Heroes of the Non-Working Class

We have a case in Massachusetts where the state is mailing voting forms to welfare recipients along with their welfare checks. There is the perpetual disagreement about voter ID. We know how the debate works. But consider why. There is an underlying assumption made by BOTH Republicans and Democrats that welfare recipients, felons and people of limited intelligence generally will vote Democratic.

We also know that if it gets inconvenient to vote, fewer Democratic votes will be cast. Rain favors Republicans, because a larger number of Democratic voters will not bother to vote. It is interesting. Democrats dominate the non-working class and they pretty much have wrapped up the lazy, shiftless & irresponsible vote. Why is it that these groups vote Democratic? What they all have in common is that they tend not to work regularly at honest jobs.

We all believe that people have a right to vote. But we have no affirmative responsibility to help them do it. I personally am not unhappy when people don't. I think that if you are too lazy or stupid to vote, it is a good thing if you stay home and watch the results on TV. I figure you will vote Democratic anyway if you can understand the ballot.

Posted by Christine & John at August 11, 2012 8:37 AM
Comments
Comment #350497

The law, (The “Motor Voter” Act) requires that voters showing up to get government services be offered the chance to register at the DMV. Welfare recipients are among the service recepients who officials must ask if they want to register.

This mailing is part of a settlement of a case charging that Massachussetts officials did not comply with the law and give them the chance to register.

I know Welfare Recipients are not the most admired people, but they are American citizens, and the law is clear.

More to the point, the principle should be that every American who can be registered to vote, should be registered to vote. America’s elections should reflect the true sentiments of the voting public, not merely those that one party deems worthy according to their ideology.

In essence, the Republicans are saying that even with their so-called mastery of the working class, that they can’t win elections on a popular basis. Well, it shouldn’t be your privilege to cull otherwise legally entitled voters from the rolls, just to get the results you want!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2012 10:17 AM
Comment #350507

I’m not understanding your point, C&J. I’ve re-read the post about five times looking for some keen observation or something of substance. Did you just want to take a moment to call Democratic voters lazy, shiftless, irresponsible, and stupid?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 11, 2012 12:12 PM
Comment #350511

In my county people that apply for welfare are given the chance to register to vote on the application, NOT when their check is sent. By the way, also in my state some welfare recipients are given an atm card that is loaded when it is time to to be paid. With so many places that offer voter registration this mailing is by far the lazy mans approach to get votes.

Posted by: KAP at August 11, 2012 12:40 PM
Comment #350512
Did you just want to take a moment to call Democratic voters lazy, shiftless, irresponsible, and stupid?

No, I think the idea was to say lazy, shiftless, irresponsible stupid people will more often vote Democratic because they want someone to take care of them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2012 12:42 PM
Comment #350516

Well I guess this shows us conservative elitism at it’s lowest, the fine Christian philosophy the conservatives like to hide behind as they serve the elites. Thankfully we were not always like that in this country. Perhaps one day these elitist snobs that hide behind the flag and the church will return to the rocks they crawled out from under.


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

http://www.howtallisthestatueofliberty.org/what-is-the-quote-on-the-statue-of-liberty/

Adam what C&J is doing is using a propaganda technique to associate the terms shiftless lazy and felons with his political opponents. It is how the movement leadership keep people like KAP in line and voting for the fascist right wingers. It is what the Nazi’s used to get otherwise decent people to attack Jews and others. It is why I believe the conservatives of today are so much like the people of Germany in the 30’s. They fall for these despicable deceptions from their movement leadership without questioning. It gives them a sense of superiority and makes they feel they belong in the ranks of the elitist that spout this crap.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 11, 2012 1:22 PM
Comment #350517

The OECD did a recent study on level of growth required by developed countries to get on a fiscal balance. Greece requires a 3% growth in GDP through increase in taxes or a 3% decrease in gov’t spending. The US requires 8% growth.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 11, 2012 1:22 PM
Comment #350520

Roy, SHHH, you’re going to take away from the message that conservatives are like Germans in 1930 (a notion based in lunacy) and that the only measure of caring for your fellow man is putting a gun to the heads of the American people and enacting a totalitarian, Democratic regime.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2012 1:26 PM
Comment #350525

Roy…the study you provided was indeed a real eye-opener.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2012 2:36 PM
Comment #350527

Stephen

I make no argument re the legality.

I just think it is funny that we all know that losers, welfare cases, felons, dullards and sloths all vote more for Democrats. Why do you guys attract such people?

“the principle should be that every American who can be registered to vote, should be registered to vote.” - I disagree. This is not a moral position or a legal one; it is just your preference. Our country, unlike many others, specifically gives people the right NOT to vote.

Adam

Mostly I am just pointing out that the dregs of society tend to vote Democratic and that we all know that. It is the basis of our disagreements about getting out the vote.

