ADVERTISEMENT

Our nation is officially ghetto

nashvillegoldenflash

Hall of Famer
Dec 10, 2006
7,377
206
63
Americans named Obama and Hillary Clinton as the most admired man and woman in the world, according to a Gallup poll.

kimhill1.jpg


While the field of top GOP presidential candidates was busy engaging in an at-times fiery first debate, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was reportedly rubbing elbows at a Los Angeles fundraiser with the likes of Kim Kardashian, Kanye West and Justin Bieber’s manager, Scooter Braun.

Kardashian, the selfie-loving reality television star who has supported Obama in the past, tweeted to her more than 34 million followers, "Excited to be meeting our next President tonight!! Maybe she'll take a selfie with me!"

God help us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/u...-yousafzai-most-admired-gallup-poll.html?_r=0

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/250512-hillary-spends-debate-with-kim-and-kanye
 
Last edited:
I just threw up in my mouth. Will be an even bigger disgrace to our country than Obummer if she gets elected.
 
This represents the type of people who voted Obama and Hillary the most admired man and woman in the world. When these type of people make up the majority, then you know the country has become ghetto. It is the new American way of life.

11933491_1137893819557379_2169966947250177421_n.jpg
 
Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...SkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html?event=event25

The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html?event=event25#comments

CapitolWEB.jpg

istock/photo illustration by lesley becker/globe staff



By Jordan Michael Smith October 19, 2014

The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.

How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.

IDEAS:
Where does the term “double government” come from?

GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.



IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?

GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.



IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”

IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?

GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.



IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million lives?

GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.



IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.

GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot explained about the British population, that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.



IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?

GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.
 
Fascinating choice of words. Ghetto. Two highly educated attorneys. A couple of guys that were raised raised by college professors. A gal that was raised by an ultra successful attorney and his model wife. All are rich and extremely successful. I can't fathom what made the word ghetto come to your mind. Oh wait...

At least you don't try to hide what you are. No dog whistles needed here in moms basement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueRaiderFan
The truth is you're not offended by my use of the word ghetto but my condemnation of free-loaders, deadbeats, and leeches. As a liberal, you reject the notion of judgement in the real world – being suspicious of Muslims, denying (or trying to explain away) black crime statistics, gay relationships, and fatherless children – all those involve a judgement. To have a judgement, you must have a right and wrong to base that judgement on. To have a right and wrong means making a painful observation of someone, including yourself. That’s intolerable to the liberal mind. The new American way of life, facilitated by liberals like Obama and Hillary, is perfectly fine with you as long as it keeps Democrats in office. It doesn't matter if the country is over $18 trillion in debt and half of the population is sitting around letting the other half pay their way. There is no shame or judgement because that is the Democrat way of life.
 
I am not offended because I find you to be sad and pathetic but probably one of the more inconsequential people I have ever come across. If I thought your depraved mentality had a reach beyond the 3 or so people that buy into what you're selling down here in the basement I might actually care but I just come here mostly for the laughs. Unfortunately you make feel sad more than laughter. You're so divisive. Probably one of the most Un-Christlike people I have come across. You're so blind to it. You make so many judgements about people you have never met and truly know nothing about. My parents were church going, God fearing, business owning(until they sold it) Democrats. Grandparents weren't business owners but still hard working veteran that achieved the American Dream and Democrats. I am a productive family man that, I would wager is paying more in taxes than you, and I am a democrat. I have been on every side of the track. From 2 kids and a dog middle class, to practically homeless as a kid when my dad died(which really set my views on our health care), to literally the yacht club when my mom remarried and her and her new husband's business took off. I have seen our health care system bankrupt middleclass families(mine). I have seen the benefits of our safety net for a widowed stay-at-home mom trying to suddenly provide for her two sons(mine too). My dad's social security is what paid for mine and my brothers college.
I think the late 30's version of me that lives very comfortably should bare a lot more of our burden than my widowed mom. Heck I think this late 30's version of me should pay a lot more than the early 20's version me that was trying to live of off 35k with a new born daughter that was Vandy NICU( again don't get me started on health care costs) and having multiple surgeries. I hope that 50 year old me can pay even more of the burden. It's just basic empathy and common sense. I think Jesus would approve. I think if Jesus read the nonsense you just posted he would be ashamed you call yourself a Christian. I know I certainly am.

