America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/op

[auditor0007]

America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers | Fox News

Those were Abe Lincoln’s words in his first inaugural in 1861, as America was running headlong into civil war. Now we’re a house divided again and another civil war is coming, with the 2012 election as its Gettysburg.

Call it America’s coming civil war between the Makers and the Takers.

On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday.

On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments, from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra).

Over the past century America’s private sector has been the source of productivity, innovation, creativity, and growth–and gave us the iPhone and iPad. The public sector has been the engine of entitlement, stagnation, and decline -- and gave us Detroit and the South Bronx.

Read more: America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers | Fox News

******************

I somehow think that the left believes there is legitimacy to the growing number of people on government programs.

Just like the third and fourth generation welfare folks I knew in CA who got together right after the checks showed up and celebrated with a bag of weed.

Oh good Lord, what a bunch of bull. Makers and takers, lmao. The makers are the ones who are actually doing the work and being paid lower and lower wages while the takers are the ones who are calling the shots. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people becoming wealthy or even super wealthy, but there is a problem when those people do so at the expense of the working and middle class.

But there is some truth to the potential for civil war. Social wars are always preceded by a time when a small group of people gain an enormous amount of wealth and power at the expense of the rest of society. If you don't believe this, study history.

 

[Pho_King]

America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers | Fox News

Those were Abe Lincoln’s words in his first inaugural in 1861, as America was running headlong into civil war. Now we’re a house divided again and another civil war is coming, with the 2012 election as its Gettysburg.

Call it America’s coming civil war between the Makers and the Takers.

On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday.

On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments, from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra).

Over the past century America’s private sector has been the source of productivity, innovation, creativity, and growth–and gave us the iPhone and iPad. The public sector has been the engine of entitlement, stagnation, and decline -- and gave us Detroit and the South Bronx.

Read more: America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers | Fox News

******************

I somehow think that the left believes there is legitimacy to the growing number of people on government programs.

Just like the third and fourth generation welfare folks I knew in CA who got together right after the checks showed up and celebrated with a bag of weed.

Oh good Lord, what a bunch of bull. Makers and takers, lmao. The makers are the ones who are actually doing the work and being paid lower and lower wages while the takers are the ones who are calling the shots. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people becoming wealthy or even super wealthy, but there is a problem when those people do so at the expense of the working and middle class.

But there is some truth to the potential for civil war. Social wars are always preceded by a time when a small group of people gain an enormous amount of wealth and power at the expense of the rest of society. If you don't believe this, study history.

The envy is strong in this one.

 

[Barb]

America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers | Fox News

Those were Abe Lincoln’s words in his first inaugural in 1861, as America was running headlong into civil war. Now we’re a house divided again and another civil war is coming, with the 2012 election as its Gettysburg.

Call it America’s coming civil war between the Makers and the Takers.

On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday.

On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments, from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra).

Over the past century America’s private sector has been the source of productivity, innovation, creativity, and growth–and gave us the iPhone and iPad. The public sector has been the engine of entitlement, stagnation, and decline -- and gave us Detroit and the South Bronx.

Read more: America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers | Fox News

******************

I somehow think that the left believes there is legitimacy to the growing number of people on government programs.

Just like the third and fourth generation welfare folks I knew in CA who got together right after the checks showed up and celebrated with a bag of weed.

Oh good Lord, what a bunch of bull. Makers and takers, lmao. The makers are the ones who are actually doing the work and being paid lower and lower wages while the takers are the ones who are calling the shots. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people becoming wealthy or even super wealthy, but there is a problem when those people do so at the expense of the working and middle class.

But there is some truth to the potential for civil war. Social wars are always preceded by a time when a small group of people gain an enormous amount of wealth and power at the expense of the rest of society. If you don't believe this, study history.

The envy is strong in this one.

And they'd know

 

[Bfgrn]

Listening and friends

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln


Understanding Listening and friends...

"it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them"

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.
more

 

[francoHFW]

The OP is the kind of moronic idea one gets after 25 years of hateful, BS propaganda.

This is not an entitlement attitude, it's the SECOND Pub Great World Depression. Great job, pubbies. The USA is the only modern country in the world where full time workers live in poverty and have no health care (750k bankruptcies a year, most HAVE insurance - crap insurance!)After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[Old Rocks]

The takers have been taking since... forever.

It is a little this time, as they are all fat and have cable TV.

And the majority of the takers live in the red states. That should tell you something. Lots of flap yap here, little substance.

Truth of the matter is, there will be no new Civil War. These 'Conservatives' are far to lazy to clean the beer cans from in front of the door of the single wide, and get off of their flat asses to do anything at all other than whine and snivel.

 

[Vast LWC]

If your wole point is that the taxpayers are the ones that create jobs, then wouldn't those that pay the most taxes create the most jobs? Your hatred of success is astounding.

That is not my "whole point".

And I have no hatred of success.

My point was that everyone contributes to job creation, not just the rich, in their own different ways, and therefore one cannot label the rich "job creators".

Why do you deify the rich? Do you feel that having a lot of money makes a person better than everyone else?

 

[Vast LWC]

Typical fucking lib. "we are all job creators". Everybody must get a blue ribbon or your panties will tear. Fucking moron.

Ahh yes.

When you have no point, except a few talking points, you seek refuge in meaningless name-calling.

I'd say that places your IQ at about 80. Congratulations, you're only mildly retarded.

 

[Katzndogz]

At some point the liberals are going to have to do something besides stamp their feet and shake their curls. Property owners and asset holders just aren't going to give up everything they worked for that easy. They won't turn over their holdings just because of a tantrum. At some point, the liberals will have to use force.

 

[Vast LWC]

Nobody described the working class as the takers, shit for brains. It's simple math. Taxes paid minus entitlements received. If you are above the break even point, you are a maker. Below that you are a taker.

From the OP, describing the "makers":

On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday.

Since the only people targeted by Obama's tax hikes are those making above 200k, that would be the richest 10% of Americans.

But, I see that reading comprehension is not really a skill you possess, and, since you appear to be mildly retarded, I'll forgive you.

 

[Katzndogz]

A homeless derelict never gave me a job nor rented me housing.

To say that the poor are job creators is like saying criminals are job creators because they provide employment to police and courts. Therefore, the employment of criminality has to be respected as "working".

 

[jack113]

The wealthy do not create jobs. Companies only expand when their products are consumed not because they have any feeling for the poverty they create by sucking the life blood from the country. Jobs will only be created when consumers have money to buy not when some corporate welfare pig feeding at the trough decided to stop feeding. They never have enough and never will. The first step for a 1% fascist when going broke is a dive out a ten story window. None of them know how to live without being surrounded with a pile of money they inherited from fascist daddy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nobody described the working class as the takers, shit for brains. It's simple math. Taxes paid minus entitlements received. If you are above the break even point, you are a maker. Below that you are a taker.

From the OP, describing the "makers":

On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday.

Since the only people targeted by Obama's tax hikes are those making above 200k, that would be the richest 10% of Americans.

But, I see that reading comprehension is not really a skill you possess, and, since you appear to be mildly retarded, I'll forgive you.

It depends on where you are. You are probably somewhere in an Applachian mountain village, but in the real world of the major cities, $200,000 a year doesn't get much.

No matter how much money you make, if you make any at all, you are going to be in the upper something percent. The poor are already not paying any taxes at all. Their tax burden is already being paid by someone else. The richest 10%, or more likely the richest 5%. Tax cuts cannot possibly help the poor who pay no taxes at all.

 

[Vast LWC]

A homeless derelict never gave me a job nor rented me housing.

To say that the poor are job creators is like saying criminals are job creators because they provide employment to police and courts. Therefore, the employment of criminality has to be respected as "working".

The OP pits the richest 10% of society, or as they put it "those targeted by the Obama tax cuts" against the other 90% of society, in their ridiculous scenario.

Since "homeless derelicts" make up a fraction of a percent of that 90%, I'd say your post is meaningless.

 

[Vast LWC]

It depends on where you are. You are probably somewhere in an Applachian mountain village, but in the real world of the major cities, $200,000 a year doesn't get much.

No matter how much money you make, if you make any at all, you are going to be in the upper something percent. The poor are already not paying any taxes at all. Their tax burden is already being paid by someone else. The richest 10%, or more likely the richest 5%. Tax cuts cannot possibly help the poor who pay no taxes at all.

None of which contradicts my point. Which is that the OP states that only the richest 10% are "makers" and everyone else are "takers".

Which is simply an extension of the "Job Creator" deification of the rich.

 

[jack113]

I don't understand... Are you trying to make this nothing but a libturdz VS Republicraps thread so that you don't have to address the bigger issue that welfare in this country has made it impossible to balance a budget, even for states?

No, that was the job of the op, I merely made note of it.

I wouldn't argue that spending on all fronts is beyond reasonable.

Interesting... So how far in debt due to overspending does America need to go before it is beyond reasonable? We're around 1.6 trillion annual deficit currently, do you feel something needs to be cut yet, if so, what and how much would that knock off a deficit that is due to break 2 Trillion soon? Maybe you’re the kind of person that believes taxing the rich will pay for the deficit, care to give us some numbers, like the tax rate and how much revenue it will pull a year, then deduct that microscopic number from the growing deficit for us so none of us have to do it for you.

Funny how the fascist republican big government party created the biggest government and debt in history and called it good under Bush and then tries to blame Obama for it. The conservatives got our credit rating lowered so they could play racist with the black president. The conservatives waste tax money on non issues and try to create Taliban style religious government to replace the rule of law. It's these whacked out conservatives that are not conservative in any way wanting to throw their debt onto future generations knowing the trailer trash they breed will have no way to pay for their conservative ponzi scam.

 

[flacaltenn]

The wealthy do not create jobs. Companies only expand when their products are consumed not because they have any feeling for the poverty they create by sucking the life blood from the country. Jobs will only be created when consumers have money to buy not when some corporate welfare pig feeding at the trough decided to stop feeding. They never have enough and never will. The first step for a 1% fascist when going broke is a dive out a ten story window. None of them know how to live without being surrounded with a pile of money they inherited from fascist daddy.

Completely bass-ackwards.. Demand means NOTHING in a repressed economy. If the goal is to create jobs -- handing $100 dollar bills to encourage consumerism only makes the rich -- richer as they crank up the Chinese factories and send more containers to Long Beach. It has the OPPOSITE effect of what's desired.

No jobs --> no money --> no growth in jobs. Hiring public servants doesn't stimulate. And the consumer sector is NOT the most important anyway since America needs to SERVE the world to BALANCE the trade. And most of high ticket exports are not consumer items. We are NOW a NET IMPORTER of consumer items.

You want growth and jobs. Get investments to move to innovative NEW companies. Get the IPO train running again..

China didn't become a SuperPower in 30 yrs by deficit spending or taxing the rich. They got their motor running from TONS of outside investment, knowledge transfer and free training. ALL supplied by foreign capital.

You say "jobs will only be created when consumers have money". They don't have money til they have jobs. Job creation occurs by innovation and funding that comes from folks willing to risk it all on their visions.

And like I pointed out -- consuming Ipads today doesn't cause Apple to hire Americans.
Why are leftists -- with all their "sustainable development" so hot on consumerism anyway? Is it possible for them to be consistent?

 

[Toro]

I would agree that there is an integrated relationship between innovators and consumers. Most people are not "takers." Consumers voluntarily exchange for goods and services they want and need, so parsing the world between makers and takers is awfully silly.

But capital is absolutely critical in the making and commercialization of any product. Try starting a business without it. You can have the best idea in the world, but it is totally irrelevant if you can't fund it.

Of course it's all inter-related. But most of the per capita wealth in the history of the world has been created over the last ~200 years. The pace of innovation before that time was minuscule compared to today, with wealth occurring in fits and starts with inventions such as the plough and the compass. Meanwhile, there was always the capacity for demand. Demand is bound only by incomes and when marginal utility becomes negative. Per capita demand thus increases with income, which is driven by innovation. If innovation stopped today, then it wouldn't matter how much demand there was, and would not be much different than the 18 centuries AD when global per capita income rose at a snail's pace.

How does that contradict the point I've been making, which is:

"The rich are not the job creators, everyone plays a role in creating jobs."

Or, in the context of the threads OP:

The rich are not "the makers" and the working class is not "the takers".


Innovation does make income rise faster, but increased demand for innovation makes innovation happen. Like population growth, or education needs, or increased communication needs to keep up with supply needs, or faster transportation needs to international locations.

 

[initforme]

So if we read this correctly, school teachers are takers. Policemen are takers. Firemen are takers. Those people work too. Never have I seen such a hatred for those serving us. My daughter teaches kindergarten. She's one of those takers.

 

[flacaltenn]

It depends on where you are. You are probably somewhere in an Applachian mountain village, but in the real world of the major cities, $200,000 a year doesn't get much.

No matter how much money you make, if you make any at all, you are going to be in the upper something percent. The poor are already not paying any taxes at all. Their tax burden is already being paid by someone else. The richest 10%, or more likely the richest 5%. Tax cuts cannot possibly help the poor who pay no taxes at all.

None of which contradicts my point. Which is that the OP states that only the richest 10% are "makers" and everyone else are "takers".

Which is simply an extension of the "Job Creator" deification of the rich.

In the sense of the OP -- you are a TAKER if you PAY NOTHING into the General Fund and DEMAND that others pay more..

Especially with a Prez who has now excused folks at ALL levels from paying their fair share of Soc Sec and Medicare FICA taxes.. Barack Robin Hood doesn't care that he's damaging those fragile programs just to ineffectually attempt to redistribute RESPONSIBILITY for those programs. Which were conceived as Universal, but are turning into another welfare transfer.