119 thoughts on “Republicans not only lie but are against the government helping the people

    • Is there something wrong with turning to the government for help? After all, we pay taxes to keep it running … why shouldn’t we “get our money back” when we experience a crisis? Why is it OK for “the government” to help during nature-derived emergencies, but not when a person is unable to put food on the table?

      Is it better for our money to be spent supporting measures and laws that benefit big business rather than the average citizen? Or to put money in the pockets of congresspeople who already have more $$$$ than most of us will ever have?

      BTW, under the current administration, little to NO money has been spent on infrastructure, which benefits EVERY citizen in the U.S. Instead, the Leader put all his energy into “building a wall” that has torn families apart simply because of their skin color.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Nan, if we did not have a welfare state and closed down our borders, we would not have people coming over here illegally and freeloading. Why the heck should we pay for other people’s free stuff if we don’t benefit at all?


          • Nan, I have no problem helping people who truly need it. What galls me is the fact that we have people who feel like they deserve free stuff by demand. The welfare state was only created to buy votes.


            • Who decides who truly needs it?

              Ya’ know … I’ve been around the block several times and you remind me so much of what I heard back in the 50’s. Maybe it’s time to leave the past and come up with some ideas that help everyone — even those “people who feel like they deserve free stuff by demand.” Maybe they would then stop “demanding” because things would be more equalized.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Nan, no person has any right to other people’s stuff. Even if people want to argue for free college, employing economic arguments would give people more credibility than the “we breathe, therefore we deserve free stuff” b.s. arguments.


                    • Hello ragnarsbhut & Nan. I am two days behind on comments, something I will try to fix today. But as I sat at my desk to eat lunch I seen notifications of your discussion. I would like to add two things , then when I get to these comments hopefully later today I will add more.

                      I got a frantic call today from an elderly lady in her late 70’s. Her husband who is in his 80’s, is being treated medically by the VA. He has dementia. It is so bad that this week he was hospitalized and then taken to hospice. He is to come home today. They are poor. She can not handle him, he is at the point so many in dementia get where he thinks she out to harm him, she is his enemy.

                      If he goes in to assisted living they will take all of his social security and all of his benefits, with the exception of $30. Yes legally the person in assisted living may have only 30 dollars. We just went through this with a single relative, but this lady only gets $300 on her Social Security, and they have lived mostly on her husband’s income. So she will be left with $330 dollars a month to live on, pay rent, utilities, car payment, medical bills, and food to name a few bills. Forget any kind of luxuries. Oh and did I mention her lot rent, she owns her home but rents the ground it sits on, is $560 a month? So tell me don’t you think the wealthiest country on earth could use a much better safety net?

                      Also ragnarsbhut, I notice you asked what gives a right to demand things be free. The social contract and the best possible good of the country. The government of a country doesn’t exist to be a protection for just a few wealthy people or a protection for wealthy corporations. Government of a country exists to make things as good as possible for as many as possible. The best public good if you will. That is why government regulates things. That is why those who have excess can be taxed to pay for those without any means. It is for the betterment of society, for communities, that older people with dementia are not left on the streets and elderly people are not homeless and starving.

                      OK I am going to go back in the comments to two days ago and work my way forward. If you respond to me know I may not get to it until tomorrow depending on how fast I am and when she is coming over for me to print the forms she needs. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Scottie, here is an analogy for you: One person demands a free cup of coffee and claims that it is his or her right to have it and another person says he or she has a right to a free education. Since it says nowhere in our Founding Documents that we have a right to free stuff, why does one person say that he or she has the right to something for free, such as a free education and another person does not have a right to a free thing, such as a free cup of coffee? Either thing incurs costs to somebody, so why should it not cost as much to the consumer(s) as it does to the producer(s)?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Here is where it all stems from.

                      “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of …

                      Please notice the welfare and prosperity along with more perfect union. Prosperity not for some or a few, but for all is implied in we the people.

                      ragnarsbhut you seem stuck on this “free stuff” wording, but again I tell you that is not the way to look at it. It is not a utopia yet, like in Star Trek where all wants and most needs are met and no one needs to pay or buy anything. You want to use the coffee analogy, here is the way it really is. Everyone in the company pays into the coffee fund. They get 1 cup of coffee a day. However the managers pay less than the workers into the fund and they get two cups of coffee a day. The executives do not pay into the coffee fund claiming they provide the jobs that give the workers the money to pay into the coffee fund and yet they get to drink unlimited cups of coffee a day. That is the US system we have right now. In that system who is getting the free coffee? Who is demanding something for free with out paying?

                      You are stuck on this idea of the local market, you are not thinking big enough. You need to think on the scale of the country, on the way it is structured. The structure has been massively changed since the 1970’s. The structure use to be the wealthy paid most of the tax burden because they had more, and were getting more out of the public system. Yes the public systems. But now the wealthy want a free ride, they want the free stuff, and they want to make life for the lower incomes miserable so they don’t have to pay anything to help make it better like they use to. That is not a perfect union, and it is ruining the structure that built the country’s greatest economic times.

                      Oh and as for schooling. Before there was even a country here the first thing the settlers did was build free public schools that were supported by the entire community. The first public school was in the late 1600’s. Google it, it is something our people have understood from the beginning, the more educated the people the better it is for everyone. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Scottie, I would prefer to hear arguments for free college from economists than people with a “we breathe, therefore we deserve free stuff” mentality. That mentality stems from people who feel like they are deserving of free stuff at our expense.


                    • I would like to know what your reaction was when we were pouring billions into Trump’s and his cronies
                      That was other peoples’stuff’.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. By what right should something be for profit? As for something that a government should provide we call those human rights. It is the framing you use that is incorrect. It is not demanding it be free, it is demanding our tax payer dollars be used for the things that benefit us. Not a hard concept, the wellbeing and safety of the people is what government is for. Hugs

                      Liked by 2 people

            • you mean like corporations? They get more welfare money than citizens do, which makes no sense because if they’ve got stockholders and millions in the bank, they should be able to pay for their own crap. End corporate welfare and that’ll help a ton.

              Liked by 1 person

                • I wish someone would tell them that. Mainly it’s used to promote their products to markets overseas (Pillsbury taking $3 million to advertise in Spain is one I remember most. That figure was from the early 2000s, so maybe they quit doing that… or went up).

                  If the minimum wage was akin to an actual living wage, that would be a start. Pay people right and you don’t need as big a safety net. If we gave Congress a yearly salary based on a 40 hr work week at the national minimum wage, they’d be scrambling to increase it. It doesn’t make sense that the cost of living has gone up so fast and wages have barely moved if at all. Then they balk at trying to do a $15/hr minimum wage. If they’d done small increases in pace with costs in the economy over the years, it wouldn’t seem such an insurmountable, impossible thing.

