The New Slavery

Definition of Slavery (Merriam/Webster):

                1: Drudgery, Toil

                2: submission to a dominating influence

                3:            a: the state of a person who is a chattel (property) of another

                               b: the practice of slaveholding

I start with that definition to point out that slavery has nothing to do with race.  It is not exclusive to any one race or people.  It has existed since the beginning of time (i.e. the Biblical Hebrews) and is still practiced in parts of the world today.  So, if you are locked into a mindset that I, as a white male, do not have the right to talk about the concept of slavery, well, get over it.

If I gave my personal definition of slavery it would draw the picture of someone who is forced to work to provide for another, against their will.  Yes, because of where I’m from, the picture would be of some folks sitting on a porch watching others work in a field just to take from them the fruits of their labor.

I said in a much earlier post that I could already see that this election was going to come down to the “makers” versus the “takers”, and I was exactly right.  Never in my lifetime has there been such a demand by the takers in our society yelling at the makers for not providing more.  And never in my lifetime has the ranks of the takers been so large.

One party vilifies the makers, very loudly, stirring up class hatred to forcibly take more from the people who have earned it.  Funny thing is, the money never actually makes it to the takers, it just gets absorbed into the system, but the takers seem happy just because the makers don’t have it either.

The other party has to tread lightly in pointing out that government handouts and freebies are at an all time high and that the masses have reached the point of “voting themselves the treasury”, to the tune of over a Trillion dollars per year.  They have to be careful because the all powerful media will paint them as cruel and uncaring for making that point.  I’ve said in a previous post that it’s not charity if you’re forced to do it.  And, the difference in charity and a government handout is we get to exercise a little discernment in our charity where none is required when the government does it.

So, I’ve come to see that there is a new type of slavery in our country.  I see it all across the area that I work in that there are people sitting on their front porches forcing me to work harder to provide them with the fruits of my labor.

To me, that’s slavery.

Blue State Model Is Not Working

No time to pen my own, so I'll plagarize.

Unemployment Rate Dropped In Every State That Elected A Republican Gov. In 2010

Idiots and "Free" Health Care

The people that think this bill is great needs to read this:

1: The Indigent - People currently on Medicaid (for free) will lose services.  Part of Obamacare is to offer states more Medicaid money.  Problem is, by taking the money, States are then required to provide more services than that money covers... a net loss to the State.  Lets say a State could get $100M, but has to provide $150M in services.  It would be stupid for States to take that money.  So, each year the funding from the Feds will remain static, at this years level, buying less services each year.  The indigent will suffer.

2: The Un-Insured - The vast majority of the "un-insured" are that way by choice.  Don't fuss, it's a proven statistic.  They are young, single and in good health so they choose not to have insurance.  They no longer have that option.  They will either pay for insurance or pay the penalty to the IRS.  Thing is, the penalty is less than the insurance, so the majority of them will remain un-insured by choice.

3: Employees - If you have insurance through your employer, the Feds are going to judge your plan and if it doesn't meet their standard, they will fine your employer.  Thing is, to have a plan that meets the Fed standard will be more expensive to most employers than the fine, so guess what?  You lose your insurance.

4: Insurance Companies - Strangely enough, these people currently support this plan.  They look just a short distance into the future and see a rush of people to buy their services.  Long term, though, when the government Exchanges are set up, they will lose.  The Exchanges will offer Medicaid to the masses (under a different name) and because they are subsidized by taxes, will be cheaper than the insurance companies can offer.  When enough folks move to the Exchanges the insurance companies will close leaving the Exchange as your only option.  Folks that complain about what WalMart does to local businesses, same idea.  Drive the little guy out of business then when he's gone you can charge anything you want.

5: Tax Payers - To get this monstrosity approved, all kinds of shortcuts and assumptions were handed to the Congressional Budget Office and they calculated it to cost under a Trillion dollars.  Thing is, the CBO is only allowed to calculate what you hand them.  If they are presented with a scenario that flying monkeys are going to fly out of Pelosi's butt and drop million dollar bills into the treasury, that's what they have to calculate.  So, the rosie scenarios presented to them never actually materialize so they ALWAYS underestimate a bills cost.  Most recent estimate is now at $2T and climbing.  Double.  And that's still the estimate.  Just wait for the actual costs to start coming in.  You think Obama spending $5T in 3 years was bad?  Just wait.

This entire charade doesn't materialize until after the election in November.  So, they are counting on folks not understanding the future.  The unwashed masses that look around and say "Well, I don't see it negatively effecting me... today" are just the morons they are counting on to vote Obama back in.

God forbid we find out what he'll do in his second term when he has no hesitation or limitation on what his liberal socialist mind can come up with.

Try Paying 9.5% of Your Taxes

"Justice officials have given Issa’s committee 7,600 pages of Fast and Furious documents in response to his subpoena last year for information on the operation. But Issa said those documents represent a sliver of the 80,000-plus documents that officials have turned over to the inspector general, which is also investigating the gun operation."

Thus, the contempt charge.

A President can only invoke Executive Privilege to protect himself or White House Advisors.  By invoking it to withhold these documents is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

i.e., He knew before he said he did, and he knew more than he said he did, and these documents would prove it.

Remember, nobody died in Watergate.  This is much, much worse.

No resolution in ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal; Eric Holder contempt vote still scheduled for Wednesday

God Bless the British Press

More and more frequently it takes foreign press to produce objective articles about what is going on in our country.  This article is one of those.

"Fast and Furious", as a phrase, has been tossed around so much by our (in the tank for Obama) main stream press, that the general public is becoming immune to it, without even knowing what it really was.

This writer does a good job boiling it down to a paragraph and also providing some very good insight into how this debacle is similar to, and at the same time, very different from Watergate.

Good reading.

The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate

Obama's Parliament Plan

Ever paid attention to a government that uses the parliamentary system?  Like Britain or Israel?

They don't have just two parties, they have a plethora of parties that band together to "form" a majority party.  That's why when something major happens, those loosely bound groups splinter causing new elections to occur because no majority exists.

The thing about this form of government is that you have to keep each small group happy to keep them under the umbrella of a larger group to stay in power.

Now, through that prism, look at the strategy that Obama is using to try and get re-elected.

One of his close aides said last year that they have given up on the middle class.  I define the middle class as those with enough gumption to work and have enough intelligence to make a decent amount of money doing it.  That "intelligence" part is where Obama has lost them.  It's not hard to look at his out of control spending and his entitlement agenda and see that it is unsustainable.

I'm reminded of a Buckley quote - Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

So, if you write off the working middle class who does that leave you with?

The fringe.

Look at who Obama has made appeasements to recently: environmental nut jobs ( Keystone), homosexuals (marriage), Hispanics (amnesty)... each of these moves has angered "the middle", but he's lost them already.  So, he's making a coalition of the fringe.

Since Sally Mae and Freddie Mac are owned by the government anyway, I fully expect him to make a move to ease or forgive student debts and underwater mortgages, thus buying the votes of those groups as well.

He can, in no way, win the election with the votes of the working middle class, but if he offers enough branches to enough fringe groups, they CAN, by coalition, out vote us.  God forbid if that happens.

The Curse of Anonymity

Read a very interesting blog post recently.

Imagine if you would an Archie Bunker type fellow, a dad, talking to his son about what he'd just read on the Internet. (I'd post a link to it but it was rather profane.)

Seems the son is a writer and the dad read an anonymous comment questioning his sons talent.  The comment used some rather colorful metaphors.

It bothered the dad, but not the son.  Son says "no big deal, Dad, it's just the Internet".

Well, dad goes off on a tare about how he's glad that he'll be dead and gone before one of those little jack wagons that would post comments without fear of repercussions becomes President someday.  He rants at length about how words shouldn't come without consequences, i.e., in "his day" you couldn't say just anything you wanted because it was likely to get you a boot up your... well, butt.

