Detriot

[Karl F]

as Pogo once said, "I have met the enemy, and he is US".. or some such similar thing...

Detroit fell to it's own multiple self inflicted bullets..

however.. there are some enterprising souls there, that have adapted and done well.. and with Mother Nature relcaiming the abaondoned areas.. the Raccoon hunting, is stellar!.. "Look for the Paw"

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...+scampering+by

[justplugit]

Yes Karl, nature abhors a vacuum and will take over an area within 5 years.
No problem getting caught hunting there, what's another gun shot.
Sad state of affairs. A lot of blame to go around.

[GonnaCatchABig1]

http://www.policymic.com/mobile/arti...eaking-awesome
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Glad you're enjoying it though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We're not enjoying it Spence. We're wondering if there are lessons to be learned, and the answer (unless you are blinded by ideology) is 'yes'. The lesson is that, while a municipality isn't the same thing as a family or a business, there are still limits to how much you can borrow or spend. Detroit isn't the first city to file for bankruptcy, and they sure won't be the last. For the next 15 years, 10,000 Baby Boomers a day turn 65. 10,000 a day. They have been promised, and are expecting, perks that can never be paid for. That problem is largely due to the fact that your side has whored themselves out to labor unions. Try making that wrong.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Years of bad management, industry, me me me constituencies, graft, and politicians (could group them as one) have brought on this sorrow - in more places than just Detroit.

The same blueprint used by Stockton and our current administration too.
It is just a matter of time where that blueprint and our national debt
will take our country to it's demise.

[Jim in CT]

Scott, that was hilarious. Love Marc Steyn...

"if Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit" - that is gold, pure gold.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The same blueprint used by Stockton and our current administration too.
It is just a matter of time where that blueprint and our national debt
will take our country to it's demise.

Exactly my reason for starting this tread.
Our elected officials are leading us there and could give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what happens.
They have made the rules and all have made themselves rich in the process and will be fine when the #^&#^&#^&#^& hits the fan !

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Exactly my reason for starting this tread.
Our elected officials are leading us there and could give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what happens.

and those that elect them apparently...interesting to note the reactions of the usual suspects who fancy themselves far more compassionate, better educated...more capable of looking at issues in a balanced way without bias and deft at making intelligent judgments(unlike the rest of us).....bad jokes, denial, sarcasm....67 shootings and 11 murders in Chicago -IN ONE WEEKEND - "pffft...Chicago will never be Baltimore"....

when faced with the obvious fact that the policies they espouse have failed miserably in maintaining the government that they seek to grow perpetually and administer in their high minded way or in helping the people whose lives they were supposed to improve and at least maintain with a safety net but are now left in little more than ruin, squalor and human suffering...they suddenly lose their "compassion" and become quite snarky

they will never look at Detroit or the next city to fail and recognize the failure of their policies but rather simply a shortfall in funding of their brilliant policies which can't possibly be wrongheaded being built on compassion and superior intellect

it's quite insane

[Nebe]

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mostly true;

from a written when / who standpoint - Reese wrote it before Iraq / AFG http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/reese.asp

Name me a better government system? WE need to do better selecting & electing these buttholes - then we may have a chance. But we need at least 2 real parties as either one with full control would be disatorus.

Two party politics - its a feature, not a bug. Look @ RI the one party state

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What Reese describes is the Administrative State. He mentions the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, but doesn't mention that it is so in name only. Most of the problems that arise in the Administrative State would not be possible if the Constitution were actually followed rather than merely nodded to in token and deceptive interpretations.

He absolves the Federal Reserve of blame because Congress (a progressive one) created it by, as he admits, an unconstitutional delegation of power to it over monetary policy.

He absolves regulatory agencies of blame because Congress created them and has the power to dissolve or defund them. But he does not mention that their creation was also an unconstitutional delegation of powers which were to be exercised solely by Congress, not by unelected bureaucrats with plenary powers. And one of the very reasons that such powers were to be exercised by Congress and it alone is that it would be responsible for the results rather than pretending innocence, and would be held accountable at election time. So now, though Reese still wants to hold Congress, not the bureaucrats, responsible, this is the reason why neither Congress, nor the President, nor the SCOTUS are willing to get rid of them. They are the cover, not only against culpability for regulations, but as a reason for much of the high taxation and fiscal deficits needed to fund the operations and regulations of those agencies.

