A story I received via email

[audtatious]

The little red hen called all of her Obama 'Stimulus' supporting neighborstogether and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Whowill help me plant it?"

Not I," said the cow."Not I," said the duck."Not I," said the pig."Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck."Out of my classification," said the pig."I'd lose my seniority," said the cow."I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did. At last it came time to bake the bread.

"Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow."I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck."I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig."If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose."Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. Theywanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."

"Excess profits!" cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)

And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and aroundthe little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, "You must notbe so greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprisesystem so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. Butunder our modern government regulations, the productive workers must dividethe fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, whosmiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand."

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again bakedbread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all theDemocrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no onecared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.

EPILOGUEBill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years,repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.

IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?

[Jacko3]

Interesting! But I wonder where all the indivudal initiative went from 2001 - 2008. Just wondering! I think this article will be helpful, don't you think?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...x.htm

I beleive in 2001, unemployment was approximately, 4.5%. By 2008, it had risen to 7.2%, and this was under a condition, where tax cuts were touted as the savior and solution of the nation. Yet, there was a constant drumbeat that tax-cuts work, when the outcome of such tax cuts, while mildly successful in times past, seemed to have woefully failed in the last 8 years.

So, I really wonder why adopting another approach, that may or may not work, and as suggested by Obama, is such an anathema to some in this nation. What do we really want, a continued buffing of the pockets of the wealthy, which has led ot the over-leveraging and greed in many organizations---trickle down, and which has proved to be a failure, or the adoption of govt finances to support the middle class and the poor, while hoping the funds trickle up?

There is no solution to this. However, I will bet my last penny on trying anything but trickle down economics, which in my opion was a most deceptive economic ideal, in a world of increased globalization, without taking into account, the catalysts of any domestic economy---the middle class and sometimes the poor.


Modified by Jacko3 at 8:48 AM 2/26/2009

[audtatious]

Tax increases have not historically worked and neither has trickle up economics. Why are rich democrats, other than a coupe who made a stink about _wanting_ to pay more in taxes (yet still claimed everything they could to avoid it), not simply sending money to the Gov above and beyond their taxes?

Short answer please.

[Jacko3]

Tax increases have not historically worked and neither has trickle up economics. Why are rich democrats, other than a coupe who made a stink about _wanting_ to pay more in taxes (yet still claimed everything they could to avoid it), not simply sending money to the Gov above and beyond their taxes?

Short answer please.

Perhaps you may want to explain why President Clinton inherited a 7.8% unemployment rate from Bush I, raised taxes, established a PAYGO (Pay As You Go) system and kept to it, generated a budget surplus, and left the economy with an unemployment rate of about 4.5%. Somehow, an economy where taxes were raised, seemed to somehow find itself working towards the reduction of unemployment. How????

We would love to hear your explanation of this situation, which would ordinarily be scary to those who tout tax cuts as the panacea for all of america's problems. I am all ears on this one.

[audtatious]

What part of "A story I received via email" did you not understand? I really don't care to explain a damn thing but if you want to explain why taxing everyone is a solution than you go right ahead and amuse yourself.

[dusred]

I lol'd.

Jacko,

Explain to me in 10 lines or less what Reagan did to create 20 million new jobs?

In 10 more lines please explain to me why England/Euorpe is failing so bad?

Thanks!

[Jacko3]

I lol'd.

Jacko,

Explain to me in 10 lines or less what Reagan did to create 20 million new jobs?

In 10 more lines please explain to me why England/Euorpe is failing so bad?

Thanks!

Certianly, going back as far as Regans era would simply do little, or at best water down any compelling reason attributable to Bush's failure as a leader. And no one can explain that in 10 words or less---won't happen. Why don't you try and see if it is possible, and hope that the 10 words or less is meaningful and compelling?

By the way, Regan's deficit spending did contribute to his modest economic accomplishments. You may want to check out this website at

http://www.cbo.gov

It gives you a clear pictorial of the deficits contributed to this nation, I think, since 1970.

And, Englands and Europe's problems (not failures), are directly linked to the mortgage problems created in the USA in the last 8 years. In fact, one country has gone under ---Iceland, as a result of this whole financial debacle.

Sorry, 10 lines or less is an impractical way to explain complex policy and eocnomic issues. Policies are not written in 10 lines or less and they surely can't be explained in 10 lines or less, can they?

Oh, would you mind teling us in 10 words or less why Bill Clinton was successful as an economic president, inspite of raising taxes and generating surpluses, in the same number of years ----8 years, that was extended to George Bush?

[BusyBadger]

IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?

[AZhitman]

So, I really wonder why adopting another approach, that may or may not work, and as suggested by Obama, is such an anathema to some in this nation. What do we really want, a continued buffing of the pockets of the wealthy, which has led ot the over-leveraging and greed in many organizations---trickle down, and which has proved to be a failure, or the adoption of govt finances to support the middle class and the poor, while hoping the funds trickle up?

Words that are critical here:

"I wonder""may or may not work"

Trickle-down did not "prove to be a failure". That's a twisting of the true measure of TDE by those who oppose it.

Bottom line: Redistribution of wealth by unnatural means (i.e. government intervention) is responsible for MORE opportunities for abuse and fraud.

Why is it that people are so opposed to "buffing of the pockets of the wealthy"? Do they not deserve their earnings? Are we being judgmental here?

If I make $10M annually, and you criticize that, yet I've run my business in an honorable manner with integrity, and I give 10% to worthy causes, are you still looking to dip into my take? Why? And more importantly, who are YOU to decide how much I should make?

"Gov't funds to support the poor / middle class" - Hmmm. Think about that. Let's apply the SAME level of 'judgment' to those people. Shall the gov't assist those who have made stupid decisions which KEEP them in a lower socioeconomic stratus?

WHY NOT?

You did it to the rich guy. You judged him.

So, let's be fair - Let's go look in the poor guy's backyard. He spends his paycheck on beer and cigarettes. He gambles. He bought a new car that he can't really afford (on credit). He's NOT a good steward of his finances. He doesn't support any philanthropic interests.

Explain to me why you can judge the wealthy but not the poor?

Screw that. I don't WANT or NEED the "gubmint" to help me. I've been dirt-poor, no groceries in the house, 2 hungry kids, bills 3 months late, scared to death. I'll rely on my OWN self, thanks very much.

Because two things then happen:

1) My pride remains intact.2) No one can question me.

Keep your socialism where it belongs - On the scrap heap of failed attempts to circumvent individual responsibility and self-determination.

[VersaMG08]

Couldn't have said it any better!

[audtatious]

Our society made them poor. The rich people, that should be penalized, are the very ones who got rich off the backs of the poor. Rich people, who actually did nothing to get rich, set the poor up for their failure while forcing their servitude to the failure that is capitalism. In America, where everyone is promised happiness via the Bill of Rights, a person who works 60 hours a week to provide for their family is no more important than the person sitting at home earning a welfare check. BUT, as the rich, corporations, and capitalism in general is holding back the growth of those who are earning welfare, they deserve to have greater access to services, including access to additional funds, to make their lives easier which leads to happiness without forcing additional servitude onto them as that leads to more depression which leads to less effort in earning their welfare checks.

Thank GOD we have rich people in politics who will fix these issues....or sumthin another.

[Jacko3]

Words that are critical here:

"I wonder""may or may not work"

Trickle-down did not "prove to be a failure". That's a twisting of the true measure of TDE by those who oppose it.

Bottom line: Redistribution of wealth by unnatural means (i.e. government intervention) is responsible for MORE opportunities for abuse and fraud.

Why is it that people are so opposed to "buffing of the pockets of the wealthy"? Do they not deserve their earnings? Are we being judgmental here?

If I make $10M annually, and you criticize that, yet I've run my business in an honorable manner with integrity, and I give 10% to worthy causes, are you still looking to dip into my take? Why? And more importantly, who are YOU to decide how much I should make?

"Gov't funds to support the poor / middle class" - Hmmm. Think about that. Let's apply the SAME level of 'judgment' to those people. Shall the gov't assist those who have made stupid decisions which KEEP them in a lower socioeconomic stratus?

WHY NOT?

You did it to the rich guy. You judged him.

So, let's be fair - Let's go look in the poor guy's backyard. He spends his paycheck on beer and cigarettes. He gambles. He bought a new car that he can't really afford (on credit). He's NOT a good steward of his finances. He doesn't support any philanthropic interests.

Explain to me why you can judge the wealthy but not the poor?

Screw that. I don't WANT or NEED the "gubmint" to help me. I've been dirt-poor, no groceries in the house, 2 hungry kids, bills 3 months late, scared to death. I'll rely on my OWN self, thanks very much.

Because two things then happen:

1) My pride remains intact.2) No one can question me.

Keep your socialism where it belongs - On the scrap heap of failed attempts to circumvent individual responsibility and self-determination.

Greg:

You raised so many excellent points that I am not even going to debate it. If i did, we will be here for another 2 days. Excellent! Well said!

And anyone who wishes to debate me, needs to study Cold Zeros, Smockers8, and Azhitman's (Greg) method of presenting sound and constructive arguments.

You said, "Redistribution of wealth by unnatural means (i.e. government intervention) is responsible for MORE opportunities for abuse and fraud." This is 100% true, simply because scarce resources will never be allocated towards their most productive ends because human intervention, due to assymetric or limited information, is unable to fully account for or determine which of the existing unlimited wants that can be exactly satisfied by the limited resources. In essence, under these conditions, humans allocate resources where they may not fully be utilitzed or needed, thus, resulting in waste, and fraud, as you have suggested.