Been thinking about that little.

He's right.  The world today is absolutely chocked full of folks who speak (and type) without thinking or speak to harm and then suffer no real consequences for it, because it's anonymous.  Thus, there is no reason to hesitate before doing so again. And, again.

My wife used to read the online forums in the local paper.  She even got me to read them for a VERY short period of time.  It became painfully obvious that the same folks either agreed with or flamed out every single post.  It was just a circular exercise in futility.  Not one of those folks would every say those things face to face for fear of the fore mentioned boot.

I'm all for free speech.  But the anonymity that the Internet provides is a curse.

Polls Show...

Reading all over the Main Stream Media today how "polls show" that the country is evenly divided on the issue of same sex marriage.

Funny.

It's been on the ballot in over thirty states and has failed in every single one of them.

So much for the polls.

At Least His Teleprompter is Transparent

Thought this was a very good article explaining how the Obama campaign once again refuses to verify the identities of people donating by credit card.  Examples are given of donations from the famous dead and from elderly people who didn't give the $170K they were credited for giving.

Don't guess anybody realized when Obama talks about transparency he's only referring to his teleprompter.

Chicago Politics: Thuggery, Not Civility

If I Were the Devil (1964)

If I Were the Devil

If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.

I'd have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree.

So I should set about however necessary, to take over the United States.

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whispers to you as I whispered to Eve, "Do as you please."

To the young I would whisper "The Bible is a myth." I would convince them that "man created God," instead of the other way around. I would confide that "what is bad is good and what is good is square."

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be "extreme" in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.

And the old I would teach to pray - to say after me - "Our father which are in Washington."

Then I'd get organized.

I'd educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.

I'd threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa.

I'd infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.

I'd peddle narcotics to whom I could, I'd sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction, I'd tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.

I'd designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I'd get preachers to say, "She's right."

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.
Thus I would evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, then from the Houses of Congress.

Then in his own churches I'd substitute psychology for religion and deify science.

If I were Satan I'd make the symbol of Easter an egg.

And the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work.

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.

If I were Satan I'd just keep doing what I'm doing and the whole world go to hell as sure as the Devil.

- Paul Harvey 1964, verified by Snopes

If I Wanted America To Fail

This is the most powerful video I've seen in a while.

Under 5 minutes.  Please watch.

"If I Wanted America To Fail"

Luxury? Really? How about Sacrifice?

The arrogance.  The condescension.  The gall.

Obama says in the article below that his family didn't have the "luxury" of Michelle being a stay at home mom, presumably like Anne Romney.

This from a Law Professor, a state legislator, and who knows what else?  His family couldn't squeak by on those incomes so his wife had to take a job (doing God knows what) at a hospital making $316k per year just to make ends meet?  Those are some pretty big ends.  What happened to all that money from his TWO autobiographies... the ones he (supposedly) wrote before he was 45?

My wife has been a stay at home mom for 20 years and is only now re-entering the work force after our youngest child is turning 12.

Has it been a life of "luxury" for us?  NO!  We've sacrificed and scrimped to get by like most people can't even conceive of.

All Obama is doing is trying to paint Romney as aloof, when every thing he says just proves to me over and over that HE'S the one who doesn't really get it.

This statement, this attitude... I cannot begin to convey how much I'm insulted by it.

And whats that I hear from the MSM... crickets.

Obama on Why Michelle Was a Working Mom (at $316K Per Year): ‘We Didn't Have the Luxury for Her Not to Work’

And So It Begins

I honed my political teeth in the early nineties.  Very distinctive in my memory is the Democrat claim that Republicans wanted to starve school children by cutting the school lunch program.  Never mind that the program was actually going to increase in the coming year and that the "cut" was in the rate of growth not an actual cut (see earlier post).  All it took was for the Democrats to make the claim and every reporter in the world ran to the nearest Republican, shoved a microphone in his face and yelled "Why do you want to starve school children?!!"