He lays the responsibility, per the Constitution, for tax and appropriation bills on the House, but doesn't mention that it is not only the President's veto that the House must override, but also the Senate with whom it must reconcile any bill. So the House is not solely responsible for budget bills, even as he demonstrates by saying that it passed a budget which didn't make it past the Senate--dead on arrival. Nor does he mention that another progressive Congress created the 17th amendment which divorced the Senate from fealty to their States and State Congresses who had appointed them by allowing them to be elected directly by the people, thus making them, contrary to the founders conception of a lesser power in the congressional branch, to a power even greater than the House. If the House cannot have either the Senate or the President, one or the other or both, in agreement with their legislation, it cannot be passed. The House was intended to be the most powerful branch, but standing alone, it is now the weakest--against constitutional intent. This weakening of the "People's House" was a necessary change in diminishing the constitutional separation of powers over time and eventually creating an all-powerful central government.

Nor does he mention the most powerful resource of the Administrative State created by the same progressive Congress that gave us the 17th amendment and the Federal reserve--the direct income tax. Without the income tax to siphon massive amounts of money from the private sector and an agency such as the Federal Reserve from whom it can "borrow" trillions, both of which allow the Federal government to borrow more trillions from foreign entities, so much of the problems Reese wants to put at the feet of the 545 politicos would not be possible.

He may believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but I doubt it. He doesn't want to name the real culprit, or is too ignorant to understand that if the Constitution were the supreme law, the 300 million would be at fault, not the 545. If the Constitution were the supreme law, the people would be sovereign, and the government would be the servant. Perhaps, he does not realize that he has described the ultimate class system--the ruling class and the masses who serve it. That class system, which the ruling class disguises by referring to, as Reese puts it disembodied mystical forces such as the "economy" "inflation" and "politics," that class system also includes mythical forces such as "the middle class" for whom it "fights" and the implication that there are lower and higher classes. Just who it is "fighting" is not directly mentioned.

This is exactly, the Administrative State which has replaced the Constitutional Republic. If the 545 were to "fix" the problems, it could only do so by relinquishing power. If they did that, they would not be the ruling class.

Reese says that "Their are no insoluble government problems." And he almost does a 180 by saying that the problem can be solved if We The People vote them out of office. That is, we ultimately do have the power, from which it should follow that it is the 300 million who are responsible--but he somehow doesn't want to go that far. He insists that it is the 545 who are solely responsible.

But only a people who are engaged in politics, and in self-government, in responsibility--a responsibility, a self-government, a civic duty which the founders and their Constitution gave us and in turn demanded from us--only such a people can have the power that is legally theirs. But if that legality is replaced by an administrative government that grants rights and accepts responsibilities, the people are stripped of their power. If the people allow, by their choice, to give up that power for the so-called "effective liberty" and security granted by an Administrative State in place of the "legal liberty," and the natural rights, and the unalienable rights granted by a creator, then they choose to be ruled by men, not by law. They choose to be administratively regulated rather than legally free. And the administrators will not be others in a classless society envisioned by the Founders, but will be the ruling class. Such a people will be dependent on that ruling class, and only with a courage not displayed in the last few decades by the 200-300 million will they vote out the ruling class that "provides" and replace it with temporary servants from the people, and accept the responsibility for their own lives.

[detbuch]

Thought this very insightful article would help to explain how the "535" that Reese claims are solely responsible for the mess get their power to make it:




THE REAL CLASS WAR

By: John Hayward | August 9th, 2013 at 03:04 PM | 5


Somehow Marxist class theory has been written into American politics at the genetic level. It’s easy to understand why politicians, especially the dedicated Big Government types, want us to think this way. We never should have played along. But we did, so now Americans view themselves as a great, shapeless, saintly Middle Class, floating above a shadowy Lower Class from which we have no right to expect anything. Riding atop the system is a faceless, hated Upper Class that is morally obliged to pay for everything our noble, selfless Government wants to do.

