Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016    Login | Register        

The Liberal Empire strikes back

Cal Thomas's picture

The Left apparently has taken to heart the admonition of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

In the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy that killed six and wounded 14 others, the Left has attacked talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin and anyone else it can smear. Never mind there is not a shred of evidence that the accused gunman, the mentally disturbed Jared Lee Loughner, ever watched Glenn Beck or listened to Rush Limbaugh (Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat, irresponsibly suggested Limbaugh incited Loughner).

Even if Loughner had watched and listened to conservative media, what does that prove? Millions do, but they don’t go on a shooting rampage. What do other murderers and terrorists watch on TV or listen to on the radio? Why isn’t the media they consume a matter of interest? Answer: Because it doesn’t further the Left’s agenda.

Since the Left lost its monopoly of the U.S. media, it has repeatedly tried to suppress speech it doesn’t like. Thus, we hear calls by Democratic Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina for the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep. Robert Brady, Pennsylvania Democrat, reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or that incites violence against a federal official or member of Congress. Who would police that and based on what standard?

In the 1980s when conservative groups tried to “clean up” the bad language, sexual references and violence on TV, the Left cried “censorship.” When conservatives campaigned against pornography and “music” that encouraged violence against women and racial epithets, they were told a healthy First Amendment required that even the most offensive speech be tolerated. It was the same argument used to allow the burning of the American flag at political protests.

But the Left is intolerant of speech it disagrees with and so wishes to censor what it cannot overcome with superior argument.

Eric Burns wrote a book titled “Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism.”

Compared to 18th-century journalism in America, today’s media are tame. Burns writes of the Gazette of the United States (born on April 15, 1789, while the Constitution was being ratified) that its editor, John Fenno, was an ardent supporter of the federalism represented by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. Fenno’s newspaper served as a counterweight to the Republican slant of the National Gazette.

Burns sums up Fenno’s journalistic philosophy: “He would cajole his readers, deceive them when necessary, rile them when advisable; he would praise public officials and other newspaper editors who agreed with his positions and drub those who did not, assailing their intelligence, their character, their patriotism; and he would publish the records of legislative proceedings that advanced the federalist agenda while either ignoring or deriding or sometimes even falsifying documents to the contrary.”

Such things were to be found on the “news” pages, not the opinion page. Entire newspapers were opinion pages. To have a page designated “opinion” would have been redundant.

The 1790s were, according to historian John Ferling, “one of America’s most passionate decades.” The nation’s journalism, notes Burns, could not help but reflect the heat.

One paper, named the Philadelphia Aurora, engaged in what Burns describes as “journalistic savagery ... not caring about accuracy or even the illusion of it.” The Aurora published a series of letters supposedly written by George Washington while he was encamped at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777-1778. The letters “portrayed Washington as a lukewarm patriot at best, a loyal subject of George III at worst, and at least a skeptic concerning independence.”

It would have been a great story if true, but Washington wrote no such letters. That didn’t bother Benjamin Franklin Bache (Ben Franklin’s grandson and the owner of the Aurora), who was not about to retract something that served his anti-Washington political ends.

Journalism survived, even displaying responsibility on occasion. The public can sort out the good from the bad and ugly. They don’t need politicians doing it for them.

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2011 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.


Gort's picture

OofU, we already covered the justification part and I'm okay with it.

I just wanted you to tell us again how you like to pay your own way without any help from the nasty old government?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

Observerofu's picture

how receiving my money back from the Government, money that I have paid in mind you, is in any way welfare from the Government?

I know you think you have spotted some sort of hypocrisy here but I fail to divine your point.

Additionally I do not fault anyone that receives a tax break for any program that benefits them.

Why do you want to classify those that might need the break in order to afford say a new heating/cooling system or a new car as some one "sucking on the teat" of Government?

I see a tremendous lack of empathy in your responses on this.

Are you going to tell your Accountant to re-calculate your taxes this year to exclude the Bush tax cuts and pay to the Government the EXTRA tax due?

If not are you then also "Sucking" on that same teat?