                  Liked by 1 person

                    • Do you HONESTLY believe that every person “panhandling” is a scammer? Sure, there may be some that are willing to lower themselves to that level just to put some extra money in their pocket, but I daresay, they are definitely in the minority.

                      Most men have very strong egos and to allow themselves to be seen in that position –by choice– just doesn’t ring true.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • How they spend the money they get is not up to me. Certainly I would prefer they use it to buy normal necessities, but to throw out an “if” question like yours is nothing but a “gotcha” question.

                      You and I will probably never have a meeting of the minds because you are obsessed with the idea that everyone is out for what they can get for “free.” You’ve already determined that anyone begging on the street or pushing around a grocery cart full of belongings is simply a “freeloader” who wants to take advantage of the government.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Nan, people who fall on hard times due to no fault of their own are those that I can be sympathetic to. Where my sympathy is limited is regarding people who essentially say, however, not in so many words, that they are deserving and entitled to free stuff on-demand. I would rather pay for a military veteran to go to college than someone who claims to be on government assistance because the military veteran earned it and the person on government assistance is just looking for a handout.


                    • Hello Nan. Very true. Plus as I have posted things are so much more desperate now for over 50 million people than they have been in my lifetime. I could have posted again today a clip from CBS of another miles long food line of people in desperate need. Locally the big food bank is sending out appeals because they are losing or have lost the government support programs and they have seen an increase in demand, not a decrease. It is a sad statement for the wealthiest country on the planet. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I dislike scammers no matter if the are wealthy or poor doing it. I dislike religious scammers, and I dislike people begging for money who do not need it. That said I think there is not as much scamming on the poor end as you might think there is.

                      How much scamming do you think is happening? How much is acceptable? IF only 5% of all food assistance is given to those not really eligible should the entire program be shut down denying the other 95% of needed food?

                      While critics still like to use old arguments of rampant abuse to lambast a program that feeds millions of Americans, the fraud rate has decreased from “about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to about 1 cent” by 2006.

                      And this decline has only continued, with the 3.5% rate of fraud in 2012 reducing to less than 1.5% today.




                    • Scottie, if someone asked me for $50.00 to buy food and I found that the person was spending that $50.00 on alcohol, I would feel like I was being scammed. That is one example.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I am sure you would. However you did not answer my question nor address how much fraud is too much. If there is only .0023% fraud ( as there is in some assistance programs ) should the entire program be scraped and all the people on it be blamed.

                      That is the big point really. We don’t blame everyone in a group if one person does something wrong. But you are doing that.

                      I think you should look at the homeless problem in the US. Yes there are homeless people with substance and mental health issues. But far more are just people who had something go wrong and they are homeless trying hard just to live. Again because a few are not perfect people should we stop all homeless assistance programs? Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. You think so? How much of the homeless population is from drug or alcohol use and what is the solution? Show me the stats please.

                      However you did not answer my question nor address how much fraud is too much. If there is only .0023% fraud ( as there is in some assistance programs ) should the entire program be scraped and all the people on it be blamed.

                      Yes there are homeless people with substance and mental health issues. But far more are just people who had something go wrong and they are homeless trying hard just to live. Again because a few are not perfect people should we stop all homeless assistance programs?



                    • Scottie, getting these people the help that they need would be a good place to start. Having said that, they should also take some initiative for themselves. Now, if they continue down their chosen paths of self-destruction despite the help they get offered, that is on them.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I agree, I really do agree we need to have more programs and facilities to help those with substance addiction problems and also those with mental illness. Far too often in the US the only place for these people are the prisons or the streets.

                      But I am wondering, you made the comment

                      Scottie, homelessness would be less of a problem if we did not have so much drug addiction

                      I am sure you heard that was the problem somewhere. So did that place give you a figure or percentage of how much of the homeless problem is related to drug addiction? Now I am wondering how much of the homeless problem is a drug problem? Hugs


                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Nope, sorry but you are refusing to do the work of looking up the data. Real data, not anecdotes. There are many people with substance abuse issues that have homes, lots are even working. Some are even wealthy. Most homelessness is economic, people forced to live in their cars, people forced to couch surf, lack of a job means lack of money to afford housing. Know what you need for housing? A job.

                      Know what you need to get a job? A phone. Hard to keep a phone and keep it charged when you are homeless.

                      Know what else you need for a job? An address. Hard to have an address when homeless.

                      See the right wing likes to repeat it is bad choices, it is drugs or alcohol abuse. They don’t like to mention that the real problem is economic because that puts the real fault of homelessness on businesses and corporations. You can not afford housing in most places with minimum wage, and even $15 dollars an hour is hardly enough in some places. People need to be paid a living wage. People need to be paid a wage that they can have all their basic needs met and also afford some luxuries. But that would cut in to the profits, the greedy can not have that. Any cent used to make life better for anyone but themselves and shareholders is not allowed. That is why the right doesn’t talk about the real causes of homelessness. Hugs


                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I disagree with your sumation. But you do bring up a point I made earlier, thank you. I made the point of lack of jobs for all the workers so we need to have a UBI and to lose the idea that work equals worth.

                      You ignored everything else in the reply to focus on this one thing, and you still did not provide any data, citations, or even reasoning to back up your statements. You simply stated a unsupported right media talking point as if it was valid, which it is not.

                      Show me the data to back up what you claim please.

                      Will automation continue. Oh yes it will. It has. That is simple reasoning based on both profit and costs. You have to figure that most jobs in the US are service jobs. The US doesn’t manufacture much. Anything that can be automated will be automated as machines need less down time and less overall costs. That has been in effect since we started replacing human labor with draft animals and draft animals with machines. In other words the entire history of mankind. However you have to look at what point the costs of using humans becomes less than using machines. Right now it is too costly to use machines to do the job of a full service waitperson. It is being tried with some success in countries like Japan, and it will some day be a normal thing. The future is any job that can be done by a machine will be done by one. And should be.

                      Life is about more than a struggle to live, to fill the basic needs. Living is about more than producing money. Life is about enjoying and fulfilling the person. Originally machines were called labor saving devices. The kitchen appliances we all take for granted were called that, and were sold as a way to give the wife ( yes very sexist ) more time for the children and to serve the needs of the husband.

                      More automation is going to continue and is normal. That is why we need to figure that most people very shortly wont have a meaningful job that produces something or serves someone else. This was known way back in the 1980’s, as I mentioned before. People need simply to get rid of the idea you need a job to live and that producing money is what life is about. Also ways to live with out a working population must be implemented. And part of this will be regulations that regulate and restrain the worst of capitalisms as is being done already in other advanced countries. There is a reason the US is falling further behind every day, it is because the US allows the worst of greed to have priority over the lives of people.

