Friday, February 18, 2011

Re: The poor are not getting poorer

Who defines what is more than enough. You are forcing your thoughts on
them as to what is enough. Now suppose they have a different idea of
what is enough. How are you going to handle that one. Theoretically
that person has just as much right to say what is enough as you do. You
may say everyone has more than enough but he may say no they don't. In
that case if he beats up on you then he is right while if you beat up on
him you are right, however the decision is made. It all goes back to
the decisions that are made by the individual.

While we are at it let's take a look at who is more likely to share.
Strange that the people who want a government to dictate what should be
are far less willing to share willingly than those who think the
individual should make his own way; they are also far more likely to
donate to those who need help than those who are dependent on the
government. The left is the one that says I got mine, Jack, f*ck you.
Kinda makes your examples look stupid.

On 02/17/2011 07:33 PM, Wes wrote:
> everyone in my world has more than enough, are you saying that's not
> possible? anyway things could still be shared a lot more equally.
>
> (Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose
> shall those things be) ???
>
> 16And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain
> rich man brought forth plentifully: 17And he thought within himself,
> saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my
> fruits? 18And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and
> build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
>
> 20But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be
> required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast
> provided? 21So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not
> rich toward God. 16And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The
> ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12&version=KJV
>
>
>
> On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, BB47<mde...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 3:46 pm, Wes<wesleykell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody should be expected to work and not afford a car (plus repairs),
>>> rent, health insurance, retirement and also little things that make
>>> life worthwhile (Cable TV could be one). Why do you want to pay people
>>> less than they need, you can't or you won't? you always act like their
>>> friends till it comes to payday then you're more of a rapist.
>> Just picture a world filled with YOUs. Everyone complaining to each
>> other that you should buy the other a car and everything else on your
>> list. Think about that for a little while. Spend some time
>> surrounded by multiple yous'
>> Insane isn't it?
>>
>> What you fail to see is that all that stuff you ask for costs WAY more
>> than you "put in" at a low end job.
>> Therefore you are forcing someone else to buy it for you with THEIR
>> work. Can you see how unfair that is?
>> It is mathematically impossible to make your scenario work.
>>
>> You act like all those things are your right! Just by being born
>> and able to say "welcome to Walmart" gets you a car, retirement,
>> health care, cable TV, repairs, the whole life? (which costs hundreds
>> of thousands of dollars)
>> How can you think that? That is just crazy. Somebody had to earn that
>> money. Somebody that did everything way better than you did and your
>> low skill job. You don't deserve their hard work.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Obama team set to reduce border security measures









 

 

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/c6/dd/c6dde9267b761c1c913ca99e15f41525.jpg

Jim Kouri

Obama team set to reduce border security measures

·         February 17th, 2011 2:57 pm ET

·         "DHS is replacing its border security measures, which could temporarily reduce oversight, and reports it may reduce resources requested for securing the southwest border." - GAO Report 

Only days after Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano complained about law enforcement commanders exaggerating the threat of the Mexican drug war on Americans, two of her own Immigration & Customs Enforcement special agents were ambushed by suspected members of Mexico's deadliest crime gang, Los Zetas.

Secretary Janet Napolitano also reported the obvious during her testimony before the U.S. Congress: The nearly 2,000-mile U.S. border with Mexico is vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity.

The Office of Border Patrol, within DHS's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is responsible for securing the border between U.S. ports of entry and has divided responsibility for southwest border miles divided among nine Border Patrol sectors. CBP reported spending about $3 billion on Border Patrol's southwest border efforts in fiscal year 2010, apprehending over 445,000 illegal entries.

The House Homeland Security Committee under the leadership of Rep. Peter King (R-NY) requested the Government Accountability Office report its observations on the extent to which DHS reported progress in achieving operational control -- Border Patrol was able to detect, respond, and interdict cross-border illegal activity -- of the southwest border.

In addition, the GAO would report on the extent to which operational control reflects Border Patrol's ability to respond to illegal activity at the border or after entry into the United States; and how DHS reports the transition to new border security measures will change oversight and resource requirements for securing the southwest border.

The subsequent testimony was based on GAO's ongoing work for the House Committee on Homeland Security. GAO analyzed DHS border security documents and data supporting border security measures reported by DHS for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, and interviewed DHS officials.