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Gort's picture

OofU, I don’t know how you can claim I’m not empathetic with you’re justification. I said, “I would have done the same thing.” I don’t know how much more empathetic I could be.

All I’m asking now is for you to tell us again how you like to pay your own way without any help from the nasty old government?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

PTC Observer's picture

Back early today, see you're still needling....

Problem with paying money into the government, is that you actually expect to get a return on your investment. Now if we didn't pay into the government we would expect anything.

Think there is any chance that that good day may come?

Some here say we can eat off the government teet! (is that spelled correctly?) Maybe for government.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, welcome back. It’s either “needling” on the forum or clean the gutters!

If the day ever comes that citizens are not asked to support their government what obligation does that government have to its citizens? I say none. Only special interests will be left.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

PTC Observer's picture

I suppose I sound a bit like the broken record, but the only obligation government has is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. It is the only reason we have a government.

I don't want it to do any more than this. We all support the government and most of what we support is unneeded or unwanted and I might add poorly delivered. Yet we citizens keep asking them to do more and more. It is I am afraid all about a population of sheep.

BTW, special interests rule us now.

When she didn't speak after the first day, they accused her of being silent. When she did speak up, they questioned her timing.

You libs are nothing but a bunch of sissies, screaming foul everytime she speaks. What are you afraid of, Jeff. BTW, Obama has turned out to be nothing but a appeaser to leaders of countries with human rights "issues".
Just like your old man.

kevink's picture

on the World, because you talk about Jeff's dad more than your own. Even I've forgiven your dad for bringing us your bad manners.... perhaps you haven't? By the way, my dad Rocks! And he likes Jimmy's candor just like I do. As for President
Carter and President Obama, you seem to have a wee bit of that "derangement syndrome" going. President Carter continues to have a positive effect on nations far and wide through Habitat and his many foundations. President Obama's popularity is rising here, and still wuite high in foreign countries where the Republican echo chamber of "govt takeover" and "death panel" lies are ignored. Aparently, this is gettin to ya a bit. Must really suck for ya.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

You and David's Mom seem to have an issue disparaging other peoples departed loved ones. Must be a common sickness in your group. You're such a little jagoff now, aren't you?

Carter was an appeaser that did nothing but bring out of control interest rates and gas lines. It took a real President to rescue the soldiers from Iran.

kevink's picture

I'll let DM speak for herself. As for what I write to you: Are you saying when Jimmy Carter dies he will suddenly be off limits to you? Whatev dude. You tend to hit below the belt from time to time. I'm cool with that, but save your hurt feelings and righteous indignation. You're dealing with "jagoffs." What do you expect?

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

Talk about thin skin. Listen, Kevin. You come on here and attack me, and I will attack you right back. If you can't take it, then just go put on your skirt and sit in the corner.

kevink's picture

"You tend to hit below the belt from time to time. I'm cool with that."

I have no problem with you bringing dads into this. After all, you started with dads. You just seem to think yours is off limits. I can take it. That's why I didnt whine about my comments... or Davids Mom's.... or jethro's mom's.... or anyone else's. I'm seeing your sensitive side.

I'll quote you now:

"You libs are nothing but a bunch of sissies, screaming foul everytime she speaks."

"You and David's Mom seem to have an issue disparaging other peoples departed loved ones."

Who's "crying foul" Joe? Can I call you "Joe?" Say it aint so Joe.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

You obviously are sick in the head and in need of serious psychiatric help.
I sincerely hope you get the help you need.

Just what "soldiers" are you talking about being rescued from Iran?

Do a little research on mr. fuller and make your decision. Oh, if you can't find much, try "Prince Eric Fuller"--oh yes, it's called name change. There is some doubt that he was a GSW victim at all. And drove himself to the hospital with a 9mm bullet in the knee? Who let him leave the scene? Any reports from ER personnel in the Hospital? I think this guy's a flake & lier who may have committed fraud. Just may NOT be a vet either. You look--you decide.

kevink's picture

So YOU prove them.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

And a Good Goldsboro Day to you too!

kevink's picture

I have at least 3 bottles of Scott's BBQ sauce in the cupboard. Life is good. Life is good ;-)

Have a great day

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

Suggest you try George's, made in downtown Nashville! You can order it online. Beware of the "HOT" version!

