Video: Selfishness 101
posted at 11:50 am on November 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
My friend Kerry Picket of Eyeblast gives us the 1-minute primer on Selflessness and Patriotism in the Age of Obama. This can best be defined by keeping one’s mouth shut as the government drops the barrier of “excessive income” progressively lower:
Because, remember: it’s selfish to think that you can distribute the wealth you earned more efficiently and intelligently than Obama and his small, elite group of policymakers. Why, look how well the government performed when it decided it knew better how to grant mortgages than the lenders themselves!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As we all experienced just a month ago, the next stop on that train is neither rising inflation nor hyperinflation but monetary collapse. And that is the collapse of the world’s reserve and trade currency.
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 2:08 PM
The question is why have the Donks decided to make a virtue out of lazyness?
ronsfi on November 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Ya’ll raaaaaaacist for harshing on Barack and his
socialistwonderful plan toenslave thru taxinghelp America!Black Adam on November 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Yes, John and Cindy will take her in, sponsor her pathway to full citizenship and then adopt her.
She will be well taken care of.
:-)
pambi on November 1, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Well, technically $120K is less than $250K. Nothing to see here, move along.
TruthMatters on November 1, 2008 at 3:16 PM
All voters, Right AND Left, should see this video.
If all voters were only able to compare the positions on paper, side-by-side, McCain would win by a landslide.
If Obama was white and McCain black, McCain would win by a landslide.
Obama tries to shame voters into voting for him. McCain is finally counter-punching: He should shame Obama for promoting dependence” and economic “slavery”. (I.e., when big gov confiscates other people’s hard earned wages, it takes the thing they honorably trade their time and effort for. In this way it takes their life. Another word for this is slavery.
Quetzal on November 1, 2008 at 3:16 PM
The question is how swift and harsh will the reponse from all of the “selfish” folks be when this constitutional enemy is elected.
Viper1 on November 1, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Apologies accepted, you have to stop feeding all those right wing trolls that come over here :).
Seriously, I don’t call it robbing either way, but we have to find a workable tax plan that allows for a strong middle class while ensuring we have lots of room upwards as well to ensure people have the incentives not to be stuck in the middle class.
Go watch the clip of JTP endorsing to some strong degree wealthfare. We need to ensure charity isn’t just a question of luck but more seen as a national interest (i.e., we have no interest in people just falling out of the bottom). By the way, even (your candidate?) John McCain endorses some some of nationalized “charity” program by being willing to put out taxpayer dollars to help out those home owners that are stuck with loans they cannot repay.
Personally, I would like us to reduce our 10 TRILLION dollar national debt so that my kids aren’t burden by our crazy way of spending or mismanaging money. Maybe we can start by having balanced budget… By the way, I am assuming you are in the 5% of people that will not get a tax cut, correct?
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM
You know what, it looks that those ‘liberals’ include John McCain, since he is on the record talking about the greedy people on Wall Street. Is he a liberal too?
From one of his many speeches:
I think he is saying that Peter is robbing Paul. What’s say you?
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM
All of us are going to be taxed. If you think you’re not, you’re a fool.
Sensible Mom on November 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Spread the Plumbing Around
Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.
Joe drives to Obama’s house, which is located in a very upscale neighborhood and where it’s clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 a year.
Joe carries his tools into the house and is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink.
Joe quickly assesses the problem and tells Obama that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.
Obama asks Joe how much it will cost.
Joe immediately says, ‘$9,500.’
‘$9,500?!!’ Obama asks, stunned. ‘But you said it’s an easy repair!’
‘Oh it is but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free,’ explains Joe.
‘It’s always been my philosophy that everyone is entitled to the best plumbing to be had. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law and it passed earlier this year so now all plumbers have to do business this way.
It’s known as ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.’ Surprised you haven’t heard of it, Senator.’
Irritated Obama tells Joe there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe packs his tools and leaves.
Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber only to find that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business.
Not wanting to pay Joe’s price, Obama does nothing.
The leak under Obama’s sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.
A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour –then every 10-miutes – and there’s a risk that the room be flooded, so Obama reluctantly calls Joe and pleads with him to return.
Joe goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says ‘Let’s see – this will cost you about $21,000.’
‘A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!’ Obama quickly fires back.
Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase, ‘Well – you see – because of the ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act’ a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you to pay for all the free plumbing I’m doing for the people who make less than $250,000.
As a result, the rate I have to charge each of my wealthy paying customers rises every day.
Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs.
This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they’re not being replaced – nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won’t make any money. I’m hurting now too – all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their fair share.’
Obama sets out to straighten out the plumber: ‘Of course you’re hurting, Joe!
Don’t you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you’ll be broke! And then what’ll you do?!!’
Immediately Joe replies, ‘My plan’s to run for President.’
on behalf of Kari Rolfe(Alaska Prager Group)
lwssdd on November 1, 2008 at 4:28 PM
So let me get that straight… ALL of us are going to be taxed. Yet some will get free money through taxes. Which one is it exactly?
Not everybody will be taxed. I think the vast vast majority will get tax cuts. My concern is more Obama enacting too big of a tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. (I have no worries that John McCain will do that, just like Bush did)
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM
The story makes no sense.
By the way, we have museums in the States where the entrance fee is a suggested contribution. For example, the Met is like that: http://www.metmuseum.org/visit/general_information/
It’s a bit the same principle. We want to make sure everyone can afford to go, but we want to make sure the Met can also afford to go on.
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Give it up, coward. There will be no tax cut. For you to compare taxes to a ‘suggested contribution’ is an old Leftard rhetorical gimmick, and patently stupid
To pay for his programs, Obama would raise taxes for those who actually pay taxes; you know that, and so does your leader
Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2008 at 5:01 PM
It’s both. That’s the beauty of BHO’s idiocy. Everyone who works will be taxed and everyone who doesn’t work will get a check. That will continue until our economy collapses, which won’t take very long if you remember that little thing we all almost happened about a month ago, after which all bets are off. And I mean “all bets”.
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 5:01 PM
LOL.
You must have never been to the Met, because if you don’t pay that “suggested” donation, you don’t go in. It’s an entrance fee, plain and simple. Don’t be such a fool.
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Progressoverpeace,
Have you ever been barred from entering because you didn’t pay the suggested donation?
I can’t believe you actually believe the tipping point will be “everyone who works”.
As for Janos, I just wanted to give an example of a place that, without saying it out loud, implements the “from each according to his means” principle.
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Yes. And at other places with “suggested donations”, also.
That’s how it’s going to be. I can’t believe you actually believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the biggest outright fraud and liar to ever run for President.
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Psst: The “suggested donation” is just a tax rip-off scheme.
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM
as for YOU, your example is ridiculous: it compares apples with something which is nothing like apples: the power of government to tax is the power to manipulate and coerce behavior–and the power to destroy
I can chose to never to to any museum, but I cannot avoid the laws enforced by government. Your whole argument is garbage
Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2008 at 5:49 PM
I friggin’ love you, ronsfi.
+1,000,000
techno_barbarian on November 1, 2008 at 5:56 PM
And with a Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid and Obama government it happens over and over and over.
At what point does complete economic collapse turn into a pissing contest?
Speakup on November 1, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Man… obambi hires some real idiots, doesn’t he?
techno_barbarian on November 1, 2008 at 6:04 PM
That should be a clear indicator he’s going to lose on November 4.
ManlyRash on November 1, 2008 at 6:12 PM
It’s fun to see Bill Clinton, who lied in a court proceedings, be rehabilated. I guess Bill Clinton must now be the second most outright fraud and liar.
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 6:13 PM
And if he wins, will you be back saying that they weren’t real idiots?
