Yes, it was small, but went to many. But, in spite of 'all working families' getting some change, there were already masses of unemployed. At that point my family was already living on the new
'furlough pay cuts', which a year later became....unemployment checks, and could only wish we still had furlough reduced pay checks.
It's been a looong 2 1/2 years.

For me it's been a loooooong 5 years. I'd gladly work for $1.25 an hour if I could. Maybe if we elect a Republican as president, they'll take away the unconstitutional minimum wage requirement. What about the constitutional right of taxpayers to eke out a sub-standard way of life?

Generally speaking, politicians spend the majority of their time in office cleaning up the mess that their predecessors and the electorate worked together to create.

Generally speaking, the electorate spends the majority of their elected officials' time in office complaining about their performance.

I'd think you'd be stoked. This is exactly what the GOP wants.

Talk about lies. The "less fortunate" do pay taxes. Have you heard of sales tax? People on unemployment pay taxes too.

You seriously begrudge people struggling on minimum wage a few extra bucks? Why am I not the least bit surprised?

miss janna,
the issue with democrats is that they want equal outcome for all while republicans want equal opportunity to achieve. democrats are in favor of all kinds of social engineering which often results in reverse discrimination. this social engineering is a monumental failure. to extrapolate the democrat utopia of fairness and equal outcome...their utopuan country would be North Korea.

i encourage you to move there where you dont have to whine about the haves vs not have nots.

That's quite the exaggeration, raj.

People who vote republican believe that some day they'll be rich. That's how they are duped into voting against their own interests. Only a very small percentage of people actually achieve wealth through hard work. Most of them inherit their wealth.

Democrats want honesty, humanity from and for all. What's so bad about that? Well, if you're a republican, and lying and lack of empathy are your trademarks, well then, of course you'll be against that.

Thanks, but I'm staying. Born and raised in California. The likes of you won't get me to leave.

Hey Janna, you should be able to recognize steeeve by now. It involves presenting a host of garbled assertions, most of which are demonstrably false, and then leaping to the most childishly exaggerated conclusions -- like you needing to move to N.Korea. The poor old coot is unable to think in a coherent manner.

miss janna,
my guess is that classics like Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" are not taught much any more. At least in your case, you seem to be equating the terms "selfishness" and "self-interest" to mean one in the same. My observayions are that most democrats see no difference between these terms. However, Adam Smith's entire book addresses the major differences.

When people improve their lot in life out of self-interest, the cumulative effect is that this improves the larger community's quality of life. We enjoy the products of the butcher, brewer, the baker ... not because of their benevolence but because of their self-interest to please their customers.

i encourage you to read more of Adam Smith and others like Milton Friedman.

Web Link

Wow! Late 18th century Adam Smith meets Jesus Freak gobbledy-gook religion teacher at the great Loma Linda University. About what you'd expect a moron to recommend.

Poor Streeve, aka raj, just can't separate himself from either self-interestedness or selfishness. Yes, the two terms are different. Fortunately, the educated among us now realize that the antiquated 18th century idea of self interest is limited -- cognitively and morally. In the past two centuries, we have moved from the stunted idea of self-sufficiency/interest/selfishness to a higher, social form of consciousness by which individuals are able to empathize and care for others, not on the basis of self-interest a la Adam Smith, but on the idea of an abstract self -- a universal self that is bound up in social relations with others.

It is only by reaching out to that 'other' that we are able to appreciate the limitations of our own private selves and, what follows, a recognition that one's own self cannot be happy if other selves are suffering. Poor Streeve isn't able to grasp this. Very poorly educated, woefully ignorant, he is a stunted version of a human being. His incompleteness as a human being explains in part why he hates so intensely. He sees others around him -- for example, liberals -- who recognize that the role of the state is be compassionate and in ways that elevate all, and because he's cognitively and morally unable to reach that more advanced level of self-consciousness, the poor guy can only lash out and tell them they should move to N. Korea.

Sorry for 'horning in' on your exchange, Janna. I'm certain you're more than capable of refuting this old hateful curmudgeon. I simply couldn't resist.

Raj - Unless you derive personal entertainment from attempting to intellectually spar with these people, I'd recommend you don't waste your time. Unfortunately, you won't be able to open their minds and educate them on the benefits of well functioning markets. Even though much of their creature comforts today come from exactly that.

There are only two end-states for socialists/communists/etc. - 1) either they are the grumbling minority in a well functioning economy or 2) they preside over the bankruptcy of countries/economies - just like is happening in Europe these days.