                      Once a persons needs get separated from working, from jobs, then the government will have to insure a minimum level of income so people can have what they need and also some luxuries. Remember what I said is and keeps an economy? It is the flow of money, people buying and people selling. If the government doesn’t give the people money then the economy crashes, just what it is doing right now. Giving money to the wealthy corporations doesn’t help the economy. Corporations do not produce money ( profit ) , they do not produce an economy, they do not even produce jobs. Workers do that.

                      So the future is everyone is on the government dole, to use your phrase. Everyone gets a government income. Some people work because they want to, they like what they are doing, they want the interactions. Those people job share. They work only as many hours as they wish and they share those jobs with others who only work as many hours as they wish. People spend their lives enjoying themselves and others in positive ways. Heck some will even blog and think of that as their “job”.


                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Scottie, if we went with Medicare For All, would we not all be essentially on the government dole or is it that our taxes pay for our medical care until we can no longer work? I was hoping that you can provide some context.


                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Nope again not doing it. You are shifting the conversation, the goal posts, while ignoring what I replied to you. I am done playing that game. I work too hard to look up data and spell out my reasoning to have it ignored so you don’t have to deal with it. I have put the better part of three days to replying to your statements and questions. If you are going to ignore what I reply then I why should I bother to reply?

                      We can talk about this subject and what I have already said to you recently on it after you address the reply on automation. You made a flat statement I have show is wrong. If you dispute my reasoning then show me how and why. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Scottie, I have also tried to engage Nan on this subject. I have not attacked you or her. Reread each comment that I responded to where Nan and you are both tagged and see for yourself.


                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. You are doing it again right here. No one has accused you of attacking anyone. I have not and I have not seen Nan do it. I had not seen you do it. I tend to jump in if I see personal ad hominem attacks.

                      But this attempt right here is what I am upset with you about. You threw out a one line statement with no facts, data, nor citations to support it. I responded with a 669 word reasoned rebuttal with facts, data, and citations.

                      Instead of acknowledging anything I wrote you threw out another one line statement on a different subject again with no facts, data, or citations.

                      I work hard to give a correct and decent reply. I don’t know if you can not go back and read the thread or something, but it is really disrespectful to the work I do to reply when you do what you have been. It makes me wonder if you really want to have a discussion or conversation at all? Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I am glad you are enjoying the blog, that is part of the reason I work so hard on it, for others to enjoy and learn from what I post.

                      However let me say again that when you make this assertion with no data or citations

                      Scottie, increasing the minimum wage only increases automation.

                      And I spend the time to research the subject and write a 669 word reply with facts, data, and citations.

                      Then you without a word about all I replied to you, or all the work I have done, without a word of agreement or disagreement just switch to another topic

                      Scottie, if we went with Medicare For All, would we not all be essentially on the government dole or is it that our taxes pay for our medical care until we can no longer work? I was hoping that you can provide some context.

                      It comes off as you playing a game, you are screwing with me. It doesn’t make me very happy to think I am wasting my time doing all the work to reply to you?

                      This was what Nan was trying to explain and show you. You were coming across as frankly a jerk. I hope this explains why Nan was asking you to stay on the topic / subject and to explain your opinions. I hope it also explains why I have stopped letting you just jump to another subject and why I have gotten short with you.

                      If you have any questions, let me know. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I know I answered this before but I want to come back to it. Why would you feel scammed if you gave someone $50 dollars? You gave the money. You did your part. You might say it was for food, but if you want them to have food, give them food. Take them food shopping. Instead you gave money. Once given, that money is for them to do what they want with. Once you gave the money away it was not yours, it was theirs.

                      What you really are saying is you want control. You want to tell them what they can do with the money. That follows you want to tell them how to live their life and how to spend their other money. You want to have a say over their decisions. That is what laws saying what people can spend their assistance money on. The sad part assistance money laws prevent poor people from buying many products that are needed to live. Things like feminine products and detergents or cleaning supplies. They are not about saving money or cutting fraud, they are simply about exercising control over the people with the least power to fight back. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Yes people lie sometimes. Yes some people scam. It doesn’t make a difference to what we were talking about. It doesn’t address what I asked you. It doesn’t answer any of the questions I asked you such as how much fraud is enough to shut down a program saving peoples lives and keeping people including kids from starving? We went from addressing government assistance programs and fraud to panhandling?

                      If a person on the street is begging for money it doesn’t matter if he has a million dollars. He is not using a government programs is he? If a preacher on TV is begging you to send in donations he is begging also, he is panhandling. Those preachers have millions of dollars. The money to give or not is your choice, it is not a tax payer government assistance program issue.

                      The problem is your feelings, not if the person begging is lying. You feel betrayed, you feel it was unfair to you.

                      You gave the money so you could feel good about it then! Not so they could have something. That is why you are upset if they don’t do what you think they should with the money.

                      Here’s the thing. I don’t need to look up the panhandling statistics. First of all your using them for your argument so you should have included them. Also I don’t care. It is not important to me if someone is lying about how desperate they are or what they will do with the money. If I choose to give someone money, once I do so I do not feel I control what they do with it. If they turn around and give it to someone else OK. If they buy food OK, if they buy booze OK. If I was that worried about it I wouldn’t have given them the money. There are too many other ways to help people and there are too many personal tragedies to get hung up over a possible misrepresentation for me to get hung up over that small one.

                      The real tragedy is we have so many people that feel they need to panhandle to begin with, don’t you think? Really that is the tragedy. Be well. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Scottie, people who fall on hard times because of no fault of their own I would have sympathy for. I have no sympathy for people who want to deflect responsibility for their own choices and shift blame to the rest of us.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Fine, that is you and how you feel. Oh and who decides who is deflecting blame and who is assigning it. Your view of a bad decision might have been a rigged game the other person couldn’t win. If you are talking of the predatory student loans that was the case and why the courts ruled they loans must be forgiven.

                      Do you know more than the courts on this? Are you the judge and jury of what people should have done or known?

                      The fact is there are very greedy people out there who will do anything they can to cheat others. Some times those who are down and out are not there because of their own doing but because of circumstances they couldn’t control. Most people that are homeless are not there because of drugs but because housing costs are too high, or they lost their home due to an emergency. I was listening to a news show this morning. A family owned their home. They mortgaged the home to pay for a legal bill. One member of the family lost their job. They couldn’t pay the mortgage because of the job loss. They are homeless now. It happens all across the country. Once homeless it is incredibly hard to get back on your feet.