The Upper Class is faceless – we are not supposed to think of them as individual people, except when one of them does something embarrassing and politically useful – but the Left is obsessed with its anatomy. You’ve got the One Percent, and the Ten Percent, greedy small business owners, filthy-rich doctors, fatcat CEOs… and of course the Righteous Wealthy, the cadre of millionaire entertainers and left-wing politicos who truly deserve their riches. We’re supposed to view their lavish lifestyles with admiration and good humor, rather than bitter envy.

But you can’t perceive any real anatomical structure among the much larger Middle and Lower Classes. That’s the point. When liberals want you to admire their technocratic central planning skills, they declare that everything is done in the name of the Middle Class. When they want you to admire their compassion, they talk about our compulsory government-controlled duty to the poor (which must never be confused with meaningless private charity.) The great liberal project of the past 20 years has been blurring the lines between the Middle Class and Lower Class. At first the Middle Class was encouraged to believe it was just one bad day away from tumbling into poverty – remember how this was explicitly stated, over and over again, during the great “homelessness” craze of the 90s? But now things have advanced to a new phase, in which the Middle Class is meant to see itself as poor and helpless. “Working families” can’t get through life without government subsidies and supervision. Today’s liberal politicians speak of families with $60k and more of annual income exactly the same way the architects of the welfare state talked about the desperately impoverished.

There really is a class war in America today, but it’s not between any of these Marxist bumper cars. The three real classes are the Ruling Class, the Dependency Class, and Everyone Else.

The Dependency Class is by no means filled with poor people. Far from it. And the Ruling Class is not at all limited to elected officials. Lots of people are becoming dependent upon government power and money. Many of them are extremely wealthy. The Ruling Class depends on them for its power. Everything the Ruling Class does is designed to protect its own interests, and keep its favorite dependent constituents happy. Other priorities are secondary, if they count for anything at all.

The Ruling Class, which includes much of organized media, spends a great deal of effort convincing Everyone Else to accept the situation. Our expectations have been lowered to an absolutely dizzying degree. Years of stagnant growth and high unemployment? That’s just the New Normal. Billions of dollars vanishing into black holes of fraud and abuse? No big deal. A billion-dollar program that can account for 85 percent of its funding is a smashing success.

The rule of law is a laughable travesty now. The President of the United States routinely violates his own “signature legislative achievement,” the Affordable Care Act. He has no power to rewrite it, and neither does his bureaucracy, but they do it anyway. A vital objective in the real class war was to make Everyone Else comfortable with this. The notion of holding the Ruling Class strictly accountable to any law is now considered quaint. Electoral success once every couple of years validates and authorizes everything. If you’re really steamed about it, and if you can remain steamed until the next big election, you could try voting the bums out of office, the way you’ve been told all your life that “democracy” works. But you’ll have to get past the Ruling Class during the campaign, then beat the Dependency Class on Election Day.

If that sounds like long odds, well, you’re starting to catch on. Just wait until you see how large the Dependency Class has grown, after a few years of ObamaCare’s magical combination of utter failure and massive subsidies. Did you find it annoying when the Ruling Class freaked out over those little sequester “cuts” and started shrieking about how we’d have to make do without cops, teachers, firefighters, air-traffic controllers, prisons, military protection, and White House tours? Just wait until the first dime of fiscal restraint comes from the subsidies that people who make fifty grand a year need to purchase health insurance. Many people who are unhappy with the Ruling Class are about to swallow their objections, because they have been drafted into the Dependency Class.

This isn’t all just about money, though. Money is vitally important. In a political and cultural context, those who tell you money isn’t important secretly think it’s even more important than you do. But this is also about cultural attitudes and communication. It’s about changing the way we think about ourselves. Earlier, stronger American generations would not put up with any of this nonsense. They’d end the true class war in a rout. Their strength was bled away through a long, steady process of attitude adjustment. They were taught to accept the demands of the State, without expecting results. They were taught to accept boundless mission creep, instead of requiring exit strategies from every social-issue “war” the State declares.

