into equality by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work without receiving.

When half of the people realize that they do not have to work because the other half will take care of them, the other half will soon realize that it does no good to work because someone else will be enjoying the fruits of their labor.

That my friend, is the end of any nation.

It's a simple equation, you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

*Portions of this were taken from a poster, I simply added sentences and embellished it.

What you are describing is socialism, and what caused the demise of the USSR. It is the opposite of everything America was founded on and why so many of us refer to Obama as Unamerican.

Exactly; however, Obama is just a figurehead. He gets his orders from higher up.

Socialism is still socialism, regardless of the source. Working for free is still slavery even if you call it "taxing the rich". Slavery is the opposite of freedom no matter how you slice it.

Obama is all about class warfare.

Don't you mean lower down?

I'm not disagreeing with you...hell I posted it.........lol I just think that Obama is simply following orders. Kennedy tried to go his own way and remember how well that panned out in'63.

This statement comes from an "undercover" lazy person who feels they might be missing out on some laziness that they falsely imagine others might be getting.

It is a projection of a personal wish.

Half of the nation is not lazy.

Economic socialism is born out of the desire to avoid competing for resources.

Honest people acquire wealth because they have developed the talents needed in order to compete for resources.

Less-talented people see the tangible assets of the better-talented people and become envious. The less-talented want to have the same tangible assets that the better-talented gained through competition, but without having to compete.

Instead of admitting that a wealth gap is a the result of a talent gap, the less-talented will complain that they are the victims of some vague institutionalized unfairness*, even when everyone is playing on a level playing field.

Socialists will claim that there is not a level playing field because they don't see equal results.

Yet, a level playing field has never guaranteed equal results.

For example, in the game of football**, two teams play on a level playing field, but the existence of the level playing field doesn't result in the two teams scoring the same number of goals. The scoring is the result of the talent on each team. If the game score is 1-1, then the score is the result of what the players did, not the result of the field's condition.

Socialists will claim that the wealthiest people acquired their wealth because they had some kind of unfair advantage. Yet, that claim isn't proven, just assumed, and other reasons for the wealth gap are ignored.

For example, U.S. economist Dr. Walter E. Williams wrote the following:



In other words, people can find themselves at the low end of the economic totem pole because they made poor decisions, resulting in them being less-able to compete for resources. However, holding people accountable for their own decisions isn't emotionally pleasing. It is more emotionally pleasing to seek a socialist environment than it is to look in a mirror.



NOTES:

*In the USA, plenty of elderly citizens have been the victims of institutionalized unfairness, which has been legislated out of existence over the years. The problem today is that some people will blame institutionalized unfairness for a current problem without demonstrating that they have ruled out other causes, such as the things harming African-Americans that Dr. Williams describes in the above quote.

**Mingle2 is an international website serving members who live all over the world. Everywhere in the world, except the USA, this is a football:



Not only do I find the aforementioned game of football to be rather ...err... exciting,



but also, its fans are ...err... easy on the eyes.



Quote Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/10/17/poverty_nonsense/page/2

IM wondering when the notion that needing assistance and being 'lazy' are the same thing became such a trend,,,


when we count social security which people paid into for their old age as laziness, or food stamps that people, many of them working, need just to feed their kids, or tanf which often has a work requirement attached just for an extra couple hundred bucks a month as laziness

while continuing to assume those with wealth are therefore, less lazy,,

we are guilty of drinking the kool aid and playing their game for them,,,,

LOL........leave it to you guys to read too much into this and start tearing it down word for word. I posted it, and what I meant when I did was in response to the inane notion that the wealth in the USA needs to be redistributed and the wealthy need to pay more simply because they are wealthy.

Willow - assume much?
Harmony - No where did I state anything that you're referring to.
Don - I have served in the government from my home state
Maryland, You live in Nevada, but know much more than me
about how DC works, I forgot.

There are levels of the needy.

Those who are down and trying. Entitled to help.
Those who are down and can't. The infirm, injured. Entitled to help.
Then, there are those who are down by choice. The lazy. Believe, they are entitled.