                  • Hello Chatty Introvert. What really pissed me off was when some members of congress made the statement that the government shouldn’t pay people to stay at home, yet congress was on break because of Covid getting paid their same salary. They get paid $174,000 and some get more and they work less than half a year. But they always think they need more. Not you making 19,000 a year working 40 hours a week, but they do. I wish they did have to live as they want the rest of us to. Hugs

                    Liked by 2 people

                    • At least when they’re not in session, knock their pay to minimum wage those months. They’ll argue for more working session days because their livelihoods would depend on it. And maybe we’d get more done. Sucks how most of the job is doing fundraising instead of collaborating and education about issues that are coming up. Their staff handles all that, when they’re not throwing them in front of a phone telling them to call donors.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • Hello Chatty introvert. Good plan. I remember when they were called statesmen and when working together was a good thing they did. I remember when they had drinks together and when they would eat together. Now the Republicans would disown any member who even talks with the Democrats. Now it seems they do not work for the country but for the largest donors. They do not get picked by the voters but in gerrymandered districts they pick their voters. The system is broken and needs an entire revamp. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                • Hello ragnarsbhut. I know they shouldn’t get welfare, and they may not need welfare, but they sure do get it from the government.

                  Superfund law left the government to clean up toxic waste sites created by corporations and businesses. They got the profit, the taxpayer got the cost of clean up.

                  The oil and gas industry get over 20 billion in subsidies a year, yes a year. Why, they are some of the wealthiest corporations there are?

                  Most farms in the country are very large corporations, yet they receive huge amounts of money from the US government.

                  But it is not only money, it is in the use of government lands for little or no pay. It is in use of government funds, tax payer money, to create medications yet charging hundreds and thousands of dollars to the patient for the drug.

                  The list goes on. But you don’t hear about these things on right wing media because they have an agenda, but you will hear about them on other media. Google corporate welfare, it is easy to see the way wealthy corporations have bought our congress people to change laws to benefit the wealthiest. Here are a couple to start. Hugs



                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Scottie, the issue for me boils down to where the line should be drawn between helping people who truly need it and people who feign states of hardship as an excuse to get free stuff. People who have a hard time putting food on the family table are those that I have more sympathy for than people who say, “My family is on welfare, so I feel like we deserve free stuff.” Many Leftists say that rich people who inherit wealth will become lazy. Really? Even if that was the case, family money belongs to the family that worked for it. That family should be free to decide what is done with that money.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Please try to understand that no one is asking for free stuff. No one. There is no demand for free stuff.

                      What people want is a progressive country that cares for its people. We see this in every other developed nation on earth.

                      What people want is the money they pay to the government, taxes paid by the people to be used for the good of the people. That is what it comes down to. Where the money in the US treasury works for the average people to make their lives better. It can be done, and it is done in other countries. And do not yell socialism, is Canada socialist? Right wing media has conditioned their viewers to see any money helping the average person as a wrong, as undeserved, as harmful. That is not true and in fact is a gimmick so the wealthy can steal more public money. Tax money is public money, so let’s help the public with it, not just the wealthy.

                      You are repeating points we already talked about. So tell me who is feigning need? Where is this large fraud? Because I have shown you already it is not happening. If 1 person in 100 is getting a dollar more than they qualify for under the rules is that a serious crime? Is it enough to shut down the programs. Because that is what the wealthy want to happen, what the Heritage Foundation and other right leaning think tanks want. This is a class war and you are working for the wealthy upper class when you repeat their talking points that have no bases in fact. It is an emotional feel good but factless talking point.

                      ragnarsbhut you need to understand the situation as it really is, the game of life is rigged against the poor and lower class in every way. The workers are starting behind a wall that the wealthy sit on asking the workers to do more to succeed. Life is more than a struggle to survive. Look at the future. It has been known since the 1980’s that eventually people wont work, or most people wont work for a living. There will be UBI for everyone. It is already started in some countries. It is not some immigrant taking jobs from other people, it is machines and automation doing that. Even now we have the GIG economy where people work different jobs for different length hours as they can or want to. Right now the wealthy have rigged the game so the GIG worker is getting screwed and that needs to change. The situation will advance to where people will work four to 8 hours a week if they want to. The rest of the people will have to learn to be productive while not working for a corporation or others. Maybe they will blog. Everyone will need to be able to have / afford a standard of living that has more than just the basics to live. It is necessary and will happen. The talking points the right wing media are coming out with is just the jockeying for position on the debate.

                      Lastly the money belongs to the family that worked for it as again a talking point. it is a shift of the burden. What you are saying is that the workers are taxed and we don’t want the way it is divided back out to change. Well the way that public money is given out is mostly to the wealthy corporations and the wealthy people as the burden for taxes falls on the people. What is being asked for is not free stuff, but to change the way the public money is distributed to help the people, not just the wealthy.

                      If our system is so great why do we rank so low on the standard of living scales world wide? Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Scottie, people who make demands for free college are asking for free stuff, so you are way off-base. Free college is available through the GI bill. The problem is with people who use the “I’m too broke to afford college, so I deserve to get it for free” argument is that these people will ultimately become panhandlers. “Free stuff” may sound appealing to people. Having said that, nothing in life is free except the air we breathe, the water we drink and our freedom to live our lives as we see fit.


                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Do you bother to read what I reply? I explained why the GI bill is not a solution. Do you dispute the figures? If so explain please.

                      Your argument about college is simply you think someone is getting something they do not deserve and that in your opinion it is free to the person going to school. How the hell do you go from getting government paid education to panhandling? That is stupid! So every advanced country that has free advanced education is full of panhandlers? Silly. The idea of the government paying for the education is that the benefits of people having an education to society and that educated people earn more money helping the economy and paying more in taxes. Two great advantages that mean it is worth the government paying for it. It makes sense. Again it was done that way in the past in the US, why is it so hard for you to accept now. You don’t seem to be able to reason this out. Think of this, countries that have government paid education have higher standards of living. That alone makes it worth implementing.

                      Go back and read what I replied to you as this reply back makes no sense as an answer to anything I said.

                      By the way today it was announced that water is now on the futures market. If corporations have their way businesses will own the water no matter where or how it is “produced” in a state, so no more free water. Here in Florida the Republicans have twice tried to sell the states water rights to companies. Think of having to pay a company to use the water of a state reservoir or river to boat or fish.

                      You seem to be stuck on the word free. it triggers you. So instead of free lets call it government paid education, or government sponsored education.

                      By the way the idea you are free to live your life as you see fit is a pipe dream. It is a slogan. You live your life regulated by local ordnances, state laws, federal laws, and the peer pressures of the organizations in your area and that you belong to.