They will never admit that their fundamental concept is bankrupt right from the start and has been proven to be so over and over again throughout the history of mankind.

Janna is the woman whose husband lived off of us on welfare and unemployment for years while she refused to work and spent her time on this blog attacking the very taxpayers who were supporting her family. Socialist true and true she is.

In other words, "Give it up" (who is actually "he who shall not be named"), has no rejoinder to Rollie's sharp criticism of the nonsense re. Adam Smith posted by you know who. Give it up hasn't read Smith, as there are no illustration-only renditions of Wealth of Nations on the market.

Dear Raj (and Steve),

Your linked reference to Adam Smith through the little blurb written by the Jesus Freak was fascinating. I haven't read Smith's "Wealth of Nations," so maybe you could tell me more about it since you seem to know as much as you do. My primary question is how Smith treats the division between use value and exchange value. My second question is how Smith's treatise compares with David Ricardo's, and, more specicially, whether Smith and Ricardo share the same ideas on rent. And third, how are we to best assess Smith in light of some of the 20th century writings by the conservatives Arendt, Nozick, Strauss, Vogelin, and Gadamer?

I truly respect your wisdom on these matters, and would appreciate hearing back from you.

And the enlightened beings, like Rollie, realize that most people -- realistically speaking, will not achieve his level of enlightenment. So the solution is to administer compassion via 'the state'.

But hold on, wait a sec. How do we get the average joe and janna on the street to support changing our form of government to what the enlightened liberals among us support?

How do we legislate compassion? How do we elevate all? Of course, take more and more from those who work and achieve, and bestow it upon the less fortunate! If we increase dependence on government, we increase loyalty to the enlightened liberals who keep making promises, we will take care of you in retirement, we will take care of your childs pre-school, we will take care of your healthcare, we will get those evil banks to lend you money, and then when you cannot make the mortgage payment, we will prevent those evil banks from enforcing the terms of that note via foreclosure. After all, everyone is entitled to shelter, it's a basic human right!

Right? It's all about self-conciousness and your universal self! Don't worry when those unhappy, morally impaired republicans say that our levels of debt and spending are unsustainable, they are just hateful, they want to take away what we have given you. Vote for enlightened liberals, we will take away more of what they have in order to pay for what we have given you!

Is that how it works, Rollie?

When Rollie and janna say conservatives are voting against their own self-interest, they define self-interest as the money and benefits we could all get from 'the state' through voting for bigger and bigger government, operated by enlightened liberals who will elevate all of us.
But if you conservatives want to continue to work and serve your own interests in such a selfish manner, it is fine. You can keep paying higher taxes and fees to support the enlightened liberal programs.

It is interesting that North Korea comes up in this conversation, because the most perfect picture of 'the state' elevating all and forcing government administered compassion is a true socialist system. And it doesn't exist. It never has in history. Every experiment in socialism has ended in totalinarianism, gone down in flames, or becomes Cuba or North Korea, a great illustration of how very, very bad a socialist experiment can go.

Rollie,
Hmmm...so with your 'logic,' any 'ancient' philosopher's works don't apply anymore. Forget Socrates, Plato, and the later classics from Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, etc. according to your logic. And also from your logic, we can and should "forget" such "ancient" works like the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution...because, I assume you'd say these should not apply anymore ... because after all these documents are old, musty and written is 'weird' language you'd probably say.

As an alternative...we all should follow the "modern day great minds" like (the failed) John Maynard Keynes, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Bill Ayres, Rev. Wright, Saul Alinsky and Barack (Snake oil salesman of Hope & Change) Obama.

I see your 'logic' which is strangely consistent with some of the prominent leaders of the world...like Stalin, Hitler, Chavez, Kim Jung Il, and Obama to name a few.

Stay the hell away from teaching my kids your philosophy.

I'm with Jimfol and Raj. The govt should not be taxing me in order to assist impoverished children, to offer children a public education, or to assist the old and sick and injured. (Socrates said that.) Let them die and rot in the streets for all I care. (That's why we have gated communities!) Like the brilliant ones last night at the debate said, the only things govt should be raising taxes for are border fences, drones, more boots on the ground, expanded national guard, more military, more advanced surveillance technology, wire tapping, more intense regulation of businesses and schools where illegals may be criminally housing their children. And guns. And prisons. And executions. All the things that express Republican self interestedness and small goverment. (Edmund Burke said this.) With these kinds of things? Please do spend, spend, spend my money! But ABSOLUTELEY no money for the people we don't like (blacks, women, the weak and impoverished), except for lots of money to police them, imprison them, execute them, and keep them out. That's what Plato and John Smith said. Go ahead, tell me of the likelihood that I've executed innocent people. I'll laugh in your face as my Republican audience foams at the mouth in delerious support of my actions. And don't you dare call me sick and unenlightened!