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 6:16 PM
The magnitude of what I’m talking about is a one-time deal. I’m talking about Collapse, with a capital ‘C’. We got off lucky this last time, though the monetary crisis is not nearly over. BHO’s policies would ensure that we will finally experience what Warren Buffet said “G-d help us” if it came to pass. (As an interesting sidenote, Buffet also called for “greed” just a week ago – I guess he didn’t get BHO’s selfishness memo).
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Clinton couldn’t even hold a candle to BHO in the lying and fraud departments. It’s not even close. That’s how bad BHO is. I mean, in every single area you look at, BHO is slimier than Bill Clinton ever dreamed of being – except for sexual situations. Clinton had the IRS go after some people. BHO has sitting DA’s publicly threatening to prosecute people if they don’t like their political ads. And the list is a mile long of such things.
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Nope. McC is going to win. And you’ll still be an idiot.
Actually, you’re an enemy of the U.S.A. What you advocate is the destruction of this nation. You sugar-coat it, but you’re a communist. Known plenty of your kind. Weak and pathetic.
And most of them were trust fund babies.
techno_barbarian on November 1, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Honestly, when I think Bill Clinton and the right, I think about Vince Foster, about Jennifer Flowers, about Travelgate, about Troopergate, about his nickname (Slick Willy), and obviously about “I did not have…” It’s outstanding to see you think Obama tops that list. Bill Clinton lied under oath for crying out loud.
This isn’t about finding the biggest liar for you, it’s about finding a way to insult BO.
As for techno_barbarian, thanks for branding me an enemy of the USA. What you seem to be advocating is the destruction of the fabric holding the nation together. The only communists around here are the ones that supported the government buying up banks, getting involved in the free market, etc. It looks like America are about to elect a president from a field of two candidates that both supported these massive bailout packages. Heck the newest one is John McCain saying he will do whatever it takes to keep the auto industry afloat.
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 6:46 PM
I don’t know. How quickly we froget about the Clinton years. I was stopped short the other night hearing Atlanta talk show host Herman Cain recall the horror of his IRS audit after daring to ask Bill C. a tough question in a public forum. Of course, it made me wonder what the IRS and the DOJ will be up to if Dear Leader gets control of them.
TedInATL on November 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM
ZERO-SUM as defined by THE PEOPLE’S CUBE.
*B*R*I*L*L*I*A*N*T*
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=42#ZS
“Cornerstone of progressive economics and ethics. Collectively, all losses and gains sum to zero. Your loss is our gain, and your gain is our loss. Whatever you own, it is at our expense. You owe your property to us by the virtue of you owning it. Losers contribute to the society and winners take away from it. Being a winner is immoral and selfish. A society of losers is happy and moral. In this sense, the Unites States is the worst society in the world. Americans eat because other people starve. On our planet with limited resources, the most ethical thing one can do is stop eating and starve to death. Bourgeois ideologues will lie to you that economy is a non-Zero-Sum game and that capitalism creates wealth without making others poor. Such lies must be silenced and mercilessly eradicated.”
Lockstein13 on November 1, 2008 at 7:09 PM
mycowardice
Government effects its ends through violence or the threat of violence. Actual violence is not necessary in most cases, just the threat of violence is usually enough. If you stop paying your taxes, it may take a while, but men with guns will eventually show up. No, really, they will. They’ll have a little piece of paper called a “warrant” which is basically an authorization to commit violence if they deem it necessary to coerce you. Look at what happened to Wesley Snipes after he stopped paying his taxes. Somehow this to you is exactly like throwing a buck in a basket at a museum you voluntarily visit. You haven’t thought very deeply about the nature of government and how it differs from civil society.