Crucially, our grandparents were taught to reject the notions of charity, responsibility, and independence. Dependency lost its stigma, to be replaced by talk of entitlement. Everyone the Ruling Class likes is entitled to the fruits of redistribution, but absolutely no one is entitled to ownership of their own property and labor. Entitlement is an eternal claim with no beginning and no end. Denying someone an entitlement is tantamount to theft. But you’re not allowed to ask if the process of seizing money to fund those entitlements should be viewed as theft… not even when it literally involves robbing the cradle, and dropping insane levels of debt on every newborn child.

The entitlement mentality dissolves the boundaries that should surround the Dependency Class. Even big-bucks corporate subsidies are excused with entitlement language. Those green-energy parasites are just trying to give your children the clean, sustainable world they’re entitled to, aren’t they? We couldn’t let General Motors and its wonderful Big Labor partners go out of business, could we? The Ruling Class, which gets to decide who is entitled to what, loves this game more the longer we play.

We abandoned all vital restraint against the Ruling Class long ago. We don’t believe in inalienable, universal rights any more – not even for those sacred First Amendment rights. Massive scandals involving the use of government power to suppress political speech have not filled the streets of Washington with protesters. The freedom of religion is a minor speed bump against ObamaCare. We’re comfortable with the idea of a special tax levied against people who refuse to buy a product the government thinks they should have. The nominal duties of the State are generally afterthoughts. We’re amazingly relaxed about the idea of government having various agendas that involve forcing people to do what the Ruling Class thinks is right. They draw the maze of law; we struggle through it the best we can. The ultimate political epithet is “extremism”… and you’ll notice this term is invariably and solely applied to people who resist the commands of the Ruling Class. “Extremism” always boils down to a surfeit of independence.

The Ruling Class no longer has to balance its budgets, not even close. Official Washington recently erupted into applause and hailed Barack Obama’s great leadership because the annual deficit might come down to half a trillion dollars for a little while. This allows the Ruling Class to greatly expand its power. It hires people with that money – a lot of them – and portrays them as victims of proposed “austerity” measures. It can satisfy all of its dependent constituencies, and recruit new ones, without asking anyone it supports to make do with less. There is little need to set priorities, although the Ruling Class loves to talk about them, when it wants to look smart and in control.

There’s your real class war. Each time Everyone Else allows themselves to be divided into warring camps based on income level, in a phony class struggle, they lose a bit more ground. In the state of liberty and dignity America’s founders intended for their citizens, we would pursue our interests and recognize the right of others to do the same, without allowing those interests to be balanced and measured by those who masquerade as our selfless protectors and teachers. We would not accept one-man, one-vote, one-time proposals that give the Ruling Class eternal victory after a single election. We would angrily reject the notion that “forward progress” involves marching everyone in the same direction, because that sort of march inevitably requires harnesses, blinders, and whips. We would be deeply suspicious of anyone who assigned us to “classes,” and told us which ones deserved success. And we certainly wouldn’t think of “opportunity” as a limited resource to be dispensed by the wise, rather than treasure waiting to be discovered by the brave. If only we were brave enough to call off both the real and phony class wars tomorrow… but then, that’s why the Ruling Class puts so much effort into keeping us frightened of each other.

[scottw]

right between the eyes with that one....bingo

[spence]

How much of the dependency class is indirect vs direct?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How much of the dependency class is indirect vs direct?

-spence

It depends, as you well know being, as JohnR once said, the queen of it, on context. What is indirect in one context can be direct in another. Or, as you quipped in another thread: "I'm not sure I understand the question. There are many variables here . . ."

I'm not sure in what context your question is asked, but in the context of the dependency class being a result of the ruling class's policies, I would say that most of the dependency is direct rather than indirect. The current ruling class, being a direct descendent of progressive politics in America, has as its mission a State in which the citizens have no inalienable rights, but has only those rights granted by government. As such, all enterprises are allowed by government and are obligated to follow its mandates in an ever-expanding minutia of regulations. The same growth of intrusion in the functions of personal life applies.

The transformation of an American society which was based mostly on self-government and self-reliance in a fluid "class," where one could rise and fall on merit and effort, to a more rigid structure of "classes" which require government assistance to maintain has created the dependency class. Before the transformation, the great body of American society did not depend on a central government for its welfare. The "great" societies formed by federal progressive governments have steadily changed self-reliance to government dependence and made the ability to achieve wealth or a "better" life economically more difficult, and made a "class" structure more difficult to escape, and has specifically made the dependency class not only a beneficiary of government, but a supplicant.

