Entitlement
There is positive and negative entitlement. As human beings, we are entitled to fair and respectful treatment. In democratic societies, humans are entitled to liberty, religious freedom equal treatment, fair representation, and the right to a proper education. This is positive entitlement.
Then there is negative entitlement. There are those among us who believe that the government's job is to support them socioeconomically although they are able-bodied. There are people who believe that health care and housing should be free. There are people who believe that success should come easily with little or no effort on their part. There are those who believe that they should get an executive job out of college and refuse to work at any job that is not a professional job. This is negative entitlement. Depending upon the environment, familial, and peer relationships, entitlement can be contagious."Then there is negative entitlement. There are those among us who believe that the government's job is to support them socioeconomically although they are able-bodied. "
You mean like politicians who feel entitled to eat well at the taxpayers expense or bankers who feel entitled to huge government bail outs when they mess things up and cap that off with their entitlement to huge bonuses for losing vast amounts of money?Hello John hope you are well.
I think you are right, society in general has become more and more entitled and this has enabled the politicians and the bankers to receive the rewards of an entitlement society and as they think they are at the top of the food chain they believe they are entitled to more.
But now the ball has started rolling it will be very difficult to stop.I'm better than i have been. Went for my annual check up in July and was told that my kidneys were failing. Asked if that was why I was so tired all the time and was told that was probably just because I'm old!
A week or so later i was at chemist picking up my repeat prescription. I was told it was ready but I couldn't have it until the pharmacist had spoken to me. "How long had I been taking that combination of drugs and was I aware that in that combination they caused muscle wasting and kidney failure! Stopped taking one of them and almost immediately started to feel better!
How are you getting on?
The problem is that those who are most accused of believing in entitlement only think they are entitled to a basic life, nothing more.I am glad you are feeling better John and it shows that we should take what our doctors tell us just because they are our doctors.
I am still on crutches and will be for about another 3 months or so, it has thrown up another problem with eh resurfaced hip so i suppose that will have to be looked at as well. But all in all i am still breathing and a few of my friends aren't so i suppose i should count myself lucky.
Entitlement is without doubt a very involved subject. Some think they are entitled, some believe they are entitled, some are told they are entitled and some are taught they are entitled.But mostly "entitlement" is a word used to demonise societies rejects.
I think to many are lumped in with society's rejects probably John.
Undoubtedly.
Isn't it a shame that we sacrifice potential for greed?But the cream will always rise to the top.
What's the matter? Doesn't scum float in your world?
Life is what YOU make it. If one imagines and thinks of negativity, then his/her life is negative. My life is POSITIVE and GLORIOUS because I think positive and have achieved POSITIVE goals, Good day, Mr. Holden, it really has been a "pleasure".
Yes, and those who feel that others should work hard so they don't have to. You see, there are wealthy and poor people who feel entitled.
Yes, there are wealthy people who feel entitled, that's exactly what I have been saying.
You hear only what you want to hear. I said there are wealthy AND poor people who feel entitled, and there are people in the middle class who feel entitled.
No. I heard you. I didn't feel I had to confirm the obvious.
Good. Then you know that I replied to John, not you? You heard me but didn't see the recipient?
Now, if you are merely interjecting, that's fine, but why do you act like I was speaking to you?Yes, dear educated person. You are right. I didn't see that your comment was a reply to John.
john, John, JOHN, middle, upper middle, and upper classes, for the most part, work for their upkeep and livelihood. They also pay TAXES and are entitled to the benefits of those taxes. They do not have to depend upon government support for their sustenance as they are CONTRIBUTING members of society. I also want to take the different path here. Middle, upper middle, and upper classes receive more preferential treatment because they have EARNED it through their hard work and education. One reaps what one sows. The only people who deem that they are entitled are THE POORER classes. Yes, I SAID IT, the POORER classes. Not all but many people in the lower socioeconomic strata believe that society should improve their lives. They believe that THE MAN has given them the short end of the stick when they have done nothing to help themselves. Many of them are poor of their own choosing. They see welfare as a lifestyle.
That is kind of funny. I am not saying middle class isn't working hard. But last time I checked the workers back in the warehouse or the ones out on the street in the heat seem to sweat more than me.
There's a word for all that, if I used it I would be suspended.
Mr. Holden, my dear, this is just a discussion, don't fret at all.... You know what I have elucidated is TRUE but you won't acknowledge it. It is such a PLEASURE having a discourse with you, Mr. Holden. I enjoy it SO MUCH(demonic laughter).
Have you never heard of off shore tax havens, people use them to avoid paying tax in the countries where they are domiciled.
Warren Buffet once pointed out that his secretary paid more taxes than he did.No he didn't. He pointed out that she paid at a higher rate - there is a world of difference between a high rate and a high $$ amount being paid.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to the person paying the higher rate!
It should be - knowing that your boss, making 100X your salary, pays far, far more in taxes while getting the same return for those payments would make most greedy people quite happy.
I suppose it's a combination of greed, envy and a sense of entitlement that always wants someone else to pay the lions share for the privileges we have.But if I am spending a higher percentage of my income in taxes than you, how do you work out that you're the hero?
