jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (100 posts)

Damn it, I'M entitled, ENTITLED I TELL YOU

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9083991.jpg
    America currently is becoming one big WELFARE state.   President Obama is the impetus in America becoming a nation of people who contend that they should be entitled to the gub'ment(play on words, here) footing the bills, e.g. Obama"care" and raising the minimum wage.  There are those who believe that there is "mass inequality" among the socioeconomic classes and that the wealthier classes should foot the bill for the poorer classes.   Yes, America has gone from a nation where hard work, sacrifice, and responsibility were treasured, even prized to an America when people believe that they are entitled to living the good life although they don't wish to work and sacrifice for it.  Instead, they believe that the government should grant them these things as part of their inalienable right as Americans.  This doesn't only extend to Americans but  even immigrants, particular illegals, feel the SAME way.  In their eyes, this is America and they are thus ENTITLED.  Let's discuss this!

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, why don't all you unemployed stop claiming the right to a life, eff off and die and leave the floor clear for the 1% ers to make even more money.

      1. Susana S profile image92
        Susana Sposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Lol. Love that response John!

      2. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Do you mean the 1% who pay the main chunk of the tax take John?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That'll be the day when the 1% pay a large chunk of their income in taxes.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            When that "chunk" each year is more than I'll earn in a lifetime I have to say it is pretty large.  Doubt I could pick it up, if in $1 bills and certainly not if in coin.  Yes, it is large.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I highly doubt it's nearly 40% of their total earned income, like I had to pay when I was working at Walmart.

              If the rich paid 40% of their total earned wealth in taxes each year (without resorting to pretty evil means to disguise and hide their wealth), we wouldn't be in a deficit. In fact, they should be paying more taxes because, as we all know, "with great power comes great responsibility." And what could be a more appropriate picture of power than money?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Come, come.  That's total nonsense and you know it.

                Total confiscation of all the wealth of the top 1%, not just earnings, won't pay the deficit for more than one year.  Total confiscation of the earnings of the top 10% won't, either.

                Such tales, spreading confusion and false expectations, are beneath you.

                1. kndashy41 profile image84
                  kndashy41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Quite frankly, the rich have rigged the playing field in their favor by creating avenues of inexhaustible income.  They make far more money than they let on.  If those jokers paid out what they owed the government (which is a joke because the government is in hock to them every time the FED prints a dollar that's borrowed) everyone would be living in relative comfort.  If I'm wrong, please let me know...

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The tax on $2 million would have far less affect on the payer than the tax on $20,000.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                There is nothing in your earlier post about any effect on the payer.  Just the size of the tax bill they pay.

                But if you want to talk about that, can we start with why the rich should pay more when the poor benefit more?  Without the story of "access to politicians", please?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  But they don't pay more do they? They might pay a larger amount but not more.

                  And why should the rich pay for the benefit of the poor?  The rich get far more benefits out of society than the poor, many of who are poor precisely because the rich are rich.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Not sure how you do arithmetic, but in my world 1,000,000 (amount paid by the rich) is most definitely more than 5,000 (amount I pay).

                    "The rich get far more benefits out of society than the poor"  Specifics please, outside of "access to politicians"?

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    It's always amusing to see how much right-wingers hate poor people and actively advocate for their deaths. Y'know, just like Jesus would have done.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Unless of course, they want to use them as slaves first.
      Well not even slaves, slave owners had a financial investment in their slaves and on the whole didn't want them to die.

  3. Mslabrown48 profile image60
    Mslabrown48posted 2 years ago

    Well, gentlemen, I just couldn't resist this blog. Well, for John Holden, I am one of those person's you consider to be an entitlement baby. But hold up, since I did work nearly 30 thirty years and had health issues while working which got me into the predicament I'm in today. I got injured and nobody wants to acknowledge that yes I got hurt on the job but blamed me. So, through this I had surgeries and right now I want to go back to work but there are health issues that haven't been solved so working today, I may have to stop working and right now employers don't like it when they can't use their employees until they are used up. Yes I said used up. The one percent is the ones who want slaves. Well, I need time to heal but right now getting the best medical care to bring my body back to health isn't in my reaches. Before for you say anything about Obama Care for you, this is years before Obama and years before Clinton. I could not be covered by medical insurance because I had preexisting conditions which makes me ineligible. So, for this to be considered that I am lazy and need to get out and get a JOB. Right I been there and done that. I worked after graduating from high school up until my years going to college. I have a Paralegal Diploma, Associate Degree in Business and my Bachelors Degree in General Studies
    in the College of Public Administration, my areas of Concentration are Black Studies and Political Science. So I tried to cover a lot of ground with understanding where I stand when it comes to work. I can rely on my past skills and work for less than what I am worth and with that since being out of work for so long, employers are not going to hire you right off the back because they can hire someone younger and fresh. Still in respect to our current government officials, I am not speaking about the president but the house of representatives and the senate. Those persons are the ones we sent to the capital to work on issues that effects us. Gentleman the face of the matter is for years persons in this United States have been wrong and still being wrong and yes we have damaged bodies out there that yes they have clouded judgment and yes we also have those who are truly law abiding citizens who deserves every right and they don't deserve to be degraded and told they need to eff off and die. You wouldn't want anyone to put you in a category and disrespected. So choose your battles carefully. And for the one percent who feels they are over taxed. Read the article from Warren Buffett who was concerned for his secretary who paid more in taxes then he did and at her pay grade. When poor people who did not finish high school work service low paying jobs, yes is does hurt them more because the taxes they pay are a bit but they work on it and that is why they get to take part in the entitlement programs and for the record there are those who don't even get to take advantage of the entitlement programs because the bar is set so low that it does knock a lot of people out of the rage. And for another note look at the amount of the entitlement programs take out of the entire budget for the government and you will see that it is just a small portion of that budget. While we have spending all over the place the entitlement programs aren't really spending all of the budget. And if we had a fair country where everyone is treated fair and respectful, we wouldn't have to rely on government to manage. So look at the big picture, if you never been there don't assume you understand that position. Thank you.

  4. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Mslabrown48

    You said "Well, gentlemen, I just couldn't resist this blog. Well, for John Holden, I am one of those person's you consider to be an entitlement baby."

    I think you misread me by about 180 degrees.

    It's best if you actually get the feel for what is being said by who before jumping in. It saves embarrassment lol

  5. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago

    I once shared a house with a roommate who made considerably less money than I did.  I made about $3000 per month; she made about $1500.  I was just out of college and had experienced many different roommates.  She was the only one I felt completely compatible with.  She was also one of my best friends and I wanted to keep her as a roommate.  However, I also wanted to live in a nicer house than she could afford.  I suggested that I pay 2/3 of the rent and utilities, since my proportion of our total income was about 2/3.  That way, she could afford to live there, too.  I felt completely comfortable with the arrangement, as I gained a nicer home, with a roommate I enjoyed, but still paid less than I would have if I were alone. 

    This is how I view income and taxes.  I don't mind paying more taxes than someone who makes less money.  That person might provide child care, stock grocery shelves, clean hotel rooms, cut the grass at the park, or provide home care to seniors, all services that I either directly use or am happy are being provided for those who need them.  To me, their work is just as necessary and important as my work or the work of a CEO, professional basketball player, or highly paid speaker.  I want the people who provide those services to be able to afford health care, nutritious food, child care, transportation, and leisure activities.  Why do I want this?  Because we all benefit from the work done by low-wage workers, and I recognize and value their contribution to the pleasant existence most of us enjoy.

    It's as simple as that, really.  I don't understand why a person making $200,000 per year would resent paying 40% of their income in taxes while a person paying $20,000 pays none.  To me, we're all part of a greater community; each is part of a whole and we all benefit if the individual parts are healthy and cared for.

    Just my two cents.  I think some people have forgotten what it means to work together and value everyone's contribution.  I'm appalled by the lack of empathy, the belief of some that they have earned what they have with no help from anyone and therefore no responsibility to give back in the same proportion in which they have benefited.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You don't understand why people paying massive taxes resent doing so.  That's a little hard to comprehend, regardless of your own feelings on taxes - it's a pretty straightforward concept.  Some people resent paying more than their share of the cost of the country.

      But, given that you don't understand such resentment, do you feel that you and the others that enjoy paying for others should force, on penalty of jail, high payments from those that don't want to give them?  Because that is a tough concept for me to swallow - the decision that a select group has an innate right to take what belongs to others and do with it as they wish.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        We've been forcing people to pay taxes for years.  It is the cost of living here.  Some people don't like it.  Like I always say, vote for those who reflect your values.

        Edited to add:  I just moved back to Oregon.  My county has a wonderful waste disposal site where we can bring our household garbage as well recyclables and dispose of them for free.  It is conveniently located and well staffed.  Today, I saw 6 staff.  It is kept clean and tidy with separate containers for every type of recyclable.  The place is nonstop busy five days a week.  I am thrilled that my tax dollars pay for this facility.  It is in stark contrast to the Missouri county in which we last lived.  We had to drive 35 miles to reach "the dump."  The only visible staff was the person in the booth who collected money.  It cost a minimum of $35 regardless of the size of your load.  There was no recycling area, just a giant hole in the ground.  It was ugly and smelly.  Many of the rural people let their garbage accumulate, or dug their own garbage holes on their property, rather than pay for hauling stuff to the the dump.

        Every time I visit this efficient and tidy waste disposal site, I think about how it would not be possible without taxes.  Maybe it's just me, but I enjoy the amenities provided by the taxes I contribute.  Now, if I could just get people to vote for those who would not get us into unnecessary wars....

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Guess that's a great way to go...as long as you're in the majority and willing to live under the "might makes right" cloud. 

          Personally, I find that protection for the minority is especially important, just as the writers of our constitution and other early documents did.  Far more important that giving the majority whatever they want at the expense of the minority, to be specific.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I completely agree that the protection of the minority is essential.  That doesn't mean that the minority gets to make their own rules, though.  As with all things, it is a balancing act.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed - it is always a balancing act.  But rights, particularly those rights that do not affect others, should never be taken away with a darn good reason.  And that includes the right of ownership; the majority does not have the right to take anything belonging to anyone else except, perhaps, to maintain the country after all other possibilities are exhausted.

              For that reason I support extra taxation on the rich; if the middle class tried to pay it all they would not survive.  But that does NOT include the massive charity functions that the majority in this country has somehow decided they have the right to support by taking more from the minority.

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I also support more taxation of the rich and so do many rich people. That would only be fair and equitable.   The middle class(what is left of it) is overburdened with taxes as it is.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The middle class is overburdened, not because the country needs the money, but because of the massive entitlement programs that are NOT needed in the majority of cases.

                  And while I support charities and give myself, I do NOT support forcibly taking more from one than another simply to provide free cell phones and other luxuries for people that refuse to work for them.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I totally agree with the last statement.  Yes, I support taxation on relevant programs but not to help indolent people have social entitlements.  I, for example, believe in the reduction of welfare except for those who are mentally and/or physically challenged, those who unemployed and need a short-term hand up, and for the elderly.  Others who CAN, should either work or STARVE.  Good talking to you again, Wilderness, you represent needed commonsense!

                  2. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I see that in the USA, just as in the UK, a much higher percentage of welfare payments go to those in work than those unemployed.

                    Raising the minimum wage and putting this burden back on the employers rather than the tax payer would be the easiest and fastest way of reducing this burden.

                    You want the benefits of a low wage society but are unwilling to pay the cost. It is you, rather than them, that is the entitlement junky.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'd like a little clarification on the "might makes right" statement.  Do you believe enforcement of laws is an example of "might makes right"?  I always thought "might makes right" refers to the ability to get your own way through power rather than through the normal laws, rules or procedures.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It sounds like you believe in the right of the majority to enforce their wishes on everyone else.  "Might makes right" in other words.  Am I mistaken, and you DO care for the rights, feelings and ownership of the minority?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, of course I care for the rights and ownership of the minority.  We have laws with which I completely disagree.  Our system is imperfect.  However, I am comfortable living under laws and either obeying, ignoring, or working to change those with which I have a problem.  To me, "might makes right" does not apply to enforcement of duly enacted laws.

                However, you still didn't clarify what YOU mean by "might makes right."

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  When the majority runs roughshod over the minority - specifically when the poor tax the rich because they want more freebies - it is an example of "might makes right".  The poor have the votes, and somehow always seem to vote to take more from someone else for what they want. 

                  We see it in charity programs buying luxuries.  We see it in political pork.  We see it everywhere we look - an example is free lunches for kids.  In my area, the city/county has advertised free lunches for kids now that they can't get it in school.  Now, very few families (and none on food stamps) cannot afford a sandwich for their kid, but now the city will provide it FOR the parents too lazy to make it themselves.  Just come to one of the parks and get your "free" lunch!

                  I had occasion to be there one day when it was going on - want to guess what kids were there?  All the ones in the commercial day care centers!  There was a line of about 50 kids, every one of them wearing a shirt from one of a half dozen day care centers.  The parking lot was full of vans from those same centers, and for every dozen kids or so there was an obvious "teacher" taking care of the group.

                  So the daycares make a killing with free park use and free lunch to boot, while the taxpayers are duped into paying for it all.  The "take from the rich and give to the poor" group forces higher taxes...to subsidize the day care centers!  While the voters, supporting feeding the poor little kids that will undoubtedly starve and die without that free lunch (and are sitting at home as opposed to being in the park), are demanding even more from those nasty rich people with all the money to expand the charity programs that aren't needed.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    See, this is what I don't get.  You seem so resentful about kids getting a free lunch that they don't "deserve."  Day care providers are taking advantage of the free lunch program and you resent that.  Perhaps this problem should be addressed.  Have you called those responsible for the program to see if they are working on it? 

                    The bigger picture, though, is why does this bother you so much when a much larger part of our budget is spent funding the military and private contractors to occupy countries and kill people?  Or, bailing out banks without prosecuting those who broke the law?

                    Are you suggesting we scrap the free lunch program because it is being abused?  I would prefer the abuse be addressed and mitigated as much as possible.

                    I think many peoples' values are messed up, focusing on the poor gaming the system while the rich and powerful are lauded for gaming the system.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You're right again Wilderness.  It is not a few but many who expect freebies and handouts.  In New York, there is a FREE summer food program for children.  I want to ask where are the parents?  Aren't parents supposed to provide food for their children, not the government.  If parents cannot provide the basics for their children then they shouldn't have children in the first place.  America is becoming increasingly a society of moochers or as my late father would say, lazy parasites who want something for nothing.  Oh yes Wilderness, there was a lady, who during a conversation, revealed to me that her aunt used food stamps to buy choice cuts of steak and lobster which the latter freezes.  There are many hard working people who can't afford to purchase such items.  THE NERVE!

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I see a major problem in your edit about the garbage.  That dump is NOT "free"; it is paid for by the citizens of the area that pay taxes (and likely by the citizens clear across the country as nearly everything contains a federal subsidy now days).  It's nice that you use and appreciate it, but wouldn't it be better to "pay as you go", letting the people that actually use the facility pay for it?

          We have a county dump some 30 miles away, too, but also a small facility about 1/2 mile from my home.  It costs $5 to dump there, which pays for the facility and transportation to the main dump.  I don't use it much, already paying for home pickup, but when I do I don't complain about the cost.  I use it; I pay for it.  But when I don't use it I don't have to pay for someone else to use it, either, through my taxes, and that seems much fairer to me. 

          I camp a lot at state parks, and pay a fee when I do.  That fee supports the campground, not the general tax base, and that's as it should be.  You don't camp, you don't pay for it. 

          When I swim at the municipal pool, I pay for it.  When I don't use it, I don't pay as the use fees take care of the cost.  And that's as it should be, too. 

          We are not a socialist or communist nation, where everyone owns everything.  We own certain things ourselves and the majority has no right to take it away from us because they can't (or won't) fund their charity giveaways themselves.  It's great to be charitable, but it is evil itself to force others to be so.  We do not have that right ethically or morally, although the majority in this country has given itself the legal right.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You missed a key word in Prettypanther's garbage post (it wasn't really garbage PP) and that was "recycling" that means that the tax payer gets a lot of the cost back from the rubbish.
            Waste dumped into a hole in the ground unsorted creates massive pollution, the tax payer eventually pays to clear that pollution up.

            Would you rather that your taxes were used for something positive or are you such a begrudger that you'll happily pay more tax as long as nobody benefits from it?

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing's wrong with paying more of the living expenses according to salary.  That would only be fair and also ethical.  However, your roommate was also paying her share and taking responsibility for her living expenses.  It is not as if you were paying ALL the expenses while she was paying none.   

      However, in this newly entitled America, there are people who expect others to foot THEIR bill and pay their way into living the good life.   Such people insist that the wealthy since they have tons of income should SHARE with them, helping the latter to live better.   There are some people who believe that since they are poor, no one should be rich. 

      In one of my college lectures(this was in 1974), a welfare mother spoke as to what she received wasn't enough.  She further asserted that welfare should pay her MORE, adding that no one should be rich while she was on welfare.  She had been on welfare for years and did not intend to get off welfare.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that those people do exist.  They will always exist whenever a society tries to provide for those in need.  IF we wish to be a people who cares for those in need (and I do), then we can take steps to mitigate against those who take advantage.  However, I believe it is counterproductive to focus on the few who are compulsive takers.  Focusing on the small group who are purposefully lazy encourages the selfish and greedy to point fingers at the poor and allows them to absolve themselves of their societal responsibilities.  It encourages a culture of "I" rather than "us."

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You know, it seems the biggest disagreement is always that "few" you reference.

          Because it isn't a "few" - it is millions and millions of people that refuse to put out the effort to either buy their own luxuries or even feed themselves.  Lots of that is opinion - what is a "need" and what is a "want" - and that makes for huge disagreement.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Eh, facts don't bear that out, but I'm not getting into that discussion because I know it will do no good, based on past experience.

  6. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago

    I understand your perspective.  Using the dump as an example, why do you think it is provided by government to begin with?  Because having a place that is accessible, free (at time of use; I already pointed out that it was paid for by taxes), clean and well organized encourages frequent use by residents and benefits the entire county by contributing to the cleanliness, sanitation, and beauty of the area, not to mention a much higher rate of recycling. 

    If I, as a citizen, disagreed with this use of my taxpayer dollars, I would take steps to discontinue it.  That is why we vote for our representatives who decide how the money will be spent.

    We merely have different values.  Some people were happy to fund the Iraq War, for example, while I am horrified that my taxpayer dollars were used to unnecessarily invade a country.  I assume you are content to pay taxes for some things....?

 
working