                      Again I have addressed the GI bill and showed why it is not a solution. Please tell me if you dispute the numbers or the reasoning. Hugs


                    • Scottie, the GI Bill’s benefits are subsidized by the taxpayers. That is something I have no problem with, mainly because those benefits have been earned at a significant cost. What people want who just issue demands for this stuff is for big government to be our de facto nanny.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I disagree with your mistaken idea of government paid for education as a nanny state. Is the police and fire departments nanny states? Is the road you drive on a nanny state, or should they be owned by companies you pay to drive on each time? Toll roads owned by corporations, every road? How about you pay a fee to get your SS or SSDI check to a company to process it. There was a push by the Republicans to privatize every function of government, you ever wonder why? Because it is guaranteed money for a business, guaranteed profit. You know who loses in that situation, you do, I do, the US public.

                      I could go on. You have been indoctrinated not to understand the government is to provide services to the people. That is its job. Those services have changed over the years but they use to include college education. The wealthy did not like that. They also do not like public education of K-12 and have worked for decades to eliminate that. They would eliminate every service the government does for the public / the people. To convince you it is a good thing to take away benefits from you they tell you that if you or anyone else wants the government to do something it is a nanny state. It is propaganda by the wealthy.

                      Corporations and the wealthy want two things, to control everything, to run all of it their way, and to gain more money including the largest share of the countries money. To do that they have bought congress. They have also created right wing media to convince you to voluntarily give them what they want and to look down on others that want a better way for all of us.

                      What people want is a better way of life for the public, for all of us! Not just a system of haves and have nots. Not a class system of wealthy upper class that gets everything from the government and a poor lower class that gets nothing from the government.

                      Understand what progressive are fighting for, and you are fighting against. A better life for everyone. You are fighting against improving the system for the public. Why because of right wing talking points such as it is a nanny state?

                      Progressives want to give you a better country, free health care, a better education system, and more economic equality. And you think it is a bad thing?

                      On the GI issue, you still have not disputed the numbers. There were approximately 19.6 million college students in the U.S. in 2018, with around 14.5 million enrolled in public colleges and a further 5.1 million students enrolled in private colleges. There were a total of 1.3 million active duty military and more than 800,000 reserve forces as of September 2017, according to Defense Department personnel data. Hardly enough military spots for all the students. Do you have any idea how big the military would be and how much it would cost the US to do what you suggest. It really would be impossible.



                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. You argue that is a solution to the problem we are discussing. The problem is lack of funds and access to higher education. I have shown that the military is not a solution to the problem. So please give a different solution, one that can work that provides funding and gets access to higher education for the public that doesn’t saddle the student with unpayable debt which saps the economy. Remember that every dollar that a student pays for loans is a dollar lost to the economy.

                      You ignored my entire reply and what it means. Why? Are you interested in continuing the conversation? I am addressing your comments and replies and you seem to ignore everything I write. You made a claim about the nanny state which I refuted. If you can not support your position then it fails and you must reconsider your point.


                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. It doesn’t seem you are interested in dialogue at all. You seem interested in only throwing your opinion out with no evidence or reasoning to back it up. You ignore any attempts to show you data, studies, or reason on any subject in any reply. Quite frankly it is not a conversation nor a discussion, it is not exchanging information. I don’t feel you are in this in good faith. Look at the comment this reply is too and ask yourself how it interacts with what I said at all? It doesn’t. As I worte, ” If you can not support your position then it fails and you must reconsider your point.” I also wrote

                      “I have shown that the military is not a solution to the problem. So please give a different solution, one that can work that provides funding and gets access to higher education for the public that doesn’t saddle the student with unpayable debt which saps the economy. Remember that every dollar that a student pays for loans is a dollar lost to the economy.”

                      But you ignored that also. So tell me if you want to have a dialogue or not? Hugs


                    • Hello and good morning ragnarsbhut. Nan seems to be better at getting you to understand right now than I am. How am I not reasonable? And I do not speak for Nan, she is very capable of speaking for herself, but she in her last two replies has made the situation quite clear.

                      I lay out well reasoned responses using facts, data, and I cite sources. You ignore them to throw out a one liner? How is that not reasonable. Hugs


                    • Hello Raggnarsbhutt. I miss read what you wrote. I took it that I was less unreasonable than Nan which would make me some unreasonable.

                      Scottie, I try to have both dialogue with you and Nan. No offense meant to Nan, however Nan seems to be less reasonable in the responses than you do.

                      That said I have read Nan’s replies to you and I agree with them. Until yesterday I was giving you a lot of room, a lot of leeway. But I am tired of working my butt off on a reasoned reply to have you ignore it. I see in a comment I have yet to get to you are in agreement, then you need to say so. None of us are mind readers. As you can see it is easy to misinterpret something that is not made clear.

                      If you agree with the points made say so, if you disagree with them also say so and why. The why is the important part to include. I and others are interested in your reasoning on these issues, why you formed the opinion you do.

                      If you just jump to another subject then those reading the comments and replies think you are just ignoring what you do not agree with or are just messing with people. Remember these comments / replies are not just for you, they are for everyone reading along. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Rag … I have to ask. You have mentioned you have epilepsy. Is is bad enough that you are disabled? Or are you able to work full-time? Or perhaps just part-time?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Nan, it is bad enough to cause me to be considered disabled if it is in the sense that you mention. Having said that, it is not affecting my ability to enjoy life. Due to where I am at, finding actual work is not possible at this time.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • You didn’t answer the question. I’ll ask it a different way. Where is the money coming from that allows you to buy food and other necessities?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Are you deliberately ignoring my question? You said your family helps, so that would lead one to think you have money coming from another/other source(s). And since you’re not working, it would suggest perhaps –gasp!– the government?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Yes you may wish you could work. However those hearing right wing media figure you are just asking for free stuff, you are on the government dole.

                      Some people just can not work. Period. Can not do it. And that is OK. It really is. Just because you can not work it doesn’t mean you are a bad person, it doesn’t mean you are cheating, it doesn’t mean you are getting something for free. And you should get more support from the government than you do. The government is we the people, and the treasury is the publics money

                      I know a guy. He served in the military. He owned his own businesses. He was a private investigator, an armed nuclear security officer, and a special sheriff deputy. One day after months of suffering to walk he couldn’t get out of bed. He couldn’t move his leg. He was taken to the ER, where after some tests it was determined he had lost the top of his leg, the bone had decayed and died. Turned out he had a very painful condition where his bones would sometimes die or decay or morph into wrong shapes including spurs / spikes in the spine. Due to the bone problem the muscles and nerves were also effected. The doctors all told this guy to enjoy life as best he could and to not work, they told him he needed to be on disability for the rest of his life as the condition was uncontrollable and stress would aggravate it.

                      This guy had worked all his life and did not want to just sit at home collecting money. Seemed sketchy to do that. After a few years of being in a wheelchair and with surgery and therapy he got so he could walk and his pain was manageable with strong drugs. He decided to try to work again, that was the right thing to do yes? His doctors did not think so, but he did go back to work.