J2t2

I am surprised that you think Christian values should be used to make policy.

The poem on the statue of liberty was never official policy. Beyond that, immigrants in those days came to work, not suck on the system.

I will clearly state my bias. I dislike people who can work but will not or find flimsy excuses. In the case of people on welfare, they probably have a lot of time on their hands and could more easily than working people make it to the polls.

I won’t bother trying to explain the Nazi thing to you again. You and I disagree about this. I have studied it and if you do you will come to agree with me. I understand where you are coming from because I held similar views when I was in high school.

I would ask you to consider one big problem with your current Nazi fallacy. The Nazi claimed the Jews worked too hard and were too clever. Nobody says that about Democrats.


Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2012 3:10 PM
Comment #350528

Friedrich A. Hayek, in his book; “The Road to Serfdom” quotes de Tocqueville…

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

Hayek then writes; “To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives…the craving for freedom…socialists began increasingly to make use of the promise of a “new freedom.” Socialism was to bring “economic freedom” without which political freedom was not worth having.

To make this argument sound plausible, the word “freedom” was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.”

Some of my liberal friends refer to these new freedoms as “rights” and as such, guaranteed in our founding documents. While they may vehemently declare that they are not socialists…their views regarding the redistribution of wealth are the same.

Hayek writes; “If people differ in their attributes, then different people will necessarily experience different outcomes. The only was to get similar outcomes for different people is to treat them differently.”

Do we see the treatment of some individuals differently, with regard to government spending, today in our national government? Are we finding more and more “group rights” expressed as freedom today? The “freedom” to enjoy benefits not available to all and paid for by others?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2012 3:33 PM
Comment #350531

The Democrat/Liberal mantra in a few more years could be…

My free government benefits should be equal to the same benefits that working people enjoy. Anything else is unfair.

That would almost guarantee winning elections.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2012 3:48 PM
Comment #350533

Royal

I do fear that the non-working classes will come to dominate. That has been the fate of many societies before ours.

The Founding Fathers understood this weakness in Democracy. They recalled ancient politicians buying votes with bread and circuses.

I wrote this only partially as a jab against our Democratic friends. It really is distressing that the lazy, felonious and dependent population is now so firmly on the side of one party AND most members of that party are not even ashamed.

I was watching the dog across the street scratch at fleas. A Democratic analysis would call that dog an oppressor for interfering with the rights of the fleas to suck his blood.

Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2012 3:57 PM
Comment #350534

lol…good one C&J

With enough fleas sucking the dogs blood, the dog of course will die. Or, someone could treat all dogs for fleas and then the fleas might die.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2012 4:08 PM
Comment #350536

C&J: “Mostly I am just pointing out that the dregs of society tend to vote Democratic and that we all know that. It is the basis of our disagreements about getting out the vote.”

So what you’re saying is you don’t mind making it harder to vote since those affected are the “dregs” and they tend to vote for Democrats anyway?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 11, 2012 4:25 PM
Comment #350538

Adam

I don’t advocate making it harder for anybody. The polls should be easily accessible and the rules clear enough for any reasonable person to understand.

What I say is that we have no affirmative duty to take proactive steps to get people to vote. People have a right NOT to vote. When they do this, they are implicitly assuming that the choices made by their fellow citizens are acceptable and perhaps better than their own. In the case of many of the voters we are talking about here, the latter assumption has a high probability of being correct.

So, what I am essentially saying that if someone does not really care to vote, we should not nag them to do it or waste too much time or money trying to move them off their dead stop.

IMO - those who fail to even register are often also trying to avoid other duties of citizenship, such as serving on juries. Helping them make sure they do their duties as citizens is the only reason I can think of for an affirmative policy of getting people to register.

Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2012 4:41 PM
Comment #350539

So what you’re saying is you don’t mind making it harder to vote since those affected are the “dregs” and they tend to vote for Democrats anyway?
Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 11, 2012

I agree with C&J. And, we should certainly not make it easier to vote fraudulently.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment #350541

If Obama wins the election it will be because of his friends over at facebook.

Posted by: BZA at August 11, 2012 5:04 PM
Comment #350544
I am surprised that you think Christian values should be used to make policy.

You shouldn’t be surprised C&J because your twisting my words.


I just think it is funny that we all know that losers, welfare cases, felons, dullards and sloths all vote more for Democrats. Why do you guys attract such people?

But we don’t know that C&J. You are trying to tell us this without a shred of evidence to prove this. You’ve published another name calling without fact puff piece C&J. Take the typical red neck conservatives stereotype as an example They exist on welfare checks but wouldn’t vote dems because of the gods guns and gays issues. But they are shiftless, lazy and irresponsible themselves. You would have us believe they all work whilst those that don’t are Dems but you have no proof.