[scottw]

the comments from some of my customers recently who fancy themselves proud and lifelong liberal democrats(who are quite moderate and "have actually voted republican" they implore, but can't name any that they ever voted for) have been fascinating on these subjects....on Detroit..... "it's too bad"(noticeable lack of compassion) "but you really can't believe the numbers being tossed about because anyone can post anything on the internet these days".. especially that literacy number associated with Detroit(which surely requires even greater government intervention)...when I pointed out out that whatever numbers they believe or don't, a major American city has declared bankruptcy and is in ruin, they argue that "there are actually some great things going on in Detroit, like THE ARTS, it's just that no one ever talks about it".... pressed for specifics on THE ARTS in Detroit, they offer nothing but a smirk(what??? you don't know?? pffffft?)....when I ask if THE ARTS are going to help the population of Detroit in squalor of relieve the massive debt they reply "you have to start somewhere"...when I point out out that THE ARTS at the Detroit Museum are being appraised for likely fire sale they change the subject.....the subject turns to unfunded pensions, entitlements etc....one says, "these people need to be told that they are going to have to work a little longer and they can't retire with the expectation that the government is going to provide for them for the rest of their lives".....I point out that whenever someone stands up and says this, the folks that they tend to vote for and whose policies they trumpet run commercials with grannie being pushed off of a cliff in a wheelchair and make all sorts of ridiculous claims of draconian this or that....AND MY FAVORITE PART OF THE CONVERSATION ............"well, then they(republicans/conservatives) need to ignore that and yell even louder and keep saying it until the message gets through".....guess they missed that entire SCOTT WALKER in WISCONSIN episode...these folks despise "republicans", except "those like Lincoln Chaffe, Republicans need more of them" and conservatives are even worse.. causing severe bristling when mentioned and probably an itchy rash, I've known them for 25 years, they and a number of customers who I've known for the same period with a similar political leaning have an oddly dim view of the future currently, you'd think they'd be be enthusiastic as the people and policies that they have supported for the last 50 years(most are into their 70's now) are really gaining hold, we're becoming more like Europe every day(which is what we've been told we should be aiming for), part time working, massive government dependent, lawless and ruled by unaccountable elites....

a favorite line from another customer recently who is a super-lib, who frequently writes letters to the editor hammering republicans on a regular basis(had a ball with Romney), prints copies and signs them for me to take home with me when I visit him and who assured me that with Obama's reelection "things are going to be MUCH DIFFERENT NOW"(in a good way) but who is feeling the pinch of the Obama reality said intently ..."you know that I'm extremely liberal on every issue but when it comes to my money I'm very republican"..I said..."I have no doubt"


and....last but not least...when all else fails...relativity....."it doesn't really matter who the president is...things would be the same".....I said..." then you probably shouldn't bother voting next time around"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence
How much of the dependency class is indirect vs direct?


[QUOTE=detbuch;1010201]It depends


and it doesn't matter.......

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

and it doesn't matter.......

If your objective is to not think I'd say you're right. It's perhaps one of the most important things the author missed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If your objective is to not think I'd say you're right. It's perhaps one of the most important things the author missed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

psychobabble

"dependency class is indirect vs direct".....
"indirect vs direct dependency class"...
"direct dependency class"
"indirect dependency class"
"direct dependency"
"indirect dependency"

GOOGLE any combination of "variables" in this "concept"....no wonder the author "missed" this "one of the most important things"...along with everyone else.....

I think Detbuch was humoring you and your nonsense....... and made a great "thinking" point describing reality in the process...

"The current ruling class, being a direct descendent of progressive politics in America, has as its mission a State in which the citizens have no inalienable rights, but has only those rights granted by government. As such, all enterprises are allowed by government and are obligated to follow its mandates in an ever-expanding minutia of regulations. The same growth of intrusion in the functions of personal life applies."

direct or indirect....voluntary or involuntary......