Government transfer payments have increased from 5% of GDP in 1959 to nearly 16% today and yet people are crying out for more. I guess they won't be happy until it is 100%.

Do you think this has any impact on our country's work ethic and global competitiveness?

As a country we are fat, lazy, constantly playing the victim, expect others (especially government) so solve our problems, ...

And it is NEVER our individual fault.

I guess it is no wonder that there is such a significant push-back by the productive element in our society. We now live in a distorted upside-down world where the disadvantaged are no longer expected to take advantage of all the resources available to better themselves. Instead they get to lay around and vote in people who promise to deliver transfer of wealth.

Is it any wonder why the developed world including the US is in such shambles?

And of course now we have the anonymous race-baiting trolls, back for more. Thank you blossom

@ The lucid one who claims, "As a country we are fat, lazy, constantly playing the victim, expect others (especially government) so solve our problems, ..."

Exactly. That's why I'm for spending a lot more taxpayer dollars on regulation of immigrants. Let's keep the hard workers out! Blossom has it right:

"Like the brilliant ones last night at the debate said, the only things govt should be raising taxes for are border fences, drones, more boots on the ground, expanded national guard, more military, more advanced surveillance technology, wire tapping, more intense regulation of businesses and schools where illegals may be criminally housing their children. And guns. And prisons. And executions. All the things that express Republican self interestedness and small goverment. (Edmund Burke said this.) With these kinds of things? Please do spend, spend, spend my money! But ABSOLUTELEY no money for the people we don't like (blacks, women, the weak and impoverished), except for lots of money to police them, imprison them, execute them, and keep them out."

Rose sadi: "Blossom has it right"

The 'blossom' is off the 'rose'. The ARBT (anonymous race-baiting troll) agrees with the ARBT

Ever notice how the other side almost never engage and debate the facts and implications of them?

Just think about the implication of this - government transfer payments are over three times greater than that during the golden days that liberals opine about.

Jim -- I might consider voting for a republican candidate if there was even one of them that made sense. Should I vote for Mrs. Pray-Away-the-Gay, or Mr. Executor-of-Innocents, or Mr. 9-9-9, or Mr. Social-Security-is-a-Criminal-Enterprise, or undeclared Mrs. Rhetoric-But-No-Substance? Find me a real candidate. Then we'll talk.

So you're telling me there's a chance?

Web Link

Dear A Neighbor,
I respectfully suggest that you re-evaluate your principles and don't vote based on a candidate's personality. But vote based on whether the candidate has the principles aligned with your values.

If they don't then don't vote for any.

Personally, most of the Republicans have values consistent with the US Constitution. There are some differences between them...but any of them would be orders of magnitude better than Obama since his values are 180 degrees opposite of the US Constitution.

Raj basically has it right, but since you are mocking the primary candidates with the silly MSM caricatures of them, what is the point of engaging a discussion?

We can talk when the primary is over, and your choice is between Obama and the Republican. Until then, it is still ABO 2012

Raj,

Could you list which "most Republicans" candidates have values consistent with the religion clauses in the US Constitution?

Come on liberals - why dodge an obvious fact that can be debated? You continue to argue for more transfer payments and yet we have a long history of increased transfer payments with very little to show for it.

Why should I buy into your approach of even greater transfer payments? What good will it do? How will it improve our current economic malaise? Make your argument for why we should take even more from the productive and give to the unproductive? How will this fix things?

@ "Make your argument for why we should take even more from the productive and give to the unproductive? How will this fix things?"

Because border patrol agents, prison guards, fence builders, workplace regulators, classroom spies, prison chaplains, owners of lethal injection supplies and others need to live too. Signed, Just Another Dumb Republican

Did it make you feel good to write that vacuous statement? I guess it is difficult to support a bankrupt idea so you need to divert.

I'm still waiting for a cogent response that will actually debate the facts and their implications. Maybe one of you will step out from behind all your name calling and other diversionary tactics to debate.

Maybe then we may both learn something that will benefit us.

Can't have it both ways, Just the (liar's) facts. If you're for small govt then you're going to have to rationalize all the candidates last night arguing for bigger govt. If you can't, then you're a hypocrite as well as a confirmed liar.