Tl;dr: yes you're racist but too unimportant to be offensive. No not all democrats are what your narrow mind purports them to be. You're a horrible example of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
I think Jesus would approve. I think if Jesus read the nonsense you just posted he would be ashamed you call yourself a Christian. .

Jesus has no problem calling things what they are.

You need to stop worrying about what other people are doing and how much they're sharing. What your neighbor has is not yours to share. Furthermore, it's none of your business.

If you doubt that it's none of your business, then just go read what Jesus said to Peter when Peter asked "what about John?"

Mind your own affairs. Stop trying to force others to support charities of your choice.
 
Nah I'd rather just keep winning. If my neighbor doesn't want to contribute to our society they can go find another one. You are free to go anywhere you want to go. Good luck finding a country that doesn't expect those that can to contribute more than those that can't or a place to be able to not contribute anything at all like you would have it. I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year. It's a libertarian wet dream. Perfect for a totally independent guy like you. Send me a post card.

PS Jesus worried about what others were sharing. I am just trying to be more Christ like.
 
If my neighbor doesn't want to contribute to our society they can go find another one. You are free to go anywhere you want to go. .

BlueTekePeach,

1. Just because someone resists your efforts to control how they share what God has blessed them with does not mean they do not want to contribute to society.

2. We DID find another place to go. America. But over time, people like you who force compulsory collectivism on others have dragged us back to the very system of government people were fleeing from. There is nothing "progressive" about your mindset. You're actually REgressive.

3. Jesus tells us to help others. Jesus does NOT tell us to make sure our neighbors are helping, too.

I guess you can go back to reading your Mother Goose and Huff-and-Puff Post now. Keep telling everyone how they're a victim, how they've been stolen from and exploited, and how your democrats will help them "get even" if only government is given more power. It's a message most of us are all too eager to swallow given our human nature of covetousness.

And in regards to your "Nah, I'd rather just keep winning" comment, your side will continue to win. That's prophecy. The battle you will win. The war you will lose.
 
One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party's chances in a national election.

Name almost any subject, and this unhealthy pattern can be discerned.

If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.

If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the Senator among all demographic groups."

After women marry, they are more likely to abandon leftist views and to vote Republican. And if they then have children, they will vote Republican in even more lopsided numbers. The bottom line is that when Americans marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party; when they marry and make families, it is disastrous for the party.

If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat. The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education — it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation — and oppose making English America's official language.

Concerning the economy, the same rule applies. The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats.

By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates. Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.

The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats.

That helps to explain why the mainstream media, who ache for a Democratic victory, feature stories of wounded American soldiers, grieving families of killed soldiers and atrocity stories — such as the apparently fictitious story printed in the New Republic. But they almost never feature stories about military heroism and altruism. Americans read and watch far more stories about soldiers who commit atrocities than about soldiers who commit heroic actions and who show love to Iraqi civilians.

The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders — such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France — are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

Undoubtedly, some Democrats might respond that the same thesis could be written if a Democrat were in the White House and the Republicans were out of power. But that is not at all the case. First, there is no equivalent list of bad things happening to America that benefits Republicans. Second, everything written here about the Democrats — except about the Iraq War, which was not taking place then — could have been written when Democrat Bill Clinton was president.

I am not saying that in their hearts all Democrats want black America to regard America as a racist society, or want Hispanics to remain unassimilated, or Americans to feel economically discontented, or fewer families to be formed, or America to lose in Iraq, or foreign nations to hate us.

But what most Democrats want in their hearts is not the issue. The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.

12227177_1118847454828159_4039425140619444971_n.jpg


http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/if-it-s-bad-for-america-it-s-good-for-democrats.html
 
When I was a lad way back in the 60s my father gave me some career planning advice -- “If you want to make money go to work in the private sector, but if you want job security go to work in the public sector. The public sector doesn’t pay as well as the private sector but the benefits are good and you’ll never have to worry about getting laid off.”

My father’s advice made sense. Government employees are ‘public servants’ and servants are not supposed to make more than their employers. But that was then and this is now. The times have changed.

With 2.7 million-plus workers (excluding non-civilian military) the federal government is the largest employer in the U.S. But now it seems that federal employees are also the best paid workers in the U.S. And when benefits are added in, the total compensation for federal employees dwarfs private sector pay --

Federal workers’ pay and benefits were 78 percent higher than private employees, who earned an average of $52,688 less than public sector workers last year.

The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector’s average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.

But it turns out that it’s not just federal government workers who are happily succoring at the teats of the private sector. State and local government workers are also sucking Joe and Josephine Taxpayer dry.

In Democratically controlled Wayne County MI -- where the Democratically controlled bankrupt city of Detroit is located -- 15 part-time county commissioners are each pulling in $70,000 per year in salaries, a salary that is just $10,000 less per year than the salary that Michigan’s so-called ‘full time’ state legislators earn. And that’s not all:

In 2010, the commission concocted a scheme to take advantage of a loophole in the pension system and allow themselves to qualify for a rich and rapid retirement benefit.

An investigative report last year by WXYZ-TV Ch. 7 revealed some of the pension jackpots. Commissioner Joe Palamara is guaranteed a lifetime pension of $33,660. Laura Cox, a former commissioner and now a state representative, gets $32,000 a year. Retired commissioner Bernard Parker took accelerated payments of $170,000, and then converted to a $27,000 annual benefit. Commissioner Jewel Ware’s pension will be $42,900.

These pensions are not for a lifetime of service; some were awarded after just a few years in office, and can be collected as soon as commissioners leave office, regardless of age.

Is it any wonder why Democrats and even some not so conservative members of the GOP are so fond of Big Government? Is it any wonder why our Democratic and Republican public servants are in no real hurry to downsize government at a federal, state, or local level? Government at all levels has become the goose that lays the golden eggs that enable the takers to make more than the makers.

The inventers, innovators, entrepreneurs, business people, and skilled tradespeople who take the risks associated with competing in a free market should be the ones who are rewarded for their toil, not the politicians and bureaucrats who would not even have jobs were it not for the taxes and fees that the private sector provides.

But this is the path our republic has been taking for years. Government -- the servant -- has managed to rack up more than $18 trillion worth of debt that we are on the hook for. Every politician that ever voted to spend money the government did not have or to raise the debt ceiling has had a hand in creating this problem, but so has every eligible conservative voter who has not bothered to vote because none of the candidates’ values perfectly aligned with theirs, or who says ‘why bother voting, they’re all crooks.’

The low information voters don’t suffer from such apathy or cynicism. For them it’s simple -- they vote for the candidate who promises them the most ‘free stuff.’ And all too often the candidates, mostly Democrats, promising the most free stuff get elected, and both the government and our debt grows and grows. Our public servants dream up new entitlements that require new government departments and more bureaucrats to run them, and then they congratulate themselves by giving themselves pay raises, better retirement packages, and other new benefits. And so the public servants have become better off than their employers. It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone that the richest county in the U.S. is right outside Washington D.C. or that, “Six of America’s 10 wealthiest counties lie within a stone’s throw of the Beltway.”

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a Republic made up of respected members of society who, having attained prominence in their chosen fields of endeavor would leave the private sector to serve the public for a period of time. But now our country is being run by career politicians and bureaucrats who have spent their entire lives in public service. Service to the political party, homage to the party leaders, paying your dues, and service to the special interest groups who provide the biggest campaign contributions has become more important than service to the people.

We need to make one thing perfectly clear to the next president as well as to every member of Congress: we are sick and tired of politics as usual.

The Federal Government bureaucracy needs to be downsized big time, the debt needs to be paid down even while defense spending is increased and our military capabilities are restored to pre-2008 levels. Our tax system also needs to be completely overhauled, Obamacare needs to be repealed, and Ron and Rand Paul may also be right – perhaps it’s time to take a long hard look at the Federal Reserve System.

There’s much more that needs to be done to fix all the problems our country is grappling with today. If the GOP presidential candidate does win the next election and the GOP retains its majorities in the House and Senate, the Dems are going to fight tooth and nail for their secular fantasy utopian vision of what our county should be. We are not going to be able to reclaim our county in just 4 or 8 years. It is going to be a long uphill battle.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/when_the_takers_make_more_than_the_makers.html
 
One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

Not true, but yours has hinged it's hopes on the idea that the free market cures all ills. It cures many ills, but not all.


It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party's chances in a national election.

A completely ridiculous statement and I'll address your points below. Once again you've shown your own mindset of how you view the left, which is completely off mark. You won't try to understand it. You've been spoon fed a load of bull.



If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.


The left is not forming the opinion of African Americans. America's black community is doing that for themselves. Instead of blaming the left for their view, you should look at the talking points of the African American community and try and understand why they are upset, but you won't. You like to play the victim of being misunderstood and oppressed in some way by them and the left. Stop blaming others and look at what YOU are doing to understand their objections in our society.


If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the Senator among all demographic groups."

The left isn't undermining women and marriage. Perhaps you should look for other reasons why women aren't marrying and why single women vote left. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

After women marry, they are more likely to abandon leftist views and to vote Republican. And if they then have children, they will vote Republican in even more lopsided numbers.


Do you have any overall stats. Posting stats about Kerry doesn't prove an overall pattern. Even if single women do vote left more, it doesn't prove that the left is somehow undermining marriage.



If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat.

I work with many illegals. The vast majority of them don't want to assimilate. They want to work a few years and go back home with a ton of money (relatively speaking). How are democrats responsible for this? Democrats actually want them to assimilate, learn our language and stay.



The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education — it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation — and oppose making English America's official language.

How does teaching English to Latinos hurt them? This makes no sense. I suppose you have some sort of Fox News spin for this.

Concerning the economy, the same rule applies. The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats.

Another straw man argument with absolutely no proof or logic to the statement. It's like your 12 years old and just making stuff up.

By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates.


Yes and you can thank our current president for this.


Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.


Another statement pulled out of thin air with absolutely no basis in fact or reality.
Democrats want fair labor practices and help for people in need and less war mongering, as well as a few other things.


The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats
.

Where do you get this crap? We aren't in Iraq because the president promised we would pull out of Iraq. We have done enough for them at this point. They can solve their own problems.

That helps to explain why the mainstream media, who ache for a Democratic victory, feature stories of wounded American soldiers, grieving families of killed soldiers and atrocity stories — such as the apparently fictitious story printed in the New Republic. But they almost never feature stories about military heroism and altruism. Americans read and watch far more stories about soldiers who commit atrocities than about soldiers who commit heroic actions and who show love to Iraqi civilians
.

I see stories about our heroes on the news all the time. You are just making things up here. You really are deluded.

The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders — such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France — are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

We continually meddle in the affairs of other countries. We helped start a war in Syria recently as an example. We need to stop invading other countries and pushing countries into civil war. The fact that you can't see this is disturbiung.

Undoubtedly, some Democrats might respond that the same thesis could be written if a Democrat were in the White House and the Republicans were out of power. But that is not at all the case. First, there is no equivalent list of bad things happening to America that benefits Republicans.


This is a list of crap that you have pulled out of thin air. It is a laughable argument, at best.
 
When I was a lad way back in the 60s my father gave me some career planning advice -- “If you want to make money go to work in the private sector, but if you want job security go to work in the public sector. The public sector doesn’t pay as well as the private sector but the benefits are good and you’ll never have to worry about getting laid off.”

My father’s advice made sense. Government employees are ‘public servants’ and servants are not supposed to make more than their employers. But that was then and this is now. The times have changed.

With 2.7 million-plus workers (excluding non-civilian military) the federal government is the largest employer in the U.S. But now it seems that federal employees are also the best paid workers in the U.S. And when benefits are added in, the total compensation for federal employees dwarfs private sector pay --

Federal workers’ pay and benefits were 78 percent higher than private employees, who earned an average of $52,688 less than public sector workers last year.

The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector’s average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.

But it turns out that it’s not just federal government workers who are happily succoring at the teats of the private sector. State and local government workers are also sucking Joe and Josephine Taxpayer dry.

In Democratically controlled Wayne County MI -- where the Democratically controlled bankrupt city of Detroit is located -- 15 part-time county commissioners are each pulling in $70,000 per year in salaries, a salary that is just $10,000 less per year than the salary that Michigan’s so-called ‘full time’ state legislators earn. And that’s not all:

In 2010, the commission concocted a scheme to take advantage of a loophole in the pension system and allow themselves to qualify for a rich and rapid retirement benefit.

An investigative report last year by WXYZ-TV Ch. 7 revealed some of the pension jackpots. Commissioner Joe Palamara is guaranteed a lifetime pension of $33,660. Laura Cox, a former commissioner and now a state representative, gets $32,000 a year. Retired commissioner Bernard Parker took accelerated payments of $170,000, and then converted to a $27,000 annual benefit. Commissioner Jewel Ware’s pension will be $42,900.

These pensions are not for a lifetime of service; some were awarded after just a few years in office, and can be collected as soon as commissioners leave office, regardless of age.

Is it any wonder why Democrats and even some not so conservative members of the GOP are so fond of Big Government? Is it any wonder why our Democratic and Republican public servants are in no real hurry to downsize government at a federal, state, or local level? Government at all levels has become the goose that lays the golden eggs that enable the takers to make more than the makers.

The inventers, innovators, entrepreneurs, business people, and skilled tradespeople who take the risks associated with competing in a free market should be the ones who are rewarded for their toil, not the politicians and bureaucrats who would not even have jobs were it not for the taxes and fees that the private sector provides.

But this is the path our republic has been taking for years. Government -- the servant -- has managed to rack up more than $18 trillion worth of debt that we are on the hook for. Every politician that ever voted to spend money the government did not have or to raise the debt ceiling has had a hand in creating this problem, but so has every eligible conservative voter who has not bothered to vote because none of the candidates’ values perfectly aligned with theirs, or who says ‘why bother voting, they’re all crooks.’

The low information voters don’t suffer from such apathy or cynicism. For them it’s simple -- they vote for the candidate who promises them the most ‘free stuff.’ And all too often the candidates, mostly Democrats, promising the most free stuff get elected, and both the government and our debt grows and grows. Our public servants dream up new entitlements that require new government departments and more bureaucrats to run them, and then they congratulate themselves by giving themselves pay raises, better retirement packages, and other new benefits. And so the public servants have become better off than their employers. It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone that the richest county in the U.S. is right outside Washington D.C. or that, “Six of America’s 10 wealthiest counties lie within a stone’s throw of the Beltway.”

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a Republic made up of respected members of society who, having attained prominence in their chosen fields of endeavor would leave the private sector to serve the public for a period of time. But now our country is being run by career politicians and bureaucrats who have spent their entire lives in public service. Service to the political party, homage to the party leaders, paying your dues, and service to the special interest groups who provide the biggest campaign contributions has become more important than service to the people.

We need to make one thing perfectly clear to the next president as well as to every member of Congress: we are sick and tired of politics as usual.

The Federal Government bureaucracy needs to be downsized big time, the debt needs to be paid down even while defense spending is increased and our military capabilities are restored to pre-2008 levels. Our tax system also needs to be completely overhauled, Obamacare needs to be repealed, and Ron and Rand Paul may also be right – perhaps it’s time to take a long hard look at the Federal Reserve System.