Border Patrol reported achieving varying levels of operational control for 873 of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles at the end of fiscal year 2010, increasing an average of 126 miles each year from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Border Patrol sector officials assessed the miles under operational control using factors such as the numbers of illegal entries and apprehensions.

CBP attributed the increase to additional infrastructure, technology, and personnel. Yuma sector officials reported achieving operational control for all of its 126 border miles; however, the other eight southwest border sectors reported achieving operational control of 11 to 86 percent of their border miles. Border Patrol attributed the uneven progress across sectors to multiple factors, including prioritizing resource deployment to sectors deemed to have greater risk from illegal activity.

Border Patrol reported that its levels of operational control for most border miles reflected its ability to respond to illegal activity after entry into the United States and not at the immediate border. Operational control encompassed two of the five levels used to classify the security level of each border mile. The two levels of control differed in the extent that Border Patrol resources were available to either deter or detect and apprehend illegal entries at the immediate border (controlled) versus a multi-tiered deployment of Border Patrol resources to deter, detect, and apprehend illegal entries after entry into the United States.

GAO's preliminary analysis of the 873 border miles under operational control in 2010 showed that about 129 miles (15 percent) were classified as "controlled" and the remaining 85 percent were classified as "managed."

Border Patrol officials stated that operational control does not require its agents to be able to detect and apprehend all illegal entries. Yuma sector reported operational control for all its miles although Border Patrol did not have the ability to detect and apprehend illegal entries that use ultra-light aircraft and tunnels. DHS is replacing its border security measures, which could temporarily reduce oversight, and reports it may reduce resources requested for securing the southwest border.

Border Patrol had established border miles under effective control as a measure of border security. DHS plans to improve the quality of boarder security measures by developing new measures with a more quantitative methodology. CBP is developing a new methodology and measures for border security, which CBP expects to be in place by fiscal year 2012. In the meantime, the absence of border security outcome measures in DHS's Fiscal Year 2010-2012 Annual Performance Report could reduce oversight.

CBP does not have an estimate of the time and efforts needed to secure the border; however, DHS, CBP, and Border Patrol headquarters officials said that this new approach to border security is expected to be more flexible and cost-effective. As a result, Border Patrol headquarters officials expect that they will request fewer resources to secure the border. For example, the so-called "virtual fence" project has been canceled after the U.S. government spent upwards of a billion dollars on security measures that either didn't work as promised or the equipment malfunctioned within weeks of being installed.

 

Jim Kouri, CPP, formerly Fifth Vice-President, is currently a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for Examiner.com and New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc. 



Continue reading on Examiner.com: Obama team set to reduce border security measures - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/obama-team-set-to-reduce-border-security-measures#ixzz1EG3m0q98

 



__ 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

If you're a conservative in California: Get out! Now!









If you're a conservative in California: Get out! Now!

Posted By Diane Schrader On February 17, 2011

California girls and Beach Boys. Disneyland. Hollywood. Year-round sun-kissed weather. The Golden Gate Bridge. San Francisco's cable cars. Silicon Valley innovation. Napa Valley's gorgeous vineyards and wineries. Majestic redwoods, snow-capped mountains. The richest farmland in the country. The beauties of Yosemite, Death Valley, and a thousand miles of breathtaking coastline.

There is a reason this is called the Golden State. Actually, a lot of reasons.

And I hate to relinquish this golden state to the Left. But in fact, they've already taken it.

You add up all the riches mentioned above, and you should have a thriving, prosperous heaven-on-earth. But if you add in one more ingredient – a preponderance of leftists – somehow the recipe falls flat. Disastrously flat. Anybody-with-a-brain-in-their-head-is-getting-the-heck-out flat.

And that is exactly where we find ourselves today.

California is like the most beautiful and gifted girl in the class (of 50 students!), who took up with a boy from the wrong side of the tracks (the Left) and ended up in a dilapidated trailer park puffing on a cigarette and chugging cheap whiskey.

Yup, that's California today!

Let's take a closer look at her downfall…

9. Environmentalist wackjobs – the original California fruits and nuts

When people talk about how California is the land of fruits and nuts, they're not talking about grapes and almonds (although those used to be bountiful crops of our fertile California farmland). No, they're talking about the people who have made it a lot harder to grow grapes and almonds – or businesses of any kind, really.

A quarter million acres of the most valuable agricultural land anywhere sits idle today because environmentalists thought a tiny fish called the smelt was more important than allowing farmers to water their land.