Cyclist's picture

is only used on pig meat. Real connoisseurs of BBQ eat beef and those that are truly devoted eat only brisket. Any questions? ☺

Hey Kevin. Good to see you back!!!!

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

kevink's picture

Miss you buddy. It's been way too long. Glad you survived the great winter storm of 2011. I somehow made it through, but my Seinnheiser PMX 680s that I used twice and my Oakley Oil Rigs did not. So many screwed up schedules that I spent half of my trips in the back, where I left them in a seat back. Merry XMAS to the cleaning crew :-( :-(.

I'll be around Saturday late morning if you want to buy me a cold or hot one.


Vote Mytmite in 2012!

Cyclist's picture

Sorry to hear about those high priced hearing aids. Unfortunately, I will not be around this Saturday or next but, we'll get together soon. Are you still doing that GIG exercise. If you are doing NRT or SIN I might see you soon.

Oh hey, how's the mayor and his boss doing?

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Cy, let me know either here or on our other connection about a meet--if I would be welcome, I think it's way past time Kevin and I had a face-to-face and you and I can rattle on about a number of issues, not the least to be jerking fish lips in Florida!

Great! Can't wait to see yall again.

kevink's picture

The koffee klatch is the perfect opportunity to see how firm Mike King's handshake is, how cool Hutch's car is, how soft Cyclist's heart is, and how perty Dawn (where is that girl) is. By the way, where has the coolest Skyspy of all gone?
My goal is to get all of you anonymous bloggers out of the closet in a safe way, where it is much harder to hate on eachother. And if TUG shows, well that's just gravy on the cake... Icing on the brisket.

I'd seriously like to meet you, Fred (as if we haven't met already), and that silver-tongued Steve Lindsey dude. And if Mike is in a good mood, he can give us twin chrome bumper V-8 rides. Anyone who wants my personal info can get it through Hutch, Carbonunit, or Cyclist, cause any friend of theirs can certainly be trusted with it.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

Mike King's picture

Cousin, just name the place and time and I'll be there with CCR playing 'Green River' (still among the best rock songs).

carbonunit52's picture

I am here to testify that the koffee klatch is a great event. Just to klarify, and this is interesting, everyone uses their blogging names to introduce themselves. I would really like to see a record crowd at the next one, in honor of the return of kevink to the blogging arena. He obviously did not lose his keen insight.

I too would like to see Fred show up, and Joe Kawfi, who must be mighty big in order to consider Hutch "a little man".

I am easy to recognize, I look just like my avatar, except for the fuzzy wuzzy ears.

NUK_1's picture

I'm a little late in the applause since you've been on here a few days now, but the existing factions around here were getting very STALE and beyond tedious. Their sell-buy dates were long past. Yeah, I'm talking about "Joe Kawfi" and his total crap, though Chris P. Bacon hasn't exactly set the world on fire with taking the higher ground either. A cluster.

Since you've been gone, Bonkers has reincarnated himself a few times and now goes by "roundabout," just in case you totally somehow missed it:)

Be well.

I think you and I have covered this adequately in the past!--you found any good Brisket lately?

kevink's picture

Satan's Revenge is a sauce I bought 7 years ago. I still have it and have used less than half of it. It is the craziest stuff to ever be bottled.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

Observerofu's picture


"On Monday, January 17, 2011, the media moved into full fawning mode over James Eric Fuller, reporting that he had apologized for his threats at the town hall meeting. Again, the social media left whipped themselves into a frenzy, “What a man!” “See how much better we are!”

Okay, so exactly who is James Eric Fuller? What has the press looked into with this man who has foisted himself to the national spotlight so deliberately?

A quick check of court records in Pima County, Arizona, reveals that on November 24, 1997, a man by the name of Prince Eric Fuller legally changed his name to James Eric Fuller. The order was signed by Judge Lina Rodriguez under case number c323363. (View docket here.) From that point, the trail on James Eric Fuller goes cold, but the trail on Prince Eric Fuller picks up."