I will clearly state my bias. I dislike people who can work but will not or find flimsy excuses. In the case of people on welfare, they probably have a lot of time on their hands and could more easily than working people make it to the polls.

So your stereotype of people on welfare only proves your elitism C&J. You and many other conservatives seem to have this sense of superiority that comes from denigrating others. Perhaps it is a conservative trait. But, that being said, it doesn’t prove they are Dems, just because you dislike both. Such a logical flaw in your thinking.

I would ask you to consider one big problem with your current Nazi fallacy. The Nazi claimed the Jews worked too hard and were too clever. Nobody says that about Democrats.

But conservatives actually do claim this of dems and liberals on many occasions C&J. Just look at all the conspiracy theories from those on the right. Here is but one example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91-XW5biC2U


Posted by: j2t2 at August 11, 2012 5:49 PM
Comment #350549

j2t2

Then why do you always bring up Christian values with me?

Re the losers etc. - You guys always say that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote among the poor, welfare recipients and the like in order to help them win elections. If these voters are NOT likely Democrats, then the argument makes no sense. You will have to change it to something like, “Republicans and Democrats have an honest disagreement about voting requirements and Republicans stand by their principles even when it does them no political benefit.”

Re disliking the non-working - It approaches a tautology. If they don’t work then they don’t work. If they do work, I don’t have a problem.

When C and I were younger, we “qualified” for welfare and food stamps. Many people took them. We never did. Yes, I do feel proud of that and trying hard not to take the state sponsored charity is elitism, make the most of it.

Re being clever and working hard - I assume Obama is clever. I just saying that the stereotype of liberals is NOT that they are hard working and clever.

Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2012 6:46 PM
Comment #350554

“Re being clever and working hard - I assume Obama is clever. I just saying that the stereotype of liberals is NOT that they are hard working and clever.”

C&J,

Yes, it is a “stereotype” and an insulting one at that.

Posted by: Rich at August 11, 2012 7:44 PM
Comment #350557

Rich

You guys often publicly associate yourself with chronic welfare recipients, felons and the likes of Occupy Wall Street. I understand that most of you are not like them, but when you lay down with dogs, you come up with fleas.

Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2012 7:52 PM
Comment #350560

Speaking of who pays for what, the $3.2 million in federal taxes — Romney’s estimated 2011 burden — is enough to pay for the food stamps for about 23,909 people.

And Romney gave even a greater amount to charity, so lots of people are living off of Romney.

Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2012 7:59 PM
Comment #350565

Evidently, Michelle Obama also believes the supporters of the Democrats are lazy. So C&J’s annalogy is true:

“Speaking at the University of Sciences in Philadelphia on Thursday, First Lady Michelle Obama encouraged attendees to recruit their “little lazy friend” to campaign for President Barack Obama’s reelection.

“And that’s why we have launched this wonderful effort that we’re calling It Takes One,” Mrs. Obama said. “It’s simple. It is as simple as it sounds. Every time you take action to move this campaign forward, we’re asking you to inspire just one more person to step up and do their part as well.

“So if you’re making calls, knocking on doors, bring that friend, that little lazy friend, bring them,” Mrs. Obama said. “Bring them.”

Posted by: Frank at August 11, 2012 8:28 PM
Comment #350571
Then why do you always bring up Christian values with me?

I don’t “always bring up Christian values” C&J, it is your conservative friends who consistently bring up Christian vales on WB. I inquired about them in this case because they are the ones hiding behind the bible when it comes to authoritarian issues they want to make law. Did Jesus call these people the names you conservatives call them?

Re the losers etc. - You guys always say that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote among the poor, welfare recipients and the like in order to help them win elections. If these voters are NOT likely Democrats, then the argument makes no sense. You will have to change it to something like, “Republicans and Democrats have an honest disagreement about voting requirements and Republicans stand by their principles even when it does them no political benefit.”

It seems the problem is where you guys choose to suppress votes. The lower amount of voting machines in urban areas is a good example of this. The usual division between rural and urban voters is the tell on who votes what, so by definition the urban voters are the larger numbers and they do vote dem by and large. As far as the current attempts at voter suppression by repub/conservatives more rural people drive than do urban people so the picture ID law affects urban more than rural voters, IMHO.

The other problem I have is your degrading description of those that you believe vote dems only, C&J. You insult them with terms such as lazy, stupid, shiftless and loser and now change your tone with poor and welfare recipients. IMHO you have done exactly as I have stated previously, used this name calling to excite the conservative movement followers into a frenzy in order to achieve the voter suppression goals of the movement leadership.