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm not sure in what context your question is asked, but in the context of the dependency class being a result of the ruling class's policies, I would say that most of the dependency is direct rather than indirect. The current ruling class, being a direct descendent of progressive politics in America, has as its mission a State in which the citizens have no inalienable rights, but has only those rights granted by government. As such, all enterprises are allowed by government and are obligated to follow its mandates in an ever-expanding minutia of regulations. The same growth of intrusion in the functions of personal life applies.

The transformation of an American society which was based mostly on self-government and self-reliance in a fluid "class," where one could rise and fall on merit and effort, to a more rigid structure of "classes" which require government assistance to maintain has created the dependency class. Before the transformation, the great body of American society did not depend on a central government for its welfare. The "great" societies formed by federal progressive governments have steadily changed self-reliance to government dependence and made the ability to achieve wealth or a "better" life economically more difficult, and made a "class" structure more difficult to escape, and has specifically made the dependency class not only a beneficiary of government, but a supplicant.

Perhaps it's just the opposite?

Certainly there is a small percentage that are really dependent and are more favorable to this dependent state.

But what about the millions of defense contractors who are dependent on the ruling class to fund their jobs? What about the transportation workers who are dependent on the Fed to keep things liquid so they have a reason to move business people around? What about the millions of attorneys who thrive under the chaos of regulatory change?

Everyone else could be very independent in their own right, but aren't they just as dependent in the end?

Not to mention the ruling class is pretty dependent on the dependent...and everyone else.

Perhaps we're all just dependent. It would certainly eliminate two of the variables and establish a more simple context.

-spence

[scottw]

WOW..you just took psychobabble nonsense to a whole new level...that's not "thinking"...that's taking a huge toke off of the bong and rambling gibberish...nicely done!

Detroit is a shining example of and the logical conclusion to your...see above

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps it's just the opposite?

Perhaps you mean opposite ends of the same "spectrum?" I know you like to think in terms of spectrums, and contexts, and so forth. So maybe that's what you mean here, otherwise, in the following you seem to be supporting Hayward's dependent class/ruling class relationship.

Certainly there is a small percentage that are really dependent and are more favorable to this dependent state.

Your following comments imply that you think there is more than a small percentage that are really dependent.

But what about the millions of defense contractors who are dependent on the ruling class to fund their jobs?

Yes, when the ruling class expands its size and power and financial resources, it can hire and incorporate greater and greater numbers into the dependent class. And when it can accumulate debt well beyond even its expanded financial resources and beyond that of the private sector, it can pay for enough dependents to subsume the majority of the population into dependence. Are there really millions of contractors? That is scary.

What about the transportation workers who are dependent on the Fed to keep things liquid so they have a reason to move business people around?

Yes, this is the increasingly prevalent type of unconstitutional power that the ruling class has taken from the private sector and local governments and made itself supposedly "indispensable" in areas that could do without it, thereby increasing the number of dependents and the size of its budget and debt.

What about the millions of attorneys who thrive under the chaos of regulatory change?

"Millions of attorneys"? There are about 1.4 million or so, and they don't all thrive under that particular chaos. But is this a defense of the ruling class and its regulatory State? This is the wonderful gift of dependence? Legalistic vampires eating out our substance to make the ruling class work and bond us to it? Yes, their "thriving" is the diversion of money from our pockets into theirs in order to comply with the mandates of the ruling class. As such, they not only thrive under the chaos, they are part of the ruling class. Read Hayward's article carefully and you will see that they and others, media, etc. are included.

Everyone else could be very independent in their own right, but aren't they just as dependent in the end?

Yes, but doesn't it depend on what they are all depending on? Dependence, in various forms, is common to us all. But must it be on a ruling class that makes us a dependent class?

Not to mention the ruling class is pretty dependent on the dependent...

Of course it is. I've said so myself a few times. Especially see my comment on the "controllers" in the thread started by Jim in Ct titled: "Why do liberal universities honor murderers?" The relationship is symbiotic. But that does not change the nature of the relationship between controller and controlled, or ruling class and dependent class. It is one of top down authority opposed to the bottom up system of the Founders.

. . . and everyone else.