This is great!

[dusred]

Certianly, going back as far as Regans era would simply do little, or at best water down any compelling reason attributable to Bush's failure as a leader.

History repeats its self. What worked then will work now.

And no one can explain that in 10 words or less---won't happen. Why don't you try and see if it is possible, and hope that the 10 words or less is meaningful and compelling?

Answer questions with answers. . . not questions with questions.

PS I said 10 LINES. You being as fluent as you are that shouldn't be a problem at all.

modest economic accomplishments.

Are you kidding me? In his 8 years he did more for the economy then any other president.

And, Englands and Europe's problems (not failures), are directly linked to the mortgage problems created in the USA in the last 8 years. In fact, one country has gone under ---Iceland, as a result of this whole financial debacle.

I've got news for you, bud, the US economy IS NOT responsible for the failures in Europe. . . Nationalizing health care is a major contributor and we had nothing to do with it.

Sorry, 10 lines or less is an impractical way to explain complex policy and eocnomic issues. Policies are not written in 10 lines or less and they surely can't be explained in 10 lines or less, can they?

You're a smart guy, Jacko, and with your vocabulary the size of the Atlantic Ocean you should be able to figure it out. 10 lines is plenty. Now go ahead.

Oh, would you mind teling us in 10 words or less why Bill Clinton was successful as an economic president,

I'll do it in 2 words: He wasn't.

[Jacko3]

History repeats its self. What worked then will work now.

Answer questions with answers. . . not questions with questions.

PS I said 10 LINES. You being as fluent as you are that shouldn't be a problem at all.

Are you kidding me? In his 8 years he did more for the economy then any other president.

I've got news for you, bud, the US economy IS NOT responsible for the failures in Europe. . . Nationalizing health care is a major contributor and we had nothing to do with it.

You're a smart guy, Jacko, and with your vocabulary the size of the Atlantic Ocean you should be able to figure it out. 10 lines is plenty. Now go ahead.

I'll do it in 2 words: He wasn't.

1. What worked then, may not necessarily work now, especially when it comes to economic and foreign policies which are always in a state of flux, and which are in some ways, dependent on changes in socio-cultural dynamics of any nation. See the link on a republican Senator demanding a US change in Cuba policies.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde....html

2. Some questions raise further questions, and thus, the new questions have to be stated, nonetheless.

3. Regan came into office with a 7.5% unemployment rate from Jimmy Carter, and left with a low unemployment, low taxes, and a huge deficit. Clinton came into office with an unemployment rate at 7.8% from Bush I, but left with a surplus and a low unemployment rate as well. So, which would you choose?

4. Europe has had a nationalized healthcare system well before I was even born, and they never failed or faltered to that end. You may want to read this article to get an update on the state of european economy and their crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10....html

5. Sorry, 10 words or less won't do. An economy is far more complex than 10 words.

[audtatious]

1. What worked then, may not necessarily work now

And what has never worked has even less of a chance at success

2. Some questions raise further questions, and thus, the new questions have to be stated, nonetheless.

Black is black unless it's determined to be a shade of gray which would be up for more questions, Ad nauseam, to determine what shade it is.

There, I spent my spare change.....

[AZhitman]

Policies are not written in 10 lines or less and they surely can't be explained in 10 lines or less, can they?

Under my Administration they would be.

Quit Doing Stupid Sh*t And No One Will Get Hurt.

10 words. Watertight policy.

[Jacko3]

And what has never worked has even less of a chance at success

Black is black unless it's determined to be a shade of gray which would be up for more questions, Ad nauseam, to determine what shade it is.

There, I spent my spare change.....

That was interesting

[Armelius]

The federal government was never established to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor or vice versa. You could point to Lincoln in the way he decided that citizens should pay for the civil war. Sounds like a tyrant to me.

Now you have these artificial crisis that will continue the average citizen looking for the federal government for answers.

[OriginalWheelman]

Let me amend this story one of two ways, both of which are more appropriate for the analogy.

1. But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and there was no more bread on the farm. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared... there was no more free bread as there were no 'rich' to pay for it. They all sat screaming for the gov to give them bread it doesn't have anymore.

2. But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She moved to Singapore where they did not demand her bread. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared... there was no more free bread as there were no 'rich' to pay for it. They all sat screaming for the gov to give them bread it doesn't have anymore.

[Jacko3]

Let me amend this story one of two ways, both of which are more appropriate for the analogy.

1. But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and there was no more bread on the farm. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared... there was no more free bread as there were no 'rich' to pay for it. They all sat screaming for the gov to give them bread it doesn't have anymore.