Click on link for more of the story

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

JeffC's picture

I would hate for us to be in agreement.

Yes, Palin looks silly when she's trying to avoid an issue and when she addresses one too.

You flatter yourself supposing I might be afraid of Palin. She's the Al Sharpton of the right. She's an asset to the Dems, dividing the Republican ranks. Since she won't run for President and thereby threaten the country, it suits me whatever she does. She's an internal Republican Party phenomena now. When I get tired of her incessant whining, I just don't watch her for a while. I find her positions simplistic, shallow, and borderline moronic. I can see why you like her.

hutch866's picture

Have you read the new Stephen Hunter novel? Bob Lee Swagger is at it again. Great book, with a nice little twist in it.

I yam what I yam

PTC Observer's picture

You are right on with this analysis of the situation. Palin is an asset to the Democrats, most are just too dumb to realize it.

If she runs, Mr. Obama wins, and we all lose.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, it’s true, you have told me, and I understand, your position about the purpose of government but that doesn’t mean I'm not interested in what you have to say. On the contrary, it makes me more interested. Besides, can’t we at least agree that we’re both frustrated with the results?

Your last statement is interesting:

[quote] BTW, special interests rule us now. [/quote]

How do you feel about the influence of special interests on the political process?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

PTC Observer's picture

A dialog without recriminations and one” upsmanship”, sounds unique to this board and it is welcomed by me at least.

Yes, I believe we are both frustrated with the outcome of governmental “results”.

“How do you feel about the influence of special interests on the political process?”

Well I feel it is nothing new for sure; it is getting worse as government continues to increase its power over us.

Look at it this way, if there was no money in the bank the thief wouldn’t try to rob it. The fact is that money creates corruption, especially when the money is “free”. Politicians are playing us as fools, and to a great extent we are fools. Fools to trust the government and the assumption that our “keepers” have some higher moral authority than free individuals. Special interests are merely an outgrowth of a scheme to keep and exploit power.

The growth of special interests gained momentum during and following the Civil War. I won’t get into a detailed list of examples but the growth of special interests in government is directly proportional to its growth. Democrat and Republican parties are equally corrupt in this regard.

I don’t have much hope that things will change anytime soon.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, I can agree that special interests are nothing new. I also believe special interests aren’t all bad and not all good at the same time. My problem with special interest is, at this particular time in our history, they have too much power over the political process.

As far as corruption goes, one would think we would see more criminal cases of corruption in the headlines with the sums of money being tossed around in the political process. The fact that we don’t tells me, the power to corrupt has been legitimized.

I’m not sure if some politicians are treating us as fools, if they’re fooling themselves, or if they’re doing both at the same time. My conclusion is enough politicians have surrendered their powers, given to them by the electorate, to satisfy the desires of special interest. Any politician not willing to support the position of the special interest will likely face a hill of money funneled into pursuits to push them out of office.

Unfortunately this is also true of a politician that try’s to honestly consider the interest of both the electorate and the special interest. I say this is unfortunate because I believe one can’t get by without the other. A balance of the two interests has to be satisfied to maximize the strength of the nation.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

PTC Observer's picture

I tend to agree with what you say here, the fact that we have special interests is not all bad if they voice their position to their elected representatives as a group. They after all are a group of citizens with specific concerns. The problem comes as you so aptly point out with large sums of money. A candidate trying to balance what he/she believes that may be in the best interests of constituents can find themselves in serious trouble, against the power of money. Money talks as they say, it can be a stick or a carrot.

You are also correct about the legitimizing of corruption in the political process. Prosecutors are not in the habit of throwing politicians in jail, mainly because they are politicians themselves. On the road to higher office, they don't want to make waves. Congress investigating itself is a joke as we have seen over and over again. It is much safer and easier to go after ‘capitalists” like Martha Stewart, with vaguely written administrative “laws” to build a political career, than go after say a Senator or Congressperson. After all, these prosecutors may want to be a Senator or Congressman one day.