IMHO many poor people vote dems, not all. I also believe many welfare recipients that vote also vote dem, but once again, not all. But to consider them in the degrading terms you conservatives feel necessary is wrong. Many of the rural poor and welfare recipients vote repub C&J. Are they lazy shiftless yadayada as well?

As to your comment about principles I cannot see the conservatives having any principals except win at any cost.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 11, 2012 10:00 PM
Comment #350572

we have problems, big and small, and all stem from the fact that the citizens/voters don’t care enough about having good gov’t or working to correct problems. We’ve had it too good too long. Corruption one learns about through the news media is just the tip of iceberg. Practically everybody is trying to beat the taxman and/or beat the system.

The officials of cities, big and small, have ‘granted’ entitlements/pensions/bennies way beyond what their revenues will fund. City, county, state, federal gov’ts have, and still are, just pissing taxpayer dollars down the drain.

We have to find a way to reform and at the same time get people interested/active in their gov’t and keep it that way.

3rd party and all that - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 11, 2012 10:23 PM
Comment #350575

j2t2

I dislike it when people who could work instead live off the state. I think it is shameful to take welfare. I understand that some people may need to take welfare as a last resort. What I perceive happening is that liberals are trying to remove the stigma from being on the dole. I want the stigma to stay. As I wrote, C and I were eligible for welfare and food stamps and did not take them. I think people should be encouraged to take this course.

My dislike of the non-working class came before I was aware of politics. I grew up in a relatively poor circumstances. Some of my lazier relatives were chronic welfare cases. It went on for three generations and was entirely due to their poor habits and lack of discipline. We worked at unpleasant jobs, while they sat in bars and got drunk all day. Yes, I do look down on that behavior. Of course, I also believe in redemption, so all these people need to do to reenter the good graces of society is get to work.

We should not judge people but we should indeed judge behavior. I work hard to try to make my values congruent with my behaviors. I expect others to do the same. Since I doubt that anybody really values being lazy and dishonest, I have to assume that those behaving in those ways are not living up to their values and we are right to criticize them and perhaps help them do the right things.

Posted by: C&J at August 11, 2012 11:50 PM
Comment #350578

In my opinion, it is natural trend that the non-working class will vote, though they may be with limited intelligence, not as smart as politics. So what we should do? It is not good at all to let those non-smart people take charge of some important matters.

We need to monitor them and help them doing the right things, just as C&J said. Otherwise, our society would detaminated by those people.

Posted by: cbm at August 12, 2012 7:50 AM
Comment #350583

C&J: The most offensive thing I find about your views is that you equate welfare with a non-working class. While I know they do exist I have never myself met a person on welfare for a living. In fact it’s very hard to live off welfare despite what visions of welfare queens would have us believe.

Just take food stamps for example. The vast majority of recipients are working adults, children, the elderly, and folks with disabilities. So should all these folks be ashamed of themselves? My parents relied on food stamps when I was growing up. My mother worked but my father was disabled. Should they be ashamed? Should I?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 12, 2012 10:53 AM
Comment #350584
I dislike it when people who could work instead live off the state. I think it is shameful to take welfare. I understand that some people may need to take welfare as a last resort.

So that makes the name calling acceptable? That makes the attempts to deny these people the right to vote acceptable? Inciting the conservative followers with the name calling and slurs they need to justify the demonization of these people is acceptable because you dislike some of them? Isn’t that elitist?

What I perceive happening is that liberals are trying to remove the stigma from being on the dole. I want the stigma to stay.

Two things C&J, first, why does this allow you to demonize the poor for financial and political gain? Secondly why would sending voter registration forms to welfare recipients equate to “trying to remove the stigma from being on the dole”? This slippery road back to allowing the elitist to run the country is the fascism I see the conservatives moving towards. What did you guys think would happen as you were name calling the educated, as you were attempting to destroy the public school system.

As I wrote, C and I were eligible for welfare and food stamps………Since I doubt that anybody really values being lazy and dishonest, I have to assume that those behaving in those ways are not living up to their values and we are right to criticize them and perhaps help them do the right things.

So you were poor and according to conservative logic you were one of the shiftless, lazy, dullards, whatever, whatever that should not have the opportunity to vote? Whilst you were poor did you vote dem?

So you would prefer to be your brothers tormentor not your brothers keeper? Your conservative logic tells you that name calling the downtrodden is what you have earned by having good habits and discipline. So by default they must have bad habits and no discipline and deserve the ridicule and torment of those more fortunate. As if a rich guy cannot have bad habits or a lack of discipline. And heaven forbid they get a chance to vote… right?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 12, 2012 11:40 AM
Comment #350588

Adam


That is where our experience differs. I knew many people who were living off welfare. Shamefully, some of my relatives were among the perpetrators.

Re food stamps - you needed them as a child. You should resolve as an adult never to need them again, to be one who pulls the wagon instead of just hopping on for the ride. Of course, you should also be grateful to the taxpayers who funded the program.

