WELFARE STATE -- GOVERNMENT GREED

 
Greed in the Welfare State: (plus Sen. Mark Warner's hypocrisy...ed note)
By Dr. Robert Warren, PhD

Whenever the word “greed” is used, it is directed at Americans who favor the individual rather than the collective. Those who save for their retirement are “hoarders”. Those who work for a living are “stealing” jobs they didn’t deserve. Owners of private companies didn’t “build that business”. And, the wealthy are just plain uncaring, undeserving – and greedy.

Greed is seldom applied to the government. Yet the government will beg, borrow and steal every dollar it wants through taxes, fees and political corruption. To expect fiscal integrity in government is to expect the impossible - as a national debt approaching 20 trillion dollars and the uncontrolled printing of money clearly demonstrates.

But greed is also an issue with the poor. There are well over 100 million Americans on some form of welfare program. Many are now so comfortable “working the system” that they have no interest in employment. Regrettably, these comfortable poor don’t care about, or even resent, the working folk who pay their bills. They are content to exchange their vote for more government largess.

President Obama sees no problem in taking from those who produce and giving to those who don’t. To transform America into a collectivist nation, the force of government must be directed at those who work, save and create. In this, he is supported by Senator Warner, - who actually did, as a lawyer, help “build that business” (NEXTEL, ed note) but now votes lock steep to undermine the very freedoms he enjoyed.

The desire for votes and the power that comes with elected office is the greed of the political class talked about by the founders. And both Obama and Warner know that the greed of the comfortable poor will help to sustain them in office. However, to paraphrase Rudyard Kipling’s warning from a hundred years ago: When man is paid for existing and no man pays for his sins, the lessons of past generations with horror and vengeance return.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w...
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif...
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own exp...
Read more