Fact is as more money pours into the various governments the more corrupt they become. Besides the loss of individual freedom, this corruption is the biggest downside to increasing governmental power. The logical outcome is a dictatorship, voted on and passed by elected representatives to “protect” the state. I am sure you remember reading about Rome, we are in slow transition moving from a Republic, to Democracy, to Dictatorship. All it takes is a “crisis”, that shouldn’t go un-wasted to give us even more centralized power for protection of the state. It is the ultimate outcome of the socialists’ dream.

I don’t see it changing in my lifetime.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, I’ve read many arguments in “The Citizen” that say the purity of the Republic has been deluded by the increased use of democracy. I think the argument can be made that the increased use of democracy has been subverted by the money of the Special Interest. The Special Interest are the ruling class and we are truly a Republic. If you are a believer in a pure Republic, what we have now is as good as it gets! 8 - )

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

[quote]If you are a believer in a pure Republic, what we have now is as good as it gets! 8 - )[/quote]

that's the sound of a tear rolling down my cheek

Gort's picture

czy_sqrl, don’t be going “John Boo-Hoo Boehner” on us now! 8 - ) Dry those eyes and tell us what you don’t like about the argument I presented to PTC_0? There was more to it than just the part you quoted and I would like to hear what you have to say about it.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

PTC Observer's picture

This is an interesting twist on the definition of a republic, seems like the corrupt Republic of the United States, right?

Special interests are the ruling class indeed, but it doesn’t have to be this way. I have mentioned before that the power of the franchise should be limited to those that do not earn their income from the government. Once you take the incentive of purchasing votes using other people’s money out of the mix the use of money for this purpose becomes less powerful in the hands of politicians. They can’t build a special interest within the governmental class. For example, we now know that it is the intention of the TSA to unionize, do you really think this is in the best interest of taxpayers, or politicians? Under a restricted franchise scenario the politicians could direct their political largess to those that are not employed by the government, but it would be counterproductive. Those that pay for government would most likely not like the increased taxes caused by the redistribution.

In thinking about it, under the limited franchise approach, it makes some sense to allow government workers not to pay taxes. What's the purpose? Having government workers pay taxes is just moving money around. It doesn't really help the government raise revenues and it raises the cost on the productive class. Government doesn't produce anything; it merely consumes wealth and provides some low quality services in return. Those that pay taxes would likely want to reduce the number of government workers that pay no tax.

I also think it would be a good idea to get rid of withholding. People should pay their tax bill just like any other bill. Once people see the money removed from their bank account each month, they would understand better how much government is costing them. Withholding is a ruse that has been used by the government since FDR days. Invented by believe it or not Milton Friedman, he said that it was one of the biggest mistakes of his entire career.

Anyway, I don't think we need to worry about it; the country and the government are in a decaying orbit and nothing will change until it’s too late.

A friend told me recently that nothing will change until people begin to die, either from starvation, revolt or both. Sadly, he may be right.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, you certainly took my argument better than Crazy Squirrel did! 8 - )

If you’re a purist it may look like, “… the corrupt Republic of the United States,..” As a practical matter, I see it as, necessities creating its own laws.

In the beginning of the Republic, the voting franchise was restricted and the power was held by a small group of people. Let me ask you two questions.

First, from a historical point of view, why do you think this group of elites gave up that exclusive power by extending the voting franchise?

Second, from the present, who do you consider to be the “productive class?”

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

PTC Observer's picture

Here's my take,

Question #1 - They didn't give it up, it was taken by force. I think each incremental step toward democracy has come as a result of force. A republic is what it is, a restriction of the vote. I merely suggest that it not be restricted based on wealth, color, gender, religion or national origin but on where you derive your income.

Question #2 - The productive class are those that work in industries that create wealth and not trade in government largess. That is all people that work in industries that exist for profit or return on investment principles, with one exception, they cannot derive any revenue from government. For example, Lockheed or Home Depot or Office Max if they sell products or services to the government their employees would be unable to vote. I suppose that "non-profits" are really profit organizations but they are really tax shelters. They exist in order not to pay taxes. Under my concept people that work for these organizations would have the right to vote as long as they did not get contributions from the government. Want to vote? Then you simply have to find a company that doesn’t do business with the government. People who work for businesses that are once removed, that is businesses that do business with businesses that do business with the government, would not be able to vote. So on and so forth, any tinge of government money would disqualify you from voting.