This is a difficult balance, as it is with all success and failure. It is better if you don’t need food stamps and much better if you don’t need welfare.

It is difficult to separate real need from simple lethargy. People can shape their circumstances. Even in the case of real need, however, the person giving the aid should be more highly esteemed than the one getting.

Posted by: C&J at August 12, 2012 12:55 PM
Comment #350589

j2t2

“deny these people the right to vote acceptable” Denying anybody the vote is unacceptable. On the other hand, we have no affirmative duty to get people who are not enthusiastic about voting to do it.

Re being an elitist - I AM. My whole life has been dedicated to making myself a better citizen and a more productive person. Do you not have the same sorts of goals? Do you want to accept whatever skills and position you have due to random chance? I am a better person than I was twenty years ago, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that I would be better than a person just like me twenty years ago.

ALL education is based on the idea that you can be better.

Re the poor - I do not demonize the poor. I demonize the behavior that makes and keeps people poor. In this respect, I am much more a friend of the poor than those who would just accept and make excuses for the condition. I offer hope of a better life, not the maintenance of the poor one.

re public schools - I believe in public schools. I am the product of public schools. I want them to succeed. I am not sure that public education needs to be delivered by a public bureaucracy. I am interested in real improvement of our public education, not the rhetoric of maintaining a failing system and endorsing its failure.

Re being poor - we were poor because we were building for the future. We did not take welfare and we pulled out of poverty and became contributing citizens. This is the opportunity I want to give others. I have voted in every election since I was eligible to vote. Nobody denied me the right and I don’t want to deny it to others. On the other hand, I didn’t need anybody to tell me where to go or sent me special instructions.

Re voting Democratic - when I was very young and inexperienced, I did indeed vote for Jimmy Carter. I matured after that and voted for Reagan in the next election.


Re my brother’s keeper - I prefer to treat my brothers and sisters as autonomous and responsible adults, who deserve and get my respect. I want to give them the chances I want for myself. I want them to have the same kinds of chances that help me move from poverty to prosperity over the course of twenty years.

Posted by: C&J at August 12, 2012 1:09 PM
Comment #350597

Jack, Where would you like your picture? On the alter, behind it, or maybe both. Or perhaps you would prefer the alter be fashioned in your likeness.

What a load of self righteous elitist provocation! You have just made it very clear where you stand with regard to the less fortunate. They do not and should not exist on the same planet as the apparently superior species you associate your likeness with. And then to try and break it down into a dem vs repub issue as though no self respecting repub would ever be caught dead to rights accepting social services is totally over the top. All these ridiculous implications and class posturing just to satisfy personal political need really defines you in a nutshell. It is amazing that all that intellect can emanate from such a small mind. You are indeed a world class provocateur who obviously cherishes the ground you walk on.

Posted by: Rickil at August 12, 2012 2:24 PM
Comment #350605

Rickil

I want the poor to have the same sort of opportunities I did.

I have been reasonably successful. I know Obama would tell me that I didn’t do it, but when I look back I see some things that worked.

There are some very important points of power.

1. Not taking welfare, IMO, was an important part in character building. I think that our trajectory would have been different has we taken that money.
2. When building savings, we put saving in front of most other “needs”. This is important in a budget. Those who save what they can “spare” never save very much.

I get very impatient with people who tell me what they cannot do. We all need to figure out what we can do and then do it well.

Yes, I am proud of of the progress we made. I know we were lucky in many ways and I know many people helped me. Some of the best help I got was from an older guy who told me “never complain, never explain and never apologize” He said, never complain meant you need to find solutions instead of crying about how hard things are; never explain meant that you should be doing the right things that don’t need explanations or more commonly excuses; the never apologize was most interesting. He didn’t mean never say your sorry. He meant that you should not do things you need to be ashamed of doing. Live according to your values.

This is good advice and I still remember it in some detail thirty years later. IMO, much of what modern liberals teach goes against this kind of advice. It does the poor no good to tell them that things are not their fault if it means they do not take responsibility to make things better. As for living within your values, the rich and the poor bear equal responsibility.

Things would be better if we didn’t make excuses for the failures of ourselves and others.

Posted by: C&J at August 12, 2012 3:22 PM
Comment #350610

“Just take food stamps for example. The vast majority of recipients are working adults, children, the elderly, and folks with disabilities. So should all these folks be ashamed of themselves? My parents relied on food stamps when I was growing up. My mother worked but my father was disabled. Should they be ashamed? Should I?”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 12, 2012 10:53 AM

So Adam, are they still on foodstamps? Since you are barely out of your teens, it couldn’t have been more than a few years ago. Are they still on the government dole; or are you now helping them? You talk as if you have vast experience but after all, you are only part of generation Y. A recent email I recieved had this to say about Gen Y:

“Why do we call the last group -Generation Y ?

