Inflation

[Moabite]

Quote:
I knew a lady who when she and her husband split up one fall in order to get through the winter she burnt all her furniture in the wood stove then her and her husband and family built a new much better dresser not all cracked and covered with the nasty old layers and layers of flaking paint and rotten moldy wood as she watched the dresser burn she even squashed all the pests that ran out

funny and apropo too! (pun intended) But I really like this old "Dresser". Maybe we can build a new one from the pattern the forefathers used.

 

[country lady]

"Watch out. Karma will get you and you'll be wearing those shoes someday."

But for the grace of God, go I----I hate that phrase. IMO, it's an excuse for everything and a conversation killer.

 

[aprophet]

Quote:
I knew a lady who when she and her husband split up one fall in order to get through the winter she burnt all her furniture in the wood stove then her and her husband and family built a new much better dresser not all cracked and covered with the nasty old layers and layers of flaking paint and rotten moldy wood as she watched the dresser burn she even squashed all the pests that ran out

funny and apropo too! (pun intended) But I really like this old "Dresser". Maybe we can build a new one one the pattern the forefathers used.

you state it more eloquently then myself thanks for the help, Yea the forefathers got it right that is the pattern we need to keep using . " The gov that governs least governs best" tommy paine, henry david T and Tommy J from Monticello all were credited with saying this who ever said it got it right

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:

You do indeed have a broad brush. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. I'm not dreaming of any utopias. I realize that there are many like you that have a strictly me first mentality. That's ok too. Fortunately there are many that are willing to help out others without a bunch of strings attached. I have already stated that our entitlement systems need to be revamped. Some people have very selective hearing though and don't listen to that. Instead they accuse me of wanting some unrealistic utopia.

I know you will claim that you never watch the garbage on Fox or listen to any of the talking heads, but you sound just like them. IMO you should do a little research on both sides and figure out what is really happening in the USA. Take those blinders off and figure it out.

I'm going to bow out now. If I say what needs to be said one of you will surely have your feelings hurt and I'll get a time out. So please continue on amongst yourselves. May you learn the true meaning of WWJD and try to practice that in your daily lives.

 

[Wifezilla]

If someone takes care of themselves and their family, that group of people are not a burden on society. Yet some call them selfish and try to make them feel bad. I don't get it. If the people who can take care of themselves actually do, there would be a lot fewer people needing help in the first place. I believe people have a moral obligation to take care of themselves and their family first. After that, THEN you help others...if you wish.

I am sure I am not the only one who has seen people in tough situations go out of their way to make things worse and then turn to people who didn't make stupid choices with their hand out acting like they owed them something.

 

[gamebirdsonly]

Quote:
Well put

 

[Wifezilla]

From Economist Walter Williams...

"The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.

Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.

The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.

Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me 2 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."

That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.

Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."

Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?

Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.

If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future. " http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/05/18/understanding_liberals

 

[boxermom]

Quote:

Well said.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:

Well said.

You mean well pasted.

 

[Wifezilla]

Well said by Walter