Under this principle based on our current government driven economy, not many people would be able to vote. A Republic by definition and I might add simply a dream to me and a nightmare to special interests, government employees, unions, etc.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, in regard to question one, you said the power of the elite was taken by force. In the beginning of the Republic, what force did the non-elites have?

Your answer to question two introduces me to a brand new meaning of what it means to be “productive.” If I take your meaning literally it would mean that a homeless day laborer at a farmers market would be considered “productive” and have the right to vote.

At the same time someone that owns an engineering company with thousands of employees building bridges and highways for state and local governments would be considered non-productive. Neither the owner of the engineering company, nor any of his employees, would have the franchise to vote. (Do I understand this correctly?)

If I do understand you correctly than I would have to agree, under your principle not very many people would want be able to vote!

In the end, aren’t you just substituting “Special Interest” for “Productive Class?” What is to stop the “Productive Class” from becoming as corrupt as the “Special Interest?” What will stop the “Non-productive” class from coming after the “Productive Class” with “pitchforks?”

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

PTC Observer's picture

I didn't say in the beginning, what I meant to say is over time. With the biggest leap toward democracy in the last century. Now don't get me wrong, like I said I don't think the vote should be restricted by class and I support all of the franchise changes that were made but the franchise needs to be limited. I would rather have a small group of voters that pay attention than a large number that are "paid" to vote a certain way.

On the second answer you understand me correctly. It is true that a dirt farmer selling produce in a farmers market would have the right to vote. As to whether the others would want to vote would depend on their interest. If they were interested they would either become a dirt farmer or find a company that didn't do business with the government.

Yes, I am substituting special interest with the productive class, that's the whole point. The only way the productive class could be corrupted is to take handouts from the government, the moment they did they couldn't vote. Why would the governmental class come after the productive class? They are the paymaster. If they wanted to change things they would simply have to stop taking money from the government by seeking employment with a company that didn't take government money, or they could become homeless and sell apples on the corner. Either way they could vote.

Non-productive definition: Those that take money from the government. If they take money they are moving money around it's true, but they don't create true wealth.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, I have a different opinion about extending the voting franchise. In the beginning of the Republic the franchise was extended because the ruling elite needed more of the general population’s participation. If the general population did not have the right to vote in their own country what claim did the elite, or the government, have on them? None, it was the same deal the colonies had with King George. They would have ignored the elites and the government they presided over. My opinion is the franchise was freely extended to a greater and greater portion of the general population. Later in the life of the Republic is when the friction began.

In your second answer, doesn’t your dirt farmer receive a direct benefit from the roads and bridges built by the owner of the engineering company and paid for by the government? Does having better access to markets allow him to create real wealth?

Now that your farmer realizes a benefit from a government program does he forfeit his franchise to vote or is freeloading okay for the "productive class?" 8 - )

Can you tell me what products or services the “productive class” would produce that couldn't be utilized by government?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

PTC Observer's picture

You could be right but the franchise in early America was restricted in many ways, most all wrongly. It was worse in England where only 1 in 8 could vote, all based on class (wealth).

I suppose that the dirt farmer under current conditions would receive a benefit but he would not receive income from the government. That is the key.

The productive class could produce anything they want but if they sold something to the government or received income from the government, they would be disinfranchised.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, actually the point I was trying to make was, the franchise was willingly extended by the elites because they couldn’t accomplish anything without the consent of a larger share of the population. I think the elite of your “producer class” would have the same problem.

Besides, it wouldn’t take your farmer more than two or three minutes to figure out all he had to do was create a shell company as an intermediary and his goods could be sold to the government and he could keep his right to vote too. The owner of the engineering company could do the same thing and this would happen over and over again until the “producer class” had no real meaning at all.

I also think it would be a detriment to the economy. The inefficiency of creating all those intermediate companies would add cost to everything the government and private industry bought, would it not?

In my opinion, it’s not the form of government that’s corrupt. It’s just the nature of man to act in his own best self interest that will corrupt any form of government.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.


Ad space area 4 internal