Fõrgëttíng Founders' tough love

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Forgetting Founders' tough love

The second sentence of the Declaration of Inde pendence contains the most beautiful song of human liberation ever composed. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those words were revolutionary when they were adopted in Congress on July 4, 1776, and 235 years later, they remain the purest expression of universal yearning known to man.

Yet that glorious ode to freedom contains a little-noticed limit, one that carries a special meaning for our fractured nation today. The Founders, we can say safely, would have zero tolerance for the soul-sapping entitlement culture of modern America.

Read more: www.nypost.com/p/news/local/forgetting_founders_tough_love_wOLf1lt9EE7IV3WfYkqWIM#ixzz1R1BFxnuq



>>> They are not pursuing happiness. They are demanding it. <<<


...wouldn't you agree?

[Shirina]

...wouldn't you agree?

Not unless you have the misguided notion that the majority of people are happy being poor.

And if you do, why haven't you quit your job and signed up for welfare?

[Deleted]

...wouldn't you agree?

Not unless you have the misguided notion that the majority of people are happy being poor.

And if you do, why haven't you quit your job and signed up for welfare?

I think the big difference is that the lefts feel that everyone deserves it & the right feels that everyone that earns it deserves it. The left wants a social cocoon created for those that need it even if they need it because they don't want to work. The right wants most of that group (those that can work but don't) to either become workers or starve. To me the simple fact is that we either become total socialist where our system of government converts for the masses or we stay with our present form of government. The socialist form of government was invented by well meaning individuals.

It just doesn't work because of the nature of human beings & will always break down in the end. The good news is that once we go to that system all of the other rules that they have to control society will have to come with it. So the people shouting for change now will be lined up against a wall & shot when they shout for change later. In that way both the left & right are kind of wanting the same thing. Individuals we get what they deserve.

Or we could go to the European system where both businesses & people are taxed to death. We are on the verge of that now but may not stop there.

[privateinvestor]

wouldn't you agree?

Yes but ..some here on the left need to work harder at the pursuit of happiness..

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."
www.livescience.com/7486-conservatives-happier-liberals.html



www.livesciences.com

[Deleted]

Not unless you have the misguided notion that the majority of people are happy being poor.

Shirina the word poor is thrown around a lot. One can be poor in our society (in a percentage relationship with the overall wealth of people) & yet make a good living & live a pretty happy life. I would qualify as "poor" probably by todays standards & certainly by the standards when I started my working life. One could certainly make an argument as to how someone was considered poor that has all the toys of modern society & yet they don't make enough to not be considered even middle class.

My question for you Shirina is how do you define "poor" in this country? It could be a dollar amount, only having 1 flat screen TV, driving a cheap used car or even not being able to afford a car. Is that poor or is it something else?

Oh & I might be considered "poor" by a lot of people on these boards because of our income. Yet I am able to buy what I want & I think that I live pretty well. When I was younger I was certainly "poor" by anyone's standards (I qualified for just about every government program out there) & yet I still lived pretty well. Then as now I was happy.

[Deleted]

Not unless you have the misguided notion that the majority of people are happy being poor.

It's statements like this that really highlight people's ignorance of the world surrounding them. If anybody feels that the majority of Americans are "poor" I would urge them to do a bit of travelling outside the country.

Rachets the term "poor" has certainly changed over the years. The poor of today would probably be equal to someone solidly middle class of someone 50 to 100 years ago. (Poor in relation to those around them). My guess would be that 75 to 80 percent of our poor now wouldn't be looked upon as poor in most countries & in most times in history. Yes, we still have those people that do put their kids to bed hungry but there could be many reasons for that. Those reasons should be addressed but I don't know that it's the government or even societies job to do that. To assume that just giving those people money & that will fix the problem is to be incredibly naive. To assume that just giving those people money long term will fix the problem is much more than naive, it's just plain stupid.