Gosh, are you pathetic. Still can't find the courage to debate the fact that transfer payments have increased substantially with no evident benefit.

BTW, last time I investigated, Ron Paul is essentially a Libertarian and therefore is one of the leading proponents of small government.

Being an Independent, I won't have much say until the general election. If the Republicans and surface a fiscally conservative/socially progressive candidate, they will get my vote. Otherwise, I won't be voting for President this time around. In no way can I support Obama again.

But again back to the facts. Still waiting for a cogent response from one of you ...

In addition to you being a confirmed liar and hypocrite, did I forget to mention you're also a moron? Ron Paul is a sad and pathetic creature who must've read Ayn Rand back in high school and has never bothered to read another thing again. I thought his performance last night was the weakest thing I've seen since Palin debated Biden. Eliminate minimum wage? Remove restrictions on exploitation of child labor? Allow store owners to serve only whites? A return to segregated lunch counters and drinking fountains? The guy is a complete nutcake. I should have known he'd appeal to you.

Dear JTF,
Please define how you can be both fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. Killing more babies? Handing out more and more food stamps? Spreading (ie robbing) more wealth around? Allowing more illegals into our country for welfare (in return for a democrat party line vote)?

I submit to you that it is impossible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time.

Conservativism is compassionate and provides for those legals who are unable to provide for themselves.

Wow, I must be getting close to the sensitive truth for JADR with all the spewing and name calling that is coming from that person. BTW, I did not say that I support Ron Paul. I was just refuting your point that there weren't any small government people at the debate last night.

Fiscally conservative/socially progressive means living within one's means, investing for the future, having a belief in the scientific approach to identifying issues and solving problems, keeping religion out of politics, letting people live according to whatever lifestyle they choose as long as it doesn't hurt others, providing equal OPPORTUNITY for all regardless of race, nationality (legally here), sex, etc. ...

Raj, I agree with your last point. But we have way to many people in this country that want to live off the hard work of others as evidenced by the orginal data point I brought up.

And yet, still no progressive response to that data point. Only name calling, accusations, and more.

thank you for clarifying jtf.

i submit to you that by your definition, you are socially conservative...not socially progressive/liberal. apologies if i recoiled over your previous post ... because i believe strongly that it is impossible to be both fiscally conservative and socially liberal (i.e. demanding and expecting government funds to pay for more and more social programs) at the same time.

Dear Raj (and Steve),

Your linked reference to Adam Smith through the little blurb written by the Jesus Freak was fascinating. I haven't read Smith's "Wealth of Nations," so maybe you could tell me more about it since you seem to know as much as you do. My primary question is how Smith treats the division between use value and exchange value. My second question is how Smith's treatise compares with David Ricardo's, and, more specicially, whether Smith and Ricardo share the same ideas on rent. And third, how are we to best assess Smith in light of some of the 20th century writings by the conservatives Arendt, Nozick, Strauss, Vogelin, and Gadamer?


I truly respect your wisdom on these matters, and would appreciate hearing back from you. I'm always interested in being educated by the thoughtful posters here.

Raj - I wish I had a better descriptive word for the social side of my values/priorities. I overlap with Republicans and Tea Party folks from a fiscal perspective, but tend to see myself aligning more with Democrats when it comes to non-fiscal items (except the entitlement/"big government take care of me" element which I abhor). I suspect I am close to the typical independent out there - the ones both Democrats and Republicans need to attract for the next election.

This name calling/categorization garbage I see so much from the far left is not helping their cause. This blog being case and point.

And yet still no thoughtful response to the transfer payment point I brought up above. I was quite surprise to learn how much transfer payments have increased. For decades, our leadership (on both sides of the isle) has failed our people by not speaking honestly about the implications of a global economy and helping them to get prepared for its implications.

No name calling from me. Just a humble need to be educated.

Dear Raj (and Steve),

Your linked reference to Adam Smith through the little blurb written by the Jesus Freak was fascinating. I haven't read Smith's "Wealth of Nations," so maybe you could tell me more about it since you seem to know as much as you do. My primary question is how Smith treats the division between use value and exchange value. My second question is how Smith's treatise compares with David Ricardo's, and, more specicially, whether Smith and Ricardo share the same ideas on rent. And third, how are we to best assess Smith in light of some of the 20th century writings by the conservatives Arendt, Nozick, Strauss, Vogelin, and Gadamer?


I truly respect your wisdom on these matters, and would appreciate hearing back from you. I'm always interested in being educated by the thoughtful posters here.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?