There’s much more that needs to be done to fix all the problems our country is grappling with today. If the GOP presidential candidate does win the next election and the GOP retains its majorities in the House and Senate, the Dems are going to fight tooth and nail for their secular fantasy utopian vision of what our county should be. We are not going to be able to reclaim our county in just 4 or 8 years. It is going to be a long uphill battle.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/when_the_takers_make_more_than_the_makers.html

Another illogical post. Are they really trying to tie the goings on of Detroit with the entire Democratic party? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. That's like trying to tie racism in Texas onto Tennesseans because they are all located in the south. Get a grip. They could have summed it up by saying; "Detroit is screwed up, therefor any and all Democrats are screwed up." Also, the "stats" from their "study" had ZERO references other than "The American Thinker" said so.
 
One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

Not true, but yours has hinged it's hopes on the idea that the free market cures all ills. It cures many ills, but not all.


It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party's chances in a national election.

A completely ridiculous statement and I'll address your points below. Once again you've shown your own mindset of how you view the left, which is completely off mark. You won't try to understand it. You've been spoon fed a load of bull.



If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.


The left is not forming the opinion of African Americans. America's black community is doing that for themselves. Instead of blaming the left for their view, you should look at the talking points of the African American community and try and understand why they are upset, but you won't. You like to play the victim of being misunderstood and oppressed in some way by them and the left. Stop blaming others and look at what YOU are doing to understand their objections in our society.


If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory. Unmarried women voted for Kerry by a 25-point margin (62 percent to 37 percent), while married women voted for President Bush by an 11-point margin (55 percent to 44 percent). According to a pro-Democrat website, The Emerging Democratic Majority, "the 25-point margin Kerry posted among unmarried women represented one of the high water marks for the Senator among all demographic groups."

The left isn't undermining women and marriage. Perhaps you should look for other reasons why women aren't marrying and why single women vote left. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

After women marry, they are more likely to abandon leftist views and to vote Republican. And if they then have children, they will vote Republican in even more lopsided numbers.


Do you have any overall stats. Posting stats about Kerry doesn't prove an overall pattern. Even if single women do vote left more, it doesn't prove that the left is somehow undermining marriage.



If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat.

I work with many illegals. The vast majority of them don't want to assimilate. They want to work a few years and go back home with a ton of money (relatively speaking). How are democrats responsible for this? Democrats actually want them to assimilate, learn our language and stay.



The liberal notion of multiculturalism helps Democrats, while adoption of the American ideal of e pluribus unum (out of many, one) helps Republicans. That is one reason Democrats support bilingual education — it hurts Hispanic children, but it keeps them from full assimilation — and oppose making English America's official language.

How does teaching English to Latinos hurt them? This makes no sense. I suppose you have some sort of Fox News spin for this.

Concerning the economy, the same rule applies. The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats.

Another straw man argument with absolutely no proof or logic to the statement. It's like your 12 years old and just making stuff up.

By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates.


Yes and you can thank our current president for this.


Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.


Another statement pulled out of thin air with absolutely no basis in fact or reality.
Democrats want fair labor practices and help for people in need and less war mongering, as well as a few other things.


The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats
.

Where do you get this crap? We aren't in Iraq because the president promised we would pull out of Iraq. We have done enough for them at this point. They can solve their own problems.

That helps to explain why the mainstream media, who ache for a Democratic victory, feature stories of wounded American soldiers, grieving families of killed soldiers and atrocity stories — such as the apparently fictitious story printed in the New Republic. But they almost never feature stories about military heroism and altruism. Americans read and watch far more stories about soldiers who commit atrocities than about soldiers who commit heroic actions and who show love to Iraqi civilians
.

I see stories about our heroes on the news all the time. You are just making things up here. You really are deluded.

The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders — such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France — are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

We continually meddle in the affairs of other countries. We helped start a war in Syria recently as an example. We need to stop invading other countries and pushing countries into civil war. The fact that you can't see this is disturbiung.

Undoubtedly, some Democrats might respond that the same thesis could be written if a Democrat were in the White House and the Republicans were out of power. But that is not at all the case. First, there is no equivalent list of bad things happening to America that benefits Republicans.


This is a list of crap that you have pulled out of thin air. It is a laughable argument, at best.
Wish I could like this more than once. bravo.
 
ADVERTISEMENT