Entitlements - what's so bad about them?

What I'm missing is the progressive's mindset.I was raised out in the hills, where people tended to take care of themselves. Many who are criticizing me were raised in cities and expect others to take care of them.I believe in working and paying my own way. Many who are criticizing me believe they are entitled to take from me and give to others.And if I simplify these comments it is to make a point. Of course there are shades of gray. But the bottom line is that progressives and other socialists feel that they are justified in expropriating wealth from the productive to give to others--its only fair, they say. But where do they draw the line? Where does their envy--and often outright hatred--of the productive stop?Just look at the comments above. They are going to "allow" the rich to keep a small part of their wealth--those folks don't need it all anyway! What nerve!As I noted above, a rising tide lifts all boats, but that's not what communism and the extreme forms of socialism do. They end up lowering all boats until they are all mired in the mud. Everybody except the rulers is dirt poor.If you make it harder and harder to be productive, what do you think will happen? Human nature kicks in. All the progressives and their wishful thinking can't repeal the laws of human nature, although they try to convince themselves that they can. If you make it too hard to be productive, people will stop being productive. Then from whom will you expropriate the wealth you are so eager to take so you can give it away?

The main difference of opinion here seems to revolve around who is "productive". You seem to equate owning vast wealth with being the most peesonally productive. But of course this is patently flawed.If the most productive people stopped producing as you keep hinting at it isnt the rich that would dissappear. Its the rich that would be wondering where all those they depend upon had dissappeared to....And you obviously have no example of anywhere that has ever successfully implemented the economic system you advocate. Which makes your advocacy an act of faith...

You should try it, basing concepts on rational thinking instead of old dead dogma. (a) I don't see any conflict there, and (b) what matters is how the constitution is interpreted by the current day politics ... else we would still have slavery, and only white male land owning men could vote. But having a level playing field is both a right and (thus) an entitlement, what you do from that point is what you achieve. Getting just treatment is also both a right and (thus) an entitlement. Basic human rights exist regardless of what the constitution or any law says. And some 75% of Americans, liberal and conservative support a living minimum wage, and we are seeing more and more people in favor of the new healthcare system (growing every day). Most people support equal wages for men and women, and virtually everyone wants to see income tax reform with closing of the loopholes and restoration of a just rate for everyone. Creationists tend to be conservative so that skews the rest of the population making non-creationists mostly liberal by default. Liberal and conservative are relative terms so the dividing line is 50-50 split with where the line is drawn moving. if 10% of the conservatives are creationists that leaves a majority of non-creationists being liberal. Not all conservatives are creationists.But one thing I think he is missing is that progressive liberals are not like he portrays them to be -- he is fighting a (common conservative) false image, and in that he is similar to your kind of creationist conservative. When the only places your vision of government lives is within Ayn Rand and Heinlein books (all fiction) you should do some critical thinking about the basis of those beliefs. Imho. Republican economic policies have been and continue to be abject failures.And if you truly want smaller government get rid of the military-industrial complex and stop subsidizing big corporations.Edited by RAZD, : ..

When do we get OUR money back from the CEO's and bankers we bailed out - to the tune of $700 billion - when does that get returned to the tax payers?When do the CEO's at AIG, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan or Morgan Stanley give the tax payers back the money they used for bonuses?How can you complain about the poor needing help, and taxing the top 1% for it, when your taxes were used to buy expensive cars, houses and boats by cock suckers who manipulated a system and destroyed the lives of many citizens?Why is it a hand out, or welfare, when poor people need it, but a bailout when rich people need it? Apparently we just bail them out as soon as they fail to be productive. Can I just have MY wealth back? Can we get our wealth, the apparent $700 billion that we had extra just laying around to help rich people when their incompetence risks our economic collapse?Can we just get that back? Btw, my share can go to a poor family, that way your rich friends don't have to be bothered.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I'll say. If someone were to ask me whether a highly paid archaeologist is more productive than a slightly above average high school math teacher or a girls' track coach, I would surely have some sorting out to do. I'd probably come down on the side of one of the folks having a direct impact on my daughter.I was watching old 'The Young Turks' on You Tube last week and they played a clip of some Fox guy ranting and raving about how some Obama policy was going to result in stopping businesses from labeling ordinary workers as 'managers' so they could avoid having to pay the workers overtime. In my mind, this guy is advocating stealing from workers, but apparently the Boss is the producer, and the manager off the deep fat fryer is just a non-productive layabout. Now explain the mindset that 'promotes' a guy to manager then calls him non-productive all in the same gestalt. Because I cannot do it without lots of invective.I appreciate reading Coyote's viewpoint, but it just reminds me that there is more than one kind of way to feel 'entitled'.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Allow me to rephrase that: Many of us were raised in societies where we expect to take care of each other.