California Congressman Devin Nunes tried to protect his constituents from the greenies, but to no avail.

That was a couple of years ago, and the court-ordered irrigation stoppage continues, with exactly the results Congressman Nunes predicted.

Isn't it ironic, how the greenies are directly responsible for the browning of California? There are far, far fewer lush acres of green lettuce, or orchards of walnuts or peaches. The land of hundreds of different crops and half the nation's produce has been attacked as surely as if terrorists had dropped bombs on it. Worse, even, because if the farmers at least had water, they could plant again. For now – there's no hope at all.

Next: But that's not the only envirowack insanity raging across the Golden State…

8. Deranged greenies set the political agenda

In the recent midterm elections, blind-dumb-deaf Californians voted to allow their own "Global Warming Act" (otherwise known as the Kill-the-Last-Jobs-in-the-State Act) to proceed. Opponents had tried to at least delay the Global Warming Act, which is supposed to cut greenhouse gas emissions in California, until the state's unemployment rate dropped. But the greenies called the proposal the "Dirty Energy Proposition" and that characterization carried the day.

Why is this colossally stupid?

Because there is precious little solid evidence that anything man does affects so-called climate change. Climate patterns have been cycling since we began recording weather. People may argue about whether or not it's a real threat, but there's no argument that what California does, all by itself, will affect the climate not one bit. So the forced imposition of lower "greenhouse gas emission" standards will drive the last few businesses that are here right across the border into friendlier states.

When they're not busy protecting tiny fishies or chasing companies into Arizona and Nevada, California greenies work on other fun projects, like banning plastic bags at the grocery store – and making us pay for the paper bags! And guess what – that red carpet the stars walk on? Now it's green!

Next: And speaking of the red carpet… what is wrong with those Hollywood people?

7. Tinseltown – just another company town, but their products blow

The L.A. Times says Los Angeles is an industry or company town, and the company is Hollywood. The folks who bring us our entertainment are a somewhat schizophrenic bunch. Every once in a while they produce something that soars, uplifts, provokes reflection, or at least provokes belly laughs. But far, far too often, they use their platform for illegitimate purposes.

The most obvious of these illicit purposes is to degrade our culture and attack traditional morality (especially that of Christians). The recent brouhaha over MTV's soft-porn teen show "Skins" is just the latest slide down the slope, and rest assured, we are already quite a ways downhill. Consider what is regularly consumed as entertainment in this country, by millions of Americans day in and day out (sigh):

The Girls Next Door – reality show about the girls who are dumb enough to live their lives as the plaything of the original dirty old man. Super yucky. (And recently debunked, right here at Newsreal Blog, as decidedly not glamourous, and dangerous to one's sexual and mental health.)

Toddlers and Tiaras – reality show about parents dumb enough to spend a lot of money dolling up their daughters like mini-whores, and then travel around the South encouraging them to "shake it" on stage for the purpose of winning a beauty pageant crown worth approximately $15.

Real Housewives of (fill in the blank) – reality show about wealthy, plastic surgicalized, shallow, vain, nasty, self-centered women and how they fight with each other.

Jersey Shore – reality show about… I don't know what it's about. I've never seen it. It looks horrifying.

And it's not like the "real" (scripted) shows are much better. You have the venerable Law & Order franchise, so full of itself that you can practically write the script yourself. The illegal aliens are never deported – the cops are too busy solving "real crime," which is never committed by gays or environmentalists or black people or lefties of any kind, but is always truly the fault of businessmen or religious people (mainly Christians. Muslims need not apply; they are needed to portray victims of hate crimes).

I have never seen an episode of the popular show House in which the wise, God-mocking doctor didn't uncover someone's wildly aberrant sexual behavior. The secret reason for the illness is never the super kinky secret that was discovered – that's just the titillating side story that would lead one to believe that basically everyone in the country is either sleeping with their own daughter, the dog, or dead people.

Comedies. No. The new sitcom Hot in Cleveland is a hot mess of tired sitcom storylines and way too much focus on the sex lives of its female characters, including 90-something Betty White. Yuck. Although if Hugh Hefner would go for her, at least he'd have somebody his own age. Now there's an idea for a (revolting) show.

Animated series? Another fail. The newest shows, like Bob's Burgers, make the previously-controversial Simpsons look like an episode of Little House on the Prairie.