This raises a philosophical point. The movie A Clockwork Orange raises the question of whether there is any utility in coercing an evil man into behaving in the manner of a good man while he is still evil at his core. Without getting into the movie’s take on these issues, the movie’s essential question is useful for deconstructing Obama’s argument. Let’s take Obama’s argument at face value. It’s a BS argument, but let’s humor him. If “selfishness” is the problem, coercing a “selfish” man into behaving as a simulacrum of an “unselfish” man does not eliminate the vice of “selfishness.” He is just as “selfish” as he ever was, you just can’t see it anymore. If Obama was truly concerned about eliminating “selfishness” in men’s hearts, his project is doomed to fail, obviously, in the same way as would “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” Now, Obama can make a utilitarian argument for his tax policy if he wishes, but that is not what he is doing. He is trying to make a moral argument for it, but it’s a phony one. I believe Obama is smart enough to know that he is playing a philosophical shell game here.
shazbat on November 1, 2008 at 7:13 PM
I think you’re right, but the problem I have from the right is that they make it sound as if they just want to cling to what they have without any regards for the American next to them. They make it sound like they are the sole reason why they earned whatever it is they earned. As if the rest of society had nothing to do with it. As if they could achieve the same on some desert island.
No one succeeds on this earth without having someone else help him out. To claim that you own the dollar you brought in today from work is not right. To get that dollar, you need dozens and dozens of other people to also do their jobs. So if you are a plumber, you need the construction guy out there to put in the pipes. That person needs the auto worker to build his van. Etc.
But you are right, coercing generosity is nearly as good as coercing religious conversions.
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 7:21 PM
It’s called private property, genius, and it’s one of the very foundations of this nation. Are you for real?
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Marxist Troll/Obama Seminar Blogger alert!!!
landlines on November 1, 2008 at 7:48 PM
In case there are other Obamunism Trolls out there:
Communism was tried in Plymouth Colony between 1620 and 1623, with all land held in common and worked by everybody “according to his ability”. The result was that the colony almost starved to death. Communism had failed.
They changed course, divided up the land, and had each family grow its own food…and suddenly there was more than enough food for everybody. Capitalism worked!!!
Lesson: Communism results in universal misery. Capitalism results in universal prosperity.
And this was a good 100 years before the Declaration of Independence was signed!!!
landlines on November 1, 2008 at 7:57 PM
No, they don’t make it sound that way. You choose to interpret it that way. You are attributing selfishness to people you don’t even know. How do you know they have no regard for their neighbors? Sure, some people make a ton of money and blow it on hookers and cocaine. These people are known as liberal hollywood movie stars. Other well-to-do people try to leave something of lasting significance, like build Carnegie Hall, or build a new wing of a hospital or fund cancer research or privately build a rocket that can reach outer space. When a man says, “I want to keep more of my money,” why do you think yachts and country clubs rather than Carnegie Hall or the X Prize or something more ennobling? How do you know he isn’t earning that money to give his daughter very expensive treatment for Multiple Sclerosis or allowing his wife dying of cancer to fulfill her dream of seeing Paris before she dies? Paying for a son to go to med school? Build a business that employs a thousand people? And even if the capital is accumulated to buy a yacht, well that employs yacht-builders.
Given that doing anything worth doing is possible only after accumulating capital, why do you assume that an individual who is amassing capital is amassing it for ignoble ends? How can you judge a-priori? You can’t, but your solution is to forestall the possibility of the accumulation of capital for selfish ends by making it very difficult to accumulate private capital period. Fine. This is because you don’t trust your fellow citizen to be unselfish. Again, fine. But these same carbon based organisms whom you deem to be so selfish they can’t be trusted with sums of money are the same creeps who staff the bureaucracies of our government. Why would they not be susceptible to the same vices as the private citizen, i.e. greed? Why would it not be worse since these greedy humans have access to not only more capital than the private citizen, generally, but also have access to the monopoly of force of the State? For instance, Kim Jong Il lived a life of decadence that would make Donald Trump blanche. On a lesser scale, Obama funneled State money to the tune of literally hundreds of millions of dollars to Rezko, Ayers, his wife and other cronys, for very vague deliverables. How do you know that any of this was high minded? If Joe-the-Plumber can’t be trusted with a million dollars that he earned with long hours on the job with his own blood, sweat, and tears, why should Barry-the-Ward-Heeler be trusted with spending in high minded fashion a public purse of $150,000,000 that he did nothing whatsoever to earn except talk a good game?
