REDISCOVERING AN ELECTORAL WINNER …
|| By FITSNEWS || It’s no secret America isn’t what it used to be … and surging dependency is a big reason why.
Our government has incentivized joblessness (and penalized job creation) to the point it makes little sense being productive … resulting in a toxic level of debt and record joblessness. And the worst part? The cycle perpetuates itself, with politicians of both parties believing the public wants to be spoon fed this welfare statism.
Well guess what … the public doesn’t. Sure, the mainstream media fuels the myth (and establishment “Republicans” dutifully go along for the ride), but there’s new polling data which strongly suggest politicians of both parties should rethink their “dependency defaults.”
We stumbled upon the data on a visit to the Market Research Foundation (MRF) – which has all sorts of interesting info on the American electorate.
“Supporting policies which encourage self-reliance (and/ or incorporating themes which stress self-reliance into one’s political messaging) is a great way for campaigns to gain ground up and down the political spectrum,” the website noted.
Wait … what? Politicians can get elected by promoting hard work and individual responsibility? Not dependence on government?
Yes …
According to data prepared by Norman Analytics and Research (and presented by MRF), self-reliance is a political winner across party lines – with a majority of Americans choosing the self-reliant option on four different polling questions. In fact 30 percent of Americans chose self-reliance on all four questions – compared to only 15 percent who chose the dependency option each time.
We may have been educated in a South Carolina government-run school, but last time we checked that’s a 2-to-1 spread …
Among the questions asked? Whether respondents have “limitless potential” or are bound by their circumstances and whether “society is jointly responsible for everyone” or “I am responsible for myself and my family.”
Of interest? While “Republican” respondents were far more supportive of self-reliance than Democrats (by a 62-38 percent margin), “a majority of all Democrats support certain philosophies of independence such as lowering individual taxes and excessive government control and waste.”
In other words candidates who promote fiscally conservative policies on taxes and spending could find themselves picking up a broad swath of Democratic support …
Go figure, right?
Self-reliance is a critical driver of American exceptionalism … or at least it was back in the day when America was self-reliant. Sadly, we’ve gone from “ask not what your country can do for you” (a phrase uttered by a Democratic president who cut income taxes) to decades of “don’t work/ worry … someone else is paying for all this.”
Just ask one of those Senators comprising the “Republican” majority in Washington, D.C. … he’ll tell you.
54 comments
Our government has incentivized joblessness (and penalized job creation) to the point it makes little sense being productive
“Then just quit your day job and go on welfare.”
Seriously, if dependency on gubmint is so glamorous, what’s stopping the people who bitch about food stamps and Medicaid?
Well stated. I see people clamoring to live in poverty and worry about their existence every single day. Such a stress free existence. Existence, not living. Damned rubes.
“Look ma! I can gouge out my eyes, and the liberals are powerless to stop me!”
It ain’t glamorous by other peoples’ standards but it might be more enticing than taking personal responsibility, working to keep your family intact, staying in school and getting an education so you’ll be employable, not having kids before you can support yourself, …. This cuts across ALL race, creeds, and any other strata.
I’m not talking about those who utilize safety-net benefits as a temporary hand up to overcome setbacks, or the truly disabled and vulnerable.
Similarly, corporate welfare sucks too.
The ideal is to provide ENOUGH of a safety net, but not so much that it creates unwarranted dependency.
The problem is the extremists on BOTH sides see it as an all or nothing proposition, instead of just realizing a reasonably middle position is the best solution for everyone.
Exactly.
Exactly?!?!
Don’t fall for his crap.
Define “reasonable” and you have your solution…good luck with that because the definition of something you can never get people to agree on.
Vic’s statements are nothing more than empty, feel good platitudes with no meaning, nor any chance of success.
Define “reasonable” and you have your solution…good luck with that because the definition of something you can never get people to agree on.
it’s called ‘governing’. The majority rules. Just because you don’t agree with the majority doesn’t mean the system doesn’t work as it was intended.
Tea nuts don’t understand that the founding fathers meant for compromises to be forged and that the laws would change over time, as civilization progresses. It won’t ever be perfect, because humans are not perfect. That is no reason to give up even trying.
“it’s called ‘governing’. The majority rules. ”
Yes, since you referenced the Fondling Fathers(HT to Euwe), they also referred to it as “Tyranny of the majority”.
Which is why they wanted a republic hybrid…
“as civilization progresses.”
Well, let’s see what compromise has rendered us in terms of “civilization”:
1. Decreasing SAT score standards
2. Unpayable debt
3. Multiple undeclared wars
4. Gov’t run by Wall st.
Hmmm…I’m sure I’ve missed some things, but certainly, carry on with “trying”…the compromise seems to be going smashingly(literally).