In short, our company town, here in the entertainment capital of the world, is busily churning out garbage as our state's primary export. Now, if at the end of a long day, you want to sit on the couch with a brewski and watch some of this swill… well, it's a free country (for now). But if you hold to any belief system that involves God, morality, Christianity, traditional values, sexual abstinence outside marriage, personal responsibility, conservative politics, or voting Republican – you will be insulted. Oh, yes, you will.

Next: It's not enough to pull us into the sewer – Hollywood considers us backward morons, too…

6. Hollywood royalty show us the error of our small-minded ways

It's a rampant illness infecting California's "real" capital city (Hollywood): From the supremely annoying "The More You Know" campaign on NBC in which two-bit TV actors pontificate on all matters moral, to the hags of The View talk show who are always up for spreading both their stupidity and their bigotry… from grand pronouncements about life and meaning and the elegance of Obama from Actors Who Win Awards, to the sucker punch insults against conservatives that pepper our movies and television (speaking of which, see here for your warning about the next big condescending insult from the Left coming to you after you shell out perfectly good money to enjoy a movie, you fool!)

Anyway, this illness that infects personages both large and small in the Hollywood food chain – let's call it Self Delusional Narcissism Syndrome, aka Royalty Disorder. These folks think they are better than everyone else. They have apparently confused better looking (I'm not talking about you, Sean Penn) with smarter, more interesting, and more knowledgeable. None of which apply, my star-studded friends, to most of you.

But that doesn't stop them, does it, from opening their artificially-whitened teeth and blathering on about all things political and economic. Irony and hypocrisy abound. Mega-million dollar movie star Ben Affleck thinks CEO's shouldn't make so much money. Uh-huh. So the businessman who's put in 70-hour work weeks for 20 years doesn't deserve his salary, but you, Prince Ben, have earned the right to pull down seven figures for pretending (and not that convincingly) to be a bank robber. Shoot, my son did that when he was 5, and he was a whole lot cuter than you are when you're whining about corporate greed, while cashing big ol' checks from some of California's most illustrious entertainment conglomerates.

These people don't just think they're the royalty of California – they think they're the royalty of the world, and they've got the egos to prove it. For the most part, they're far too self-absorbed to even understand their own idiocy. Like the screenwriter of the hit movie The Social Network, who not only suffers from the aforementioned Royalty Disorder, but he's got a raging case of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) as well.

So, California is where these people do most of their dirty deeds. You're welcome, America!

Next: The Golden State's not so golden educational experiments…

5. California schools stink

As has been pointed out elsewhere, California is an ongoing laboratory experiment in leftism. You'd think the results, as horrendous as they are, would have called for some "changes in hypothesis," or even a new batch of research scientists. But no, here in CA we keep running the same experiments, over and over, to see if we can get new and better results! None so far, but we're nothing if not persistent!

Nowhere is this insanity more heartbreaking than in our state's public schools. They are a disgrace. And just like other school systems across the country that are entrenched in unions, massive financial waste and too many administrators, California's schools are a case study in failure. A couple of very recent examples should bring this home.

In inner-city Los Angeles, a high school dean is being investigated for possible involvement with child pornography. At the school, he handled discipline and safety issues (fox/henhouse). And note: This wasn't just a teacher. This was someone who had worked his way up the administrative ladder in the massive and pathetically-inadequate L.A. Unified School District.

Your (California) tax dollars at work!

In beautiful (not) Oakland, a teacher has been suspended due to the fact that two 2nd graders – SECOND GRADERS – engaged in oral sex in front of the other students in the classroom – WHILE THE TEACHER WAS PRESENT. (I know, that's a lot of CAPS, but don't you think they're warranted?)  I guess it's understandable that the teacher missed it. After all, teachers in Oakland are very, very busy – protesting banks with their fellow union members and ACORN (or the latest incarnation of it). They can't be bothered with things like teaching, or keeping 2nd graders from re-enacting porn movies. No sirree! That teacher was probably off in a corner reading something inspirational, like Dreams from My Father.

Your (California) tax dollars at work!

Next: You think K-12's bad…

4. California colleges stink too!

Let's leave elementary school behind, and go to college (which is more than those kids in Oakland will be able to do). Let's visit the vaunted University of California system, which used to be the pride of the state. These days, not so much, as it has become overrun with the very worst kind of leftists. But our example today involves a particularly sickening display of absolute disregard for free speech. It started when Muslim students rudely and repeatedly disrupted a speech by the Israeli ambassador. You really have to see the video to appreciate the level of disrespect shown here.