You assume that private vices magically disappear when the private citizen becomes a public citizen. It is a fanciful idea, and would that it were true, but experience would dictate that rather the opposite happens.
What the heck does that mean? I don’t even know what you’re talking about. At least you own up to the fact that what’s going on is coercion.
shazbat on November 1, 2008 at 8:34 PM
“See, uh, when you, uh, if you’re a Republican, and you make, uh, less than $120,000 then you will get a tax cut. Now, if you, uh, are a Democrat, and you make less than $250,000, you will get a tax cut.”
See, I solved the riddle.
Seixon on November 1, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Your argument makes no sense. Because somebody had to bring the pipe over to the house, therefore it’s not right for you to “own” the dollar that you earned for welding the pipe? What? Care to provide a specific moral argument for that specific point? Some dude had a dollar. He gave it to you willingly for welding the pipe. The guy who brought the pipe over got his dollar, too. Guy in the house can flush his toilet now. Everybody wins. So what’s the moral problem? If it’s “not right” for the plumber to say he owns that dollar, then who does? Or is he “right” to claim only a percentage of that dollar to be determined by you? If that dollar is commonly owned, why have dollars at all? Why not just have plumbers weld pipe out of the goodness of their hearts? You know why? Because no plumbing would ever get done and you would be crapping in the woods.
Yes, it’s true that we’re all in this together, but how you leap from that to the idea that it is “not right” for someone to claim ownership for his paycheck but it is right for someone else to, but you fail to provide an explanation for how exactly the “right” proportion of control of that dollar in practical terms is to be established. Guess what? Exchanging currency is the system by which we arbitrate ownership of work. And it’s a good system, too, because it makes men weld pipe for you, something they would not otherwise do on a Friday afternoon. You apparently have a better system in mind, but you think so little of us you won’t tell us what it is. Well, thanks.
You’ve escaped the stratosphere of idealism and are now orbiting in the geostationary ring of crazy. Usually, when idealists denigrate capitalism, I have some idea of the ideal society they are envisioning.
shazbat on November 1, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Shazbat,
The problem is that the dollar exists only in relation to the other folks that gave you the dollar or that you are going to give the dollar to.
My point is that we, as a country, have a 10 trillion dollar debt. We need to eventually pay that back. The dollar in your hand isn’t very helpful if the whole country goes down the drain. So I understand that the dollar has been received for hard work, but we have to ensure that the system as a whole doesn’t crumble. Which means that the government comes in a takes a portion of that dollar to ensure that we have roads, or that we repay our debt.
How about if I put it this way. If, to get that dollar, the national debt goes up by 10%, how much is that dollar really worth? I would argue, not 100%.
I have no problem with claiming ownership, but we have to recognize what we really own, and what in reality we don’t. THere are also limits to ownership. If tomorrow morning, the major petroleum companies wanted to burn all the gas in the work, even if they own the resource we wouldn’t allow them to do so. Ownership only goes so far. There are other cases (like the tort of nuisance) where you can see limits to what ownership really allows you to do.
I wish I could take the time to try to express myself better, and I am sure I am not doing justice to my argument. Anyways, the point is that it doesn’t make much sense to be fixated on the dollar coming in if the system around you collapses.
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Confiscating productive capital to give to the unproductive (and there is no paying down of the debt that is going to be done with it, so stop it) is idiotic and is what puts this entire system at risk. We are at this weak point only because of idiots like you who forced a misvaluing of the risk in subprime loans and hid it all under an “implicit” government guarantee. You fools will destroy everything if you go even further with your idiotic ideas of “economic justice”.
And stop with the debt talk. Until the unbelievably unconstitutional and wasteful entitlements get stripped down to a reasonable size, if not pulling the federal government totally out of areas it was never supposed to be in, your yapping about the debt is just silly.