Tell us something we don’t all already know.
You see Smirks, its all in the wording. You are either self sufficient or dependent. There is nothing else. Getting together and agreeing we need a system to provide income and health care for people who are too old or too sick to work is dependence.
The truth is that agreeing as a nation that we all benefit from having a system of support and health care for our collective old age and infirmity so that we can afford to take risks in life and educate our children without the fear of being forced to live in poverty for our efforts is not dependence. It is planning. It is not weakness it is strenght. It empowers everyone to take chances. It enable generations to look forward and educate their children rather than saving to pay for the care of their parents or being forced into poverty by forces beyond their control.
The teanuts, forget the concept of shared sacrifice. They want us to be a nation of islands, of people who care only about themselves. They have no concept of unity. No concept of a shared vision of a better world. “The modern conservative is constantly looking for that “superior moral justification” for their selfishness. If I am rich I deserve it no matter how I got it, and if you are poor you deserve it no matter what happened.
“”The modern conservative is constantly looking for that “superior moral justification” for their selfishness. ”
That’s true in most cases.
However the flip side is that modern liberals are looking for superior moral justification to combat “thou shall not steal”. “We”, in reference to everyone that requires money is the closest they can come…feigning unanimous support.
Unfortunately, there’s no easy answer for either liberals or conservatives.
I’ve never understood why is it stealing only when the state does something conservatives do not want it to do?
You’d have to ask a conservative that question, I have no idea.
The answer is probably similar to the answer you’d get when you ask a liberal why war is bad when it’s something liberals do not want to do.
I don’t think so. I am a moderate, so I guess I cannot speak for liberals or conservatives, but as I see it, when moderates and liberals don’t like the way government is spending money they argue that the government is misapplying tax dollars or spending too much. When the government does something a conservative does not want done, the government is stealing his money.
I am a conservative widget salesman, I sell widgets to the aerospace industry. I am sitting in my office researching potential customers on an internet developed by government. I find a potential customer in New York, who has just landed a big defense contract. I leave my office and drive on a government provided road to my house. I pack a bag, and drive my car over a government provided road to a government provided airport. I get on a plane and fly to another government provided airport, where I catch a cab and ride on a government provided road to my hotel. The next day I get up and take a government provided subway to the customers office. I sell them a million widgets. I get back on the government provided subway, and go back to my hotel. The next day i take the cab back over the government provided road to the government provided airport and fly back to another government provided airport. I pick up my car and ride over the government provided road to my house. The next day i drive over a government provided road to my office; where I get on my computer and use the government developed internet to place the customer order. The customer order is shipped by truck over a government provided intestate to a government provided airport, where it is then put on a plane and flown to another government provided airport. There is is picked up and driven over government provided roads to the customer. The customer then sends a check and it is deposited in a bank that is regulated by government to make sure it is safe. I am then paid a commission by check into my FDIC insured checking account.
Yet when I get my commission check, and see the tax withholding, the only thing I have to say is the government is stealing the money I earned and giving it to deadbeats.
“… They have no concept of unity. No concept of a shared vision of a better world. …”
Is this some kind of covert pitch in favor of an other Central Planning FARC-up? A “one for all and all for one” Marxist spew?
And that “better world”? Is that the one where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?
The individual’s own self interest is the driving force behind Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand … Please, oh, please tell us you have read something besides “progressive”/socialist economics?
Amazing.
The guy who believes that assembling a group with the same goals is the most efficient way to make money doesn’t believe in social and financial unity.
It’s almost like you think there should be a single guiding authority – you. :)
Voluntary vs. Involuntary
Somewhat important. Although, for the record, I’m not answering for him, just making a statement.
“The guy who believes that assembling a group with the same goals is the most efficient way to make money doesn’t believe in social and financial unity. …”
Really, now: The assembled group each member of which has their own individual goals, most of which coincide with the making of a profit from their efforts, and not giving it all away.
Financial Unity? … like a big bank? … Or like an allegorical oligarchy?
“I’ll pretend to work if you pretend to pay me”? … Not!
Social Unity? … like social “just us”?
A single guiding “authority”? I mentioned Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand for a good reason: THAT is the “guiding” authority, although one could easily argue that The Invisible Hand is not guiding anything at all and certainly not an “authority”.
Come on, now, eMax, we know you know better.
No, it’s one where people are secure enough to enjoy, appreciate, and treasure the freedom that that provides them. And no, it’s not that it is just a case of not wanting it enough or being lazy etc. That would assume the playing field has been level the last 100 years. It’s a real great day in SC when you systematically exclude people from opportunity for generations and then blame them for their failure to achieve, call them lazy, dependent, and the say that they are the source of the problem with the U.S. economy. This is becoming more and more like McCarthy 2.0. Sir, have you no shame?
I’m not blaming any citizens of SC for anything except being clueless about your corrupt g’ment(s). I Am Blaming Those Taxsucking Central Planning Screw-ups in your state capital for failure to reduce taxes on the poor.
The thing is, most of the “teanuts” are not rich. Not even close. Some of them live in trailers, or rent rooms in shabby apartment buildings. But they have the illusion of superiority, just because they believe they are in no way subsidized by any agency, entity, or enterprise, other than their own. Go to the teafreak convention in Myrtle Beach and check the people out. You will not see the “1%ers.” You will not see the moneyed elite. Oh, addressing the assembled rabble will be plenty of that “class.” But they will not be the assembled attendees.
It’s a dog and pony show.
“Some of them live in trailers, or rent rooms in shabby apartment buildings.”
That’s because most of those types want type of freedom on their own terms, rather than having what little they have taken via taxes in the name of their own good.
Many people don’t mind being poor if they feel they are inherently more free. (which I know is subjective in definition)
So, most people are OK with basic insecurity in most of the major spheres of life functioning but they can explain it away because of a concept being free? Really? REALLY? Sounds like Newt Gingrich’s parents in their TV interview back during his heyday when they said from their shithole double-wide (while he had the comforts of his position as Speaker of the House) “It’s OK, we have our coffee and our cigarettes”.
“So, most people are OK with basic insecurity in most of the major
spheres of life functioning but they can explain it away because of a
concept being free?”
So, first, did I say “most people” or “most of those types”?
Second, there is a difference between being “poor” and “basic insecurity”.
They also had Social Security and Medicare. Take that away and see if they are “OK.” with their freedom.
BS. They are in the fucking weeds, economically, just like everybody else. Just too proud to admit it. Fuck those people. When they were on a more sound, reasonable basis with true libertarian ideals and not all that Christian right bullshit, neocon jingoistic bombast, and massive backing from crony capitalists who think of them only as cannon fodder or puppets, I had respect for them. No more. They are dolts.
Please, oh, please tell us you have read something besides “progressive”/socialist economic propaganda?
“Seriously, if dependency on gubmint is so glamorous, what’s stopping the people who bitch about food stamps and Medicaid?”
Higher standards?
The BOTH parties claim is IGNORANT…and shows how STUPID and partisan you are…
The GOP has tried to forward many bills that would begin to mend the miserable Obama-conomy and bring back the workforce. The Senate, under Reid, will not hear them…and Obama would VETO them, if they made it that far…
PS: Has FITS quit…this writing does not seem like his. I cannot remember when I’ve seen something that has his identifying characteristics on it…(not that I read much of it)…
Any chance FITS has has to lay low because he’s being sued for libel??…or maybe he sold out to the same political whores that he so often rails against…and claims he is not one of….
It was vetoed due to Republican earmarks on issues such as abortion and healthcare added to their bills, then they go screaming that Democrats are holding back the economy. Go figure…
You always have have an excuse for F*#king up. You Democrats don’t give a S#!t if people are starving…just make sure you keep killing babies…F*#k everything else…That’s PURE EVIL….
PS: The Keystone Pipeline had NOTHING to do w/ your litmus test on abortion…
Don’t give a shit about children starving? I seem to recall Republicans wanting to cut food stamps for poor families. Also, the Pipeline is a farce for job creation fed to you by Koch mindset crony capitalists.
Us small “l” libertarians are the ones who want to cut food stamps “for the poor”. I believe that the rino republicrats would just as soon the food stamp program continued without change …
And that XL pipe? Well, at the very least our g’ment should stay outta the way and let those foolish chinooks throw their taxpayers’ money at it. … I mean, think about it! Its supposed to be for crude oil when the US customers and US oil companies could better use a pipeline network for natural gas distribution more than for crude, and now with the world price of crude in the toitee, the Canadians will be losing on every barrel piped.
So you answer the charge of excuses…with more excuses…LMAO…Typical liberal…
GT you missed the ‘Democrat/Liberal’ supporting family reunion on TWITTER Sunday afternoon when fellow libs FITS,Barakki Sellers and others predicted Oregon to win by double digits last night against Ohio State.
Just like on November 4th, not a CLUE!!! LMAO!!!