                      It nearly destroyed him. He worked for 4 years. The last year he started spending more time in the hospital than at work. His bones got very thin, weak , and deformed. His spine became very damaged. He couldn’t walk as again the top of his other leg had died and decayed. His bones no longer could produce enough red blood cells he needed. His doctors told him if he did not stop working he would die.

                      So after four years he stopped working. Now he had large medical bills, worse health, needed surgery, had no income and no medical insurance. It took him three years to get his disability back. He had to declare bankruptcy. His quality of life was a lot worse than before he went back to work.

                      All because he bought into the stupid idea that a person’s worth was their job. It is not.

                      People have intrinsic worth in just themselves. They need not get their worth for working, for a job, from being wealthy, from being a TV / movie star or anything else. A disabled person is just as worthy as anyone else. A person who gets their income from disability is just as good and worth as one who has a job.

                      There is nothing wrong with not being able to work. There is nothing wrong with needing or having the government providing your income. You are a person of the country, the governments job is to provide needed services and programs for the people. There is something wrong with the government not providing enough income for a decent life, and there is a lot wrong with people having the mistaken idea that people getting government services are wrong or evil takers cheating the rest of the people. It simply is a propaganda caused mind set.

                      That disabled crippled guy had made himself a lot worse off, a lot sicker, in a lot more pain, and caused himself to suffer more health problems by trying to go back to work. He will have them the rest of his life, which maybe shorter now due to the added health problems.

                      That guy was me! I really regret trying to go back to work, it nearly killed me. I am worth far more than performing a job that makes wealthy people richer. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Scottie, I do the best I can to maintain perspective on things. However, it is not in my nature to want to sit still if I can help that. Just my thoughts.


                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I wish you the best. Hopefully with our for profit medical care system you will be able to afford the treatments, procedures, and medications you would need to have that independence. Until then I hope your medical needs are being met. Hugs


              • Hello Chatty Introvert. Far too many people do not understand how many businesses get subsidies and handouts from the US government. Most people can not tell you what the Superfund and Superfund law is for? For those that don’t know, it is to clean up toxic chemical sites businesses have contaminated yet stuck the government with the costs of cleaning up the toxic mess. Hugs

                Liked by 1 person

                • I hate how corporations are allowed to work. Plead poverty and then give multi-million dollar bonuses to their controlling boards every year, board members that are usually on the boards of several companies. So that’s multiple paychecks and multiple bonuses and perks.

                  My dad used to work for the phone company and the union published a report every year about the company. He let me take a look one time and I saw the info about the company directors and how much they made in salary and bonuses. How your bonus can be more than your annual salary mystifies me… and this is when people were getting worse and worse customer service. I have no problem with if the company is doing well, give a bonus to EVERYBODY not just the board. If they’re doing worse, no bonuses. Don’t reward crap work. I dropped the book in disgust when I saw a retiring board member’s severance package. Forget the health insurance (which obviously would’ve been top notch), he got several million dollars for X amount of years and country club dues paid for. Uh, if the guy’s a millionaire, why the hell does the company need to pay his country club fees?

                  I grit my teeth when I hear the phrase “trickle down economics” now. No, it’s a bunch of folks pissing off a roof and calling it rain.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Hello Chatty Introvert. Again well said. I remember one time back when I subscribed to the local print newspaper. Yes there was a time when the news came in the morning printed on paper. Well I paid by credit card for the year. This was about the end of year time. A month later we got the card bill and the paper had billed me for ten years of delivery of the paper. Ron freaked out as it was nearly $1000 dollars. This was back in the 1990’s. So we went down there and complained. They started to scramble. Finally we were passed to a very frustrated and apologetic supervisor. Seems it happened every year with more frequency. Seems the sales people got bonuses based on the amount of sales money they bring in. By over billing they get a higher bonus and by the time it is figured out they have already gotten the bonus in time for Christmas. Nice scam. They normally charged smaller amounts that took months to find, but this was so big it was glaring. I think they changed the way bonuses are calculated.

                    When I worked in the ICU’s the workers were told constantly that the Hospital was in a financial crisis and that the department had to cut costs, the workers needed to do more for less. However we learned later that the department director and the supervisors were still getting their huge quarterly bonuses while the nurses / CNAA’s, and other workers were not getting raises and were having to give up benefits. What a scam by the upper echelon. Hugs

                    Liked by 1 person

            • Hello ragnarsbhut. I know you have been told this by right wing media but it is not true. As I just sent you in my last reply the welfare state as it is correctly used was started by FDR to pull us out of depression and to start to protect and care for the people of the country. See before that capitalism had become unrestrained and was running amok. Businesses had no restraint, the people were desperate and were living short hard lives just struggling to survive. The idea is live should be more than just a struggle to live. So the New Deal was created, and it regulated businesses and created a growing middle class with a rapidly expanding economy.

              Now buying votes is the job of lobbyist for the wealthy corporations and well funded think tanks who pay our legislators legal bribes to get them to vote for the things the wealthy donors want.

              Soon we need to talk about this Idea of free stuff by demand? I think you miss the point. The public treasury is paid for mostly by the lower incomes. The lower incomes should get something for that money they pay in. It is not free stuff, it is just spending it on the lower incomes rather than the upper incomes. The right wants to frame it as taxing the wealthy is steal their money. But what is happened is that the wealthy have lobbied to get their tax burden reduced putting it on the lower incomes instead. Then they make the claim anything the lower incomes want they should have to pay for instead of the way it use to be where the tax monies paid for it or creating the programs to have the government pay for it from tax money like in other countries. It is simply a way for the wealthy to frame them selves as the victim instead of the takers they are. There is your freeloaders you talk about, the wealthy who want it all for free, while the lower incomes pay for it. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

        • Hello ragnarsbhut. I am sorry to tell you this but you are totally incorrect. The facts are against you on this. We do not have a welfare state in the way you mean it. Second if we closed down our borders we would starve and we would also lose billions more in tax revenue from undocumented workers who pay taxes but can never use the benefits from the money.

          Let us start with the idea of a welfare state. I wish we did have one. Here is the definition of a welfare state.

          a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

          Notice that it is the government protecting the health and well being of its citizens. As I keep saying, other countries have done this much better than the US, and it is a good thing to do.

          But I bet when you use the term you are using it in a derogatory manner as a slur against someone taking something for free they did not earn. I bet you mean free loaders as you mentioned in your commnet, right? I bet you are thinking of those US military families as the freeloaders right? See 9% of military families need food assistance either from the military or from the government snap program. Also there are 1.3 million low income veterans needing food assistance. There are more in both active duty and out of service veterans that need food assistance but can not qualify due to one reason or another.

