I think we've gotten to the point where we have the same arguments in both threads, so let's just keep it here now.
My point is that you can't take what someone writes and assign blame to them for another's actions. The guy in Alabama...I don't blame what he read on the web or who he listened to on talk radio. I blame him. By the way, he kidnapped a kid. Doesn't the motivation in that seem more likely to be pedophilia, not politics? He didn't go shoot up city hall or kidnap the mayor.
Blaming Jack for what he did would be like blaming Rachel Maddow for Floyd Corkins shooting the guard at the Family Research Council. It's preposterous in both cases.
There are two huge differences there. Hitler achieved his goals because he gained control of the government and expanded it's power (kind of how the Left always wants to see government grow). Also, Hitler called for violence against Jews. Who has Jack called for violence against? He's said not to budge on gun rights, like we shouldn't have budged on 4th Amendment rights. He hasn't called for assassinations of any politicians that promote gun control. I'm sure he'd like to see them voted out, but not killed.
Paulius, certainly you see the fallacy in your logic? I guess we've reached the point of Godwin's Law because I'm compelled to point out that Hitler never personally killed any Jews. How can he be held responsible for the crazed antisemitism that gripped Germany following his speeches that blamed the Jews for all of Germany's ills? I'm not claiming Jack is Hitler....he's more like some low level lackey of Joseph Goebbels. But Jack's point was to encourage the same degree of extremist behavior from paranoid and delusional people. Now that they've taken him up on his suggestion, he cannot claim to be ignorant of the consequences. Of course this rightwing lunatic might not have read Jack Hunter's column. Hunter himself is marginal and irrelevant. But he is part of the right-wing propaganda machine that coordinates and systematically pushes this nonsense (ie the Nazi Party).
Fish, you probably didn't write anything that would make me think that...but a crazed anti-cyclist might've seen it that way. Under the standard you set for Jack, you'd be responsible for whatever action that person took. What has Jack written that leads you to believe he's responsible for someone kidnapping a kid and killing a bus driver? Is Al Gore responsible for the actions of ecoterrorists? Is Christopher Nolan responsible for the Aurora shooting? Are inner city murders the fault of Lil' Boosie?
Paulius, you are so clever! You snared me in a rhetorical trap that I never would have recognized had you not pointed out how clever you were. It's not like there was a looong history of people like Hunter inciting violence on which to base my (now realized) prediction. Please quote anything that I have written about bicycles that made you believe you could never be too extreme in your desire to see them ride on the sidewalk.
You all deserve to sit through this entire thing.
Fish, what makes you think that guy ever even heard of Jack Hunter? Do you have some knowledge you're not sharing? Was he a relative of yours? See what I just did there? It's called speculation.... same thing you did.
Also, do you remember when Joe Riley was talking about putting a bike lane on the Ashley River Bridge? Some of the comments you wrote against that almost made me run down some cyclists. That was a very dangerous game you were playing back then.
And right on que, a man from Midland, Alabama who has been described as an angry anti-government survivalist killed a bus driver and kidnapped a 5 year old boy and held him hostage in his underground bunker for the past 5 days. When will Hunter take responsibility for inciting this behavior? He is an agitator whose sole purpose is to fan the flames of angst and insecurity. His readership is clearly mentally challenged and unable to discern fact from propaganda and therefore susceptible to a paranoid reactionary response. As I've said for the past 3 weeks, this is a very dangerous game that Hunter is playing. Now we're beginning to see the violent consequences of his call to arms.
look what america has generated in the public school system since the 1960's and in our institutions of higher learning . America is failing so fast.
SS is an entitlement, one works for many years to build up their benifit amount that will be given back at retirement. There are requirements to draw SS, i would suggest most read them first. Even when i was in the military we paid SS tax, passed in 1955 by Congress for all Military persons . Medicare is also an entitlement, paid for "Part A "by a tax on each worker while in the work force. Part "B" is paid for out of ones SS check at the clip of about 100.00 a month. There are also requirements for that , read them.
medicaid, SSI, welfare green cards , etc. are not entitlements, people on these programs mostly do not pay for them in a tax or other means , these are government handouts. those on Medicare fund "Medicaid and other programs" that is why Medicare is costing so much, government gives Medicare an IOU each month, but we will never see that money in Medicare. Notice how they always raid Medicare to pay for other healthcare programs like medicaid ? Obama has done this twice already to Medicare to fund his obama care program.
More coming down the road with Big Government, soon all americans will be on some Government program where they will not have to work to get food or care......what a nation that will be !!! Oh ! well
Wow Cutler, that was full of fallacies and mistakes. So we can't learn anything from the past huh? Guess learning in 1920 that reducing the size and scope of government cures recessions faster than government stimulus has no bearing on today's economy, huh? And you might want to know that Jack Hunter opposed the Iraq War and other unconstitutional interventions just like Ron Paul does. And usually, the less the government "gets done" the better. The Citizens United decision is not what has corrupted the government. It is the unconstitutional relationship government has with business that does this. If the government would stay within its constitutional limits, we would not have to fear the government colluding with large corporations. Campaign contributions from corporations are a symptom, not a cause of our political situation.
Please look deeper into the facts Cutler, your missing the points.
Man, I was on the wrong thread. These guys replying to Ron should read my comment on Chris's post. Not that it will make any difference though. It's like talking to the desk I'm sitting at. Got one guy talking about finances in 1962? Who gives a damn about 1962? We live in the year 2013! Your so-called conservative movement decided to go apes#@t for Iraq after we already discovered the problems in Afghanistan! We are all paying for that $10 trillion dollar war that happened BEFORE the so-called "liberals" got into office. You've got your own news network that has somehow absolved the whole administration from this HUGE and MONUMENTAL fiscal problem. And you say things are getting out of control because the "liberals" are at fault. How about we all agree that we can't get anything done right now because the two sides are really all just paid in full by the grandest decision in politics ever, "Citizens United". Do you know who voted for that? Your beautiful, wise, and esteemed conservative Supreme Court justices.
Education is a very large business. In this country, it produces more college graduates than it knows what to do with, or what private industry can employ. This could prevent a serious problem for academia when job growth in the private sector diminishes. But since many educators are bureaucrats, the public sector comes to the rescue. Which of course means that the government grows and taxes increase, further weakening the private sector and often stifling entrepreneurship. The beauty of this is it leads to a greater welfare state and increased crime and so, more public sector jobs for college graduates.
The connection between elitist educators/government/politicians/industrialist/media/press, and even immigration is very clear. After all, not many college grads are going to pick grapes. The problem is that so many hollow jobs are created. Fortunately the good atheistic people of China make 90% of what Americans buy at Christmas cheaply enough to pay for all the shipping and leave a profit margin.
Ultimately, this country will almost certainly become a totalitarian state, where government controls the weapons and the economy. Might as well get use to it..
It is teh one we use to start fire to burn out capitalist scumdog and imperialist enemy of people, Comrade.
What is a marxist matchbook?
Liberte needs to read some more and study economics...while you seem to think you know better than the rest of us, it obvious you learned your economics off the back of a marxist matchbook.
Tax revenue has remained constant for the past 50 years, averaging about 18 percent of gross domestic product.
During that interval, federal spending has risen from less than 20 percent to more than 25 percent of GDP. What accounts for this growth in federal spending?
Liberal progressives like to blame national defense, but in 1962, national defense expenditures were 50 percent of the federal budget; today they are 19 percent.
What accounts for most federal spending is the set of programs euphemistically called entitlements. In 1962, entitlement spending was 31 percent of the federal budget; today it is 62 percent.
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security alone take up 44 percent of the federal budget, and worse than that, it’s those expenditures that are the most rapidly growing spending areas.
Our federal debt and deficits are unsustainable and are driven by programs under which Congress takes the earnings of one American to give to another, or entitlements.
How long can Congress take in $200 billion in revenue per month and spend $360 billion per month? That means roughly 40 cents of every federal dollar spent has to be borrowed.
The undeniable fact of business is that a greater number of people are living off government welfare programs than are paying taxes.
That’s what’s driving Europe’s economic problems, and it’s what’s driving ours.
The true tragedy is that just to acknowledge that fact is political suicide, as presidential contender Mitt Romney found out.
We can’t blame politicians. It’s the American people who will crucify a politician who even talks about cutting their favorite handout.
Government sponsored welfare is not in the Constitution, for anyone's sake. I do want my fellow man to fare well, and I expect him to carry some of that water for himself. You're mistaken on another one of your points, there's no requirements for individuals to balance their budget, but there are requirements for the Senate to provide an annual budget and submit it to the House for consideration. The sad fact is the programs you listed, SS, Medicare and Medicaid do provide much needed support for many Americans but they are not protected and have been raided on numerous occasions. Welfare and caring for your fellow man are not bad in any sense of the word but it should be a hand up, not a hand out.
Black and red are irrelevant terms for a government. You are subscribing to the fallacy that individuals are required to have balanced budgets so therefore government should too. When in fact, individuals take out loans, get credit cards, open expense accounts, etc.
Well-funded and protected SS, Medicare and Medicaid benefit society as a whole. If those programs are successful, then more people are given increased means to become larger players in the economy, which in turn benefits the individual and the private sector.
I would love to know when "welfare" became such a bad word. You'd have to be a real asshole to not want your fellow man to fare well. It's even in the Constitution for christ's sake!
Ron, Please name one federal program which operates in the black, in other words, with no further need for funding from the taxpayers. Our tax dollars are not an investment, they are a funding source for government, nothing more. Profitable, didn't think our government was a business, I fail to see where any entitlements program florish without cutting something else.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper