RSS Feed

a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life

 


You are here







Random Quote

The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in shock-proof shit-detector.
-- Ernest Hemingway


 

Blog - Blog Archive by Month - Blog Archive by Tag - Search Blog and Comments

<-- Go to Previous Page

Question

 

Why is it that the Takers celebrate the Unproductive, and the Givers celebrate the Productive?

(If definitions are necessary, Takers are those who would confiscate private property from others. Givers are those who urge generosity without mandate. The Unproductive are those who outspend their income or cannot raise enough income to support themselves. The Productive live within the confines of their income by either growing their income or by reducing their expenses.)

It would seem to me that the Takers would want to foster an environment where there is an abundance of the Productive.

 


by Brett Rogers, 11/4/2008 12:52:28 PM
Permalink


Comments

My friend (happy b'day by the way), I believe it comes down to two things. The Takers being envious and lacking in logic. They can't grasp the relationship, the dependency they have on the Productive. They only see the here and now. They see those who have achieved and are envious. The economy has slid down and the party in power is incorrectly getting all the blame. Doesn't matter that the Dems blocked oversight of Fannie/Freddie, doesn't matter that they haven't allowed any domestic expansion to meet our energy needs. Along comes Obama saying "We are the ones we've been waiting for." He'll solve all our problems, heal the world. People have bought it hook, line, and sinker. Our modern day snake oil salesman.

As much as Huckabee rubbed me the wrong way during the primaries, he doesn't even come close to Obama and his followers.

 

 

Posted by Pale Rider, 11/4/2008 4:28:43 PM


Thank you, PR.

But aren't these people still smart enough to add up money? Because it won't come from the Unproductive. So are you saying that they are just envious in the short term?

 

 

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 11/4/2008 5:50:24 PM


I really have a hard time using the word "smart" to describe Obama's followers. I think they look at what effects their immediate bottom line. Obama is making promises, saying government will take care of you. That's enough to satisfy them. Kinda the same mentality that caused the housing market collapse.

 

 

Posted by Pale Rider, 11/4/2008 7:23:19 PM


Now that I've spouted off my take, what is your read on the Takers? I can't really put myself in their shoes, I'm not wired to think that way. So my take is based on an educated guess at what appears to motivate them.

 

 

Posted by Pale Rider, 11/4/2008 7:49:28 PM


I honestly don't know, but let's look at the two sides that I can see in this.

I think Obama really believes in what he says. He believes in the "bottom up" economy, but what that shows is that he is university stupid - too long pent up in the ivory tower. Ever heard of StrengthsFinders? It's the idea that those things we're good at come naturally to us, therefore instead of focusing on our weaknesses to try and make them better, we should focus on maximizing our strengths. It's like trying to write a decent signature with your opposite hand. No matter how long you practice, it will never be as good and fluid as your dominant hand. So it is with those who are unproductive. They don't know how to invest their money or their time in a way that grows the money they have. At least not at nearly the rate as the productive. So, in effect, Obama, if elected, will spend the next four years trying to write the nation's economic signature with its non-dominant hand. And we can all ignore the fact that some are just naturally good at growing money, and the rest aren't as good. I'd much sooner see our economy in the hands of those who know how to grow it.

Which brings me to the second side of this: this isn't about growing money at all, but about growing power. That's Rush's argument - the Takers don't want it to succeed, but to fail, this capitalism of ours, so that we have to rely on them the more. And this is where I lose the argument. Because we vote and can boot these pompous power grabbers out of office and go back to something that actually makes money. Unless they change the laws. And with Dems dominating two branches of government, that's where I get nervous. And that's where we on the right have to get very good at influence and education very fast.

What say you?

 

 

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 11/4/2008 8:10:21 PM


LMAO! University stupid. I love it. Nails him perfectly.

I'd never heard of StrengthsFinders before. That is a good way to sum up how he'll be handling the economy. When he does, it will create Carter's 2nd term and if you toss in some international crisis, will make him a one term president.

Rush makes a great argument there. The problem is our ability to vote isn't enough. We need term limits on congress to limit their power. Now with a Dem majority, I fully expect them to try to push the fairness doctrine to further attempt to secure their power. Kind of odd that its the executive branch that has the term limits, while the legislative and judicial branches do not.

Experience is life's best teacher. The lessons learned by our Grandparents haven't quite filtered down to the me now, instant gratification generation. Class is back in session and its time for America to once again learn the hard way.

 

 

Posted by Pale Rider, 11/4/2008 10:49:05 PM



Add Your Comment:
Name (required):
Web Site:
Remember Me:   
Content: (4000 chars remaining)
To prevent spammers from commenting, please give a one-word answer to the following trivia question:

What do you call the multi-colored arc that sometimes occurs after it rains?