          Or maybe you were referring to black people as needing assistance? In 2018 Black or African American children needing public assistance was 4,617,000. Large number. But white children needing public assistance was 5,670,000 that same year, an even bigger number.

          But I think you have the idea that undocumented people are sneaking across the border and laying around sucking up state and federal assistance money to live life large, partying and doing drugs? Am I right, that is normally the conservative narrative. It is totally wrong of course, but facts are pesky things.

          Facts are that immigrants both documented and undocumented are some of the hardest working people in the country. They are here to work, they want to work, and unlike most people born here they are used to very hard work.

          They do the job most people in the US refuse to do. Really. I like to tell of when the state of Georgia wanted to show they could be tough on illegal immigration, so they passed a law that basically caused all the migrant crop pickers to leave the state. The crops rotted in the field as farmers couldn’t get people to pick them. They tried paying huge wages, 20 dollars and more an hour, but most workers couldn’t last half a day. An estimated $140 million in agricultural losses. I have read reports of up to 800 million in total economic losses for the Georgia in 2011 due to that. See we need undocumented workers to do the many low paying unpleasant hard job people in the US won’t do. Why do you think when they raid meat packing plants most of the workers are undocumented? It is well known, but no one really tried to stop it in past years because it is work we need someone to do. It was never more than talked about until racism got to be more important than eating. Right now meat prices are soaring and it is hard to get some meats because of the meat plants having trouble with both Covid plus ICE watching them.

          Oh and Social Security. Did you know all these undocumented workers you called freeloaders are paying billions in federal taxes. That doesn’t count state taxes like sales tax when they buy stuff, but federal taxes for Social Security and Medicare, things these people by law can never use.

          Some noncitizens who legally immigrated to the United States also pay taxes using this method.
          In 2015, according to the IRS, 4.35 million tax returns were filed using ITINs, accounting for more than $13.6 billion in taxes.
          In addition to tax return filings, officials have estimated that undocumented immigrants also contribute billions to Social Security annually through payroll tax deductions. In 2010, for example, the Social Security Administration estimated that payments from unauthorized workers accounted for about $12 billion in tax revenue for Social Security.


          Immigrants, including those without documentation, pay billions of dollars in taxes to federal, state and local governments every year. Immigrants paid $405.4 billion in taxes in 2017, including an estimated $27.2 billion in taxes paid by undocumented immigrants.

          Immigrants have always been, and continue to be vital, to the United States — a country made up of immigrants. Immigrant taxes support local schools, Social Security, and Medicaid, among other programs. However, immigrants are unable to benefit from programs such as Social Security and Medicaid, which are only accessible to permanent residents and U.S. citizens.

          Immigrant tax contributions help establish a robust tax base, which means that mass-deporting immigrants from the U.S. or preventing new migrants from coming would have disastrous effects on the economy. In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that passing the bill into law would reduce the U.S. deficit by $197 billion over 10 years. (Then-Senator Jeff Sessions, convinced of the harmfulness of the bill, wrote to the CBO and asked for a 20-year score, and the CBO found that the bill would have reduced deficits by an additional $700 billion in the law’s second decade.)


          So friend let’s drop the whole freeloaders and closing the border crap, OK. It is a conservative media talking point that has no basis in fact. That is all it is, something to get the base riled up. A talking point to make it seem the country is going broke paying for people who are not working, when that is a lie. Next I will address the silly idea of free stuff but this is long enough as it is. Be well. Hugs

          Liked by 2 people

          • Scottie, proponents of the estate tax claim that people who inherit estates are getting things that they did not earn. Even if that is true, people who want free college on-demand did nothing to earn that either. It is profoundly hypocritical to whine that people who inherit wealth are undeserving of that and yet it is acceptable for people to make demands for free college.


            • Hello ragnarsbhut. Boy I am glad I caught this one. I lost a lot of comments as I did not answer them soon enough. I really want to know if you think those two things you tried to compare are equal? You do not see a huge difference between them?

              Let me try to show you the difference. Someone inheriting millions and billions without paying tax doesn’t help society by doing so. However paying tax does help society and returns the capital to the economy. It helps improve the wellbeing of the community. Also people inheriting enough to trigger the tax will not suffer a lifestyle degradation by losing the amount taxed. They are not hurt and society is helped by the tax. That is a win.

              The public is helped by people getting advanced education. Even if they only end up in a service job, studies have shown that an educated population makes better choices, cost the government less, is more employable, and can tell fact from fiction and truth from myths much better. Do you wonder why other countries don’t have such a Qanon / conspiracy problem as the US. They have the same right wing news sources, why don’t they have as many crazies? Because they have a better and more open education system. That alone is a worthy goal and shows the need for government paid for education. Back when going to college was more affordable people use to go and get a 2 or 4 year degree a lot more than now. Many got 2 year liberal arts degrees that were a basic well rounded education in many different subjects but not concentrated in one. That was for the other two years. They found that people who got even a 2 year liberal arts degree could reason better and made better choices. They made better managers. They progressed up the corporate chain faster and better.

              Making education more expensive and less obtainable hurt the country, the society, and the communities. It did not help anyone. Not taxing inheritance also hurts the country, the society, and the communities.

              Taxing inheritance and making education accessible by government funding ( free college ) is a benefit for the country. That is the difference you asked about. Now I have not seen a proposal to tax inheritance to pay for college, but if you have send it to me so I can evaluated it. Hugs


                • Hello ragnarsbhut. How is using the public money to help the public free stuff and wrong but corporate welfare for large wealthy corporations who do not normally pay taxes is OK. Please justify it.

                  As I explained it is not free stuff. It is shifting the public money gathered through taxes which the largest burden is now on the lower class / workers for the workers. That is not free stuff in anyway, it is using the tax money they pay for the benefit of the ones paying, instead of the free give away to the corporate wealthy. Hugs


                  • Scottie, if some people want something for free, that should extend to other people getting things for free. It is exceedingly hypocritical to claim that some people should get free stuff as a right and not other people.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. Government paid education is not for free. Not in the sense you mean. It is using the public money for the public good. It is using tax money to provide a service to the people. People expect state and local governments to provide services such as police protection, education, highway building and maintenance, welfare programs, and hospital and health care. Taxes are a major source of income to pay for these services and many others that hit close to home. So providing higher education is not a freebie, it is a service of the government. That is the difference.

                      This is the way it is in other countries, and could be here. Do you see why the right wants to keep labeling it people wanting free stuff. Is people wanting police and fire protection wanting free stuff?

                      I think you are going back to the estate tax for the very wealthy, right? Is that what you call exceedingly hypocritical? Even after I looked up and gave you the information on why the two things are not remotely similar. How one provided a benefit to the country and the other did not? If you think I was wrong then explain why. Explain how doing away with the estate tax that only .1% of the people in the country pay would be a benefit to the country. Thanks. Hugs


        • ragsnarsbhut, while you are looking for facts to prove all this right-wing garbage, do a search on Trust Busters. Before Teddy Roosevelt and Sherman, a Democrat Senator closed down the runaway Capitalist, there was no protection for workers, much like today, they paid what they eanted to pay. One of the industrialists named Jay Gould made the boast that he could pay one half of labor to kill off the other half. There was nothing in the chsaracter of those people to cause them to give a tinker’s damn for humanity nor for the nation they were gutting for their personal benefit.

          I suppose you haven’t seen the people lined up for miles to get food? I suppose you’ve never seen people dumpster diving for scraps of food or anything they could use to trade for food? It has been a long time since we have had a situation like this Trump fiasco. Now we are in another situation in which Capitalism and the Church write the legislation. Our taxpayer funded government has been up ended. We have a system of society financing Capitalism and religion. That puts us in a situation similar to 1880 or maybe 1180.

          When people are reduced to begging and you see their condition as something to rail against, you are promoting the capitalists propaganda. We have people who are being evicted, not because they are freeloders, but because of this pandemic, their jobs have been shut down. Their breadwinners have died of covid-related illness.

          All I know about you is your username here. I suspect some things, from reading your posts. Youdon’t have a news source, you have propaganda outlets. You feel privileged. You are too good to be exposed to reality. You have never experienced life at all. You have never done anything, nor seen anything. You have never walked down here in the scratch-off world. There is another possibility; you are a genuine pompous ass trying to argue a topic you know nothing about. You don’t measure up to being a sycophant, because you have nothing of value for the magistrate. Minion. You may qualify as a minion.

          “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.” – Abraham Lincoln

          People. Not corporations nor commerce.

          Liked by 2 people

                • Not MY point, rag … cagjr’s point which he so eloquently laid out in his response.

                  He went into great detail to counteract many of your claims … and then all you say is “this is true” … ??!!? It comes across as if your “arguments” were nothing more than words to take up space on Scottie’s blog.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • Nan, here are 3 questions for you: 1: Why is it seen as welfare in the eyes of Leftists when one person who is at death’s doorstep wants to leave all assets to living family members and not seen as welfare when people land on the government dole and get taxpayer-funded benefits? 2: Since “free” college is already available as a result of the GI Bill, why can’t people who want free college serve in the armed forces and earn their free education? 3: Even if free college through the GI bill is paid for with our tax dollars, why are people who beat their hands on the floor and kick and scream until they get things their way, figuratively or literally, more deserving of a free education than people who risk life and limb to protect our country?


                    • No … I’m not getting into this discussion. You have already expressed your viewpoints on numerous occasions here on Scottie’s blog so all it would be is an extended back and forth conversation that ends up nowhere — especially since, in essence, the questions you ask have already been answered.

                      Besides, Scottie is far more knowledgeable about such things as this is one of his prime interests, so I’ll leave it to him to counter your beliefs/claims. Have a nice day.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Nan, are you afraid of challenging my obviously superior intellect? Are you going to run and be afraid of the fact that I can make better arguments than you can?


                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. You should be careful what you wish for. Nan is not afraid and she is a very smart lady. However she doesn’t suffer stupid arguments and repeated talking points. I am not saying you are stupid. I am saying you have repeated the same slogans from far right media over and over and I am not sure you are even aware you are doing it. It seems you won’t look up stuff that is easy to find. You must have your own ideas, share how you would change things to make them work better.

                      I do not mind conversations on positions taken by the right and left. Many people prefer not to do so, they find arguing what is basically politics unpleasant. I like politics and I like arguing about it. I like arguing on any topic I think is wrong or I have a better way I think it should be done. Again most people do not.

                      Look at your response to Cagjr. He listed a bunch of positions you promote asking you to look into them and yet you did not take him up on any of them? You simply agreed with him. He was offering to engage you. I have a lot of people here on my Toy Box that might engage in conversation but they do not like to argue. So if you want to discuss something with them it is best to approach them in a non confrontational way. More of a discussion. Not in a way to prove who is correct, but to simply share ideas. Ask question, do not make demands, is a way to get them to respond.

                      It may surprise you to know I have some very vocal right leaning people here and I enjoy conversations with them. I tend to ask them question to get their viewpoints. That is a starting point. If you want a discussion with Nan it might be a start to ask her a more neutral question on a topic of interest that is based on a post. If she likes it she may respond. I might respond. Other may respond. Best wishes. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Hello ragnarsbhut. I will take a stab at answering your questions, but I have to say they are framed like propaganda.

                      Question 1: Improperly phrased. No one says inheritance is welfare. Again the definition I gave you the other day is

                      Welfare refers to a range of government programs that provide financial or other aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves. Welfare programs are typically funded by taxpayers and allow people to cope with financial stress during rough periods of their lives.

                      I think what is maintained is that over a certain amount should be taxed. The right loves to get lower income people all stirred up about the estate tax but it is really a red herring.

                      The vast majority of estates — 99.9% — do not pay federal estate taxes. While the top estate tax rate is 40%, the average tax rate paid is just 17%. The estate tax is only paid on assets greater than $5.3 million per individual ($10.6 million per couple).

                      Also the taxpayer funded dole is really right wing propaganda, as I have explained it is implies only lazy people need or want government assistance.   In August 2020, the national unemployment level of the United States stood at about 13.55 million unemployed persons, do you think they are all lazy?   My husband lost his job due to Covid, he had one year to retirement, is he lazy for filing for unemployment?   There are so many different assistance programs from needed child care assistance to fuel oil for the elderly in the cold parts of the country.   They are there because they serve a need of the people.   In the US the population has decided that in the wealthiest country on earth it is better to help people than let them die.   However the wealthy has tried to make this a class war by constantly putting out propaganda that any tax dollars used by the people is someone wrong and stealing, of people being lazy.   Bad people.   Yet corporate welfare the wealthy defend as proper.  Wonder why?   

                      Question 2: Because it doesn’t work as a solution to the problem. There were approximately 19.6 million college students in the U.S. in 2018, with around 14.5 million enrolled in public colleges and a further 5.1 million students enrolled in private colleges. There were a total of 1.3 million active duty military and more than 800,000 reserve forces as of September 2017, according to Defense Department personnel data. Hardly enough military spots for all the students. Do you have any idea how big the military would be and how much it would cost the US to do what you suggest. It really would be impossible.

                      Question 3: Answered with question 2.

                      There you go friend. I would ask you to be wary of right wing phrasing of issues. The majority of the right wing media start with a conclusion, a goal, then they make the argument and facts they use fit the conclusion they want. You should look at the facts and see what conclusion follows them. Hugs


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.