Turley-Hansen: Dependency a form of enslavement
Linda Turley-Hansen
East Valley resident Linda Turley-Hansen (turleyhansen@gmail.com) is a syndicated columnist and former Phoenix veteran TV anchor.
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
42 comments:
Rules of Conduct
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
chatmandu002 posted at 9:30 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
How ironic that our first black president is economically "enslaving" so many of our citizens. He strives to enlarge the government and usurp our personal responsibilities with big government bounty. He then drives a wedge between those that are successful and those that he claims are victims of this success. While calling for those who are successful to pay an "extra larger share of fairness" to help extend the reach and control of his government.
downtownresident posted at 9:46 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
Linda, Linda, Linda.
Right down the Mormon Party line, just like a good little girl.
Why not ask Olivia Cortez how she feels about being used by Russell Pearce?
You are advocating that women subjugate themselves to the cult of Mormonism and the Tea party?
You are so incredibly out of touch with reality that I feel sorry for you.
Speaking of hypocrites, how about the cult's pandering to politics by NOW AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, declaring that caffeine is a fine thing. Just in time for Mitt to declare that Mormons are "normal" after all.
Never mind the wives, underware and golden planets in their future.
I'd rather be a Pagan!
Mike McClellan posted at 10:07 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
I can't decide if Ms. Turley-Hansen is blissfully unaware or hopes her readers are. Either way, she begins her column with this nugget:
"Of course, there are some who believe government should manage citizen’s lives from office to kitchen to bedroom. "
Hmmm . . . kind of like Ms. Turley-Hansen, who's argued against gay marriage and abortion except in the case of the mother's life.
Then she actually cites a blog to prove the canard of the death panel -- if you read the blog, it cites a Q and A between Chris Wallace and Obamaite Robert Gibbs about Medicare. No where in there do you hear of death panels, except in how Wallace tries to describe a group of doctors charged with more efficiencies as "bureaucrats."
Then she writes another winner: "Women must understand what happens when they hook their children and senior parents to government programs and make welfare a way of life."
You mean, Ms. Hansen, like Social Security or Medicare? Those "welfare" programs that almost all "senior parents" are hooked to?
Nowhere in her column does she prove her final comment, that President Obama is selling the country "dependency." But that's no matter for Ms. Turley-Hansen. In her blissful state of ignorance or mendacity, she thinks she made that point.
She blissfully ignores the Republican policies of the last decade that have led to folks becoming more dependent upon government, she ignores the fact that as taxes on the wealthiest are at an all time low, the disparity between the rich and the rest of us is at an all time high, she ignores that the trickle down theory of Republicans is just as mythological as her death panels are.
In the Alice in Wonderland World of today's Republicans, where more safety equals more guns, where the amount of ammunition in a gun clip or magazine should not be limited, of course Ms. Turley-Hansen's views make sense.
To the rest of us, though, it's frightening.
Cerulean posted at 10:07 am on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
Nothing 'ironic' about it chatmandu. Most U.S. citizens who receive welfare are white, poor, and they live in every small town across the United States. Page, Winslow, Safford, you name it not one small town in Arizona can support the entire population with a living job. It is not enslavement, it is food on the table for those that the corporate kookocracy does not, and cannot serve.
Cerulean posted at 12:14 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
Women’s contraceptives are not “free”. She pays for them when she pays for her insurance coverage. Shame on you Linda Turley-Hansen, shame on you.
samkat posted at 12:41 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
cerulean: I assume you have the figures to back up your assertion that most people on welfare are white. I sense a tad bit of racial bias in your statement.
Mike: You were doing okay until you started ranting about guns.
chatmandu002 posted at 1:31 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
Cerulean,
You are right that most welfare recieptents are white. But welfare programs have established a generational aspect, irregardless of race or location, of a never ending welfare system that has taken away the recieptent's personal responsibility to provide for themselves or their families thus making them economic slaves to a dependency on governmental support. I'm not surprised that liberals/progressives can't see the irony in anything, they also refuse to see the reality around them.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:02 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
samkat, you're darn right I went on a rant about the Republican plan to make unlimited clips and magazines for guns. Do YOU think there should be no limits on the size of clips and magazines? Do YOU think that's a sensible position?
