus was a tough taskmaster. Say goodbye to your parents/grandparents, or those not judged as able to contribute? Who does the deciding? You? I would take up arms against you having life or death decisions, in the abstract. I would expect others to do the same if it was I. Greg, you seem far too bright and well informed (albeit with terrible ideas, HAH!) not to answer this question:
The infrastructure that surrounds you, roads, hospitals, literate fellow humans, laws, scales of economies, the ability to stuff your face silly at every meal, all these things, were they provided through the pooling of resources? Doesn't being in a group require compromise? If one is unwilling to compromise, shouldn't they be excluded from enjoying the fruits of those do?

Tisonlyi; thanks for the perspective. I'm still enjoying this, however. I think I'm learning quite a bit as well. I wasn't sure why Liverpool became, well, what it is today. I thought it had a lot to do with post-industrialization, less manufacturing at home, and so on. Did not know it went back that far.

Slims · 11-10-2008, 05:50 PM

Grolsh:

First, I am not an Arnarchist.

When I mentioned Malthus, I did so in the sense that populations will expand until they are absolutely maxing out their means. If you then provide relief, the population will simply expand more until you are in the same situation you started with, but with more people. Not in the sense that we should pluck those who are unable to contribute out of society or that we should judge people.

To answer your question: The things you mention are absolutely and uncontestably the product of pooled resources. I am a minimalist, and I am deeply worried by the direction I believe our country to be going; However, I also realize that Anarchy is not even close to ideal or even sustainable. I believe in the construction of roads, a strong government (but not a big one!), public services, etc. I recognize the "libertarian utopia" as some on this board have put it is not practical, and certainly isn't possible to achieve. However, I do think we could take several big steps in that direction and benefit from doing so.

I also agree that being a part of a group requires compromise. Often a great deal of compromise. However, compromise is both give and take. Typically these large groups are formed so each entity, through pooling of resources, can benefit from an economy of scale and can 'get' more than they 'give' into the system. I feel this is less and less the case in todays society. More and more frequently people who give nothing into the pool are drawing the most out; I disagree with that practice. I willingly pay my taxes, and will continue to do so. I am not upset that I have to pay taxes; I am upset at how my taxes are being used.

I am not suggesting that we leave people out to starve, or that we abandon social programs like welfare altogether. Rather, I am suggesting a no-free-lunch approach that has, to a degree, already been implemented. I feel that if you seek government assitance and are able (as most are), you should be put to work in some form or fashion until you find a better job. I feel the government should negotiate with landlords and bill collectors directly to defer (not to pay) any bills, rent, etc. while providing work and food, but little to no money.

If my comments are in any way incendiary, I apologize as it is not my intention to troll, but rather to submit my opinions for review and discussion, and to rebut some I disagree with.

Amaras · 11-10-2008, 06:07 PM

Fair enough. I thought it was important to ask.
I give you full points for reasonableness, if you will accept them from a quasi-socialist.

I'm Canadian, it's in the beer. I think it's what makes our beer superior

to yours.

Actually, many Canadians disagree. We have a Conservative Prime Minister freshly
voted in for his second mandate. I think it's great to have change, even if I didn't vote for him.

guyy · 11-14-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

I don't believe they will simply stop having kids. Rather, I believe Malthus was right, and if you provide support to people who are struggling, they will just have more struggling children for you to support, and those children will grow up and continue to contribute ad-nauseum to the welfare state you have just created.

For fifteen days I was confined to my room, and I was surrounded by the sort of books that were fashionable then (this was sixteen or seventeen years ago) -- I mean to say those books in which is treated the art of making people happy, wise, and rich in twenty-four hours. I had, then, digested, -- I should say, swallowed whole, -- all of the lucubrations of all of these entrepreneurs of public happiness, -- of those who council all of the poor to make themselves slaves, and of those who persuade them that are all unthroned kings. -- You won't be surprised to learn that I was in a state of mind close to dizziness or stupefaction.

It seemed to me only that I felt, confined in the depths of my intellect, the obscure seed of an idea superior to all of the old wives' tales collected in the encyclopedia that I had recently read through. But it was only the idea of an idea, something infinitely vague.

And I went out with a great thirst. For a passionate taste for bad reading engenders a proportional need for fresh air and refreshments.

As I was about to enter a cabaret, a beggar held out his cap to me, with one of those unforgettable gazes that would cause thrones to tumble, if spirit could move matter, and if the eye of a hypnotist could make grapes ripen.

At the same time, I heard a voix whispering in my ear, a voice that I well recognized: it was that of the good Angel, or good Devil, who accompanies me everywhere. Since Socrates had his good Demon, why shouldn't I have my good Angel, and why shouldn't I have the honor, like Socrates, of obtaining my own certificate of insanity, signed by the subtle Lélut and the well-advised Baillargé?

There is this difference between Socrates' Demon and my own, and that is that Socrates' only appeared to him to forbid, warn, and prevent, whereas mine deigns to offer council, suggest, and persuade. Poor Socrates only had a prohibitive Demon; mine is a great affirmer, mine is a Demon of action, a Demon of combat.

Now, his voice whispered this: "He alone is equal to another who proves it, and he alone is worthy of liberty who knows how to conquer it."

I immediately leaped upon my beggar. With a single punch I gave him a black eye, which became in a second as big as a ball. I tore one of my nails breaking two of his teeth, and since I didn't feel strong enough -- having been born delicate and being little practiced in boxing -- to beat this old man to death quickly, I seized him with one hand by the collar of his jacket and with the other I grabbed his throat, and I began to bang his head against the wall vigorously. I must admit that I had previously inspected the area with a quick glance and that I had verified that I would find myself, in this deserted suburb, out of the reach of any police officer for a fairly long period of time.

Having then knocked down this weakened sexagenarian with a kick in the back, energetic enough to have broken his shoulder-blades, I seized a big tree limb that was lying on the ground and I beat him with it with the obstinate energy of a cook who wants to tenderize a steak.

Suddenly, -- Oh delight of the philosopher who verifies the excellence of this theory! -- I saw that ancient carcass turn, stand up with an energy that I would never have expected to find in so singularly broken-down a machine, and, with a look of hatred that seemed to me a good omen, the decrepit ruffian threw himself upon me, blackened both of my eyes, broke four of my teeth, and with the same tree branch beat me to a bloody pulp. -- Through my energetic medicine, I had returned to him his pride and his life.

Then I made him numerous signs to let him understand that I considered the discussion ended, and getting up with all of the satisfaction of a Stoic philosopher, I said to him: "Sir, you are my equal! Do me the honor of sharing my purse with me; and remember, if you are really a philanthropist, that you must apply to all of your brothers, when they ask you for alms, the theory that I had the sorrow of testing out on your back."

He swore to me that he had understood my theory, and that he would obey my advice.

Derwood · 11-16-2008, 09:32 AM

Conservatives Who Cry 'Socialism' Should Acknowledge Role They've Played In What Government Has Become

By GEORGE F. WILL | Posted Friday, November 14, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Quote:

Conservatism's current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket's end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government — verily, "socialism" — would impend were Democrats elected.

John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would "spread the wealth around." America can't have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans — whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2% of the American people-cum-corporations who farm — and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called "the private sector" has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be "spread around."

The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well.

Probably as temporary as New York City's rent controls, which were born as emergency responses to the Second World War, and which are still distorting the city's housing market.

The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10.

The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution — the federal government — will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets allocate resources, or government — meaning politics — allocates them.

Now that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the institution they trust least — Congress — will pony up $1 trillion and then passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into the pie?

Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate "socially responsible" spending — an infinitely elastic term — by the favored companies.

Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has approved, but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and saying, "Please, sir, I want some more."

McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that such spreading is most what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

Sugar import quotas cost the American people approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. The few thousand sugar producers on whom billions are thereby conferred do notice and are grateful to the government that bilks the many for the enrichment of the few.

Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious — destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government.

But if conservatives call all such spreading by government "socialism," that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain's health care plan depended.

Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker's intelligence. And falsely shouting "socialism!" in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth.

This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.

In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking —bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.

As for the president-elect, he promises to change Washington. He will, by making matters worse. He will intensify rent-seeking by finding new ways — this will not be easy — to expand, even more than the current administration has, government's influence on spreading the wealth around.

© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Conservatives Who Cry 'Socialism' Should Acknowledge Role They've Played In What Government Has Become

Slims · 11-16-2008, 11:05 AM

Derwood: Sorry, but I don't recall ever being a part of those things. I am equally upset at republicans (perhaps even more so) for betraying the 'ideals' of that party. I believe that both major parties have shifted far to the left, but the democrats more so.

Perhaps the article should read: "REPUBLICANS who cry foul should acknowledge the roll their PARTY has played in what government has become"

The two major parties in our system battle it out over a few high-profile issues, but are essentially identical with respect to fiscal irresponsibility and short-sightedness.

11-10-2008, 01:10 PM	#201 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The kids thing that tends to crop up here every so often is moot since welfare families on average have the same amount or fewer children than others. Many have no children. I think what we tend to look at are the high-profile cases, or maybe it's a media misconception. I also think there is a wide misconception that those on welfare are happy and comfortable to be there--that they aren't doing anything to get out of it--that they don't care for their children. Little do we hear about the stories of the welfare recipient who, for one reason or another (often beyond their control), lost their job(s) and is struggling to get back on their feet. And then there's the situation where the welfare recipient does have a job but can't afford to make ends meet. Single mothers often fall into this due to lack of quality and affordable childcare. I've heard about enough regarding "suckling off the teat" and "crotch fruits" without even commenting on the most likely situations. Do you seriously think that everyone on welfare is doing nothing to help themselves or their children? Welfare isn't a long-term state for most recipients. What happens there? There is no correlation between women having more children and receiving welfare benefits. There is no direct incentive. Often the support one receives from welfare isn't a livable amount. Why would that encourage a family to have more children? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-10-2008, 02:54 PM	#203 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	facts won't sway the fuckwits because they want to believe the crap they spew. and then people around here seem to take some sort of joy from posting contrary to facts or reason because they think it annoys liberals. normally when people discuss things I think if everyone had the facts then people would either reshape their arguments or change their minds, but no, here it's the same people for years repeating the mythical bullshit ad nauseum so any pointing out of actual facts will either go ignored or this topic will die only to be resurrected sometime down the road with yet again the same people posting the same drivel. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-10-2008, 05:12 PM	#205 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	Look, I'm sorry. I'm from Liverpool. We controlled the slave trade, from the Exchange in my, small, city. Our small town was transformed into a cosmopolitan, well educated municipality solely on the back of the triangular trade. Look it up. Liverpool, for it's population has too many good universities, too many libraries, too many hospitals and too much history. Liverpool has many beautiful buildings (the most in the UK outside of the square mile of london), the most art galleries (same as the last thing i mentioned), libraries, museums, art galleries, etc, etc, etc... all on the back of the suffering of other races... and the funnelling, though empire, of the wealth of the world through to European, then American (with a cross-over) hands. Liverpool, since the end of of the British Empire, has been a basket-case. To talk about redistribution of wealth in a nation (The US) that hasn't known famine in many, many decades is simply ridiculous in the grand scale of things. Look around. Don't you understand what is happening and has just happened? __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}-- Last edited by tisonlyi; 11-10-2008 at 05:17 PM..