[Deleted]

Hey... if you think its the ticket to happiness... go join them... its all i can say...

[Shirina]

The left wants a social cocoon created for those that need it even if they need it because they don't want to work.

As opposed to the right, which believes everyone on government assistance is nothing but a leech and a useless eater?

I mean, a goodly number of posts on this board are just rants and hatred of those in need. Of all the people in the world to dislike, it demonstrates a certain degree of petty indignation.

To me the simple fact is that we either become total socialist where our system of government converts for the masses or we stay with our present form of government.

False dilemma fallacy.

Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

And this, by you, is a good thing?

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners

If all the whining and moaning around here about liberals is any indication, I call BS.

My question for you Shirina is how do you define "poor" in this country?

I really don't want to get into all of this relativism. I'm sure that a modern poor person is still richer than someone who lived in the 1200's, and I'm sure an American poor person is richer than an Indian poor person. None of that is relevant to me, but to give an idea, being poor is struggling financially just to pay for the basics of life in modern American society.

It's statements like this that really highlight people's ignorance of the world surrounding them.

It's statements like this that cause me to question reading comprehension skills. I never said the majority of Americans ARE poor, I was asking if the majority of Americans would be happier IF they were poor.

If anybody feels that the majority of Americans are "poor" I would urge them to do a bit of travelling outside the country.

This is a red herring argument since we're talking about Americans in America.

[Deleted]

>>> They are not pursuing happiness. They are demanding it. <<<


Guess i did...

[Shirina]

I was thinking the same thing, oped.

What no one was talking about was the definition of poor as compared to other countries or periods of history.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 3, 2011 8:51:54 GMT -5 Shirina said:

I was thinking the same thing, oped.

What no one was talking about was the definition of poor as compared to other countries or periods of history.

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities


So Conservatives rationalize while Liberals moan about economic inequalities which accounts for so many Liberals being such unhappy campers even on the 4th of July weekend.. Maybe Liberals should attend a Republican 4th of July Parade tomorrow that might just cheer them up.....but on second thought I know of nothing that will cheer up some Liberals judging by some of their comments posted here recently..i.e and not meant to pick on Ms Shirina but one has to wonder about the anger and frustration lately as portrayed in her somewhat ambiguous and snide remark:

Jul 3, 2011 3:38:00 GMT -5 Shirina said:

...wouldn't you agree?

Not unless you have the misguided notion that the majority of people are happy being poor.

And if you do, why haven't you quit your job and signed up for welfare?

Is this what is called "tough love"..

Btw I am off to the 08:30 AM Catholic Mass at Saint Athanasius Church with friends and family....C'ya and enjoy your day

P.I. ( Intelligent Conservative Male Club)

[Deleted]

lol.... you are a funny camper P.I. ....

so... rationalization is the way to go.... noted...

[shelby]

I wonder if all those hating on poor people are just romanticizing the ideal society...of course it would be great if all could do for themselves to stay fed clothed and have some shelter. If it came down to it in the real world and all social services and safety nets were removed the reality of the situation we then faced showed itself to consevatives would they still feel the same way. I mean if you are true Christians are you OK with that much suffering when you advocated strongest for it. Beside back when that was written the world was very different all you needed to be self sufficient was a plot of land and back labor even the poorest people had access too. How many people can attain that today? society has changed from being easy to be truly self reliant to dependent on big business and crappy mcjobs....which by the way are in short supply.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 3, 2011 3:38:00 GMT -5 Shirina said:

...wouldn't you agree?

Not unless you have the misguided notion that the majority of people are happy being poor.

And if you do, why haven't you quit your job and signed up for welfare?

...and I do find reply #1 to be snarky, at best... way to color the discussion and hijack the thread!


...now, for those posters who care to discuss whether this author has made a good point or not, here we go...

