Posted on 01/13/2003 2:23:44 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I AM A MEMBER of a small, elite group widely vilified by the press and in letters to the editor. I am an easy target.
My sin is that I am in the financial top 10 percent of the country - those making $100,000 or more - the 35 percent tax bracket, a member of the so-called rich. So it is much easier to paint a picture of me with black heart and ice in my veins, cake crumbs all about, as I grow fat on the backs of the downtrodden.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Democrats are for the little people in this country. Republicans are for the big and powerful.
Democrats care about such matters as the well-being of the nation's children and about old people who need prescription drugs.
Republicans think only of themselves. They don't give a darn about old folks or children.
Republicans are uncaring and greedy, and, after Trent Lott let the cat out of the bag recently, most likely racists.
Republicans are only interested in making more money.
Democrats embrace big government in order to help people. They like government and departments with the exceptions of the CIA, FBI and the Pentagon, which they loathe.
Republicans distrust all government even when receiving corporate welfare, with the exceptions of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, which they love.
Republicans think government is too large, too intrusive and too costly. They wouldn't lose any sleep if the departments of Education and Energy got shrunk by Rick Moranis.
Democrats point out that they, too, pay taxes and are happy to do so in order to fund all the programs that help little people. ***
Oh wait, I'm sorry. This isn't DU. Just trying to fit in.
I really believe that the rats have overplayed the class warfare issue to the point where most people just hear "The Rich blah blah blah..."
In the latest comments targetting the President's tax plan the rats have only alienated another segment of the American people. Those who have children and 401Ks. Those group include about 70% of the population.
This show just keep getting better and better. I suspect that the 2004 election will be QUITE entertaining if the rats continue along this path. I expect that they will, they just can't seem to help themselves.
Most people work hard and sacrifice but that does not mean they can also take "welfare" under a different name and then condemn others. That is rather sanctimonious.
The United States should do the same. While not as vast as Brazil's, the gap between the rich and the poor in the US is too wide - the widest among all the rich democracies.
According to World Bank data, the poorest 10 percent of Brazil's population receives just 1 percent of the country's total income, while the richest 10 percent receives almost half. In the US, the poorest 10 percent receives 1.8 percent of total income, while the richest 10 percent gets almost a third.
In no other rich democracy does the poorest 10 percent receive less than 2 percent of the total. (The average for rich countries is 2.9 percent.)
Don't leap to the conclusion that this extreme inequity in US income distribution reflects the policies of the Bush administration. The data are for a Clinton boom year - 1997.
In fact, Census Bureau data show a steady erosion of income inequity since the 1970s.
The Census Bureau estimates that in 2001, about 33 million Americans - 11.7 percent of the population and disproportionately African-American and Hispanic - lived below the poverty line. For a family of four, that meant an income of less than $18,000 per year, or $4,500 per capita.
At this level of affluence, the persistence of poverty for tens of millions of Americans is a national disgrace.***
Let me tell you what sanctimonious is: Making a statement like you have.
Did you miss the part where the guy has paid and paid and paid over the years? Do you suppose he took more than he gave (albeit indirect "taking")?
Jealousy is a terrible thing, sport.
How have we changed, then, to an ethic of redistributing the wealth from those who are economically productive to those who refuse to be?
Few will acknowledge it, but the message is clear. Reading between the lines of editorials and letters in the newspapers, I can almost hear the chant, ''You have it, I want it, and you owe me.''
I believe in extending a helping hand whenever possible, but I don't believe in lifelong support for those capable but unmotivated. ***
Bump!
All institutions of higher learning are in that "victim" class in that they in their own way cannot survive without Federal dollars. Larry was helped thru college by tax dollars taken by force from people that have never been inside a college, those non-elite,handout begging non producers.
Larry may well be satisfied with his place in life, but he should never forget, he took a handout also, therefore, be careful of how he demeans others, use a little common decency.
If it matters, I am probably better off than Larry, much better off. I also worked as much as sixty hours a week going to school, it was a tough time. However I also know that the taxpayers paid a very large portion of my tuition. That was a handout, whether you like it or not. I would be that last person to stand on a soapbox and berate the "non producers". I am just happy as hell I did so well. I refuse to look down my nose at anyone else or condemn those that are where they are. That instinct to demean others is missing in me, I would not trade places with them.
Your attempt to make the victim of the theft into the beneficiary of the theft is amusing, but silly.
I had been working since I was 12, then part-time as a busboy or dishwasher. After high school I took factory jobs as I could find them, got married at 19 and at 23 was unable to find a job, it was the Carter years and jobs were scarce. I took a government handout under the CETA program, went to school for major appliance repair, since I am mechanically inclined I finished first in the class, not a big deal since most in the class were "snowbirds" as the teacher called them, looking for a place to roost for the winter. I got a job in the appliance field and haven't looked back. I now have 25 years in my present job and make 50k a year. Now if a stupid guy like me can do it others can, if not they are just too damn lazy.
According to Karl Marx, most leftists, and a surprising number of conservatives, you stole your money from the workers who produce tangible goods.
Cin...The author specifically names "welfare" above. What does he call it that he received for four years of financial aid in college? For the man on the bottom, it is called "welfare", is there really any difference than the man in the top one per cent that took money for those four years?. The author should be glad of where he is, nevermind the media, he paid his dues, just be happy he is in a position to pay lots of taxes, the alternative is not very nice.
You're not getting it. The "taxpayers" are the working class. They send more to the government than the government sends to them (directly or indirectly). Have you not repaid the government in spades for that indirect support in college? Did your parents pay property taxes? State taxes? Federal taxes? Why you think this guy should hang on a cross when his balance of payments is in the government's favor is beyond me. That is feudal thinking at its best. We all owe the government. The government takes care of us.
Socialist hogwash.
Address the message of the author, not me.
We no longer have discretion in who gets it, or how much.
That is a big difference.
BUMP
No institution of higher learning in this country does not benefit from Federal tax dollars in one form or another, none.
Another feature of your argument is that if you're "in for a little, in for a lot". In other words, if you take advantage of any service that was funded in any way by government, then the government owns you, body and soul, for the rest of your existence. After all, you don't believe in placing any limits on how much of a person's wealth the government can forcibly coerce from that person. Take a little, pay a lot (and pay, and pay, and pay). That's exactly how the loan shark or blackmailer or other extortionist sees it. Once they get their hold on you, they will never let go.
That's also exactly how some men see it - they buy dinner for a woman and expect, no they force, the woman to give them sex. As much as the man wants, with no consideration for the woman. After all, the woman received some benefit, so she has no grounds to complain when the man takes and takes and takes. She is not entitled to say "No", just like the author is saying "No". In your world, she is not the victim, she is the perpetrator. How dare she object? And that is perfectly in keeping with the Communist ideals that you profess.
So, take your pick - your "compassionate" philosophy is either: a) extortion, b) blackmail, c) economic rape. I think that 'c' is the most apt description - you and those who share your views are compassionate economic rapists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.