No, Everyone Else, not wishing to be dependent on a ruling class is opposed to it. Whatever
"dependence" they have on that class beyond what is constitutionally prescribed is forced. If you mean coercion to be a form of dependence, that is an un-American condition, at least pre-progressive American, and not what Hayward meant by dependence. Symbiosis in this context is cooperative. Coercion is dictatorial. Although some of those co-opted into the dependent class that Hayward defines may have initially been against it, they willingly partake when regulations, penalties, and subsidies make it more palliative than not. The rest of the dependent class had no objections from the start.

Everyone Else doesn't want any part of it.

Perhaps we're all just dependent. It would certainly eliminate two of the variables and establish a more simple context.

-spence

Again, we all depend on something, and the more "independent" we are, the less we depend on others and the more on ourselves.

Hayward's article speaks about an infusion of a Marxist class structure of a lower, middle, and upper class into American politics which is foisted on us as a reality which must be made right by an all-powerful central government . . . but he says the real structure is RULING CLASS, DEPENDENT CLASS, and Everyone Else.

That we all depend on something is a human condition. That we are increasingly dependent on a central power that "marches us [all] in the same direction" is antithetical to freedom.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Again, we all depend on something, and the more "independent" we are, the less we depend on others and the more on ourselves.

That we all depend on something is a human condition. That we are increasingly dependent on a central power that "marches us [all] in the same direction" is antithetical to freedom.

Perfect !
Just an after thought. It's also human to like "Free Stuff" and the more your dependent on it
the lazier you get and the more you think your entitled to it.

[scottw]

NO!...it's not human to like "free stuff" because most understand that "stuff" isn't free, the perpetuation of the entitlement culture has just created the illusion and belief it's there for the taking and it's ok to participate...after all...everyone else is ...and conceding that "we all depend on something" as though that statement bears any relationship to an inane statement like "Perhaps we're all just dependent" like millions contractors, transportation workers and attorneys thriving under the chaos of regulatory change is just participating in inane diversion from subject...

human history is a perpetual struggle against dependence on those that foster dependence and use it to improve their own condition usually beginning with phony benevolent promises and ending in violence and misery

equating interdependent relationships that we might willingly enter into with dependent relationships that we may be forced into (for our own good or the good of the state) by a bureaucratic fiat or that employment in that bureaucratic state somehow entitles insulation from the realities of employment in the real world again entertains this stupid notion and deflects from the issue

"free stuff" and the idea that there should be no shame in living through the labor of others is a seed that has been sewn in this society for most of the last century by the "ruling" class, as it is being called....it is intended to weaken the human spirit and create a society that is more malleable to the whims of the "ruling class" which has clearly overspent it's promises...

conceding that "perhaps we're all just dependent" is handing over you life and the lives of your children to the ruling class who have no intention of slowing the growth of their state and is regulation and intrusions....makes me sick


dependence IS antithetical to freedom.....if "Perhaps we're all just dependent" then we are all losing freedom, many of us willingly it seems....this notion that greater dependence on a central government and all of it's wisdom and bread and circus will somehow make us freer people is a false promise...just ask the people of Detroit

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

NO!...it's not human to like "free stuff" because most understand that "stuff" isn't free, the perpetuation of the entitlement culture has just created the illusion and belief it's there for the taking and it's ok to participate...after all...everyone else is ...and conceding that "we all depend on something" as though that statement bears any relationship to an inane statement like "Perhaps we're all just dependent" like millions contractors, transportation workers and attorneys thriving under the chaos of regulatory change is just participating in inane diversion from subject...

human history is a perpetual struggle against dependence on those that foster dependence and use it to improve their own condition usually beginning with phony benevolent promises and ending in violence and misery

equating interdependent relationships that we might willingly enter into with dependent relationships that we may be forced into (for our own good or the good of the state) by a bureaucratic fiat or that employment in that bureaucratic state somehow entitles insulation from the realities of employment in the real world again entertains this stupid notion and deflects from the issue

"free stuff" and the idea that there should be no shame in living through the labor of others is a seed that has been sewn in this society for most of the last century by the "ruling" class, as it is being called....it is intended to weaken the human spirit and create a society that is more malleable to the whims of the "ruling class" which has clearly overspent it's promises...