Y should I get a job?

Y should I leave home and find my own place?

Y should I get a car when I can borrow yours?

Y should I clean my room?

Y should I wash and iron my own clothes?

Y should I buy any food?”

Perhaps you are like Stephen Daugherty…still living with mommy and daddy?

Posted by: Frank at August 12, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment #350620

Jack, you have attempted to lump anyone who is in a prolonged unfortunate situation into a single group of freeloading bloodsucking liberal leeches. The attempt is clear and your ideals ring loud. They must be in their situation because after all they are democrats. They all have excuses and no desire to move away from the teet that feeds them.

Of course there are some who aspire to the free ride. I however have never seen any statistics that support the notion that they are the majority or democrat for that matter.

At this current time the larger than normal group of less fortunate are indeed the result of unusual times not of their making. Not whining and not an excuse. Just a matter of fact. And you know what, a republican govt set up the parameters that delivered the process that pushed all these once productive freeloading liberal leeches into the world of poverty.

Of course like all good repubs I would expect you to run from any accountability in the process. It is much easier to simply twist lie and contort your way to absolvence of any political wrong doing. Why bother when there is always a dem nearby that you can point at and scream socialist heathens at the top of your lungs. Always blaming the other guy for actions you were complicit in is great for avoidance of accountability but it ends up being a negative in terms of your own integrity and crediibility.

You are no better or anymore productive than those who are prisoner to the label game. You provoke it with the intentions of motivating those who all too willingly aspire to that simplistic mind numbing endeavor. The process makes people who should be thinking focus on hatred of anyone who does not resemble your perception of the proper label.

Posted by: Rickil at August 12, 2012 7:51 PM
Comment #350622

RickIl

My working assumption is that both Republicans and Democrats think that welfare recipients and the non-working classes in general are more likely to vote Democratic. They certainly are not all Democrats. Many do not vote at all. I do not believe that being Democratic causes poverty, but I do believe that liberal policies have entrenched poverty in many communities.

Programs that seek to alleviate poverty must be applied very carefully, so that they help recipients but do not encourage or perpetuate behaviors that created poverty in the first place.

Re being better than others - all people have a basic right to respect for being people, but behaviors do not have that same claim. Throughout this post, I have emphasized the difference between the people and the behaviors. People can change their behaviors.

So all men are create equal, but their habits and behaviors are very unequal and produce good or bad results.

We all know that behaviors and habits are the keys to understanding success or failure. Poor people don’t have much money, but persistent poverty today is not primarily an economic event.

IMO liberals still live in the past on this. They look back 50 or 100 years ago when opportunities & mobility were more limited.

It is still possible to have good habits and be hard working and remain poor, but this is now uncommon. We see the dynamism among immigrants who often live in poor areas, but their hard work and good habits get them out of poverty.

We would probably agree that one of the keys to get people out of poverty is through education. What does education do? It changes people’s habits and behaviors. When you acquire new skills, you also acquire new ways of thinking and new ways of behavior. Yes, BETTER ways.

Posted by: C&J at August 12, 2012 8:56 PM
Comment #350645

jack, I’ll skip all the nicey nice stuff others are trying to use with you…..you’ve earned no special regard or treatment in here, but you certainly have a very high opinion of yourself. I guess that is a good thing, because a lot of the rest of us certainly don’t agree with you or share that same opinion.
You are a self and over-inflated blowhard so full of your own importance that you don’t have room to give credit to anyone else. Your education does not give you the right to determine where all others fall in line.
Get over yourself !!

Posted by: jane doe at August 13, 2012 12:17 AM
Comment #350651

Frank:

I don’t think they are on food stamps but you’d need to check with them to be sure. They do a little better for themselves with all the kids out of the house but not by much. I don’t know what you’re talking about with generation Y. I haven’t lived with my parents for the past 12 years. I have a considerable amount of financial security compared to them and most Americans thanks to my Marxist education.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 13, 2012 8:47 AM
Comment #350652

C&J: “Even in the case of real need, however, the person giving the aid should be more highly esteemed than the one getting.”

I wasn’t aware this was even a problem worth complaining about.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 13, 2012 8:50 AM
Comment #350695

Jane

Your opinion is interesting.

All I am telling you is that people should work to develop and use their talents and that society benefits more when they do. I think both rich and poor benefit from living in accordance with their values and that we should have both rights and responsibilities.

Just a few inches up I wrote “Yes, I am proud of of the progress we made. I know we were lucky in many ways and I know many people helped me.” I have given credit to lots of other people and to luck, but I recognize that behaviors make a difference too. I have written all these things and those who can read and comprehend have seen them.