Capital will leave the US, and it will leave quickly.
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Progressoverpeace,
What do the poor people that get those dollars do with them? Most likely, they will spend 100% of it back in the economy.
Also, for the debt, it’s true that neither candidate seem to be willing to tackle it, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a problem and that we shouldn’t address it.
I have to say, and I need to put that on my blog, that I am really disappointed with Obama pushing this 95% tax cut number like it’s a fait accompli. He sounds like zealot Republicans that say they will never raise taxes no matter what the situation. I really hope Obama will be fiscally disciplined. I hope he goes back to a model that is sustainable. Even if that means less tax cuts for the middle class.
We are at this weak point for many reasons. I’m sure in part it’s people getting loans that they shouldn’t have, but it’s also an excess of greed in the whole system (including those 5 percenters at the top of the chain) that should have known better.
mycowardice on November 1, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Actually selfishness is a virtue.
What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue?
scrubjay on November 1, 2008 at 10:43 PM
That’s not true. McCain is talking about a spending freeze on discretionary domestic spending and will ride herd over a spendthrift Congress. Of that, no one really doubts. The MSM has studiously ignored this, even going so far as to claim that “neither candidate can pay for his plans”, when a big part of McCain’s plans are spending freezes and cuts. BHO just wants to spend more on everything – notwithstanding his laughable “I’ll go through every line and cut out the …”. Just look at his record on spending and voting on spending. It’s near insane.
More important than the debt is the growth of the US economy. Mostly, because growth of the economy shrinks the debt, in relative terms, and makes it much more serviceable, aside from all the other benefits derived from a growing economy.
BHO is planning on taxing productive money, burning it up in the red tape and friction of government, and spitting it out to the unproductive to buy doodads. That will kill us. The debt won’t matter, because we will be nationally insolvent. Normally, this sort of view would be extreme, but we are still in the throes of a major monetary crisis, that was turned into a major crisis of confidence – which is the most dangerous thing that can happen to any monetary system, let alone the governmental institutions. With BHO and his cronies pushing all the idiotic social engineering programs on our economy and financial system, along with the growth-killing tax policies, what we were all scared of a month ago, and what Warren Buffet said “G-d help us” in case it happened, will happen. This is all irrespective of servicing the debt, which BHO has just pretended doesn’t exist.
progressoverpeace on November 1, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Selfish is one who demands everyone pay (homage, money, and effort) to them to do what they want to do without your consent.
MSGTAS on November 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Charity: voluntarily sharing your toys.
Dictatorship: being told you have to share your toys.
Marxism: having your toys taken from you and divided up equally amongst those that didn’t work for them.
Uhm, uh, “I just want to spread the wealth”. – Barak Obama.
jbh45 on November 2, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Outstanding post! Well done!
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2008 at 12:40 PM
So the poor should get to spend my redistributed money because they’ll just put it all back into the economy? And that makes it all better?
I’ve got a better idea. The poor can do what I’ve done and start where they are and work themselves to where they want to be.
This is America and I am living proof anybody can start from nothing and achieve their dreams here. But the only ‘help’ you should reasonably and realistically expect is simply the opportunity to fill a need. That’s it. Everything thing else is platitudes and wishful (and wrong-headed) thinking.
Doesn’t it make more sense, and isn’t it more personally responsible for me to save and invest that money (that I WORKED FOR and EARNED, damnit!) to provide for my and my Beloved’s retirement so we won’t be a burden on society in our old age?
Increasing dependence is not the answer. Individual ambition, initiative, persistence, and just plain old hard work is the way to success. If you have everything given to you without having earned it, you do not and cannot appreciate it. That’s the major flaw in socialism/communism. Once people figure out they don’t have to produce, they cease to do so.
Ideologues like you are parasites on society. You selfishly consume the efforts of others, and feel entitled to do so.
You and your ilk disgust me.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2