conceding that "perhaps we're all just dependent" is handing over you life and the lives of your children to the ruling class who have no intention of slowing the growth of their state and is regulation and intrusions....makes me sick


dependence IS antithetical to freedom.....if "Perhaps we're all just dependent" then we are all losing freedom, many of us willingly it seems....this notion that greater dependence on a central government and all of it's wisdom and bread and circus will somehow make us freer people is a false promise...just ask the people of Detroit

There IS an element of liking free stuff in the human condition. It may be more of an extension of humans liking to GIVE free stuff. There is a good feeling in sharing your stuff with others, and a disappointed feeling if they refuse the gift. So the giving and taking is reciprocal. But there is only satisfaction in giving or taking free stuff if it is voluntary. That is what makes the free stuff truly free. And, even in that "free" association, there is an element of price for the exchange--gratitude by the receiver, love (or duty) by the giver and, perhaps, infinite determinate variables. Perhaps, the most common voluntary free giving is gifts to your children--determined by the price of love.

But if the "giving" is forced, the element of "liking" changes to "hating." And for the receiving, since it comes from no-one in particular to love or appreciate, there is no gratitude. But it does come from a government or bureaucracy, and in our the case from an administrative State, a "benevolent" one which insists that you're entitled to the gift, so there is no need for thanks. Rather, the need is to demand. Of course, the ever-present price, in this case, is a dependent loyalty to that government or bureaucracy that gives you stuff. That loyalty, both ways, to and from the giver and taker, is the string attached to the gift. Rather than a relationship between child and parent nourished by love which teaches the child to grow with values of love and dependence on "your own," it creates a dysfunctional relation between a childlike dependence on a dispassionate and neglectful, rather abusive, government "parent" who treats the child, from a distance, as a token of its power and largesse, and who never teaches its children the value of growing up into a self-dependent and loving adult. It creates a selfish child who expects to be given stuff and who only learns that all you have to do to keep getting it is to keep the givers in power. That element of humanity that breeds the richness of life, its give and take, is transformed into a mean existence of taking without giving in a personal way. It is, as you say, a destruction of the human spirit. It is that sort if dependence which is antithetical to freedom. And, as you say, speaking of dependence in general--on weather conditions for instance, or health, or on self and family, on the stability of the universe and the grace of God--as if it were in the same category as dependence on an all powerful central government deflects from the issue. It is that sort of "equivalence" that blinds us from the truth.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

NO!...it's not human to like "free stuff" because most understand that "stuff" isn't free,

Have to disagree with you on that statement, Scott. First let me say after working
company conventions for 35 years there wasn't a person attending that wouldn't take a free "give away" even as small as a pen. Banks "give away" toasters to get your business etc. Politicians offer free hot dog and beer picnics to get your vote.
While some understand it's not free most think it is,and in the case of government hand outs think that someone else is paying for it,why not take it.

[spence]

Sorry, on the road and can't type a lot on the ipad.

But what if you don't perceive stuff as free?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, on the road and can't type a lot on the ipad.

But what if you don't perceive stuff as free?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It looks like you get your hair cut for free.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, on the road and can't type a lot on the ipad.

But what if you don't perceive stuff as free?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It means you have half a brain. It used to be said, nothing is free
except the air you breathe, but now someone has to pay for the government
and it's regulations to keep it clean.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, on the road and can't type a lot on the ipad.

But what if you don't perceive stuff as free?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not the stuff that's free. It's the transfer of the stuff from someone who has earned it or produced it to someone who doesn't give something of value in return. When the transfer is forced, confiscated from one and given to another who doesn't return equal value or any value to the person from whom the stuff was taken, the rational perception of the receiver would be that he GOT it for free, got it without paying or working for it. But the receiver of the confiscated gift would not rationally "perceive" the gift, itself, as a "free" commodity, one which was not paid for or earned by the one from whom it was taken. He who received the transferred gift would only want it if it had some exchange value. Stuff that is intrinsically "free," stuff which has no exchange value because it is "freely" available, such as the air that justplugit mentioned, is stuff that would be "perceived" as "free."

By the way, it seems that you are deflecting away from the discussion with this tidbit. So much has been proffered, in response to your first question, which you haven't answered, and you move on to this typically nebulous question which derails the argument into an insignificant sidetrack.