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 3, 2011 11:53:38 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

BTDT - I think this is a great line (or quote). If you really delve into it, it's a pretty powerful statement. I'd like to take it another step further, and say that quite a bit of what or government has gotten embroiled in since then is also an unalienable right as well. A great example would be fire-arm ownership - my opinion is that it's not the governments right to give or take away...it's something they need to stay out of comepletely.

...agreed... and, in that vein, wouldn't it likewise make one consider the "cost" of our govt. providing food and shelter?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 3, 2011 0:44:03 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Forgetting Founders' tough love

The second sentence of the Declaration of Inde pendence contains the most beautiful song of human liberation ever composed. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those words were revolutionary when they were adopted in Congress on July 4, 1776, and 235 years later, they remain the purest expression of universal yearning known to man.

Yet that glorious ode to freedom contains a little-noticed limit, one that carries a special meaning for our fractured nation today. The Founders, we can say safely, would have zero tolerance for the soul-sapping entitlement culture of modern America.

Read more: www.nypost.com/p/news/local/forgetting_founders_tough_love_wOLf1lt9EE7IV3WfYkqWIM#ixzz1R1BFxnuq



>>> They are not pursuing happiness. They are demanding it. <<<


...wouldn't you agree?

That's because there's nothing American about the soul-sapping entitlement culture. I guess that's why the Democrats seem to find so little to celebrate on Independence Day, and why Democrat Polticians derive no benefit from Fourth of July celebrations, parades, and picnics. Those seem to be the exclusive domain of the right.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 3, 2011 11:44:34 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 3, 2011 3:38:00 GMT -5 Shirina said:

Not unless you have the misguided notion that the majority of people are happy being poor.

And if you do, why haven't you quit your job and signed up for welfare?

...and I do find reply #1 to be snarky, at best... way to color the discussion and hijack the thread!


...now, for those posters who care to discuss whether this author has made a good point or not, here we go...

Ok I will not call that reply "snarky"...how about facetious or ambiguous?? Or God forbid that is not an example of "baiting" is it?? I have been told several times to avoid being "baited" by our resident Master Baiter's....but was told their names cannot be revealed to me to make it more challenging...heck of a game here these days..

And don't ask me what the hell am I talking about because I don't have a clue who all the Master Baiters are but have my suspicions

[shelby]

"That's because there's nothing American about the soul-sapping entitlement culture. I guess that's why the Democrats seem to find so little to celebrate on Independence Day, and why Democrat Polticians derive no benefit from Fourth of July celebrations, parades, and picnics. Those seem to be the exclusive domain of the right."

So you would have no problem telling my 7 yo old son he cannot join his fellow scouters in the 4th of July parade tomorrow? He is not republican but really looking forward to it.

[safeharbor37]

Our current economic imbroglio is the effect of unearned wealth and illustrates the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Wealth does not result in happiness, but it does makes unhappiness more bearable.
As a rule, unearned wealth merely creates a hunger for more unearned wealth since it provides no satisfaction. The choice is between unequally distributed wealth or equally distributed poverty among the populace [government employees of course are excepted].

So you would have no problem telling my 7 yo old son he cannot join his fellow scouters in the 4th of July parade tomorrow? He is not republican but really looking forward to it.

No one wants to deny your 7 year old son anything. He is free to enjoy the celebration ~ or he can snivel and whine about all the injustices created by those "old white dead people." It's up to him to enjoy, it's not up to us.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2011 0:44:03 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Forgetting Founders' tough love

The second sentence of the Declaration of Inde pendence contains the most beautiful song of human liberation ever composed. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those words were revolutionary when they were adopted in Congress on July 4, 1776, and 235 years later, they remain the purest expression of universal yearning known to man.

Yet that glorious ode to freedom contains a little-noticed limit, one that carries a special meaning for our fractured nation today. The Founders, we can say safely, would have zero tolerance for the soul-sapping entitlement culture of modern America.