If you're down, which one applies to you?

i believe 47% of these comments. you can figure out those on your own

Social Security is an "earned" benefit, but it always pays more out than it receives due to the rise of inflation costs...It needs reform.

As for the rest of it, if it wasn't for entitlements raising the price on everything, such problems, while they would still exist, would be much more easily handled on the state or community level.

Gov't involement does nothing but increase regulation, create need for yet more gov't depts, raising the cost on everything, crushing business, losing private sector jobs, and putting people in the need for such entitlements.

It's a circle where only large corps, special interest, bankers and the gov't wins!

government is government, whether its state or federal

the federal just maintains the 'united' in united states,,,

When half of the people realize that they do not have to work because the other half will take care of them, the other half will soon realize that it does no good to work because someone else will be enjoying the fruits of their labor.


note to the wise,, never assume that the former are the 'poor and lazy' and not the rich,,,,

I believe this is from Adrian Rogers who was a conservative pastor (Southern Baptist) and author...Very politically wise man....From Wiki..

Like many influential conservative pastors, Rogers participated in the advancement of a conservative political agenda in the United States. He stated that Christians have a duty to be involved in government, and that it is a sin for a Christian to abstain from voting in an election.
Familial dynamics was a recurrent issue for Rogers. He focused most closely on fathers that he labeled "drop-out dads." According to Rogers, since the Bible emphasizes the paternal role in a family, the father should be the primary source of teaching in the home. He was critical of fathers who do not fulfill this role: "We have dads today that are interested in sports, business, and sex. They've forgotten their God-given assignments to teach the Ten Commandments." He went on to say that social problems, such as gun violence, are the consequences of fathers avoiding this responsibility.
On the topic of pastoral endorsement of political candidates, he wrote that it is a pastor's duty to influence the political decisions of the members of the pastor's congregation. A pastor need not, however, endorse a specific candidate (and, under Internal Revenue Service regulations, a church cannot do so without losing its tax-exempt status). He wrote that "If a pastor has done his job his members will prayerfully and correctly use the standard of God's Word to select the right candidate."
In May 2003, Rogers, along with twenty-four other religious leaders and persons of influence, signed a letter sent from Gary Bauer's conservative organization American Values to President George W. Bush. The letter criticizes President Bush's proposed Road Map for Peace initiative as being too lax towards the Palestinians. The letter states in part, "Mr. President, it would be morally reprehensible for the United States to be 'evenhanded' between democratic Israel . . . and the terrorist infested Palestinian infrastructure."

His now famous quote....

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don't multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn't first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Rogers

Quite a few business owner pay 0 taxes so they technically fall in the 47% that Romney spoke of. I guess they are lazy and entitled by some people's standards but for some reason NOT MINE.

I do not assume poor people are lazy, that assumption would make me a class/economic bigot.

And Social security is fine as long as those who borrow from it pay back. There are more people paying into it now then ever before.

Oh and peccy, I don't have to assume on this one. It is a projection of your own beliefs if you assume others to be lazy. How do you get to that belief if you do not in yourself believe that laziness is a good enough thing that you and others try to get it as much as possible?

this is a semantic issue but a sensitive one

the wording 'poor and lazy' is ambiguous

it can be referring to ONE subgroup that is both poor and lazy
or it can be referring to TWO seperage subgroups the poor and the lazy


what bugs the hell out of me is the stereotype that poor=lazy and sometimes seeing those two words linked automatically brings to mind that overused classist stereotype

though it may not be what the user meant

its like , for instance, dumb women,,,,,the term could imply a speaker thinks women are dumb, or it could mean the speaker is referring to a subgroup of women who are dumb

in any case, I rarely hear about the RICH and lazy,,,and most poor people work their ***** off and rarely go anywhere because of a lack of resources or connections or opportunity to do so,,,while those with the opportunities and resources to offer just look down their nose at them and tell them not to be so lazy,,,,