So, Chat, what's YOUR solution? X number of weeks and then cut off all support? Survival of the fittest? What would you do?
chatmandu002 posted at 5:01 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
Mike,
There is no easy solutions but a start could be to reduce welfare benefits by 5-10% and maybe impose some time limits. Welfare should not afford a comfortable substance. The insidious part of unrestricted welfare is the destruction of the human spirit.
Cerulean posted at 5:15 pm on Sun, Sep 2, 2012.
Does Mitt now favor Folgers over Postum?
samkat, A lot depends on how one defines welfare. I copied this info from a website; “Among the poorest of the poor--single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients.” (Forgive me, I’ve lost the link.) If you add other benefits like Medicare and Social Security, the rates jump dramatically to favor white populations.
chatmandu, Maybe the message should be fewer children. What if Republicans, rather than berate women for appreciating better access to birth control, extolled the wisdom of women and cautioned against unsustainable human populations? Would that be the ultimate in personal responsibility? I happen to believe overpopulation is “the bigger picture”.
Bingo6 posted at 6:24 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.
....here we go Obama death panels, sorry "Suzy Creamcheese" we already have death panels, their called health insurance companies, you don't have enough, you don't have any you die.
wdgnas posted at 7:09 am on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.
linda, you forgot to mention the welfare cheats that took their money and didn't create any jobs.
mrconservative posted at 11:06 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.
downtownresident - first of all, the LDS Church is NOT a cult, despite what liberals might have told you. We are a religion of Christ, and we HEP other people without thought of any reward.
Secondly, Linda speaks the truth. Who WANTS to be dependent on government? I would have thought it was shameful. Not being able to take care of oneself is very shameful.
Thirdly, Mrs Turley-Hansen is merely telling the truth. Either accept it or get over it.
mrconservative posted at 11:07 pm on Mon, Sep 3, 2012.
Okay, the second and third things are the same thing. Just overlook it.
fae4now posted at 12:54 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.
Mrconservative,
Please refer above to Cerulean's 2nd comment. Asking for contraception to be covered by health insurance which is PAID for by the consumer creates a consumer demand driven market, not a lifelong dependency on government handouts. It is akin to expecting your insurance company to cover insulin or high blood pressure meds or an antibiotic or Viagra ( which they cover voluntarily!)
The fact the government put the requirement into law for insurance providers to include it in no way diminishes a woman's "God-given independence" as Linda puts it.
I tend to agree with Mr. McClellan - old' Linda is blissfully unaware of the facts.
mrconservative posted at 8:11 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.
I am not paying for some woman to slaughter her own child! I WON'T do it! Never ever ever ever ever ever!!!!!!!!
mrconservative posted at 8:12 am on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.
And I don't think anyone else should have to if they don't want to!!!!!!!
mrconservative posted at 1:53 pm on Tue, Sep 4, 2012.
Um, I DO, Mr. Enraged. I have four younger siblings! I've been around little kids my entire life! If I haven't made it clear before, I will do it now: I LOVE young children. ALL of them. I have several cousinbs who have children of their own, and I love being around them!
DON't call me an ignorant bigot again, you mooncalf.
mnjcpa posted at 8:02 am on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.
I have a client with a chain of convenience stores, many of which are in poor, disadvantaged areas of population.
His biggest problem in running his business? He can't find enough people to work full-time, because they tell him that if they do it cuts in to their food stamps, family credits, child credits, and whatever else government sinkhole program that prevents them from working too many hours.
I've seen too many instances of cases just like this that has convinced me that our culture is rotten to the core - brought on primarily by liberal policies.
Engaged Voter posted at 3:56 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.
"I LOVE young children. ALL of them"
Your words, not mine...
fae4now posted at 6:07 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.