In this country we do not pay with percentages - we pay with dollars. The boss pays more dollars than I do, although your description of "hero" is pure sensationalism. Do you require your (wealthy) neighbor to pay more for an identical car than you do? Why not? You require him to pay more taxes...
Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, percentages are used to work out what tax you pay.
On that basis somebody paying 15% is paying less than somebody who pays 20%.
"Hero" was used whimsically rather than sensationally/Not to be taken as a specific example, but you're telling me that 15% of $100,000 < 20% of $20,000. I don't buy it - it's nothing more than spin, and misdirection, in an effort to get the gullible to believe they pay more than the rich does.
So you say that somebody earning less than the minimum wage and taxed at 100% is better off than one earning $1 million and taxed at 15%!
Don't be silly! But are you trying to say that we should pay according to our ability, and take according to our needs?
Why is that silly? It is the situation in the UK.
Yes, we should pay according to our ability and take according to our needs.While it is true that some earning minimum wage or less is better off than those earning 30,40, 50 thousand and paying taxes I didn't see the UK that way. And certainly when we get to the million dollar earnings it isn't even partially true and I highly doubt it is in the UK either.
Marx was a fine socialist, but had little concept of how people in general behave. Following his precepts will inevitably drive a country to ruin as most people will work and produce only as they need to, plus a little luxury. When no work is needed (take according to need) no work is performed and when too much is demanded from workers (give according to ability) it but compounds the problem. Unfortunately, socialists seldom recognize this basic fact of being human and insist that it WILL work - the result can be seen in the vast numbers of people throughout Europe that expect someone else to support them without returning anything of value.
Even more unfortunately, "needs" has come to include a great many luxuries as well and that, too, is exacerbating the problem of a lower non-productive class as they continue to demand, and get, those luxuries. It gives rise to a whole class of people demanding and depending on entitlements to survive - it is indeed self-perpetuating (until the system falls apart) just as the OP asked.Some earning minimum wage or less are better off than those earning 30, 40, 50 thousand!
Oh please I'm not really in the mood for one of your wind ups.Oh, I assure you it is quite true - I've been in the position of earning $40,000+ and watching those on welfare programs purchase/own things I can only hope to have one day. Of course, they are using MY money to do so, but then that's the effect of entitlement programs; to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. Obviously that leaves the haves without what the have-nots can buy, but then that's what buys the votes in Washington and that's is plainly more important than leaving me with my meager earnings.
It is a sad thing in this country, to watch that kind of shenanigan, but it is actually quite common. Between minimal earnings and massive welfare programs there is no reason any family of 4 cannot receive on the order of $50,000 between cash for labor and those wonderful entitlement programs. You just have to learn how to work the system instead of learning a trade to work.
I only emphasize the poor, because you neglect to mention them. Look at your own posts. Both sides of the spectrum, and in between for that matter, have people who feel entitled.
John, I agree with your examples. It would appear that there is a great squeezing of the middle. I wonder how much longer that can proceed before the money and work ethic dry up. It seems to me that those to whom politicians award public largess have done quite well solely because the Great Middle is modest and moderate of temper, I wonder how long they/we will remain so.
I wonder how strong an economy can be without a strong middle class...
Democrat policies are guaranteeing that Americans will soon find out.
No, you're wrong here. Didn't you listen to the POTUS during the campaign? He was all about the middle class. Didn't you listen to the POTUS in a recent speech? He said that virtually all economic indicators show that Americans are better off now than they were when he became president. If all listen we'll learn that we don't really understand our own finances; we're all better off now. I've got to run. I'm off to play golf!
You are correct, of course. It is clear that I need re-educating. Would you please let me know when there is an opening at the camp that I may attend immediately. Regretfully, my understanding of my relationship with DIE STAAT is incomplete.
Where do you find the "right to a proper education" and who decides proper? This is not contained in the American Bill of Rights. In the context of these right, you have a right to achieve an education, as all things not specified.
W h a t ? do you want to spread, hack writer?
I know, right?
It's pretty brave. Imagine ALL of us would feel entitled... Entitled to proportional wages. An ice bucket to waste. Sorry but I can't sit here all day and find more examples.
But I thought it's like doping. Worth a discussion. Legalize it even though it's not healthy. But maybe healthier than the illegal abuse, that is impossible to prevent? And more just? Should everybody get the same chance?
I don't know.
I absolutely agree that there is something like negative entitlement and that human beings are entitled to fairness.We have equality of opportunity… what more do you want?
If you want equality of outcome, you want too much.
End of Discussion.You don't really believe that we have equality of opportunity do you?
Depends on who "we" is Here, due to the Constitution, all may try for the opportunity they wish. Not all can excel in all things.
We, the people.
I think it's interesting to take a look at the we and our feelings about entitlement from different perspectives.
In our community we might feel that entitlement is a bad thing. No one should be entitled to receive without giving. I agree. We all need to pitch in. Fair share.
Even though it is not reasonable to do so. Not each of us should take our trash to the dumb. We should pay someone to collect the trash. But I think we should be very aware of the fact, that this person is pitching in for us. Therefore we owe him thanks and enough pay to live.
I feel we must acknowledge the ones that do the dirty work for us and don't say things like "well they had all the opportunities to do business on the golf course instead."
Globally speaking I think most of us in this forum benefit a lot from the entitlement of being born in a rich and powerful country that can dictate the rules of the game.
I am just saying. Let's be aware of it. That would be a first step toward justice.Could you define justice as you mean it in this situation?
The definition of justice is the use of power as appointed by law, honor or standards to support fair treatment and due reward. per www.yourdictionary.com/justice yourDictionary.com
to me this is probably the antonym: http://www.equilar.com/corporate-govern … -paid-ceosJustice is giving a person what is owed. What could we, as citizens of the world, be owed?
and by who?
In the US we are owed what the Constitution guarantees: The natural rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
But, one must be a citizen to secure these rights. One who is not a citizen is not owed these rights at all.
These rights must be obtained from one's own country. Why would one leave one's own country?
Your country needs you to fight for the rights of the people who live there. Stay home and work for justice where you live.
...or become a citizen in the country of your choice.When we were cave wo/men we had to worry only about our cave and a few miles around. Gradually we established geographically bigger communities. I wonder if it is time to think more in global terms now. We are ecologically, politically and economically too entangled to do otherwise. We cannot disregard anymore what people on the opposite side of the globe do. Ultimately we all are in this together.
What are we owed? Nothing. That is exactly my point. But that must be true for all humans no matter what nationality. No one should take away from another or feel like s/he has more rights.You point alludes me because your point is not obvious. What is your point?
Your point is allusive and therefore eludes me.
Better?
We are becoming more and more interdependent, in a smaller, outworn world.
"A sack of rice falls over in China and no one cares" is an antiquated idiom and should be replaced by
"A sack of rice fell over in China. Who can help?"
Sorry, I can't help but think in picturesque words.I agree. We need to pray and work toward world peace. Wouldn't it be nice to have a woman president who would set forth boundaries for proper behavior for America and the world?
...as in NO war, Guys! Be Nice!!
...and they would respect and listen to her?
why not?
We do? My children have the same opportunities as a child born into the world of drug cartels in Honduras, or in the slums of Bangladesh, or in Haiti?
Girls all around the world have equal opportunities as boys?
In our school district alone opportunities vary.
In California opportunities vary.
In this country opportunities vary.
That much for equality of opportunities on this planet.You may leave this discussion any time. But no one will be able to end it.
----Define fairness. How would you describe the Bill of Rights with regard to fairness?
Unsure. Entitlement to opportunity I feel. However, entitlement to how one travels to reach that opportunity assuredly is not a reality. I am entitled to the opportunity of a said job position. I may not be able to fulfill the requirements of said job position. I have entitlement, but does my entitlement supersede the entitlement of the entity offering said position being filled with such and such background?
Entitlement to social amenities - housing, food, health systems, and etc. is either governmental, communal, or individualized. It is definitely not of a 'trust' of nature for simply being born. It must originate beyond the 'self' and nature. It must be organizational somehow.
I really think we get entitlement mixed up many times with privilege. Privileges can be revoked. It is a privilege to vote, to have a driver's license, a library card, or have some kind of membership. Even having an insurance 'policy' through a business entity is a privilege, even though a paid for privilege. Those are not rights of least here in the USA to my knowledge. Therefore they are not entitlements. One may have the entitlement to pursue something, however the one granting that which is pursued has entitlement to grant. Being granted is a privilege of the grantor.Entitlement is addictive. For example, the 1400 billionaires who own and control half the world's economy want the whole thing! Why? They think they deserve it.
Very good point!
So maybe we should focus on an entitlement vaccination instead?... so which is the worst disease ... affluenza ... liberalitis ... ideserveit .. grand malaise ... greyarea syndrome ...
ideserveit otherwise known as entitlement.
I think this is the breeding ground for
I need more of whatever because ideserveit,
To hell with those who can't see ideserveit and
no need to take a good look at me/my actions because ideserveit.
Greed, anger and idiocracy are poisoning our society.
I think to vaccinate our children we simply have to stop carrying them to the option we have chosen for them. Let them chose and find their way to the healthy state of iearnedit.
This is a win win for both our society and it's members. We should not forget that we as the people, as the society can only be as healthy as its members.
We are all connected. The crown will not flourish if you kill the base and the middle. We have to strengthen the middle not stretch and strain it.
You really think Bill Gates is stupid?
It spreads like an air born contagion. A deadly form of something for nothing, of whats yours is mine. It is, as a cancer that eats away the human character, the human will and turns one into a dependent, tantrum prone child exploited by politicians and money grubbing activists.
It is a mindset that creates tyranny and destroys individual freedom. It is a methodology that justifies a government to take from those who earn and give to those who do not. It is no less the "equal distribution of poverty" in the name of a social justice.You mean like politicians who while preaching austerity for the masses still feel entitled to claim living expenses that should be covered by their more than adequate wages off those very people that they are telling to tighten their belts.
Or perhaps you mean those foreign companies that move into countries where they feel entitled to trade without making any contribution to the host country.
Not much social justice in that is there?
Entitlement and what comes with it so often (like in the States) sounds so nice at first glance, and without much deep thought applied.
The problem is, like with so many things, there is a reality that still exists where there will be an "effect" that plays out. So, encouraging and engaging in all forms of entitlement means I would also be "entitled to what comes with that." That isn't as much fun! Its not free, and certainly not forever.
It can hurt any society, an make things unbalanced, which can create new problems. Those are things that people would rather not think about or ponder. It is the "wet blanket" on the "entitlement parade."
In the US, equality under the law provides freedom to attempt to gain opportunities for oneself.
- repeating if you want equal outcome you want too much.
Obviously.Anybody who thinks a poor person has equality under the law with a rich person isn't really in touch with reality.
I guess you wish to spread the desire of entitlement to the whole world.
What is your explanation/definition of "entitlement," hack writer?Thanks for asking. Yes that desire is exactly what I want to spread. For the sake of fairness. As mentioned before, I look at it from the point of view of the ones that are not entitled to anything. Not even trying to keep their children alive by sending them to a saver place.
If these children set a foot over our border we feel very entitled to say "no you can't do that. I was first to mark this line and to write a paper that says this is my land."
So I think it would be good for them if they had more sense of entitlement to say
"Well, my greatgreatgreatgrandmother was born here.
Where did your greatgreatgreatgrandmother come from?"
Crazy right?C R A Z Y. c r a z y
cra zzy ie zz ie
cr a ZZIE
C r A z YYYYY
crazy?
Allude- verb. suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at."she had a way of alluding to Jean but never saying her name"synonyms:refer to, touch on, suggest, hint at,imply, mention (in passing), make an allusion to; formaladvert to"the prosecutor alluded to Dixon's past"
Elude- verb. evade or escape from (a danger, enemy, or pursuer), typically in a skillful or cunning way."he managed to elude his pursuers by escaping into an alley"synonyms:evade, avoid.
Yes, see my daughter is very smart. She already knew in kindergarten what some people might not understand in a lifetime: Every word has a meaning.
Very smart indeed.
I just figured that definitions, polls, tests, education, and the LACK thereof, is very important to one of the posters here.
Looked like some assistance was needed.
Sorry for the interruption.
I like the way you think.http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_c … _elude.htm
Thanks for the grammar lesson, guys!See now that is what I appreciate about women.
What if we felt entitled to love? I am entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. No matter what country I live in.
...something like that?Can you imagine the thought - having no one to love?
I think it would be really good if there was a program that took care of those who have no one to love. Like the government could ship out puppies or something even Trump would love. And as soon as this heart cracks send in my therapist.
Yes, good idea. I think this world would truly be a better place if there was the constitutional entitlement to love.Does that mean that the government now defines love and how much and what kind each person will receive? Should to bbe patterned after the ACA?
Tell all teachers to report the kids that are love deprived. Take those to an animal shelter and give them a puppy. Let them take care of it under supervision. Why not?
I much rather have a government able of early intervention than having all those un-medicated psychos running around with guns shooting kids or becoming politicians.
But no I would not want the government to decide how much and what kind of love a person should get. Leave that to the friends of humankind like teachers and psychologists. Most politicians need a big dose of love themselves. I think. I assume.Power does need to be tempered with love. Women are pretty good at the love thing, but maybe they are too tired to love anyone by the time they pick up the fast food and their kids from daycare or school after a hard days work. It is sad but true that today women must help pay the rent/mortgage.
BTW Puppies do not bring the love children need. Parents do. There is no substitute.
TWISIDo you think women should go back to staying at home with the kids instead of having careers?
I actually do.What we need is more part-time jobs!
That would allow for the best of 2 worlds.The housewives of the 50's got bored. To stay home being a house wife is the most boring thing in the world!
...why? Because you are an adult. You need variety, challenges, intellectual stimulation and freedom to be an adult. Looking after house/home, kids and husband, (not in that particular order,) is very tricky because it is so full-time. All people need time for themselves.
They also need to fulfill personal ambitions, hopes and dreams.
Plus, our lives are too regimented by the 9 to 5 work week, (as it was in the good ol' days) in general. Our lives are boring and shallow in general. We are not in touch with our true selves. We need to become more in touch with our interest in reality, truth and nature. Not TV, money and shopping…etc.
If one cannot find a decent preschool, it is best for one of the parents to stay home until the child starts school and then work part-time while the child is in school. Be there for him after school and weekends.
Today's women want it all, however: Children, Career and House.
(Because they know in today's economic climate: a women without a career means no House.)
TWISII don't think kids should be shunted off to a babysitter just because a woman is bored.
But to each his/her own.If the babysitter is good… why not?
The ideal set-up is a good Montessori preschool. But it must be a good one.
These two books really should be read by anyone thinking of having a child or raising children:
The Absorbent Mind, by Dr. Maria Montessori
The Secret of Childhood, by Dr. Maria Montessori
After saying this to my mother you would have had to run and that may not have saved you. She was a little 5'2" keg of dynamite who reveled in motherhood. She always said (and I think she was 100% correct), "Boring people are bored." She was never, ever bored.
Shouldn't that be "bored people are boring"?
Have you ever spent day after day with a small child only to repeat it again the next day and the next? Have you ever said "Yes, this is a blue ball" 25 times a day for 125 days straight?
Let me tell you how it was for me: Taking care of my small children was lovely for a few moments a day (and thankfully these will stick with me) but the rest of my 15 hours were boring. Going to the same mommy-and-me classes a second time when my daughter came around I thought I have to throw up if I hear the same songs and rhymes over and over again and then one more time.
I dare to argue, the more interests you have the more boring it actually is, since you are more painfully aware of what you are missing out on... It's not that you could really do the interesting stuff your interested mind is begging you for while passing out bottles and changing the diapers.
I do have a friend who manages to read all the books there are while staying home and homeschooling all of her many children but she is not an average woman. I am just assuming she pays for this with beauty sleep and I know she is just a super fast reader.
Raising children is a very important job and I admire all of those who do it day in day out without complaint. But I admire all those just the same who say, no thanks, a good babysitter works better for us. I think it's honest. When these moms come home they might give their kids way more than those who stayed even though they were not happy with it."Have you ever spent day after day with a small child only to repeat it again the next day and the next?"
Yes. I've watched 385,475 episodes of "Dora" and read "The cat in the Hat" 532 times. Some people enjoy sculpting and growing young bodies into responsible adults, some don't. I don't, for the most part, but do enjoy some time with them, just as you say.Have you ever had a conversation with a liberal and then had to repeat the very same lesson the next day and then the day after that and the day after that and ....
The amazing benefit of young children is that they do learn, adults do not.Dear relief2000,
You are right in an intellectual way per usual. But have you ever had to take care of children day after day, year after year? When I was in college I felt so sorry for anyone taking child development classes. Child development classes are taught by those who know a little but not a lot. Understanding the true science of childhood is vital if you do not want to be bored by the tedious second to second attention required in attending to a child. If parents will only read the works of Dr. Montessori, the development of their child becomes really amazing and far from boring… but fat chance anyone will confer with her, let alone understand what the heck she was talking about.
(I was lucky enough to see it in action under the guidance of a true Montessori teacher who worked with this amazing woman. Also, Dr. Montessori understood that women in the future would have to work. It is a true luxury when a woman can stay home and raise her child/children.)
So, In conclusion, relief2000, you are keyboarding with no compassion at this point.
Democrats are adults. As Montessori explained: One cannot change an adult. They change themselves as need arises. I think the school of hard knocks which we are and will continue to experience on the political front will reveal that the reasoning, which you share with us, is correct.
Thanks for sharing.
If staying at home with children was cancer, I would be loaded with compassion. It is not. It is the product of a chain of life choices. It serves no one to coddle someone for the results of life choices they regret making. Again, it is more about the person than what they are doing.
Funny that. I've had the same conversation with a conservative time and again but they never learn either.
I suppose the power is in the lesson, what lesson does a liberal have to teach that is rooted in actuality.
John, when what so many liberals and socialists teach is fantasy and rhetoric, why should we "learn" it?
Because it is the morally "right" thing to do. To ensure that every individual has all their needs and wants satisfied, that no one is left behind regardless of what they return to society.
That such activity can only lead to stagnation and a falling standard of living back to the middle ages is best left unspoken as it ruins the thought completely.. . .but we can always borrow or print our way out of these problems, according to the same people.
We already tried the first, and now China owns half the country. Various countries have tried the second, but success has eluded them all.
But yes, some people actually DO think it's that easy. That printing more money will somehow ensure that we produce everything everyone wants even while no one works.Some of these same people advocate giving government jobs to every unemployed person even if the job provided is meaningless, like digging holes and later filling the same holes. What a waste of resources!
Actually, I find some value in that suggestion. Either work for the government for your welfare or get a job that pays a lot better and is more pleasant work for a decent wage. And limit welfare to the minimum to survive, stopping the luxuries. And there are always "productive" jobs available to government - sweeping streets, baby sitting, congressional janitor, mowing grass or painting buildings.
The point is to encourage actual, productive work instead of simple freeloading. (I except those, of course, that truly cannot be productive although simply having kids does not fall into that category.)
Education Answer, I have only ONE reply to Mr. Holden's response:
Hello EA. It is nice to see you here today. Do you mind if I insert a comment here? I just want to add a tidbit or two to your remarks to John.
The Constitution of the United States allows for and, more importantly, accommodates differences in political opinions. To display disrespect and disdain for another’s point of view is to dishonor that Constitution
Fortunately, the future of the USA is not decided by extreme liberals or ultra-conservatives but rather by independent voters. The 74 million registered members in the two major parties are held in check by 24 million unaligned registered independent voters who are mostly moderates. {1}{2}
Consequently, neither liberals nor conservatives are solely responsible for the direction of this country. It seems meaningless for so many people to attach labels to others, or even to issues, and then attack the labels instead of articulating the causes and the effects related to the major questions facing the nation. America is not doomed simply because we all do not think alike. The government is designed to change, meant to include new visions, accustomed to changes in direction.
Ours is a unique system and it has functioned well for a long time. We enjoy political and cultural diversity that is rare. We have the privilege of sharing our governance with many different ideologies. Tolerance of other viewpoints is the only prerequisite. Trying to restrict political thinking to only one narrow bent is to deny our nation’s preeminent glory. Our Republic encourages all factions to share in the process of governing.
Sorry to interrupt, EA. Catch ya later.
{1} http://2012election.procon.org/view.res … eID=004483
{2} http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/pol … 52171688/1Quill. you are a polite writer and we should all appreciate that, at least. Your reasoning here has merit though I would disagree with it. From the date of its founding ours has been a contentious, raucous, rancorous, bellicose, boisterous, vigorous and sometimes violent debate about the relationship between government and the governed.
The very generation that fought the Revolution and ratified the Constitution was a prime example of that debate. The warning against factions came from the least political President(from a party and competition stand point) the country has ever had, George Washington. Political factions in his day often settled their disagreements with fists and cudgels.
I would place nearly all the blame for the slow dismantling of the Constitution, in its original intent, solely at the feet of those whose primary recourse is to grow the central government at the expense of the heart of the Constitution, Federalism. Various political factions have had many different names but two primary philosophies about the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed have persisted since before the founding.
There is indeed blame to be had for the concentration of power in the hands of an ever decreasingly "federal" government and ever growing Central/Unitary one, all that is required is an objective review the past 100 years
Stay well Quill.Give it up Relief2000, Quill has already burst the bubble of this conversation. I was following this thread, but the socialist this and the capitalist that interchanges between John and others did not offer any fertile ground for new crops.
You cite history to disagree with Quill's point, but your citation only reaffirms it. Since Washington's time the "liberals" and the "conservatives", the haves and the have nots, (and their desires), have guided this country, (I am speaking of the U.S. of course), onto a path of progressive improvement, (progressive as in progressing, not the political progressive), that is both unstoppable and necessary.
Their fists and cudgels have become our courts and media. The Constitution has not been dismantled - it has triumphed. We have stumbled along the way, (think Dred Scott or the 18th amendment), but our election process has somehow always seemed to provide options that bring us back onto the road and between the ditches..
Disagree with FDR and his New Deal programs, but give a thought to where our senior population would be now without the safety net of social security. Disagree with "government regulations" but consider the "pre-regulated" business practices of the late 19th and early 20th century.
Quill, got it right. Left pulls against Right, free market battles regulated market, every man should stand on his own two feet versus the "helping hand" compassion of a society, is the norm for political and societal discussions and decisions, but in the end the twain does meet, (we are still working towards that mythical "end),and we make progress.
Beat-up on Obamacare, but if you discard the free cellphones and cash for mommas with dead-beat babie's daddies, and food stamps for families with 4 times the poverty level income type welfare mindset, is providing healthcare such a socialist and dooming American idea?
You speak of looking to history... Have you looked at the progress we have made from "community-supported Orphan's Homes and the treatment of the elderly and affirmed to the treatment of them now - in today's American society? Have you considered the change in mindset from Debtor's prisons, (who benefited?), to personal bankruptcy's? Have you considered the change from public media, (at the time it was only the newspapers), being the organ of a party to today - where at least the partnership is known?
Your example of Washington's times compared to today's times further proves Quill's point.
Here is a test question for you: "Name one instance in the previous 10 years, (gotta leave a few years for aberrations to be corrected), where our constitution has been provably subjugated?"
ps. Sorry if I stepped on your response Quill, I know you can speak for yourself, but you did open the door to the opportunity.
pss. Sorry for butting in Relief, but the forums were getting so bare of topics for rational debate/conversations.
GAGood evening to you Retief. I thank you for making the time to reply to my comments to EA.
I understand you do not agree with my post. That part is clear. However, it is not at all clear what you object to. I am left wondering if you disapprove of everything I said, just small segments, or totally imaginary perceptions.
You wrote:
“Your reasoning here has merit though I would disagree with it...”
You praise my reasoning but still disagree
when I said…
1 The Constitution encourages differences of opinion,
2 expressions of disrespect and disdain during political discourse dishonors the spirit of that Constitution,
3 independent moderate voters have an impact on the future direction of our country,
4 liberals and conservatives are not solely responsible for the future of this country,
5 labels detract from meaningful in-depth discussions about the issues,
6 America is not doomed because there are disagreements among the electorate,
7 the government can handle change, new visions, and directional changes,
8 our system copes fairly well with political and cultural diversity, and
9 limits on political thinking erode the nation’s glory.
Not one word in your “objections” relates to anything I actually said…
1. I said nothing about warning the populace about political factions but you did.
2. I did not say politics has not seen vigorous and violent debate but, since you did, I question if it is necessary.
3. I did not say any constituency should be blamed for dismantling the Constitution but you did although none of the Constitutional amendments enacted in the last 100 years shifts power away from a “Federal” government.
You appear to be attacking an imaginary windmill. It looks like you did not respond to my post but found it be a convenient excuse to push a personal agenda.
Then again, perhaps your were trying to justify today’s political rancor by suggesting it is a festering ulcer dating back to President Washington. If so, most will agree the bombastic rhetoric from the political fringes has become the norm. Never the less, to argue that derisive extremism has always existed is to beg the question, “Is there any rational reason that it needs to be this way?”
Of course, I could be totally wrong and I could be in need of your help. By the numbers then, one through nine, exactly which statement(s) of mine did you find objectionable? Please be specific and save me from having to guess what it is you are trying to say. .
I find it interesting that this was directed at the conservative but not the socialist. Your entire message was of political moderation, yet only one side of the political spectrum was rebuked. Interesting.
For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I do question why this was directed only at one side. Are we seeing your bias within your moderation?
Best wishes.I find it interesting that you read it as being directed at the conservatives! I didn't, I read it as pretty even handed.
Perhaps you would like to show what you consider a rebuke aimed solely at the right.Of course you do! Did he respond to you or me? Was your name on the post? Seriously?
Was my name in the post? Well yes it was actually, unless he meant another John!
Are you serious? On, not in. It was about my remarks TO you, not from you.
On or in, who else called John could he have been referring to?
And stop avoiding my question.He referred to my post, not yours. Yes, you were mentioned, but you were neither the recipient of this message nor the person who was targeted, for lack of a better word. That SHOULD be obvious.
It's like having your name mentioned once in a book and claiming that half the book is about you.So if you want to keep the whole thing private why air it on a public forum?
Well you're chastising me for entering into a discussion, that means that you must want to keep it private.
Sometimes, I simply do not understand the way you think. You're jumping to wild conclusions.
Did you, or did you not say
"He referred to my post, not yours. Yes, you were mentioned, but you were neither the recipient of this message nor the person who was targeted, for lack of a better word. That SHOULD be obvious."Yes, and then you ASSUMED that I did not want comments. What's your point. Is there a point?
Look just answer the comment-
"I find it interesting that you read it as being directed at the conservatives! I didn't, I read it as pretty even handed.
Perhaps you would like to show what you consider a rebuke aimed solely at the right.""Of course you do! Did he respond to you or me? Was your name on the post? Seriously?"
Actually that sounds very much like a rejection of comments!
Did too! Did not! Did too! Did too! Did not! Did too! Did too! Did not! Did too! Did too! Did not! Did too! Did too! Did not! Did too! Did too! Did not! Did too! Did too! Did not! Did too!
GAAt risk of being told off again for responding to a comment I'd just like to say
John, we've had much sharper words before. Why the sudden sensitivity?
Erm, it wasn't me who went off on one when I suggested that I saw no bias in Quill's post and asked you to show it to me.
John, I do not think she will ever try to shut you down again.
Right, EA?
( But, you are British...
…so, we will listen to you just in case we become a One World world under a constitution similar to ours. Okay?.... . .and you did it in such a kind, warm way. . .
Frankly, I'm quite surprised that you kept responding for so long. You must have a lot of time on your hands.
Thank you, EA, for your reply. I understand your criticism and I somewhat agree. I did not intend to address my comments to just conservatives or only one political viewpoint. My remarks can include John in the UK as well. Obviously, his interpretation was quite different from yours. It seems he did not see a bias in my position on moderation.
Your post observed, “Your entire message was of political moderation, yet only one side of the political spectrum was rebuked. Interesting,”
I am truly sorry if you thought the tone of my post was a rebuke. I thought it was obvious that moderation should prevail on all positions of the political spectrum. However, if you concluded my entire message was only about political moderation than you would be wrong. My message was also about political tolerance. It suggested we should allow room for others to share in the role of governing. It spoke of reshaping the national dialog by eliminating all of the left, right, liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist labels and focusing the debate instead on the causes and affects inherent in the real and present issues. It recognized the demographics of our electorate, which serves to insulate the country from ridged ideological extremism.
This nation can thrive, EA, with input from all factions on the political landscape. Moderation and tolerance of other viewpoints are naturally a necessary prerequisite.
Have a great day, EA, and enjoy following your bliss. After all, that is what life is really all about.
What the hell??? Are you trying to take all the fun out of these exercises?
Another page turned, and another instance of deja vu' It's vague, but I do recall something about a league of masters...
Well stated my friend.
GA
It has always been less about what we are doing than who we are.
OMG! How un-PC of you.
As a male I think women should have that choice. But since I agree with your point, I think it should be an either/or choice. I just don't think both can be done well. Which means a choice has to be made about who suffers; the career, the woman, or the children.
Of course I am speaking in general terms. I know there must be superwomen, or certain types of careers that can accommodate both. But generally speaking... it seems to be a matter of priorities.
ps. I was raised by a working, (note the difference - working vs. career, mother), because we needed to incomes to survive..
GAOh Thank you! That is so nice to hear. Women should be given a choice! Unlike the puppy? ;-)
Well. I am very lucky to have a part-time job that is interesting and fulfilling so that my kids don't have to go to after school care. But I think I will soon change that so that my children have to become a little more independent. I think this is actually good for them.
When I was 7 I not only walked home from school without an adult I was also left alone to study all by myself and I do believe this has made me an independent thinker, a person able to manage her resources on her own.
I am seeing how lazy my kids are when it comes to thinking for themselves and I take 100% blame for that. I do not know a better way of forcing them to start using their own brain than to allow them to fail.
I think they should do this rather sooner than later, before it's too late. I am not planning to sit next to them at work later in life so I think they must. Too much comfort and pampering is not good for anyone.
WELL I DON'T. Women should have careers. Who wants to be a housewife depending upon her husband for socioeconomic sustenance. Women should OWN their power and careers provide women with THEIR OWN power. Women are MORE than wives and mothers. GOOD GRIEF! Housewife=eeeechhhh!
Hint: There are already enough people stomping around on the earth.
You are right, puppies can not replace a family. But maybe it's better than nothing?
What is better is this:
...if the government would stand back! Let the economy percolate. Over taxing, over regulating and over restricting in the myriad ways it does, for the myriad of justifications it gives, has put the American people in quite a pickle.
Obviously.
The desires of human nature have become more corrupted than they naturally were with pure and simple Ego.
There are a psychopathic few who have learned how to manipulate the Ego for their own ends.
For one thing, they take the built-in Entitlement of Ego and expand upon it. Such attitudes are in our advertisements, in our movies and in the jargon of modern, everyday life.
They apply Orwellian Doublethink and Newspeak to divide us into camps. All the better to control the masses. (For example, the American news media's penchant for describing the U.S. military's war-like behavior as "peacekeeping" actions.)
Take the desire to help others. Government has taken this over with Socialism, Progressivism or Liberalism. Helping others to their own detriment, feeding Ego's demand for reward for simply existing.
I used to be a Liberal in this respect. Now, I'm older and wiser and see that even its political opposite is little better (and in some ways worse).
The psychopaths who run Wall Street, defrauded Earth of Billions during the 2008 housing bubble burst and got their puppets in Washington to bail them out for nearly a $Trillion, instead of thrown in jail.
But the puppet masters are also trying to get the compassionate of Earth to believe their Global Warming scare. "Reduce your Carbon Footprint!" It all sounds very nice and responsible, but everyone who falls for this scaremongering is being played. (That included me!)
Entitlement is a natural part of Ego. The psychopaths who run Wall Street and all the private Central Banks of the world (including America's own Fed) are playing all sides of us -- the good, the bad and the ugly.
They even have us reacting to language like some Pavlovian dog. Say "conspiracy" and some people cringe and retreat. They don't want to be associated with anything "crazy." But talking about conspiracy isn't crazy. Conspiracies happen every day. The two little boys who stole cookies from the jar in the kitchen were conspiring. It is entirely naive to think that big boys wouldn't lie, steal or murder for $Trillions and the power it would bring.
Those psychopaths have Entitlement down pat. They think the world owes them everything. They have a New World Order coming which will enslave everyone else. As Nick Rockefeller told the late Aaron Russo, everyone will have an RFID chip implanted in them, only the psychopathic rulers of Earth will have a KMA (kiss my ****) embedded in theirs.
Entitlement is self-concern. This will ruin the world and has already caused suffering since the beginning.
The opposite is Love -- wishing for others everything that they desire without any self-concern. This will heal the world. This includes forgiveness of the psychopaths for every crime they've ever committed. In fact, it includes turning the other cheek to their shock and delight. With this, we can make the New World Order short-lived and keep the suffering smaller than it might have been.Power is the temptation. Egos are tempted. Some temptations are irresistible due to such thoughts as: "I can get away with this, " "It will hurt no one," or "No one will stop me."
So, what egos need are boundaries…
"No, you will not break the laws!"
"No, we will not let you!"
"Yes, you will do the job you said you would do." / "No, you will not lie to us!"
"Our Republic encourages all factions to share in the process of governing."
Why / How?...open discussion is valuable to determine the reality between all the extremes of the contrasting arguments.
Related Discussions
- 124
Why do so many people feel "entitled" and "deserving" these days?
by Laura Schneider 6 years ago
Why do so many people feel "entitled" and "deserving" these days?This seems especially apparent in younger people and children.
- 82
Health care and entitlement
by janesix 10 years ago
What is entitlement anyway? The right to something? Why does socialized health care have to be considered "bad" when we pay taxes for things that benefit everyone, like roads and education?Good health would certainly be a benefit to society as a whole. People are able to work more and...
- 14
Do you feel its right for today's kids to feel "entitled"?
by Alastar Packer 13 years ago
Do you feel its right for today's kids to feel "entitled"?
- 38
Entitlement in America....
by Grace Marguerite Williams 22 months ago
Poor people have become the most entitled people in America. They believe that others should provide them with a comfortable lifestyle. They also assert that housing, education, & health services are a right. It used to be that poor people were humble. They knew...
- 20
Remember Self-Control, Accountability, & Responsibility?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
Why do some Americans believe that it is the government's job to rescue them & to give them a comfortable life? Why do so poor Americans feel that they are entitled to education, health care, housing, & the other amenities of life? I remember that if one wanted these...
- 59
Are Social Security and Medicare entitlements?
by Petra Vlah 11 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?