2. But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She moved to Singapore where they did not demand her bread. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared... there was no more free bread as there were no 'rich' to pay for it. They all sat screaming for the gov to give them bread it doesn't have anymore.

If one moved to Singapore in order to avoid sharing, would they have the flour, milk, sugar, and yeast, to bake the bread, over there in Singapore??

And if republicans moved to Singapore, would the USA be a happier place to live in or would it be too boring living life with those who always agree with you?

[OriginalWheelman]

If one moved to Singapore in order to avoid sharing, would they have the flour, milk, sugar, and yeast, to bake the bread, over there in Singapore??

And if republicans moved to Singapore, would the USA be a happier place to live in or would it be too boring living life with those who always agree with you?

1. Yes.

2. Why are you assuming every rich person is a republican? BHO himself made $1 mil a year avg the last two years. Keep thinking that rich guys who gets stuff handed to him understands you.

[AZhitman]

How is it a Republican issue?

It's logic. And logic isn't partisan.

I love how most of the Left assumes that anyone in opposition to these policies is automatically affiliated with a certain party.

Why do you think that is, Jackie?

[Jacko3]

How is it a Republican issue?

It's logic. And logic isn't partisan.

I love how most of the Left assumes that anyone in opposition to these policies is automatically affiliated with a certain party.

Why do you think that is, Jackie?

Greg:

I just wanted to be a fool for 5 minutes.

maybe republicans have the most money and liberals are just sorry and poor

[OriginalWheelman]

I love how most of the Left assumes that anyone in opposition to these policies is automatically affiliated with a certain party.

I wish I had a dollar for every time some idiot has called me a Republican because I oppose the Democrats.

[AZhitman]

Greg:

I just wanted to be a fool for 5 minutes.

...and it became habit?

maybe republicans have the most money and liberals are just sorry and poor

I don't subscribe to that stereotype either.

[OriginalWheelman]

The split at each income level is closer than you think. Data is from 2000.

http://www.newsaic.com/mwelect...ncome

Family Income <$15,000 D 57 R 37 3rd 4<$30,000 D 54 R 41 3rd 3<$50,000 D 49 R 48 3rd 2>$50,000 D 45 R 52 3rd 2>$75,000 D 44 R 53 3rd 2>$100,000 D 43 R 54 3rd 2

[dusred]

maybe republicans have the most money and liberals are just sorry and poor, and lazy

FTFY

[Jacko3]

How is it a Republican issue?

It's logic. And logic isn't partisan.

I love how most of the Left assumes that anyone in opposition to these policies is automatically affiliated with a certain party.

Why do you think that is, Jackie?

Greg:

How has your day been today? Mine has been filled with people making eye-popping and insane requests. I need to runaway from where i sit at the moment, and drive my G to no where Hopefully, someone will find me where ever I end up with my G.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Words that are critical here:

"I wonder""may or may not work"

Trickle-down did not "prove to be a failure". That's a twisting of the true measure of TDE by those who oppose it.

Bottom line: Redistribution of wealth by unnatural means (i.e. government intervention) is responsible for MORE opportunities for abuse and fraud.

Why is it that people are so opposed to "buffing of the pockets of the wealthy"? Do they not deserve their earnings? Are we being judgmental here?

If I make $10M annually, and you criticize that, yet I've run my business in an honorable manner with integrity, and I give 10% to worthy causes, are you still looking to dip into my take? Why? And more importantly, who are YOU to decide how much I should make?

"Gov't funds to support the poor / middle class" - Hmmm. Think about that. Let's apply the SAME level of 'judgment' to those people. Shall the gov't assist those who have made stupid decisions which KEEP them in a lower socioeconomic stratus?

WHY NOT?

You did it to the rich guy. You judged him.

So, let's be fair - Let's go look in the poor guy's backyard. He spends his paycheck on beer and cigarettes. He gambles. He bought a new car that he can't really afford (on credit). He's NOT a good steward of his finances. He doesn't support any philanthropic interests.

Explain to me why you can judge the wealthy but not the poor?

Screw that. I don't WANT or NEED the "gubmint" to help me. I've been dirt-poor, no groceries in the house, 2 hungry kids, bills 3 months late, scared to death. I'll rely on my OWN self, thanks very much.

Because two things then happen:

1) My pride remains intact.2) No one can question me.

Keep your socialism where it belongs - On the scrap heap of failed attempts to circumvent individual responsibility and self-determination. [/quote]

[audtatious]

Greg:

How has your day been today? Mine has been filled with people making eye-popping and insane requests. I need to runaway from where i sit at the moment, and drive my G to no where Hopefully, someone will find me where ever I end up with my G.

Maybe with my position here you should brown-nose me as well?