Mrconservative,
No one has asked you to pay for the slaughter of children. You seem to lack a basic understanding of what contraception is. Do you need help? Need I explain that contraception is used to AVOID the occurrence of pregnancy?
So you love all the little children. Does that include the ones brought here by their parents from Mexico? Or the ones whose cries of abuse, neglect and rape are ignored by the MCSO? And how many children have you fostered or adopted from the less fortunate care of the state? Surely you don't mind your tax dollars being spent to house, feed, educate, clothe or attend to their medical needs! Do tell us.
I suspect that Engaged is correct. You likely care very little for life beyond the womb.
And likely Engaged is also correct in referring to you as an ignorant bigot! I certainly don't mind saying so.
fae4now posted at 6:08 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.
Mnjcpa,
You didn't mention what
fae4now posted at 6:16 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.
Oops! My finger slipped!
Mnjcpa,
You didn't mention what your client was offering to pay the full time workers at his convenience store.
If it was enough to make ends meet without needing further assistance from the government I dare say that some might make a different choice.
What's wrong with the economy isn't that people don't want to work but that they want to earn a LIVING - wage that is.
onerebel posted at 8:29 pm on Wed, Sep 5, 2012.
Why do Liberal Environmentalists tell us not to give wild animals handouts because they become dependent and can no longer feed themselves, yet the same Liberals say that we need to give people handouts making them dependent. What's the difference? Oh that's right, animals can't vote Democrat!
mnjcpa posted at 7:59 am on Thu, Sep 6, 2012.
hi fae4now -
one rebel is spot on.
The issue is that liberal democrats have generated a group of people that thinks it's perfectly okay to do nothing.
My client pays people a fair wage and benefits for the type of job offered. The point is the government has created a culture where people are encouraged to do nothing which has destroyed our system.
Just because someone shows up to work doesn't mean that business owner should make you wealthy. You've got to do your part to increase your skills and education - all that's freely available to everyone. That business owner has something that worker doesn't have - which is risk.
fae4now posted at 11:05 pm on Thu, Sep 6, 2012.
Mnjcpa,
Onerebel seldom, if ever, expresses a view containing anything but venemous contempt for others and a self righteous (and self imagined I might add!) superiority. His need to negatively label every view that doesn't support his is not a quality I admire.
I don't suppose I would associate with his sort in the 'real' world, thus I don't find him worthy of reply here either.
Moral of the story? Be cautious of whose horse you hitch your wagon to.
As for your comment, I imagine that a "fair wage and benefits for the type of job" , a convenience store clerk, is minimum wage with little vacation and likely no benefits at all. Which means the worker will earn around 16k per year.
You suggest that it is the workers' responsibility to improve his skills and education and I would agree in general. However, this worker will probably need a second job just to keep a roof over his head which will limit his educational opportunities, will struggle with transportation to and from jobs because 16k doesn't buy a reliable vehicle, won't be able to afford tuition or student loan repayment on those wages and if he asks for government assistance for tuition you'll be right there calling him a government dependent deadbeat looking for a handout!
So I argue that the creation of a 'no win' situation causes the worker to give up and therein lies the creation of dependency. Unless of course the worker happens to have millionaire parents to borrow from aka the Romney solution.
No one said the worker expects the business owner to make him wealthy. That bit of exaggeration was yours.(shame on you) But by the same token just because the business owner chose to take a risk doesn't entitle him to wealth or obligate workers to sacrifice a living wage in order for him to become wealthy.
mnjcpa posted at 9:54 am on Fri, Sep 7, 2012.
Okay fae4now.
I grew up in a small, impoverished town. Worked three jobs to put myself through school and used government loans and paid every penny back. If I could do it, anyone can.
But the big difference between me and the people I'm referring to that my client is dealing with there is a world of difference in attitudes. I've witnessed these people discussing the issue with my client and I can assure you that personal responsibility does not come in to the equation on making their decision whether to work or not.
