.
.
.
The folks who are getting free stuff,
Don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Because the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.
And, The folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff,
Want even MORE free stuff on top of the free stuff they’re getting already!
Now….. The people who are forcing people to PAY for the free stuff,
Have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff,
That the people who are PAYING for the free stuff,
Are being mean, prejudiced and racist.
So …. the people who are GETTING the free stuff,
Have been convinced they need to HATE the people who are PAYING for the
free stuff because they are selfish. And they are promised more free stuff if they will vote for
the people who force the people who pay for the free stuff to give them even more free stuff.
Would that be THIS stuff?
Or THIS stuff?
No, other stuff.
Geoff Willis wrote:
> The folks who are getting free stuff.
Are you talking about these people?
No, but I am not a fan of corporate welfare either. By the way, Obama has contributed TRILLIONS to the corporate welfare problem – look at solar field tax credits as an example.
If you think Duane is going to defend Obama here, because Duane is “on the left” … then I guess you just don’t read this blog much.
We’re not talking about corporate welfare GW (and “trillions” contributed by Obama? Whose ass did you pull that out of?) We’re talking about the suffering of the very rich, apparently, in which the top 400 have more than the bottom half of the entire population.
So it’s much more complicated than “free stuff” isn’t it? You continue to defend the blatant excesses of those (and their spoilled progeny) who will never know a second of deprivation, and I’ll guess are just fine with a person without healthcare left to die, as we saw from the Tea Party folks the other day. Let ’em eat cake, right?
You missed your best time in history, which would have been Dickensian England. Paradise for the monied class, without all that irritating concern about the poor.
“Rapscallion” wrote:
> We’re not talking about corporate welfare GW (and “trillions”
> contributed by Obama? Whose ass did you pull that out of?)
I’m not certain, but I think Mr. Willis may be making reference to an article published in the New York Times which estimated that Uncle Sam has spent about $2.5 trillion bailing out Wall Street billionaires.
Although I wouldn’t agree with Mr. Willis that Democrats are totally to blame for all this, it is true these robber barons funneled large sums of money into President Barack Obama’s campaign coffers in 2008.
The New York Times
Published: July 24, 2011
Adding Up the Government’s Total Bailout Tab
Beyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system. Through April 30, the government has made commitments of about $12.2 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion — but also has collected more than $10 billion in dividends and fees. Here is an overview, organized by the role the government has assumed in each case.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/02/04/business/20090205-bailout-totals-graphic.html
I recall huge bailouts beginning in 1998. Who was the president then–anyone? Bueller? Bear Sterns may help you remember.
The GM “bailout” under a certain successor has been a major success, I believe.
The mere fact that a few are immensely wealthy does not cause the poor to be poor, nor would all that wealth, confiscated and handed over to the poor, make much difference at all. It would just destroy something that _already_ benefits others by creating jobs and economic activity in favor of a meager subsidy for those that never succeeded in finding enough work for themselves, let alone creating jobs for others.
The ONLY way for the poor to be better off is for them to bear MOST of the burden of improving their own situation. A few can’t, that’s understood. But paying one penny in subsidy to someone that doesn’t need it (corporate or individual parasite, doesn’t matter) takes away from the “greedy” rich folks that create jobs, and from those that would VOLUNTARILY assist those in _genuine_ need (as contrasted to all those any government program would subsidize to buy sheep, er, votes).
Anything centered on collectivism rather than on INDIVIDUAL pursuit of success or INDIVIDUAL charity, is just a thin disguise for a power grab, nothing more. There’s only one thing to do with people that want power over others, and that’s to make very sure they NEVER get it!
Corruption bother you? Cut laws and regulations to the point that there’s no incentive for it!