I am sorry if you disagree that working hard and trying to live according to your values is a good thing. I guess you agree with the “you didn’t build it” sentiment and that people are not responsible for their behaviors.

Adam

It seems to me that very much of the modern liberal movement disagrees.

Posted by: C&J at August 13, 2012 9:41 PM
Comment #350696

I admire you very much, but I am sorry I have to copy your words that I love very much, and sometimes, a man cannot avoid speaking sorry, because all the things are not perfect.
“We all need to figure out what we can do and then do it well. I know we were lucky in many ways and I know many people helped me.

Some of the best help I got was from an older guy who told me “never complain, never explain and never apologize” He said, never complain meant you need to find solutions instead of crying about how hard things are; never explain meant that you should be doing the right things that don’t need explanations or more commonly excuses; the never apologize was most interesting. He didn’t mean never say your sorry. He meant that you should not do things you need to be ashamed of doing. Live according to your values.”

I am sorry that I have to say sorry sometimes, but I am trying to do things that need not to be ashamed of. why things so difficult sometimes…Mind or Fate?

Posted by: Jack Wilson at August 13, 2012 9:45 PM
Comment #350706

C&J: “It seems to me that very much of the modern liberal movement disagrees.”

Really though? I agree that we don’t think folks on welfare should be ashamed in the way you do but I hardly see how we esteem those on welfare higher than those who aren’t.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 14, 2012 8:30 AM
Comment #350725

Jack, yes people are indeed responsible for their behaviors. They however are not always responsible for or can have complete control of unforeseen circumstances that may directly affect behavior. Not many people can be fully prepared to be totally immune to the consequences of circumstance. There simply are too many variables to overcome in some situations. Variables that may or may not be approachable in a timely manner depending on hurdles or obstacles of convenience.

We all live in danger of falling debris from careless irresponsible behavior at the top rungs of society. Of course those who live at the top of the hill rarely accept any accountability for the debris. They prefer to ignore it and charge those it falls on with the burden of cleaning it up.

Is it any wonder we as a people have by and large become so socially suspicious and resentful of those who live at the top of the hill? Different standards and rules for varying classes of wealth erode trust, respect and any sense of community responsibility.

Posted by: Rickil at August 14, 2012 11:37 AM
Comment #350741

C&J-

I make no argument re the legality.

Don’t be obtuse. Your side claims the motivation was to bulk up our voter base. In fact, the motivation had nothing to do with that. This was fulfilling the requirements of the law.

I just think it is funny that we all know that losers, welfare cases, felons, dullards and sloths all vote more for Democrats. Why do you guys attract such people?

I could ask the same about the losers, welfare cases (plenty of poor whites on government assistance, especially in the red states), felons (including the drug trafficker who recently hosted Romney at a party), dullards (where do I start? I mean, your last VP, perhaps?) and sloths (The Republican dominated house) That your party seems to attract.

All kidding aside (I find people who parrot arguments without doing any factual work tedious), I would say that most people in our parties are ordinary, law abiding citizens, and if we were to run into each other on the street, we’d probably not go “Oh, that guy must be a Republican/Democrat!” One of the most poisonous legacies of the divisive GOP politics of the last decade has been a diminishing awareness of just how much common ground there is, at least among the right. Liberals like me are seen as practically invading space aliens, we’ve been placed so far outside the pale.

And that justifies a lot of frightening sensibilities, if you ask me. Things like “it’s okay to cull voters in order to get election results we like, because we’re fighting a war against a socialist takeover.”

My sense is, that whether people choose to vote or not, as many should be encouraged to do do, and just about everybody should be registered to do so. I know you don’t see that as a legal position, but I believe that legally speaking, there should not be barriers to a person exercising their franchise unless it can be proven to be compelling.

Republicans claim voter fraud is enough of a problem to justify these new laws, but the odds of somebody committing voting fraud seem similar to the odds of being struck and killed by lightning.

As for the moral position? I believe that the balance of what people think and believe, and what comes out in the vote should be as close to each other as possible, and that every impediment placed in their way is an act of dishonest by those who lack the pride to try and win elections on their merits.

I do not take the matter of our representation in State, local, and federal government lightly. When tricks and bamboozlement have our communities represented by leaders pro forma, but not in any real substance, that is an undermining of our Republic, and its promises.

People should not be impeded from voting, even if we dislike them. The hear of a Democracy is that the system isn’t set up to flatter the sensibilities of anybody but the majority. The adults who are on Welfare have every right anybody else has to protest, to speak out, to petition the government, and everything else the Bill of Rights promises us. Why you think it is just that government should happen to them, the way it happens to some poor soul in a more tyrannical form of government is beyond me.

Royal Flush-
You really lay that BS on thick, don’t you?