I have to echo ringo's sentiment, as someone who grew up in Canada. I grew up in a very rural area in a small town of 15,000 people. Hardly a booming metropolis. And yet I still believe in the notion of a cohesive society where we all partake in helping one another.

The flaw here is that many, many people without jobs want jobs but there are none.In the UK today there are many, many well educated graduates looking for work but as of the down turn in the economy there are no jobs.I may have missed something but you point seems to rely on there being a choice of whether to work or going on the dole.

Really, Coyote,Is there no limit to your greed for seizing the assets of others?Are there no limits to the excuses you can come up with to justify seizing the assets of others?But you should ask yourself, "What happens when there are no more assets to seize?"Your whole system of existence requires someone who is productive from whom you can expropriate wealth. What happens when those productive individuals decide not to play your game any longer? What do you do then?Really...Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Well you clearly don't understand you heartless monster, there is a clear difference, poor people clearly dont need money they get along fine without it just look at the statistics there are more and more of them every day. But rich people need the money can you imagine if the Koch brothers had to sell their mansions and live in a flat, what it would do to their psyche. Can you imagine the horror of them cooking their own coffee in the morning and the horror and the humiliation it would cause them you heartless monster.That is the clear difference i hope you can see it now and mend your ways.

Back in the day at least 50% of the population where farmers the further back you go the higher that % was. Farmers where the poor people and they could feed themselves the rest was usually taken away as tax so they dint get any bright ideas, the rest did other stuff to make a living.Trough innovation only 2% of the population was roughly needed to farm. Freeing up the 48% to work in factories, as secretaries, and it was good because there where jobs available the more companies grew the more workers where needed, and good food and medicine supplied that workforce as humanities population tripled, do you know how many secretaries where needed in a company to keep up with the demands of copying documents by hand and stuff like that tones. but then we invented the PC, suddenly a single secretary could do the work of 50, we invented robotics no longer do we need a man with a welder to build the framework of a car a robot can do it. Sure some new job typs opened like programming but those markets are cornered and standardised. So we are left with a huge workforce, an abundance of products but no jobs. And in the future there will be less and less jobs available, as we increase productivity trough robotics and computers. Capitalism cant function like this because it does not matter how cheaply and in what humongous quantity you produce the goods if no one has any money to spend on them. So the money stops flowing we bail out the rich so they can keep the money flowing but its a temporary measure, cause the companies downsized again but i doubt any productivity was lost so hurray for them right, but its just adding fuel to the fire soon im talking a few years there will be another financial crisis and again we will bail out the rich to keep the money flowing, again they will downsize, and it will happen again and again quicker and quicker till it cant happen any more. Or people will wise up and change the system as capitalism cant work under these conditions.

But is is already 'kicked in'. Those wealth creators create wealth for themselves. When a corporation takes a down turn and the company is streamlined is it the Board of Directors who get the sack?No. It's a swathe of workers at the coal face. This is why the financial elite get richer even an economic down turn.

Its called a Circle Jerk.

You've bolstered Coyote's case immeasurably.

Well, it's simple enough.* If you spend a lifetime paying into Social Security, you expect something back.* If you didn't get something back, you'd feel swindled by the government.* If, conversely, you get something back, then you won't feel swindled.* If you don't feel swindled, maybe you won't hate the government.* If you don't hate the government, you're a Communist.* Communism is bad.