11-10-2008, 05:30 PM	#206 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Baracka, I hope my commentary regarding children wasn't misinterpreted. I was merely trying to point out that the economic ability to afford children is not truly related to it. Greg, Malthus was a tough taskmaster. Say goodbye to your parents/grandparents, or those not judged as able to contribute? Who does the deciding? You? I would take up arms against you having life or death decisions, in the abstract. I would expect others to do the same if it was I. Greg, you seem far too bright and well informed (albeit with terrible ideas, HAH!) not to answer this question: The infrastructure that surrounds you, roads, hospitals, literate fellow humans, laws, scales of economies, the ability to stuff your face silly at every meal, all these things, were they provided through the pooling of resources? Doesn't being in a group require compromise? If one is unwilling to compromise, shouldn't they be excluded from enjoying the fruits of those do? Tisonlyi; thanks for the perspective. I'm still enjoying this, however. I think I'm learning quite a bit as well. I wasn't sure why Liverpool became, well, what it is today. I thought it had a lot to do with post-industrialization, less manufacturing at home, and so on. Did not know it went back that far. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

11-10-2008, 05:50 PM	#207 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Grolsh: First, I am not an Arnarchist. When I mentioned Malthus, I did so in the sense that populations will expand until they are absolutely maxing out their means. If you then provide relief, the population will simply expand more until you are in the same situation you started with, but with more people. Not in the sense that we should pluck those who are unable to contribute out of society or that we should judge people. To answer your question: The things you mention are absolutely and uncontestably the product of pooled resources. I am a minimalist, and I am deeply worried by the direction I believe our country to be going; However, I also realize that Anarchy is not even close to ideal or even sustainable. I believe in the construction of roads, a strong government (but not a big one!), public services, etc. I recognize the "libertarian utopia" as some on this board have put it is not practical, and certainly isn't possible to achieve. However, I do think we could take several big steps in that direction and benefit from doing so. I also agree that being a part of a group requires compromise. Often a great deal of compromise. However, compromise is both give and take. Typically these large groups are formed so each entity, through pooling of resources, can benefit from an economy of scale and can 'get' more than they 'give' into the system. I feel this is less and less the case in todays society. More and more frequently people who give nothing into the pool are drawing the most out; I disagree with that practice. I willingly pay my taxes, and will continue to do so. I am not upset that I have to pay taxes; I am upset at how my taxes are being used. I am not suggesting that we leave people out to starve, or that we abandon social programs like welfare altogether. Rather, I am suggesting a no-free-lunch approach that has, to a degree, already been implemented. I feel that if you seek government assitance and are able (as most are), you should be put to work in some form or fashion until you find a better job. I feel the government should negotiate with landlords and bill collectors directly to defer (not to pay) any bills, rent, etc. while providing work and food, but little to no money. If my comments are in any way incendiary, I apologize as it is not my intention to troll, but rather to submit my opinions for review and discussion, and to rebut some I disagree with. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 11-10-2008 at 06:04 PM..

11-10-2008, 06:07 PM	#208 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Fair enough. I thought it was important to ask. I give you full points for reasonableness, if you will accept them from a quasi-socialist. I'm Canadian, it's in the beer. I think it's what makes our beer superior to yours. Actually, many Canadians disagree. We have a Conservative Prime Minister freshly voted in for his second mandate. I think it's great to have change, even if I didn't vote for him. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

11-16-2008, 11:05 AM	#211 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Derwood: Sorry, but I don't recall ever being a part of those things. I am equally upset at republicans (perhaps even more so) for betraying the 'ideals' of that party. I believe that both major parties have shifted far to the left, but the democrats more so. Perhaps the article should read: "REPUBLICANS who cry foul should acknowledge the roll their PARTY has played in what government has become" The two major parties in our system battle it out over a few high-profile issues, but are essentially identical with respect to fiscal irresponsibility and short-sightedness. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence