Letters: America in danger of imploding

Govs. Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker, of Wisconsin, and others should not have disparaged Mitt Romney for his discussing the reasons he lost the election. He might have put it more artfully; but his main point is absolutely correct that President Barack Obama offered “free” goodies to groups while Romney offered jobs.

As a political science major, I studied the philosophy of Karl Marx and his ilk. Marx said that a democracy did not have to be taken by force. He said it would implode when voters, who had no or very little stake, would vote for the politicians who offered them the most freebies. I never thought that this would come to the United States. But we have to face facts.

We are rapidly imploding. Our cultural mores are being eroded very quickly. We give out free cellphones and monthly minutes. We have a skyrocketing food stamp participation. We have a crushing debt that is rapidly rising through trillion-dollar deficits year after year as for as the eye can see. And we have too many people asking for more “free” stuff.

I take some comfort that things will change in the fact that more state legislatures are now overwhelmingly Republican, which means lower taxes and a pro-growth agenda. I also have faith that our nation will awaken and reclaim the Judeo-Christian principles on which it was founded and declare again that it is a Christian nation tolerant of other religions or nonreligions, but not dictated by them or subservient to them.

I believe we have to be optimistic in the face of daunting odds. A lot of belt-tightening has to begin very soon with people once again asking what they can do for their country and not what their country can do for them.

Wayne Blankenship Jr.

oil and gas independent

Kenner

Comments

1) Comment by Scrooge - 26/11/2012

The duplication of which does tend to support the notion that the ones most loudly blathering about "liberty" are the most enslaved, no wonder they are so distressed about their freedom, they are prisoners of their own limited by intent minds. Why? Christianity was the resurrection of limits to possibilities. I do not understand those who do not understand.

2) Comment by NearBarbarian - 26/11/2012

Reb: you might want to make sure not to cross-post comments on two letters. An intended compliment might become an insult, particularly if you do not change the names and some of the sentence structure. The liberals with or without waistbands on or waste materials in their panties have commented on your description of them in your response to Mr. Kelly's letter. I won't soil this comment thread with the rejoinders. Lastly, I, for one, am less frenzied than I am flabbergasted.

3) Comment by Reb - 26/11/2012

OOOH... That letter struck a nerve with the PANTY waisted liberals.... The truth always puts them into a frenzy..... Nice job Mr Kelly....

4) Comment by nimby? - 26/11/2012

You realize I said care of , not care for , right ?

5) Comment by DMJ - 26/11/2012

You realize "serve" and "care for" are synonyms, right?

6) Comment by nimby? - 26/11/2012

most ? your opinion . it is morally deplorable that those taking advantage without need don't even consider those "genuinely in need" , putting them in a bad light . it is a emotional issue without an easy answer . the government is to serve , not take care of . "shared sacrifice , shared responsibilities" ....

7) Comment by DMJ - 26/11/2012

So...we should forsake those genuinely in need in order to stick it to those who abuse the system? I have a moral problem with that. I think most people would agree.

8) Comment by nimby? - 26/11/2012

it was a lot quieter . the safety net has become a dependency .

9) Comment by DMJ - 26/11/2012

Yeah, eliminate all social programs.....because life was so much better in the late 1800s...

10) Comment by nimby? - 26/11/2012

eliminate ALL social programs , allow the earner to invest/use as he sees fit . social programs are created with the best of intent . they are easily taken advantage of and impossible to enforce , HCA will be the same .

11) Comment by DMJ - 26/11/2012

1. The free cell phone program started under Bush. 2. Cell phones and food stamps are an extremely tiny % of the budget. 3. the vast majority of "free stuff" is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security...which is used by Democrats and Republicans alike. Another "sky is falling" letter....or, in this case, "imploding." Blah, blah, blah... You lost. Get over it. Oh, and as if oil and gas companies never got a freebie from the government. Give me a break.

12) Comment by gofigger - 26/11/2012

nimby - Better said.

13) Comment by nimby? - 26/11/2012

I'll give the Dems credit . they have convinced themselves that conservatives can do nothing without first consulting the Fox playbook , that they bow to the alter of Shaun , Glenn , etc. , that Rush is their mouthpiece . the left must have someone monitoring the network 24/7 . how else would they know the code talk , buzz words , catch phrases ? paranoia ? Dbiter , according to the 2010 census American-Africans make up 12 percent of the population , receiving 38 percent of social benefits being paid by the government , total earnings 21 percent , lotta millionaire ball players , rap artists . isn't math fun .

14) Comment by HerbF - 26/11/2012

Dbiter: Well said.

15) Comment by Dbiter - 25/11/2012

I have to give the GOP credit.... They have done a phenomenal job in convincing people who are not wealthy that the Democrats are going to give your tax dollars to the people who live on the wrong side of the tracks. You are going to be eating macaroni & cheese and those other folks are going to be eating big fat welfare steaks. Folks have bought this line of fiction hook line and sinker. It's cultural conditioning. Welfare has a Black face. Blacks are only 10 percent of the population in America. I see Black people at work everyday. Don't get all your news from one network and don't listen to the same person all day on the radio. I tell you that radio personality guy is a prophet to many. His word is taken as gospel and people act like he is divine inspired. If you don't have enough money to off shore in accounts in the Caymans or Bermuda the Republicans aren't legislating any laws for you.

16) Comment by NearBarbarian - 25/11/2012

1ryben--right again. HerbF--wrong again, illustrating once more that many people don't know (or don't want to admit) how capitalism works. Business "owners" (capitalists) actually are living on borrowed labor, as well as on society's tab. They don't really create anything, which is the whole point of capitalism (less energy expended for more money). But all magic tricks are just that--tricks, illusions, cons, scams. Somebody is doing the work. Capitalists have others create stuff and then profit (capitalize) off of that creation--either by paying as little as possible for employees' labor or by inflating the value of the product or, most often, both. Some capitalists might be a little more humane than others, but it's still the same magic trick. Despite Randian mantras and protests to the contrary, a business owner (capitalist) is by definition a "taker." Most Americans have been on the exploited "maker" side of things--across the spectrum of race, ethnicity, and sex. And while the topics of race and sex are on the table, historically and currently, women, African Americans, and other minorities have given the most while receiving the least (I hope I don't have to explain the recent 400 years of history behind that; if so, sorry). Many lower-middle-class, working-class, and poor white males tend to sympathize with rich whites because of the race and gender manipulation of the former groups by the latter group during the mid-1800s and then again during the 1950s-60s, as well as during the 40 years of the Southern Strategy laid out by Nixon and then executed with a fury by such Reaganites as Lee Atwater and Atwater wannabe Karl Rove. As we're seeing now, lower-middle, working-, and lower-class whites are losing political currency with the Republicans, which is going to have interesting political and societal consequences. (Remember, too, that the largest number of people receiving some sort of public assistance are whites, a large number of whom ironically align themselves with Republicans.) Returning to capitalism and its problems, what most advanced economies--and many emerging ones--have come to realize is that a purely capitalist system is doomed to fail because it can't help but ultimately be inhumane, unfair, unethical, corrupt, immoral, etc. It does not make for a healthy society. Hence mixed economies, typically capitalist-socialist or socialist-capitalist, depending on degree. All technological advances aside, the US is still practically where other advanced enconomies were in the 19th century; furthermore, we like to pretend that we're all millionaires in waiting (a dangerous, self-destructive deception). We tie happiness to possessions, accumulation of wealth, and so on--a recipe for disaster on psychological and moral levels, not just the economic one. We've also conflated democracy with laissez faire economics--a detrimental false equivalency. If we keep on the current path, it's possible that we'll end up turning toward some form of state capitalism (if we've not already), which is what Italy turned to during the early 1900s and what China has been building over the last twenty years. That won't be cool for anyone.

17) Comment by Maelstrom - 25/11/2012

Attila: You must have blinders on or be in complete denial if you think that the Republicans have not, are not, and never have used class envy and warfare as a tool to rope in the gullible, ignorant, and uneducated

18) Comment by 1ryben - 25/11/2012

Some share of the success there, a wage that keeps you on poverty no benefits and if you accept government assistance, you are called lazy and entitled. Where do I sign up for that type of success sharing? I disagree with you. Everyone has an obligation to their neighbor both literally and figuratively. Yes, I am a third party in this. Every social injustice has been overcome not by the parties involved,but by others that step up and speak out about the injustice. If we all take the stance that it doesn't affect me, then there will never be social change. Did you read the link I provided earlier? A group of CEOs have gotten together in an afford to solve the deficit problem. How? By ending government assistance for the poor and eliminating taxes on them and their businesses. Wait, I though the Citizens United case stated that corporations are people (yes, I know it was in reference to free speech and political ads). Well, shouldn't they pay taxes like people too? Oh wait, no, corporate welfare is fine, just not Social Security, Medicare, and other government assistance for the poor. These CEOs make more in a year than most of us in a lifetime, yet they get tax write off after tax write off and deductions everywhere and their businesses pay no taxes either. This is so ridiculous.

19) Comment by gvm - 25/11/2012

@HerbF: your rambling, disjointed and completely illogical post leaves much to be desired. To imply that all blacks voted for Obama just because he's black is just plain stupid. Likewise, to say all whites voted against him for the same reason is just as silly. That was the point of my previous post but, apparently, it went over your head. You say that whites have ample reasons not to like blacks. Care to elaborate? Also, what about the converse of that statement? I agree that race will likely always be a factor in elections. I also think your post goes a long way toward preventing "meaningful discussion."

20) Comment by HerbF - 25/11/2012

tryben: The people who work there share in the business success. They have jobs for which they are paid wages. And, you, a third party, are complaining about the wages they are paid, as though there is some sort of social "obligation" to pay the wages YOU think they should pay. And, it's not the businesses job to "look out for their neighbors". That's absolutely silly. gvm: Every single person is a "racist" technically. We all have opinions about race. I am a liberal Democrat, and I voted for Obama. But, if Obama had run as a "black" candidate, rather than as a candidate, I would not have voted for him. I've had enough of the crys of "racism" to explain so many many failures. Duckluve: Race is, and probably always will be a factor in elections. Blacks voted for Obama because he was black, and, if I were black, I would have too. Whites, expecially Republicans, voted against him because they don't like blacks. And, they have ample reason not to like them. The point is that race is,and will be,part of our makeup, and a significant factor in elections. The fact that we pretend that it's not serves no good purpose. It simply prevents meaningful discussion.

21) Comment by 1ryben - 25/11/2012

ABayouBoy, all but one on your list is directly related to politics.

22) Comment by 1ryben - 25/11/2012

Duckyluve (just typing that made me giggle) has now set the conversation back to the lowest common denominator. Oh, and when people have different opinions than you, they're not ignorant.

23) Comment by ABayouBoy - 25/11/2012

The problems this country faces are more than mere politics. Morality, ethics, economics, taxation, overspending, and involvement militarily in overseas conflicts, to name a few...

24) Comment by gvm - 25/11/2012

@Duckyluve, et al: "...the vast majority of WHITES in this country voted AGAINST obama strictly based on the color of his skin. Its a fact and everybody knows it." This slightly altered version of your post below makes about as much sense as yours does. That is to say it makes no sense at all.

25) Comment by Duckyluve - 25/11/2012

I didn't vote against obama because of the color of his skin. I voted against him.because I think he is a terrible leader who has no business running this country. I was amazed at the amount of ignorant voters that showed up to vote and the vast majority of blacks in this country voted for obama strictly based on the color of his skin. Its a fact and everybody knows it.

26) Comment by 1ryben - 25/11/2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/11/25/deficit-reduction-council-fiscal- cliff_n_2185585.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

27) Comment by NearBarbarian - 25/11/2012

Scrooge--so true. If nothing else, we can serve as the outcaste in the back of the church of Robert Burns' poem, "To a Louse," pointing out the lice crawling in the hair of the self-righteous, the arrogant, and the self-deceived (usually one in the same). Attila--not so short reply. In conversations it's usually best not to begin by calling people names, questioning their sanity, or questioning their intelligence--if for nothing elsel, common courtesy. No blinders here. At their base, Democrats and Republicans are two siblings from the same parent, classical liberalism (not to be confused with the meaningless word "liberal/ism" used today). During the 20th century, the Democrats have a very mixed record on class--some very good and some very bad. Just as when we talk about the Republican Party being multiple parties in multiple contexts, we must do the same with the Democratic Party. As I've commented elsewhere, today's Democrats are really what moderate, centrist, and liberal Republicans used to be--including Mr. Obama. Since the brief hegemony of the New Democrats (think Clinton et al), most of the political problems endured by today's Democrats have come from them not distinguishing themselves enough from Republicans, as well as not committing themselves enough to socioeconomic realities--until, somewhat accidentally, this election cycle. The problem is that we are all wedded to a two-party system. Green Partiers, Socialists, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Tea Partiers are having to swallow the bitter medicine of that reality. (I would like multiple parties and often vote for other parties on the left, but I've been demoralized too often to be naive, or to keep "the blinders on," as you might say.) I don't think the mainline Democratic Party has quite realized, though, is that politics as usual won't work, and many people are beginning to see it as a vehicle to commandeer and then to reform. Politics isn't (shouldn't) be about product loyalty or a "brand"; it is about the art of individuals building and shaping a society; in a democracy, that means making the society in the citizenry's image. Because we do not live in a society that is ruled by a hereditary form of government, the Democratic Party will have to change, just as the Republican Party must. If they don't change, then they'll be discarded for something else. (Regrettably, though, the founders set up a system that favors a two-party system, so it seems that we'll be stuck with two parties, regardless of their names. However, we the people might change that, too! Here's hoping.) One of reasons guys like you are freaking out is related to the reason people like I are hopeful: we sense that a major change is taking place. Your comment about Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal, etc. begs the question. If you're of the mind that Edmund Burke was during the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions during the 18th Century, then you will see in a negative light what the "Indignados" of those countries are protesting. If you're of the mind that Tommy Paine was during that time, then you will see things in a positive light. (Count me with those who look at things as Paine did.) We Americans tend to look at what's going on in Europe (and definitely elsewhere) from a very simplistic, sophomoric, and patronizing vantage. But if you look carefully, cutting through the treacle we call news and the "America's No. 1" propaganda, you'll see kindred spirits who are struggling for the ideals that many Americans have replaced with "intelligent design," "strict foundationalism," "DaVinci Code" style conspiracies, "Dancing with the Stars," "Fox News," "MSNBC," and "Finding Bigfoot.." My hats off to the Indignados of those countries, and to them standing up to a Germany that wants to exact a pound of flesh once again (not to mention giving the finger to hedge fund managers on Wall Street). Sorry--no blinders here, just a different view of the world based on independent research and thought.

28) Comment by Attila - 25/11/2012

@NearBarbarian: You must have blinders on or be in complete denial if you think that the Democrats have not, are not, and never have used class envy and warfare as a tool to rope in the gullible, ignorant, and uneducated. Alexander Fraser Tytler circa 1850 British author stated it best when he wrote "a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority, he said, always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collpases over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship". He was speaking of what had happened to the Athenian Republic more than 2K years earlier. It is the same path to destruction that the U. S. has been on for the last 50 years only accelerating since BHO arrived. Europe is in chaos mainly due to their social policies and their uncontrolled spending on social programs has caused their governments to reign in their liberal spending policies and begin sever austerity programs.There are riots in the streets in Greece, Spain, France and others. Don't think it can happen here? Think again.

29) Comment by Scrooge - 25/11/2012

Marvelous, informative discourse here, unfortunately interspersed with the squawks of parrots thanks this type of discussion is why I keep returning other than the shameful sport of baiting the intentionally determined feeble minded

30) Comment by NearBarbarian - 25/11/2012

Yes, 1ryben. No, HerbF. If corporations, which are now considered "people" by the right and its majority on the Supreme Court, they are either fellow citizens or they're not. (Don't get me wrong: Citizens United is a sick joke, corporations ARE NOT people, and businesses of any size are not superior to individual citizens; in fact, we should all make it clear that businesses do what they do at the pleasure of the citizenry.) Now, to "class warfare": what a rediculous Amercian taboo. And rgw, our dear letter writer inserted class conflict into the conversation when he invoked the spectre of Marx. (So don't blame the liberals and lefties for playing the "class card" this time--even though I think it should be played at every opportunity.) According to the law of unintended consequences, it seems that the rising generation of Republicans actually want to talk about the "class war" (cf. Paul Ryan). Good! But it's an argument that they're likely to lose. Waging "class warfare" while trying to keep it secret or using it as a straw man isn't going to work any more. Growing socioeconomic inequality is making a uniquely American self-deception (that ours is a classless republic) impossible to maintain (thank goodness), and fewer Americans are buying the myths of upward mobility and middle-class utopia. Reality is pretty good at demystification. On that note of realism, Marx's three volume study of class conflict, Capital, lays out in excruciating detail how class conflict has be a major (if not the major) shaper of history since at least European feudalism (if not before). Across the ideological spectrum (left, center, and right), economists and historians have agreed that Marx's work is monumental and generally on the mark. The growing resentment of aristocrats towards monarchs gave way to the emergence of a bourgeois (middle-class) revolution--overturning centuries of abuse by authoritiarian, exploitative, negligent, theocratic rule under monarchs, popes, and their minions. So, Papa John, the Walton family, Bill Gates, and Oprah Winfrey wouldn't have even been possible without class conflict. Of course, Marx believed that a new universal class, the proletariat, would rise up and overturn the whole system of class conflict. He was wrong on that; not just because of the terrors unleashed by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. He was wrong because he never fully anticipated that those who would be exploited by the new ruling class--the middle and upper classes emerging from the bourgeoisie--would embrace and even defend their exploitation (see many of the comments below). Particularly in the US, middle-class mysticism and making a fetish out of work (thanks in large part to the Protestant Work Ethic, see Max Weber), has paradoxically decreased the size of the middle class, increased the economic and political power of a narrowing number of plutocrats and oligarchs, democratically handed over government to those plutocrats and oligarchs, placed the majority of Americans into the working- and under-classes, neutralized the foundational American concept of a commonwealth--ALL THE WHILE increasing the popularity of the ones profiting from the inequality by those they are exploiting. When you add the legacies of American slavery and sexism, the situation is even more stark. BUT things are changing, and there even hints that a--gasp!--class consciousness might be emerging. Sure, there are quite a few Angry White Guys who think the Wizard of Oz, Daddy Warbucks, and Donald Trump are about to write them the check or give them the promotion to the fabled WASP "American Dream." And those Guys have even convinced a few women and minorities to believe in the fantasy. It seems, though, that more Americans are becoming, to quote Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown," "undeceived." If so, that's a very good thing, and as a result, we will more than likely see a more vibrant, ethical, and historical America emerge--and likely see the spirits of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reinvigorated. The good news for the Angry White Guys is that they'll glean all the benefits--but this time, they'll do so along with everyone else.

31) Comment by 1ryben - 25/11/2012

See, the thing is, poor people aren't lazy. These employers do not have to pay a living wage because there are more people than jobs. Don't like the pay, quit. They'll find someone else to take your place for the same paltry pay. Am I missing something? I'm not religious but I do look out for my neighbors. These people are not looking out for their neighbors (unless we are talking about their literal neighbors). I just don't see this as the employee's fault. Pay people a living wage and watch the economy grow. The top 2% (or whatever) can't possible spend enough money to compensate for a larger, more solid middle class.

32) Comment by 1ryben - 25/11/2012

So everyone gets to benefit from a company's success except the people that work there? Those that use money to make money get rewarded and those who put in the physical effort for those people to make the money get shafted. These same stock holders who take priority over the poor worker should not complain about other's reliance on government assistance then. I'm not against investments, or those who make them. I'm not anti success either. At what point is it enough? Is it ok that a very few are succeeding (getting filthy rich) in large part thanks to others being held down? How is it the employee that's the problem? Oh, yea, they should go get a better paying job...where? Where are these jobs? Maybe they should unionize? Oh wait, nope, can't do that either.

33) Comment by HerbF - 25/11/2012

I'm not saying that it isn't a problem. I'm saying it's not the employer's problem. It's the employee that has the problem. And, it's up to them to solve it. If I'm the employer, I'm not going to pay more than I have to pay for labor. If I do, then it's possible that my bad management may lead to failure, and then there would be no jobs. Also, large, publically owned corporations have obligations to their stockholder's to do what is in the interest of the company. And, those stockholders may be some of your friends or family members.

34) Comment by 1ryben - 25/11/2012

I understand that corporations are in it to make money. But at what cost? And where are these better paying jobs? There is a difference between having a right to do do something and doing what's right. I am in no way saying that the Waltons of Walmart should be as poor as their cashier, but when you are making billions in profit, not revenue, and your employees are forced to be on government assistance to survive, that's a problem. Am I really the only person that sees this as a problem?

35) Comment by HerbF - 25/11/2012

tryben: Corporations are in business to make money. Period. They do what is in their best interest, and there is nothing wrong with that. They offer wages which will attract workers they need. The workers are free to move to a better paying job if they wish.

36) Comment by 1ryben - 25/11/2012

I'm sorry, call it class warfare if you wish, but many of these multi-billion dollar companies are intentionally holding the wages of their workers (you know, the people who actually make the products, who work) down in order to increase their personal take. I am all for the American Dream. When these multi-millionaires withhold insurance over pennies, that's a problem. When they refuse, yes refuse, to pay a livable wage, that's a problem. I have no beef with the business owner barely scraping by that is struggling to stay afloat that does not offer full benefits and wages. I take issue, as should all, with those who can provide better for their workers while still maintaining a lavish lifestyle for themselves but refuse not to. You are correct that no one forces people to take these terrible jobs, but where are the good ones? How many of them are there? If you are one of these "fat cats" that refuse to provide a livable wage to your employees when you can,mother you can not complain about government assistance programs. The "welfare queens" are not the problem!! Papa Johns is giving away $24M of pizza this year. That's more than it would cost to insure his workers. Where's the priority? Who class is beating up which class? Don't tell me that giving away millions of free pizza is good business. No one buys his rubbish because he once gave away pizza. It's because it's cheap and convienent. Why should we complain? Simple, it's wrong. It's wrong to have the ability to do something, but act selfish and stand by and do nothing.

37) Comment by HerbF - 25/11/2012

Marx was a very important political philosopher, but he was wrong on a number of items. And, as the OP seems to be implying that "socialism" is imploding America, then this is misapplied political philosophy. "Socialism" is an important part of all western cultures. It is not "bad". Everything from social security to federal highways are examples of socialism. Communism, however, was a beautiful theory. It just didn't work. The OP suggest that the "giveaway programs" are the cause of our economic problems. He seems to see the "welfare queen" behind every bush. This is a tiny portion of our economic problems. An unnecessary war. A housing collapse, due to a LACK of regulation, which almost brought our economy down, are two factors which are very important in determining our present ecomomic reality, which is improving daily. Finally, he equates "god" to morals. This is a common falicy among conservatives. Among other things, it assumes that one cannot be a "moral" person without reading their "book", which is a collection of short stories, and which comes in different forms with different collections. This is absolute nonsense. There is no god, and there never has been. To equate morals to "god" is pablum for sophmore philosophers. That is a truth only in the fantacy world in which the uber religious live. Is that clear enough?

38) Comment by Attila - 25/11/2012

@MBW: " I wouldn't vote for a black Republican just because he's black. I vote for people I agree with on the issues.". This will probably come as a shock to you, but Democrats do not have a corner on voting for a candidate because you agree with his politics and his/her stand on the issues that are important to you. You probably don't interact with many Republicans. If you did you would find that they want the same things for themselves and their families as you. The difference is that you, and those of like mind in your party, believe that government should be the be all end all to everyone, and I believe in personal responsibility for one's own destiny and lot in life.I would eagerly vote for Herman Cane, Allen West, JC Watts, or Marco Rubio based on their political beleifs. I voted against Obama for the same reasons. I do not believe in AA or any other government program that pits one against the other and encourages class warfare and envy. I believe that I should make the decisions to whom I make charitable contributions. I do not like a government bureaucrat making decisions for me that THEY feel are in my best interest or in the best of a class or group that they fell are entitled to the fruits of my or anyone else's labor and effort. I do not like the government fostering a mentality of victimhood or entitlement As to the problem you have with the red states receiving more federal dollars than they contribute I am sure a person with your level of intelligence should be able to look at the demographics of the state and figure that one out....but keep those dollars coming....we laugh all the way to the bank.

39) Comment by HerbF - 25/11/2012

Marx was a very important

40) Comment by MBW - 25/11/2012

I'm a white male Democrat who did not vote for Obama based on the color of his skin. I voted for him because, surprise surprise, I'm a Democrat. I wouldn't vote for a black Republican just because he's black. I vote for people I agree with on the issues.

41) Comment by MBW - 25/11/2012

@Duckyluve--- You said "Its a sad time for america when people are so blind and ignorant that they vote for someone strictly based on the color of his skin. " If that is sad, it's also sad when people vote AGAINST someone based on the color of his skin....and make assumptions about someone because of the color of his skin.

42) Comment by [e-mail] - 25/11/2012

The comment by 1ryben is nothing but indicative of the class warfare that is effectively dividing America, i.e. complaining about how a pizza maker runs his business and what he says while sitting in his mansion. The fact is that the pizza maker is making money the old fashioned way, i.e. he "earns it". Nobody forces anyone to work for him, buy his pizza, or listen to him, so why should anyone complain?

43) Comment by MBW - 25/11/2012

Funny, Republicans give us all this talk about America's debt problem....yet it's consistently Republican-led states that are always taking more Federal dollars than they contribute.

44) Comment by MBW - 25/11/2012

Hey Republicans, can any of you explain why the states with the highest poverty, worst schools, worst roads, worst health, etc are almost all red states?? Thought your policies were "pro-growth" and would create jobs to lift people out of poverty...

45) Comment by Duckyluve - 25/11/2012

Its a sad time for america when people are so blind and ignorant that they vote for someone strictly based on the color of his skin. Welcome to the democrat party.....those of us with jobs will make sure those who are too lazy to get a job wont starve.

46) Comment by Attila - 24/11/2012

postscript56: are you sure that you and twinkie aren't related? I don't think that you or she ever heard of a socialist program for redistribution that you did not like. "Human rights" to twinkie is everyone having the same...no one has more than anyone else, and anyone who does not subscribe to the convoluted views of postscript are ignorant. Why am I not surprised at that mindset?

47) Comment by postscript56 - 24/11/2012

atilla - see my response to speak.

48) Comment by postscript56 - 24/11/2012

speaks - i assure you my vocabulary comfort zone is big enough for words like "ignorance." A good working definition of ignorance - when you don't know how little you know. But I didn't have to tell you that. You every post is a fine example of it.

49) Comment by Scrooge - 24/11/2012

Ah a letter that is dear to a Scrooge's heart.Would "free” goodies to groups also include oil and gas subsidies? What about the hot air subsidies?

50) Comment by potkcalb - 24/11/2012

Is that praise or criticism HerbF? If the latter can you be specific? The weather here is great.

51) Comment by twinkie1cat - 24/11/2012

It is not that Obama offered "gifts". He offered equal human rights and hope for the future through the consistently improving economy and benefits like reasonable school loan rates and a path to citizenship. Plus he stopped the subcontracted war in Iraq and is trying to dispose of the one in Afghanistan. Then he arranged to have Bin Laden killed. Don't believe the economy is improving? The first Christmas he came into office people were buying clothing for Christmas, a few toys and necessities. Black Friday was far from the bail out for stores it usually is. This year they line up for blocks for the sales and a few months ago lined up for the new I-pads. People are traveling again and even taking plane trips. Although the GOP hates it and in spite of the Republicans, the American economy is getting better. What did Romney offer? He offered to destroy Obama care which is popular even without full implementation. Ryan said he would voucherize Social Security. They both said that the current senior citizens did not need to worry about their benefits, but their kids and grandkids would get less. The message was, "Don't be your brother's keeper. Don't follow God's law. Vote for me, instead!" And this from two men who claim to be Christians. And Romney, with his money stashed in the Carribean and his buying of businesses only to close them down or outsource them DID NOT offer jobs to the American people. He talked about his own success in business, but he did not offer a piece of that success to the average American. And that is why Romney lost. He lost because he did not care about normal Americans or offer any kind of plan that would make America better.

52) Comment by HerbF - 24/11/2012

Thanks Chicken Little, misapplied political philosophy, bad ecomomic policy and "god" all in one letter. How's the weather on your world?

53) Comment by phil - 24/11/2012

I personally think that if we stopped the top 5 percent or so from getting too much money by using the system and also stop the bottom 5 percent who use the system, then the USA could probably solve its debt problems. I think the Republicans gave too much to the rich and the Democrats gave too much to the lazy poor (not the working poor) and both parties are to blame for the problems we face now.

54) Comment by NearBarbarian - 24/11/2012

In view of the letter writer's "argument"--based on an intentional misreading of Marx and a failure to acknowledge the U.S. Republic's necessarily secular foundations--please let the implosion commence.

55) Comment by 1ryben - 24/11/2012

Given two choices, one work you tail,off for little to no respect for a wage that leads to poverty or not work and still have little to no respect and live in poverty, which would you choose? It's obvious which many choose, and I don't blame them. There is a system in place to keep these people in poverty. I am not saying that there are not some that just game the system, that are lazy, but that this is not the largest problem in America. If there is a class war,mots the rich against the poor.

56) Comment by potkcalb - 24/11/2012

No doubt the demographics favored the Democrats. But the Republicans did not have a viable candidate. They promoted religious and ideological extremists like Huckabee and Palin (not candidates in the recent election), Bachman, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, and Ryan, none electable now or in the future.They had a candidate who would have done better. I think Huntsman would have gotten many independent votes and some from disillusioned Obama supporters, but he was not an option for the hard right because he believes in science, has hands on foreign policy experience, does not harp on religion or blather about being the "real"conservative. And yes he was a conservative (George Will said so and that's like a guarantee from God). He was also a highly popular and successful governor. Romney was the default candidate, but no one could figure out who he was other than that he made money for those who already have money.

57) Comment by 1ryben - 24/11/2012

People do care that they are on the dole. There are millions of hard working Americans that would love to not be on the dole but must do so in order to just get by. Don't tell them to get a job, they have one, maybe more.

58) Comment by nimby? - 24/11/2012

please tell me why able bodied citizen are being paid to not work when there is so much to be done ?

59) Comment by 1ryben - 24/11/2012

It's not class envy. It's upper class greed and the powerful influence of money into the political system that's killing America. I'm sorry, but when Papa John states from his $40M mansion that instead of providing insurance at a cost of 11-14¢ per pizza (other folks have said its more like 6-8¢) he'd see cutting hours to remain under the threshold or firing people as "common sense business." That's greed, not class envy.

60) Comment by [e-mail] - 24/11/2012

Nobody cares that they are on the dole; most of them now consider that just another viable lifestyle and who can argue with them when they enjoy for free everything that the rest of us have to work for? All they have to do is to surrender and constantly bleat and moan for more and it's never taken away. Now there is not even the mention of the possibility of them having to look for work. The rest of us are too afraid of being labeled to publicly complain about the freeloaders personally, i.e. calling out names and pointing fingers.

61) Comment by Attila - 24/11/2012

@Bighug and postscript56: Please tell me what "plan" BHO offered other than more of the same? The "facts" are that Obama made the entire campaign one of class envy i. e., "tax cuts for the rich, make the rich pay their fair share, greedy corporations, legalize the illegal as in immigration reform, etc." The Dims have a track record of resorting to class envy and pitting one segment of society against another; something they do very well. Their favorite whine is 'it is not fair" that some people, mostly those who work for a living, should have more than those who rely on those same workers to take care of them from the womb to the tomb.

62) Comment by slye753 - 24/11/2012

a lot of wasted words in this thread. there is no difference between the repugs and the dems. one and the same.but one thing for sure. when you take more out of the bucket than the people put in the bucket, America is doomed.

63) Comment by speakthetruth - 24/11/2012

Before the takers and leeches start using words way out of their vocabulary comfort zone, words such as "ignorance", you should know history. The Obama Democrats have demonstrated consistently that they are more interested in remaking America than economic recovery, as evidenced by prioritizing ObamaCare and financial regulation in the past four years. Those economic measures they did attempt—the stimulus and the bailouts—were exercises in Keynesian economics. This brand of government-spending-centered economics failed repeatedly in history. It was discredited resoundingly by events of the 70s and 80s to the point that even Bill Clinton turned his back on the school of thought.

64) Comment by 1ryben - 24/11/2012

I will not comment on the "tolerant" Judeo-Christian nation ignorance/nonsense. I will address the gifts given to the takers. The problem is not that people expect to be a ward of the government, it's that people are required to do so. If you work for a giant corporation, lets use Walmart as an example since they've been in the news lately and they refuse, yes refuse, to pay a livable wage they are forcing people into government assistance. Walmart made over $16,000,000,000, that's $16 billion in profit for 2011. Did they invest in the economy? Did they invest in their workers? Nope, it's company policy do keep hours low to avoid full time status to deny benefits. Even if a cashier were to gain full time status $20k a year is not enough to support yourself, yet alone a family. I'm not saying businesses shouldn't be successful, but when the business makes $16B in profit and the majority of its workers are living in poverty, that's a problem. Walmart is just one example. I know, I know, someone is about to tell me the story of how a part time Walmart cashier made it up the ladder into Walmart management and is now living the dream. Surely you are smart enough to see that is an outlier, not anywhere near the norm.m

65) Comment by bourbon-soda - 24/11/2012

A political science major in an economically productive career - very unusual, when he could probably have been something more exalted, like a community organizer. Romney committed truth and must be punished or banished. The exponential phase of the populace voting itself the treasury, has commenced.

66) Comment by Bouncer - 24/11/2012

A "political science major" working in oil and gas? How appropriate. Judging from the content of the letter, you must have missed a lot of class, Mr. Blank.

67) Comment by postscript56 - 24/11/2012

Where does one begin when responding to ignorance? This entire concept of a maker/taker society is offensive and stupid, which reveals all one needs to know about Mr. Blankenship. I suppose Romney's plan to cut the taxes of the uber wealthy was a "stimulus" and not a "gift." Or how about his plan to "restore" the 716 billion "cut" from Medicare? Is that not a gift to seniors? Apparently Wayne doesn't think so. I'd also advise Wayne to study his American history if he belives this country was "founded" on Judeo-Christian beliefs. But he won't. Wayne already knows for sure he has all the right answers... and no amount of facts can change that.

68) Comment by Bighug - 24/11/2012

Maybe Romney would have done better if not for the "help" he got from the Tea Party. What jobs did he offer? All I heard when he was asked how he would reduce unemployment was, "I have a plan." Tell a lie often enough, like the one in the letter about this being a Christian nation, and many will believe you.

69) Comment by gary - 24/11/2012

Is i correct to offer cheese to someone who whine's? Maelstrom hit the nail on the head. The Republicans will still do well in the old South - they are going to have a big problem with Texas and Arizona in 2016 - those pesky "brown skin" folks will make those two states swing Democrat - that is minus 49 votes in the electrocal college. They still haven't figured out what happen back in early Nov.

70) Comment by palefire - 24/11/2012

I wish people would actually have thoughts these days instead of just repeating talking points. The reason so many people are on food stamps and receiving free stuff (read: food to live on) has little to do with Obama. It can, however, be traced back to the Republicans and Democrats that let the cooperation run amok and caused the financial crisis we are in. If crazy John and Palin would have taken office, the numbers of "freeloaders" would be very similar, if not exactly the same, as what we have today. The real blame is on the bankers and politicians on both sides the fence that cause millions to be out of work.

71) Comment by Maelstrom - 23/11/2012

My goodness, what poor losers. I'd like to think that the majority of Republicans aren't so whining, but the that's hard reading all the sad letters written to the Advocate. Republicans are likely to do well in the South in mid-term elections for the next 10 years. Gerrymandered districts being the norm in this country, that advantage goes to the Republicans right now, especially when turnout is low. But if the majority of politicians in the Republican party continue to call (and believe) those who currently voted for President Obama are deadbeats, simple, or easily influenced, or worse selfish, then Republicans will have difficult time winning national elections in the near future.