It's a malaise fae - caused COMPLETELY by liberal policies that have corrupted many Americans - not their ability to get to work or getting education. These same people are using their food stamps to buy their groceries AT the convenience store, which causes their food costs to be 3-4 x what they should be. It's a disease.
It's not an exaggeration that many American's think business should pay their way. Why else would someone think it's perfectly okay to retire in their early 50's (labor unions) so someone else pays their way? I work closely with very successful businesses, and I can assure you the last thing they think about is hurting their employees. Many I work with have sacrificed their own personal savings in this disastrous Obama economy to assure those workers aren't laid off. But in return for the risk they take, you bet they should become wealthy for the risk that they take. And that doesn't mean they should pay people for what the skill and education is within the job. Why else would you roll out that tired snarky comment about Romney? People like yourself resent success, regardless of how difficult that path was to achieve that success.
Obama's plan is to raise taxes 60% in January on businesses - which is already the highest tax rate in the world. What do you suspect will happen with unemployment? Reelect this incompetent, and count on millions more being added to that dependent class.
mnjcpa posted at 11:54 am on Fri, Sep 7, 2012.
Another way of saying it fae4now is this. The issue is when close to 50% of the population pay zero income tax at all why should someone that pays nothing at all call the shots as to what is fair? What is their `fair share` when they benefit completely from the American system and pay nothing? The world’s upside down.
Granted, it's a broad generalization but many of these people are not in `poverty` as I know it. They still have their cell phones, eat, have a roof over their head, and televisions. Many aren't even here legally and enjoy all the benefits of America even getting money from US taxpayers without any income. How is that fair? And why should the relatively smaller and smaller group pay more and more for these people's benefit?
I'll tell you what's not fair.
The small business owners that are paying for this abysmal Obama economy. They put their personal money on the line to make payroll for their employees without any guarantee of a return. Or seeing their real estate or 401(k)'s drop by 50% because company's profits have been decimated. These people are the disenfranchised - the small business owners of America that employ over 90% of the employees in America. They're grouped in with Wall Street firms as `rich` because their income is within that dreaded $250k category but they're not Wall Street firms. They're families that own farms, chains of restaurants, or dry cleaners. They're the abused not the person that’s gaming the system. And I believe there are plenty of people thanks to liberalism.
If you've never experienced it, you're not going to understand. But it's why I'm as vocal as I am this election because Obama must be replaced to turn this bus around. Otherwise, I'm convinced, next stop is Greece.
I feel fortunate to help the helpless. But the last thing I would do is to help the clueless.
fae4now posted at 12:04 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
Mnj,
Your comments go in so many directions that I find it nearly impossible to address them all in this limited space. Let me choose just a couple.
1) My comment about Romney WAS added for sarcastic value but more importantly HE WAS SERIOUS! This was his idea of a solution! Seriously????
2) You accuse me of resenting success. Actually I resent the notion that one's success must come at another's expense. I believe in equal opportunity - that the poor kid should have a chance to go to college just like the rich kid.
While I appreciate your story of working 3 jobs while going to school (not sure when you slept!) the reality is that tuition costs and interest on student loans have risen dramatically since then while wages have downsized. And the quality of jobs available after graduation leave the former student ill-equipped to repay those loans or to set aside funds to risk on starting a business of their own. In other words, what you did you probably couldn't do it in today's environment! Surely we must agree that times have changed.
And that erodes our nation and our economy because you are absolutely correct if you believe that America relies on small business for jobs and economic well being. That is what is really meant by leveling the playing field. Not giving people a chance to sit home and do nothing but a chance to get out there and make a contribution.
Meanwhile, I accuse you of resenting those less fortunate (poor people shouldn't be allowed to have TVs by gosh!) Or perhaps you resent those more fortunate (those people who get to retire in their 50's should be shot!)
Your generalizations are absurd.
Cases in point: My Grandparents raised 6 daughters in a 2 bedroom bungalow. They lived through the Depression and never had much. But....they did have a TV... And a telephone.
[smile]
My sister retired at 54 from a management position in a large NON UNION corporation. She has an MBA , no children and didn't marry until she was 42. She devoted herself to her career and invested well and lives comfortably. GOOD for her!
mnjcpa posted at 2:56 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
Sorry you can't track with my comments, but I was responding to your comments and discussing why I thought the article was spot on about the `dependent` class.
1) I have no idea what you're talking about with Romney believing what? Other than your snarky comment about where he got his money is just another tired cliche served up by the liberal media. You have no idea how hard he worked, for how many years, how much of his personal money was at risk. None of these pesky details matter to a liberal. Only that he achieved success, and therefore should pass it around. B#S!
2) As I said before I feel privileged to help the helpless. But I absolutely resent taking my hard earned dollars or those of my clients to help the clueless.
I could illustrate that point in multiple stories that would fill this column but there's a malaise in America today that encourages dependency on the government.
3) Our generalizations communicate our beliefs, yours included. I see it that everyone in America has the same opportunity that I had. Some choose to take that path, others are lazy.
I will say you hit the nail on the head when you stated that you don't resent success - but you do when it's at the expense of other people. That's the problem fae in a nutshell. What makes you or the Democrat party the determiner of whether someone is `fair` or not?
When close to 50% of America pay ZERO income tax, and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, how is it this group call the shots on what's fair and what's not?
It's an upside down world. Hopefully November will bring it right side up again.
fae4now posted at 6:34 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
Mnj,
Let me clarify- I have no problem tracking your comments.
But i find your 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach leaves me with a 'where do I begin?' sentiment in attempting to respond.
Let's start with your cries of "close to 50% of America pay ZERO income tax" which I have called you out on before and you have freely admitted that you don't know who they are yet you continue to rage about it. Why? Do you consider stay at home moms, seniors, the disabled or students a bunch of deadbeats? A burden on tax paying society? Lazy? You continue to carry on about them as though they are.
Consider this: back when I grew up most Moms didn't work outside the home and families were larger. I suspect that the number of non-income earners and thus non-tax payers was much LARGER than it is now. Someone else is supporting them- not you.
As for the Romney comment I suggest you Google "Romney ask your parents" and choose your own source to review his comment. You'll see it was not of MY creation.
I never claimed to be the determiner of what is fair. You'll have to explain for yourself.
But I will say this much. Taking a risk as you well know does not guarantee success. That's why they call it risk! And a majority of new businesses fail.
Your clients who choose to pay their employees even when they can't afford pay themselves do so because they know that their employees are their greatest asset and their best chance of achieving the wealth they hope for. If the employees don't get paid they don't come to work. The ship sinks. Contrary to what some may claim, those owners know they can't do it all by themselves.
mnjcpa posted at 9:15 am on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Okay fae now it's me that's confused on what you're thinking.
You can feel all proud about calling me out about what? The close to 50% of the people that pay ZERO tax? Because that fact is true. That I don't know these people's personal name and address because that' and who they are are irrelevant to the debate.
What is relevant is that they live in America and enjoy ALL of the American system - yet pay NOTHING for it. And yet the tone of the debate today is from the have's versus the have not's. So my point was, how is that someone that pays NOTHING for the benefits that they receive have ANY say in the matter? And that's where I believe the world is upside down.
My entire discussion about businesses and their employees is that it often flows in to the framework of paying people what's fair - or worse yet - those evil businesses! Until you've owned one you would never know the type of risk these people take every single day. I listened to the `you didn't build that` speech multiple times to make sure I heard it right. Yeah, I heard it right but what would I expect from someone on his first job?
These are the people that need to be protected instead of vilified which the Obama administration has done a superb job doing. Not the guy that games the system like my convenience store owner experiences with employees.
mnjcpa posted at 9:41 am on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Here's a simpler way to say it: `Paying zero percent is NOT paying your fair share.`
Obama has encouraged a system where more and more people are at the trough of dependency on the government. It's a mental illness fae.
fae4now posted at 3:29 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Mnj,
WHO the 50% are is VERY relevant.
According to the latest census numbers:
~ 23.7% of our population is under the age of 18
~ 13.3% of our population is over the age of 65
Are you then complaining that it's not fair that children and seniors ( 37% of America) aren't in the workforce and paying income taxes? Boo hoo..... It's always been like that.
Average number of people per household? 2.59 meaning that the breadwinner is supporting other members of the household.
What's your solution? Should we tax babies and stay at home Moms because you don't think it's fair?
Only 13.8% of our population lives below the poverty mark and likely pay no income taxes. Perhaps you'd like to trade places with them so you wouldn't have to pay taxes either? I think they have bigger worries like food and shelter. And I'm sure they'd be happy to have a your larger income on which to pay taxes.
You see, when you actually think about it 50% is about right.
So knock off the hysterical, inflammatory theatrics already or i shall be forced to call you out on it at every turn.
And p.s. I'd be very interested in any supporting evidence you can provide of your claim that the POTUS has "encouraged a system where more and more people are at the trough of dependency". Show me the speech, interview, policy etc. Please do.
mnjcpa posted at 4:09 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
I'll ignore your need to dictate communication when in fact you're the one that's using inflammatory language. It's really pretty simple fae. Our world views are ivery different.
Over the course of 4 years I've seen numerous policy decisions and communications from the Obama administration that tell me that he has openly declared war on those who have worked hard all of their lives to achieve the American dream at the same time rewarding those more slavishly to be dependent on the government. Can you say Greece here we come?
What fact do you need? From 16 million more on food stamps, 60% tax increases on businesses in January, to every point in Linda's article you'd have to be living on an alien planet not to observe this tragedy.
I like the idea of gutting the tax system altogether removing ALL loopholes.
fae4now posted at 7:52 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Mnj,
Our world views may be very different but facts, real hard solid facts are the same for everyone.
IF there are 16 million more receiving food stamps, and that's a dubious IF since you don't mention a verifiable source for your information, that is our government responding to it's people in a time of high unemployment and suppressed wages, not necessarily a reflection of what our President really wants. It is preposterous to imagine that the President really wants the outsourced IT professional who used to earn 65-75k now working for minimum wage at WalMart. Is that your world view?
But the company he used to work for found they could reap greater profits by outsourcing and letting the government pick up the slack.
Here's a verifiable FACT lifted from former POTUS Clinton's speech, FACT checked by numerous sources and deemed accurate:
During the period 1961 to present Democrats have held the White House for 24 years, Republicans 28 years. Job creation during that period - 42 million jobs created during (not by) Democrat administrations vs. 24 million jobs under Repubs.
Does that support your government dependency theory? I didn't think so.
Don't suppose you have considered that a minimum wage earner employed full time with no health care benefits by your convenience store owner client can STILL qualify for government assistance. The money your client saves in wages and benefits winds up on the 'profit' side of HIS balance sheet and he laughs all the way to the bank while YOU, the taxpayer who defends him, picks up the tab for his employee's government help.
Kind of explains how, over the last 30+ years under both Dems and Repubs, corporate profits and the wealth of the 1% have soared while worker wages have diminished. You choose to blame the government for feeding people or not letting them die when they are injured/Ill or the WORKER who is in fact WORKING and paying taxes. I choose to blame those who stuck the profits in off-shore accounts while sticking YOU and me and every middle class tax-payer with the tab.
Sorry but I can't even respond to Linda's original column. That woman needs psychiatric help if she believes that allowing a womans health insurance to cover birth control will somehow cause her to become enslaved to the government. I guess all the men who are getting their Viagra covered by their insurance plans are already government dependent slaves then. Huh? Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs = Linda's world view.
mnjcpa posted at 9:24 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
What you don't realize is we actually agree but you don't realize it. First, you assume I'm Republican when I'm really an independent. And I'm the first to offer that Republicans are equally to blame. The method we get there is what differs.
When someone uses the term 1% I think who you mean is the Wall Street guys & the large banks. Right? Because if that's so I completely agree.
Govt. policies give the value destroyers on Wall Street a free pass, while Main Streeters who actually create value get creamed. Examples of things that benefit Wall St. over Main St.: a weak dollar; high export subsidies; low interest rates; a corporate tax code that benefits multinationals.
The problem is the 1% also includes me and my clients - the main streeters who are being taken advantage of while the Goldman Sachs profit extraordinarily regardless of who's in office. Pick up 'Bought & Paid For' the story of how Wall Street bought Obama's 2008 election. Sound upside down since Wall Street is Obama's favorite punching bag? Did for me too until you put the pieces together such as the enormous profit Goldman Sachs has had under Obama's term.
So you see I'm for the little guy too, but it's the small business owner that I'm especially honored to protect.
fae4now posted at 12:51 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
Mnj,
Glad to see you found your way to the middle ground. That's the place where things get accomplished, not so much when everyone digs their heels in.[sad]
My support of the little guy worker stems from recent history (20-30 years) where businesses large and small have slashed jobs and benefits while demanding greater productivity from those they still employ at diminished wages as they cry poor but still manage to report record earnings.
Of course we can argue that the individual worker can strive to improve his lot but overall we still need those little guy workers, and a lot of them!- the bank teller, grocery cashier, trash collector etc. to make our communities function so SOMEONE will always be the little guy.
If these little guys can't earn (and they do work for it!) a decent living how will they ever hope to improve their lot? Plan for retirement without SSI? Start a business?
The picture is much broader than just risk. Three things must occur to create profit/wealth for the business owner: sound decisions from the business leader, worker productivity and consumer demand for the product.
Like it or not, one of the main focuses of unions has been to see to it that big business shared some of the rewards with workers so they too could have a decent, not wealthy, living. Without that watchdog role business owners stuff profits into their own pockets at the expense of others- his workers and the taxpayer alike.
I will consider you book recommendation, thank you. That it was written by a FOX news contributor makes me admittedly skeptical.
FYI I too am a registered independent but I won't pretend that I don't lean to the left.
If I had to guess I would have put you in the TEA Party! You do tend to align yourself with some of their exaggerated views. I do concede that it is not my place to 'dictate communication' as you put it, but you may wish to consider fine tuning your position.
Since I enjoy cooking let me use a kitchen metaphor - one well sharpened knife is better than 12 dull ones.
Have a great week.
mnjcpa posted at 1:43 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
Great discussion fae........thank you.
mnjcpa posted at 1:57 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
Thanks fae.
Again the businesses that you're speaking of are BIG businesses. They are not main street America and they can't even come close to being compared. These people are the ones getting creamed and it will be horrific for them if Obama is reelected.
So we're really still in agreement. Please do read the book because you need to really see that Obama isn't the man of the people guy that he claims to be. Whether the author is a Fox contributor or not, that doesn't make him a liar - the facts in the book stand up.
downtownresident posted at 1:32 pm on Wed, Sep 12, 2012.
mrconservative,
Sorry, but you are wrong. It seems that you have been brainwashed by your "religous" leaders.
It not only is a cult, but it is a cult started by someone obviously on drugs when he started it. Weren't there already enough perfectly good saints/dieties/prophets or whatever was invented by #1 Mormon to worship?
It seems to me that the Mormon "Church" does a splended job of telling you all what to think and waht to do.
Have a Coke/Pepsi on me, and convince me that that change in policy is not politically motivated.
timdlittle posted at 2:16 pm on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.
You want to know what enslavement is? junk wages and no benefits for doing a hard days job. Enslavement is getting a payroll tax on those very low wages. Enslavement is having to ask for benefits that are partly paid by your payroll tax and others to feed and care for your family. Raise the minimum wage work out the health care mess and watch the economy flourish. And that's just two things. Imagine if all the jaw slapping show-boaters on both sides got together and made this work, You know, like it or not. We are all still Americans. A lot of us have family that have bleed for this country or have them selves bleed for this country. One way or the other the middle will happen.