Now here's the kicker. The Orange County District Attorney is charging them with misdemeanor criminal charges for their behavior, which, as there is apparently a law against this type of malicious disruption, is understandable, since video shows them clearly breaking said law.

However, a hundred of UC Irvine's finest professorial minds have come together to protest the D.A.'s attempt to do his job. They want the D.A. to drop the charges, they say. Let the healing continue, they say (uh, what healing?). This sets a dangerous precedent, they say! After all, we can't have students, especially Muslim students, prosecuted for illegal acts, now can we?

Again – your (California) tax dollars at work!

Next: Welcome to California! Here's how to cheat the system…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who paid for this guide for illegals, anyway?

 

 

3. Illegals are ruining the state

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like every state which shares a border with Mexico, California is being overrun with illegals. Unlike every state which shares a border with Mexico, we welcome them with open arms. In fact, we pass out a pamphlet, in San Diego schools, showing (illegal) kids how to evade the immigration cops (they are, after all, the bad guys). This also has the added benefit of teaching all the children, including the American ones, that it's okay to try to circumvent laws that are capital B Bad (like immigration laws, of course!).

California carries a vastly disproportionate share of the nation's welfare recipients. There are a number of dysfunctional reasons for this, but the fact that we encourage illegals to park it here clearly isn't helping.

Just for fun, let's inject, right here, a note of sanity. Here's a look at how a state full of sane people handles the problem of illegal aliens: They deport them, solve their prison overcrowding issue, and save millions of dollars.

And to think our Hollywood people regularly mock the folks from Tennessee and surrounding states as backward hicks. Makes it pretty clear who's REALLY got everything all bass-ackwards, now doesn't it?

Next: Well, at least California's restrictive gun laws are saving lives…

2. California's restrictive gun laws are NOT saving lives

This is exactly what we keep trying to tell the lefties. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns. Or crazy people that the state is too incompetent to find and disarm. Like the Californian who shot his mom 16 times before going next door to kill the neighbor and her 4-year-old daughter. He wasn't supposed to have a gun. Oops. The New York Times article that tells the story, being, well, the New York Times and all, assumes that the problem is that the guy was EVER able to buy a gun, even before he "went crazy." But that's just because the NYT (and its little sister, the L.A. Times) are all bats**t crazy themselves over gun control.

Actually, California law enforcement might have plenty of time to find and disarm those who've been found mentally incompetent – if they weren't busy handing out $600 traffic tickets in an effort to balance bloated California government budgets on the backs of the poor taxpayers guilty of nothing worse than a California stop!

While we're on the subject of crime, it's good to know that California prisons have such tight security. Only one of the world's most notorious murderers has gotten caught with contraband – a cellphone – again. So if you get a call from Charles Manson, just hang up. Chatting will only encourage him, and clearly the prisons in California aren't equipped to curb this type of rule-breaking, so we'll all have to do our part.

Next: At last, the good news: Our new governor is serious about fixing the state!

1. The bad news: Our new governor is our old governor, and he messed it up last time, too

Ah, Governor Moonbeam. Always good for a headline, anyway. In this devastating critique of what's wrong with California, Victor Davis Hanson compares Jerry Brown to a modern-day Sisyphus – endlessly pushing an enormous rock uphill. But I submit that's an incomplete picture. Did Sisyphus forge his own giant rock? Because the Guv did, back when he gave public employees the right to unionize.

Now, Moonbeam thinks we need – to cut spending? Well, not really. We apparently need to raise more revenue first, because he's talking about retaining several tax increases that were supposed to expire this year (Californians, please remember this when politicians offer you a "temporary" tax hike – very rarely does it stay temporary without a big nasty fight.) He also thinks we might need to "tweak" Prop 13, the landmark proposition that won in a landslide, limiting the rate at which cities and counties could raise property taxes. Yeah… let's change THAT.

The 'Beamer's full of ideas! None of them appear to involve taking on the public sector unions that are bleeding the state dry, however. Of course, how could he cross those folks? They're the ones who got him elected, after all, spending kazillions of dollars and letting him pretend that Meg Whitman was the only one throwing around wads of cash.