LMAO…I use Twitter to support some of my business interests…but I don’t spend much time on there…
Twitter is FITS’ John Kerry outlet…he can go on Twitter and be FOR Oregon, then come on FITS and be AGAINST them…He does that w/ Cam Newton…
At any rate: Congrats to the Buckeyes..they were just the best team in college football, and proved it. And Urban Meyer is a DANG good coach…
A tactic used by both parties, of course. Whine me another one.
The BOTH parties claim is IGNORANT…and shows how STUPID and partisan you are…
Um. No. Actually, it shows how ignorant, stupid and partisan you are to constantly hold the GOP blameless on every count, while prattling on incessantly about the horrible evil Dems. Peas in a fucking pod, when all is said and done. You are simply too blind to see it.
“… Our government has incentivized joblessness (and penalized job creation) to the point it makes little sense being productive …”
Yes. I am currently working on a project that will create several thousand high tech jobs … in Korea and Japan. The taxes there fit the spread sheets nicely and the g’,emts over there are willing and able to help. (These are totally green jobs, BTW, improvements of more efficient power transmission and generation.)
The governments helping is dependence. Why are you asking for gubment help?
Actually, not asking them, Korea or Japan, to do anything other than treat our projects as if we were out-of-country investors … No special breaks at all, no subsidies, no kickbacks … (In Texas and Illinois, where some of the research is being done, we have already been tag-teamed by agents of some national poli-wogs to kickback to them and to let them take some credit.)
depends on what he means by “help”. For example, if they gov’t reducing taxes on you, are they “helping” you or just leaving you alone?
Yea, and it doesn’t hurt, that companies there don’t have to worry about health care for their employees, and employees don’t have to worry about paying for health insurance. They have universal health care.
“employees don’t have to worry about paying for health insurance”
Oh, that’d pay, it’s just not as obvious as to how. When gov’t pays for medical care…someone is paying…and it’s usually not the big businesses that payoff pols to represent them.
*they’d pay
but where this is done, they spend half as much of their GDP on health care, and yet everyone is covered.
“they spend half as much of their GDP on health care”
This is an arbitrary statement. There are always caveats. Here some:
How does any given gov’t calculate GDP?
What actuarial tables are they using?
What is the general health of the population?
How much is “covered” and who decides when it’s not? (Euthanasia for example)
etc., et al….I could go on forever, but you get the point.
Actually the potential employees in Japan will get workmen’s compensation for any “on-the-job” related medical problems, but, yes, the potential employees will all have to arrange for their own life and health insurance. … This involves existing Japanese and Korean companies doing the manufacturing and some engineering, so the project will not be doing much hiring directly.
Enabler! I’m a recovering poliholic!
All you need to know is that voters will pay you to tell them what they think.
In other words candidates who promote fiscally conservative policies on taxes and spending could find themselves picking up a broad swath of Democratic support …
Go figure, right?
This is only surprising to those who don’t know many Democrats personally, and who never really communicate with any, other than spouting their right-wing FOXNews-fed party line to counter the left-wing MSNBC-fed party line. Dueling bullshit, in other words, not true dialogue. It may also surprise those who pay attention only to what the politicians say, of course. And that’s the problem. Politicians and the big-moneyed special interests that feed them.
In reality, the Kennedy Democrats and the heirs to their way of thinking have not disappeared from the earth. Rather, we’ve become disaffected and disgusted by a party that has lurched too far to the left into near-total collectivism. Some of us have become, by default, Republicans — finding ample reasons to be disaffected and disgusted with our new adapted party as well.
God, I hate politics.
Your usual babble sounds good in theory, but doesn’t work in reality.Just hope your good luck doesn’t run out:
“All cats are libertarians.
Completely dependent upon others, yet entirely convinced of their independence.”
Social Security disability makes people ill.
Soon after SSDI announces that a health condition is eligible for benefits the US suddenly has the highest rates in the world. Back injury and depression are common examples.
The US has the highest rates of illnesses that require subjective diagnosis. Our soldiers have higher rates of PTSD than other nations combat troops.
A little trick about polling…especially in what’s known s “advocacy research” where you start with your conclusion and then get data to support (which this is). You can ask questions about ideas, concepts, values, etc and get lots of people from ll sides to agree with you because you present the question in such a way that it has a social desirability bias, e.g. “do you think we should the elderly go without medicine so they can have adequate food to eat”. But, when you ask about actions, specific strategies, or specific programs you are likely to get very different answers. Another example, “how much domestic violence should be accepted within a marriage/relationship?” Typical answer is “none” but when put in the contexts of situations, the answer becomes “it depends” When woman walks in on husband doing the deed with best friend in her bed, should we convict her for the act of violence that follows? Very different answers. BTW, thanks for the fluff poll.