Rep. Paul Ryan: The "tipping point" of freedom:

[rbell]

IMO, he nails it: SOURCE

Are we really reaching this "tipping point"? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood.

All told, 60 percent - three out of five households in America - were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama's budget last year will raise this "net government inflow" from 60 to 70 percent.

Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus - through government - supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.

Bingo.

Everyone can't be given free rides. You'd think even a democrat would get those numbers.

 

[windcatcher]

Are we really reaching this "tipping point"? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood.

All told, 60 percent - three out of five households in America - were receiving more government benefits and services (in dollar value) than they were paying back in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that President Obama's budget last year will raise this "net government inflow" from 60 to 70 percent.

Look at it this way: three out of ten American families are supporting themselves plus - through government - supplying or supplementing the incomes of seven other households. As a permanent arrangement, this is individually unfair, politically inequitable, and economically dangerous.

Bingo.

20% + 20% = 40% which is 2 of 5.
However
20% households have 75% income government dependent (from which they also pay taxes)..... this means also that of this 20% of households 25% of income comes from non-government employment or other non government affiliated income. ...... Might as well say 15% of income is from government employment (and therefore dependent on government jobs).
Now the other figure
20% households have 40% income government dependent but also have 60%income not government dependent.
Still it is 40% households which major dependencies on government for their income/funding. What is not clear..... is he including entitlement funding and dependencies in these groups and which one... as either or both could include government employed wage earners and/or people receiving 'entitlements'?
Do the entitlements include the various forms of welfare AND social security/disability income.... or exclude any of these and just include supplemental security income for those who's income isn't enough for food and housing.

Nevertheless.... considering that 2004 was better economically and unemployment has risen considerably since then...... these figures are alarming and should have been alarming in the year 2004.

He then makes a contrast showing a flip-flopping of "Progressive ideology' from yesteryears to the present: Then he thoroughly mixes it all up with rights and individual empowerment and limits upon government with the goal to view the constitution as a living document which needs changing..... and making decisions for the people and giving them security and promises impossible to keep instead of choices. This is leading to 'soft despotism', he concludes and I concur.

(It is the constitution which, if properly applied, provides for the freedom and innovations of a free people because it is the structure by which the people can enforce limits on their government: In fact it so limits the government that only the duties enumerated in that grand document may be applied by the national government... and all duties not specified are to be in control of the people of the separate sovereign states. All the errors he cites could be corrected in accordance to the will of the people within their individual states, had it been that the people and the officials they elected in their state governments had jealously held onto their power.... and supported similar stands of independence from federal intrusion by other states into their business and jurisdictions.)

He characterizes 'soft despotism' as being 'kindly and sympathetic' but correctly characterizes it as appealing to the childishly 'kept' and the hedonism in society: I disagree that it is 'not cruel or mean': It is 'cruel and mean' from the start.... when it will use whatever force it takes, starting first with 'soft' measures and progressively getting harsher and more forceful against those who oppose its progressive controls. As many are satiated in their comfort zone of government dependence.... they will not rise to the need to contend for the rights of the opposition until the opposition is successfully silenced or well controlled. Then, when disaster does hit, and the government made dependents find that government is so overly extended that it can't respond, they will then discover the cruelty and meanness from both government and their fellow man who have lost the ability to make decisions and behave with ration and morality, bumping against the controls of government which has no tolerance to yield itself.

"Crony Capitalism" is perhaps as good a characterization as any for the way our 'capitalism' has turned. Originally, the people's wishes within the states were expected to have control of the industry, resources, and commerce within the states and the intrusion of the united States into affairs was to see that the flow of commerce between the states was not restricted nor given special advantage. Had the intent of our founders and the constitution been followed, we would not have the cartels of media, the monopolies of industry, the cornering and control of wealth and the leverage of business upon our laws which drive out the competition and also allow the removal of our industry, resources, and intellectual property to the shores and benefit of other nations without some suitable balance in return. 'Capitalism' involves the 'progressive'/'conservative' consolidation of wealth by investors as well as profits: In its end, it is not the freedom in trade and competition envisioned by our forefathers. The effect of this is economic dominance and control .... also the out come is 'soft despotism'.

In the two routes he sees..... the progressives making individuals dependent on government.... or 'crony capitalism' with consolidation of wealth and manipulation creating dependencies and control....... he DOES properly view, each and both as leading to what he terms 'soft despotism'. Actually, what he describes here is what I also see.... and I see that both of these are really not opposites at all..... which most of us are led to believe by the opposing parties or 'side' which they represent..... in fact neither are 'sides' at all. They are one which are made to appear purposely divided and split in the way they are presented to us to keep us thrown off from seeing the illusion; what we think we see is that we are making a choice when we enter the polls to vote.... and that it really matters which 'side' we vote for.

Although millions of private sector jobs have been lost since the recession began, Washington is on track to add about 275,000 more people to the public payrolls - a whopping 15 percent increase. And we aren't talking minimum wages here. More federal workers make over $100,000 than those earning $40,000 or less. The average government worker's salary in 2009 was 21 percent higher than private sector salaries. The average federal worker's compensation package, including benefits, was nearly $120,000 in 2008, twice the private sector at $60,000. One study shows the private sector benefit package averages $9,900 while the federal package averages almost $41,000. Now the Administration wants Congress to privilege federal workers by writing off their unpaid student loans after ten years. People in productive private sector jobs would keep paying for twenty years. Progressivists would really like everyone to work for the government.

If this doesn't cause one to think, what will? Government workers have a vested interest in keeping their/ (our?) jobs and are politically manipulated by programs and personalities. What about the numbers in retirement, on welfare, on social security/disability..... or within a decade or so of retirement? As we have often seen.... politics is principled on this board until it aims for someones wallet! But....... do we have the integrity and personal fortitude and willingness for self-sacrifice for the unpromised 'possibilities' (or 'faith' in the unseen and unrealized in our lifetime) for the good of our children and our countrymen who are younger and looking to those middle aged and senior for leadership, role modeling, and self-denial?It takes great strength and courage and understanding for people to willingly vote against their own dependencies, once these are well developed.

I liked his speech very much. The above represents brief vignettes of areas he touched on and added opinions of my own.

 

[windcatcher]

I think we are beyond the tipping point.

To return to smaller government, empowering of people and businesses to prosper, to return to the freedoms and choices we have enjoyed to the present, and imagine we still enjoy in the present........


Means.......


The majority of us need to get involved in knowing about our constitution and the strengths it promises to the people IF they exercise their powers and the restraints it places upon government PROVIDED the people keep government accountable and pull down the power of those who are enemies of our constitution and fail to govern by its law.

We need to get involved in running for office.... big and small......
And knowing who we vote for and why.... and then back up their performance or expose them for their deeds.

It is time to get the lace off your panties, gentlemen, and become the men and leaders and models we need in our community and in our country.

It is time to stop letting others do the thinking for us.... or defer to them because they have a Havaaard Ejukasion, or a pedigree at Yahoo (Yale), etc..... If anything, we should be leery of these 'qualifications' to include those who've made their career in public office... those who are lawyers... and similar 'experts'.

We cannot return to what we had unless people are willing to count their freedom more important to keep and unite than their personal party allegiances or ideological differences. It is about time for another McCarthy era..... where we call each person accountable also who continues to believe that they can be unbrideled socialist or capitalists without consequences to our liberty.

 

[windcatcher]

Furthermore.....

We need to break with the UN
Question our ties to the British empire..... and assert our independence from them once more.... stop this confounding illusion that we are the police for the nations of the world, and use our troops to protect our shores and our borders from illegal intrusion or invasion.

It is time for us to declare that we are bankrupt.... and pull out of the IMF et al... Coin our own money as our founders intended.... And tally up against the nations of this world.... their own involvement in our 'IOU's' which were our police actions in their absence, for their defense.... our charitable endeavors....... our industry sent abroad .....our give aways of technology, etc. until our balance sheet is clear and even.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Not such a big deal when over 98% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of the top percent or so. As long as they are taxed like they were prior to the Reagan & Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans.

 

[Salty]

Not such a big deal when over 98% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of the top percent or so. As long as they are taxed like they were prior to the Reagan & Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans.

But remember those "top 10" or so are the ones who provide millions of jobs- in spite of unreasonable and ridiculous government regulations.

 

[billwald]

>More federal workers make over $100,000 than those earning $40,000 or less.

Numbers like that are meaningless unless tied to a geographical area. If many of the over $100K people are working in the DC area then they are solid middle class.

$40K is about $19.23/hour. That may sound like good pay in a scab state but In the Seattle area it would put a family of 4 on the poverty side of the chart.

 

[rbell]

>More federal workers make over $100,000 than those earning $40,000 or less.

Numbers like that are meaningless unless tied to a geographical area. If many of the over $100K people are working in the DC area then they are solid middle class.

$40K is about $19.23/hour. That may sound like good pay in a scab state but In the Seattle area it would put a family of 4 on the poverty side of the chart.

I love how you throw the "scab" perjorative around.

I remember hearing that from union goons. Especially the ones who didn't know how to do an honest day's work.

 

[matt wade]

$40K is about $19.23/hour. That may sound like good pay in a scab state but In the Seattle area it would put a family of 4 on the poverty side of the chart.

So what you are saying is that in "union states", the wages are artificially high?

 

[billwald]

No, I'm saying the standard of living is higher. Housing and some food might be cheaper in "right to work" states but the federal tax rate isn't and neither is the cost of imported goods which now includes almost every manufactured product and most out of season food. The higher wage equates to higher discretionary income.

>But remember those "top 10" or so are the ones who provide millions of jobs- in spite of unreasonable and ridiculous government regulations.

URBAN MYTH! Only new issues of stock increase jobs or efficiency.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

URBAN MYTH! Only new issues of stock increase jobs or efficiency.

How does this stand to reason? Not arguing/attacking, just curious.

 

[rbell]

URBAN MYTH! Only new issues of stock increase jobs or efficiency.

Riiiight.

Playing along for now...who do you think buys stock? Hamburger assembly technicians?

Since wealth envy is the cornerstone of union brainwashing...this answer from you was pretty much expected.

Incorrect, but expected.

 

[billwald]

>>URBAN MYTH! Only new issues of stock increase jobs or efficiency.

>How does this stand to reason? Not arguing/attacking, just curious.

Because when someone buys a stock share held by a private party or a fund none of the money goes to the company that issued the stock. It is simply one party betting the price has peaked and the other thinking it will still rise. And it probably one computer program buying from another computer program.

Who do I think buys stocks? Mostly mutual funds and rich people like myself <G> who don't need the money. My money guy is a technical trader with a big computer who is doing fine so far but some day he will crash as most do . . . but he is much younger than I so with a little bit of luck AKA Providence I will kick the bucket before he crashes.

The majority of day traders who buy stocks on their own lose money. I think 90% who trade commodities lose money. The purpose of the commodities market is NOT to make money but for companies to be able to predict their cost of doing business.

 

[windcatcher]

>>URBAN MYTH! Only new issues of stock increase jobs or efficiency.

>How does this stand to reason? Not arguing/attacking, just curious.

Because when someone buys a stock share held by a private party or a fund none of the money goes to the company that issued the stock. It is simply one party betting the price has peaked and the other thinking it will still rise. And it probably one computer program buying from another computer program.

Who do I think buys stocks? Mostly mutual funds and rich people like myself <G> who don't need the money. My money guy is a technical trader with a big computer who is doing fine so far but some day he will crash as most do . . . but he is much younger than I so with a little bit of luck AKA Providence I will kick the bucket before he crashes.

The majority of day traders who buy stocks on their own lose money. I think 90% who trade commodities lose money. The purpose of the commodities market is NOT to make money but for companies to be able to predict their cost of doing business.

Interesting perspective.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

The purpose of the commodities market is NOT to make money but for companies to be able to predict their cost of doing business.

That is fascinating. I had no idea. Well... Someone should tell the people investing fortunes relative to their middle class income.

 

[windcatcher]

That is fascinating. I had no idea. Well... Someone should tell the people investing fortunes relative to their middle class income.

Whether or not it was intended........ I do believe these previous posts contain a truth which many don't realize..... and that is.....

Those who had control of vast amounts of wealth have used their money in illusionary controls of monetary markets, commodities, and industry, to create more (illusionary) money (and gain power): The private and corporate sector, observing this appearance of increased and apparent wealth, have taken to the same practices, believing in money growing on trees..... the goose that lays golden eggs... cautions against not putting all of ones eggs in one basket.............. not realizing that it is the money changers who planted the trees and can hew them down, who can kill the goose, and who hold all the baskets. All the wealth is illusionary ....... both that which they have and had ........ and, more importantly, that which the people who trusted the investment of their labors in these returns by accepting their system and following their pattern.

The way our monetary system has developed..... it is like gambling at a casino.... but the odds are in the hands and the control of those who own the tables and deal the cards. For a while most seem to win... and pull more onlookers in. Some win and some loose..... including the 'big shots' who are carefully listened to and watched..... who calculate both their winnings and their losses and the messages they send to the watching audience. They still control the odds....... while they gain more power. The goose is ready for the killing and the baskets are ready for the taking when they see the people locked into the cages at each gambling slot they have built for themselves..... and their clothes start getting ragged, their shoes are worn thin, their lands, talents, and resources have been removed or lost by regulations.... and all that is left are the chains and bread and water which will keep them content in the places which are appointed to them to serve the call of their masters.

 

[windcatcher]

Not such a big deal when over 98% of the nation's wealth is in the hands of the top percent or so. As long as they are taxed like they were prior to the Reagan & Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans.

I don't know about your figures..... but lets say for convenience I accept them without dispute:

It may appear that 98% of the nations wealth (on 'paper') is owned by ?% (maybe 2-10%)of the people...... Still, it is my hunch that less than 0.05% actually control the wealth of the nation. .....These are the very few who really control our economy and our employment by their manipulation. Those who we count as wealthy.... that larger percentage which you recognize... are the ones involved in areas of businesses and industry which does provide jobs... and they may be wealthy as a result of their business acumen and industry.... but they are not the controllers.... and not all of them are intentionally involved in the collaborations and manipulations of market, economy or employment to gain power.

It is the relatively few who are both socialist and imperial capitalist.... in the sense that Ryan speaks of..... controlling the two parties which represent to us the left or the right side of the same road to despotism which we are on. In public, they and their figureheads make a great pretense of being on opposite sides..... but in private... they are the best of friends at dinner parties, participating in the same major organizations, often sharing the same alumnus, and sharing mutual advisories, selected and chosen and groomed far removed and isolated from the experiences of ordinary citizens.

 

[billwald]

Most of the stocks are owned by funds and the directors of the funds sit on each other's boards and vote their friends raises. The funds give their vote proxies to their friends running the funds and the public has no control over the stocks they own. I get proxies and they go right into the circular file. Their is no point to try and read them.

I think the CBOT was the the first commodities market. The purpose was to allow the big grain mills to nail down the next year's cost of raw materials and to let the farmers. sell their crops in advance which evened out their "boom and bust" phenomena cause by the weather. The producers and users got the long term benefit and the traders took the annual gain or loss from the actual price.