First, the very Constitution itself says that what is written within it shouldn’t be seen as the end of what people’s rights are, it should be seen as the beginning. you have more rights than are granted in the constitution, and you have every right to push the Congress to legislate any right you feel should be, so long as it falls within constitutional authority to do so- that is, that it doesn’t interfere with anything the constitution already prohibits, inhibits, or offers.

Second, the brake on such things getting out of control is to be found in the Congress itself. Measures must pass by both Houses and be signed by the President. If the measure turns out to be an overextension the eyes of most of those rights, the people can can turn around and force repeal or change by means of pressure on the Congress.

Third, I don’t think the Constitution tends to make bright line individual/collective distinctions on our rights. Most can be enjoyed together, as well as individually. Human beings are social animals, so that means we often deal with each other in groups. Unfortunately for you, you have looked at the collectivism in Communism and Socialism, and decided quite inaccurately that anybody who also tries to deal with questions of government in more than an individual sense must be socialists and communists, too.

It’s a line of raw BS, and you ought to be ashamed you indulge it. It’s turned your political party into a stereotype of what it once was, and inflicted a fatal sense of denial and policy rigidity on it.

Frank-
What BS. She was making something of a joke, trying to encourage people to get other folks to campaign. The fact she’s saying this at a college should be a nice bit of context for you.

But of course, that won’t stop you from shoehorning anti-poor class warfare into it.

As for who I’m living with? My father had a stroke back in 2005, so I’ve been helping to support the family. Makes moving out on my own difficult, but that’s the price I’m willing to pay to help.

Actually, I think it was Time Magazine that labelled my generation “Generation Screwed”, because we are the lucky folks who have to compete with older generations for the few jobs that exist, who will have to foot the bill for all the fun your generations had under Reagan and Bush, who will have to deal with the consequences of the financial crisis for decade on end, just because people like you couldn’t be bothered to actually pay for the government you got, and couldn’t be bothered to keep the economy together to pass it on to us. We’re going to inherit your debts, a healthcare system you let get more and more expensive during the Bush years, and our future is going to be lived out in the age of Global Warming!

But you know what? I don’t like the name myself. Why? Because I believe in the example of my Grandparent’s generation. A generation of people who hadn’t given in to the small-mindedness that has infected the country in the wake of the Republican’s rise, the me-first attitude, the hyperindividualism that has everybody believing they can satisfy whatever impulse they have at everybody else’s expense.

What I my generation and I want to do is wrest control back from your generations, and put this country back on the track to being great again, a country respected and admired in the world, with people whose educations and academics are the envy of the world. I want us back out in space, and back in the laboratories making discoveries. I want kids being taught something more than how to succeed at a ****ing test, something like real-world applicable knowledge.

I could go on, but what I want here is for my generation to be a generation of restoration, and that includes a restoration of social responsibility and safety nets, because I believe we have better means to teach people the lessons they need to learn in life than for them to land in the gutter as penniless beggars!

I don’t think everybody’s blameless, but when I see the previous generation on the left, and that on the Right, I can’t help but see what you on the Right are blind to: that the GOP and Conservatives are no better at preserving what came before than anybody else, that you have been as instrumental in undermining the old social order as anybody else. The truth is, the whole country, both parties need reform. We need a return to responsibility, to a broader sense of pride in our country, one that’s not simply about being boastful, but about taking serious care of the institutions, infrastructure, and yes, even the governments that rule over us.

Because otherwise, you know what awaits us? Decline. Now some conservatives may be fine with letting that decline play out, or might misguidedly think that their policies have nothing to do with the condition we are in.

But the way I see it, what your policies are heading toward at this point is an America that is less on every level, except perhaps in the richness of the rich, and the level of iniquity all around.

I want my country BACK. I want my country to become great again. Your people, your generation’s had its chance, and you blew it, worse, blew it, and made it our problem. Well, since you decided to make it our problem, we’re going to go and change a few things. The irony is, if your side had been more focused on getting results than covering your ass when your politicians made mistakes, you might have had this generation, whose idealistic childhood was built in the Reagan and Bush years, who grew up under a GOP Congress, as your allies. But you screwed things up, just in time to discredit yourselves in our eyes. We’re not going to forget it. The die is cast: the future of America will be more liberal, and the irony is, it is your generation, your party that made this happen, by not taking your stewardship seriously.

Enjoy the irony. You won’t have much else to look foward to.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 14, 2012 5:09 PM
Comment #350762

Stephen

Do you doubt that the dependent classes vote more heavily Democratic?

Posted by: C&J at August 14, 2012 10:01 PM
Comment #357370

I admire you very much, but I am sorry I have to copy your words that I love very much.

Posted by: Burberry Outlet at November 19, 2012 2:31 AM
Post a comment