Read more: www.nypost.com/p/news/local/forgetting_founders_tough_love_wOLf1lt9EE7IV3WfYkqWIM#ixzz1R1BFxnuq



>>> They are not pursuing happiness. They are demanding it. <<<


...wouldn't you agree?

actually, there is a great irony in this. since Reagan, politicians have appealed to the happiness of the citizenry, rather than to the norms of self sacrifice and deferred gratification that governed for 200 years prior.

the collective achievement of 7 generations has thus been undermined by selfishness and greed. and because of that, the public can no longer be sold on the grand vision. they are too busy navel staring.

it is a shame. and i agree, the Founders would be horrified by it.

[formerexpat]

And if you do, why haven't you quit your job and signed up for welfare?

Can you make sure I get a place like this? www.wmal.com/Article.asp?id=2225336

www.630wmal.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=68021&photoID=4789003

Some people don't have the lazy gene to allow themselves to live off of others without guilt. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in line waiting to take advantage of these programs. And the more you penalize the fruits of ones labors, the more people there will be that are willing to live off of the government dole. We're already at 50% that barely pay federal taxes.

since Reagan, politicians have appealed to the happiness of the citizenry

Might want to back that up a few Presidents. I don't think the "Great Society" [or even it's mentor, the New Frontier] was about deferred gratification and self sacrifice.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 3, 2011 22:19:37 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

And if you do, why haven't you quit your job and signed up for welfare?

Can you make sure I get a place like this? www.wmal.com/Article.asp?id=2225336

www.630wmal.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=68021&photoID=4789003

Some people don't have the lazy gene to allow themselves to live off of others without guilt. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in line waiting to take advantage of these programs. And the more you penalize the fruits of ones labors, the more people there will be that are willing to live off of the government dole. We're already at 50% that barely pay federal taxes.

since Reagan, politicians have appealed to the happiness of the citizenry

Might want to back that up a few Presidents. I don't think the "Great Society" [or even it's mentor, the New Frontier] was about deferred gratification and self sacrifice.

FDR appealed to sacrifice, even though he was arguably the most socialist president we have ever had (and likely ever will). that is the ONLY reason that those programs went through, is because people were basically rioting in the streets.

don't know much about LBJ, but i will certainly take your word for it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 4, 2011 1:16:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 3, 2011 22:19:37 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Can you make sure I get a place like this? www.wmal.com/Article.asp?id=2225336

www.630wmal.com/photoWallPhoto.asp?wallID=68021&photoID=4789003

Some people don't have the lazy gene to allow themselves to live off of others without guilt. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in line waiting to take advantage of these programs. And the more you penalize the fruits of ones labors, the more people there will be that are willing to live off of the government dole. We're already at 50% that barely pay federal taxes.



Might want to back that up a few Presidents. I don't think the "Great Society" [or even it's mentor, the New Frontier] was about deferred gratification and self sacrifice.

FDR appealed to sacrifice, even though he was arguably the most socialist president we have ever had (and likely ever will). that is the ONLY reason that those programs went through, is because people were basically rioting in the streets.

don't know much about LBJ, but i will certainly take your word for it.

FDR appealed to sacrifice for the state and then promised the state would take care of people. This is a common statist ploy.

[formerexpat]

FDR appealed to sacrifice, even though he was arguably the most socialist president we have ever had (and likely ever will). that is the ONLY reason that those programs went through, is because people were basically rioting in the streets.

Surely, the answer in Greece is even more failed social programs, then.

[privateinvestor]

Forgetting Founders' tough love


Excuse me again Ma'am but aren't you just once again confusing "Tough Love" with "Unrequited Love".. If you really think this through with more care and diligence...just saying..

[Apple]

Jul 3, 2011 8:39:22 GMT -5 oped said:

Hey... if you think its the ticket to happiness... go join them... its all i can say...

Did I miss something? I think the people you're saying this to are advocating WORK and stuff to EARN and pursue happiness that way, but I could be wrong.