===

So, we pictured California as dried-up skanky trailer trash. Columnist Austin Hill prefers to think of her, under the direction of Jerry Brown, as a spending addict:

"'Hi, I'm California, and I'm addicted to spending…' What a magnificent confession this would be, if only we could hear it collectively from our 31st state… I wish we could perform an 'intervention' – perhaps at the Betty Ford Center (which, conveniently, is in Palm Springs) – and get dear California some help. The last election provided an opportunity for California and the rest of America to admit that it had a problem, and then to begin working on its 'recovery.' And while a good bit of the country took the first couple steps… the Golden State chose to remain on its current course. 'I'm just a social spender,' our friend California seemed to be saying last fall. 'I could stop whenever I want, but I don't want to. I'm happy living this way, and I'm not hurting anybody, so quit hassling me.'"

As Hill points out, California is going further into debt to the tune of $40 million PER DAY just to cover the state's unemployment benefits. As Scotty used to say, "she can't hold on much longer."

Megan Fox summed it up this past week here on Newsreal Blog – it's time to bail out. Not California – us. Time to jump ship. Cut our losses. Find a place where people are committed to making the American dream work. So if you're still California dreamin' – this is your wake-up call. Things are bound to get a lot worse before they get better. Maybe one day we can come back and claim the redwoods and the sunshine and the coastline. For now… we've lost 'em.


Article printed from NewsReal Blog: http://www.newsrealblog.com

URL to article: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/17/top-9-reasons-california-sucks-1/

 



__._, 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The poor are not getting poorer

How do you put limits to what can be expected. As soon as you do
then you will have someone else saying he gets that why don't I. You
are trying to game the outcome without gaming the input. It all goes
back to what Maggie Thatcher said, "Socialism works well until you run
out of someone else's money." You are trying to game the system on
someone else's money or work or effort to learn so you can do more. The
whole idea of capitalism is that you are the decision maker on what you
will be able to do. It is strictly up to you and what you are willing
to put forth to get from where you are now to where you want to be. If
someone else does it for you, then you will not value the effort
required and will just keep wanting more. You are like a baby chick
waiting for mommy and daddy bird to come feed you.

On 02/17/2011 07:21 PM, Wes wrote:
> think of these things like cars and insurance as acreage of land.
> should i work for you for less land than i need to survive? should you
> morrally want me to? How many acres does Wal-Mart need before they can
> say "everyone working for me get's a good piece of land (some more)"?
>
> On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, BB47<mde...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 3:46 pm, Wes<wesleykell...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody should be expected to work and not afford a car (plus repairs),
>>> rent, health insurance, retirement and also little things that make
>>> life worthwhile (Cable TV could be one). Why do you want to pay people
>>> less than they need, you can't or you won't? you always act like their
>>> friends till it comes to payday then you're more of a rapist.
>> Just picture a world filled with YOUs. Everyone complaining to each
>> other that you should buy the other a car and everything else on your
>> list. Think about that for a little while. Spend some time
>> surrounded by multiple yous'
>> Insane isn't it?
>>
>> What you fail to see is that all that stuff you ask for costs WAY more
>> than you "put in" at a low end job.
>> Therefore you are forcing someone else to buy it for you with THEIR
>> work. Can you see how unfair that is?
>> It is mathematically impossible to make your scenario work.
>>
>> You act like all those things are your right! Just by being born
>> and able to say "welcome to Walmart" gets you a car, retirement,
>> health care, cable TV, repairs, the whole life? (which costs hundreds
>> of thousands of dollars)
>> How can you think that? That is just crazy. Somebody had to earn that
>> money. Somebody that did everything way better than you did and your
>> low skill job. You don't deserve their hard work.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Truth:

>
>Socialism and Capitalism are the same thing only the volume is turned
>up more on one side and less on the other.

Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their
private property without outside interference.

>Gov't's job is to
>facilitate good and punish wrong.

Who determines what is 'good' and what is 'wrong'?
From WHENCE is such derived?


>Gov't should see to it that people
>can win for their own team but punish them if they don't provide for
>their own team members because that leads to Socialism which doesn't
>work.

People wanting to dictate what others do with their property AND/OR
interfere with their use of said property ... using FORCE to
accomplish such *IS* socialism.

Regard$,
--MJ

There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from
interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the
entire management of production and distribution to the
government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle
way. -- Ludwig von Mises

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.