I knew kids growing up who's parents would buy them a car. They'd go joy riding and wreck it. So parents bought car number two. They'd wreck it. Parents finally said "you want it, you earn it". So the kid gets a job, buys a crappy little $400 car (the first cars were $4k-$8k cars). They'd wash the car every weekend, wouldn't let people eat in it, get the oil changed regularly, not drive like a jackass. The parents were amazed--why did the kids take so much better care of this piece of junk when they had been given, and trashed, something much better? Simple answer. The kids had to earn it. They suddenly understood what it took to even get the minimum, but they did, and because they did it themselves they were going to do everything they could to keep it and protect it. Yeah, this was more than one kid, more than one family.

I have no issue HELPING those who truly need it, and if they really have it tough they'll be happy for the help, knowing it's worse without it. But the others, who can but don't want to work, who don't put any effort into themselves, tough love may be the only way to get through to them, they'll never be happy, even being coddled, otherwise.

[vonnie6200]

Jul 4, 2011 10:26:22 GMT -5 Apple said:

Jul 3, 2011 8:39:22 GMT -5 oped said:

Hey... if you think its the ticket to happiness... go join them... its all i can say...

Did I miss something? I think the people you're saying this to are advocating WORK and stuff to EARN and pursue happiness that way, but I could be wrong.

I knew kids growing up who's parents would buy them a car. They'd go joy riding and wreck it. So parents bought car number two. They'd wreck it. Parents finally said "you want it, you earn it". So the kid gets a job, buys a crappy little $400 car (the first cars were $4k-$8k cars). They'd wash the car every weekend, wouldn't let people eat in it, get the oil changed regularly, not drive like a jackass. The parents were amazed--why did the kids take so much better care of this piece of junk when they had been given, and trashed, something much better? Simple answer. The kids had to earn it. They suddenly understood what it took to even get the minimum, but they did, and because they did it themselves they were going to do everything they could to keep it and protect it. Yeah, this was more than one kid, more than one family.

I have no issue HELPING those who truly need it, and if they really have it tough they'll be happy for the help, knowing it's worse without it. But the others, who can but don't want to work, who don't put any effort into themselves, tough love may be the only way to get through to them, they'll never be happy, even being coddled, otherwise.

Wow K for you! I love your thinking!

[Apple]

Aw, , thanks.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 4, 2011 10:26:22 GMT -5 Apple said:

Jul 3, 2011 8:39:22 GMT -5 oped said:

Hey... if you think its the ticket to happiness... go join them... its all i can say...

Did I miss something? I think the people you're saying this to are advocating WORK and stuff to EARN and pursue happiness that way, but I could be wrong.

I knew kids growing up who's parents would buy them a car. They'd go joy riding and wreck it. So parents bought car number two. They'd wreck it. Parents finally said "you want it, you earn it". So the kid gets a job, buys a crappy little $400 car (the first cars were $4k-$8k cars). They'd wash the car every weekend, wouldn't let people eat in it, get the oil changed regularly, not drive like a jackass. The parents were amazed--why did the kids take so much better care of this piece of junk when they had been given, and trashed, something much better? Simple answer. The kids had to earn it. They suddenly understood what it took to even get the minimum, but they did, and because they did it themselves they were going to do everything they could to keep it and protect it. Yeah, this was more than one kid, more than one family.

I have no issue HELPING those who truly need it, and if they really have it tough they'll be happy for the help, knowing it's worse without it. But the others, who can but don't want to work, who don't put any effort into themselves, tough love may be the only way to get through to them, they'll never be happy, even being coddled, otherwise.

there are limitations to how much welfare you can draw. that law has been around since Clinton.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 4, 2011 10:43:38 GMT -5 Apple said:

Aw, , thanks.

Would you by chance be interested in joining our Pack?? The Pack are the intelligent, conservative males who you may have heard about ??
And if you served in the military you go to the head of the waiting list of applicants.
P.I. ( Pack Recruiter)