I don't know what's worse, believing without question every single thing a Democrat says negative about a Republican or completely ignoring (or at least as long as possible) every glaring shortcoming of an elected Democrat.  Fill in the blank here on any one of Clinton's many scandals and how the media had to be drug to them kicking and screaming.

So jump to today.

Romney is now the Republican nominee for President.  Obama has artificially created, thru George Stephanopolis, this supposed "war on women" being waged by Republicans.  It's all pure, unadulterated hogwash.  So, to defend himself, Romney quotes the statistic that since Obama took office 92% of all job losses have been women.

Now, I looked it up.  That statement is 100% accurate.  From the day Obama took office until today 92% of jobs lost belonged to women.  Even the stories I'll link below admit that.  BUT, they then start going outside of what Romney said to defend Obama.  They start talking about context and timeline and when job loss really started and non-farm jobs and so forth and so on.

Funny.  Where does all of this analytical firepower come from when, by contrast, anything Obama says is just written down and accepted as if it were chiseled with fire onto two stone tablets?

The media will do any and everything they can to prop this failed President up.  It's so glaringly obvious it churns my stomach.  And the uninformed masses that just take what the one-sided media spoon feeds them scare me to death.

I'm sure they will defend Romney and the Republicans the next time Obama says they want to poison the air and water and kill more people.  Yeah, right.

It's going to be a long seven months.

MSNBC: "That is accurate, according to BLS. But Brian Davidson, an economist at BLS, told First Read: “The math they use is correct; the terminology is completely wrong.”

CNN: "An analysis of federal labor statistics shows that the claim is technically true but is missing important context."

What's Good for the Goose...

This statement today just cracked me up...

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

It would not be "unprecedented" or "extaordinary" for them to overturn a law... that's what they do.  This coming from someone who supposedly taught the Constitution.

It was not passed by a "strong majority" of Congress.  That is an outright lie.  Does he think we have no memory?  You do remember that this monstrosity of a bill had to be passed through reconciliation because they didn't have enough Senators for a cloture vote.  Please tell me you do.  If not, that's exactly the memory lapse this man is counting on for re-election.

I'm not convinced the court is going to overturn this thing.  But here are two thoughts:

First, all my life liberals have gotten through the courts what they otherwise couldn't get through at the ballot box.  When they can't defeat "proposition X" in California, they run to their buddies in the judicial branch and have an injunction put in place to stop it.  This one time the court "may" actually render a verdict in line with the Constitution and THEY DON'T LIKE IT!

Second, who does this guy think he is?  What happened to separation of powers?  He already talked smack during one of his State of the Union addresses towards the Justices and them sitting there.  Unprecedented.  So over the top that the Chief Justice said they might not return.  If this issue wasn't already settled last Friday during the Supreme Courts closed door vote, he is directly trying to coerce the outcome.  That's really ethical, isn't it.

Way too much power has been given to the judicial branch.  Way too much.  But, liberals have loved it.  Until now.

What's good for the goose...

A rose is a rose...

Why is George Zimmerman being described as a "white hispanic"?

Because adding the word "white" fits the media template for what happened and gives Al Sharpton something to do.

Anyway, if George Zimmerman is a "white hispanic" because his father was white and his mother was hispanic, what does that make Barrack Obama?

A black white?  Or a Kenyan white?

No?

Ever heard the media describe him that way?

Hmmm?

Why not?

Amazing what we're conditioned to receive in the disguise of "news".

More amazing the folks that would think such an observation is racist.

Our conditioning knows no bounds...

The Enemy of my Enemy...

My daughter asked me the day after our Primary why we had voted for Romney.  It was in the tone of why did we vote for him and he lost.

I can understand her confusion.  Santorum is more conservative than Romney.  Hands down.

But I've been torn for months over who to vote for and headlines the day before had just sealed it for me.

It seems Santorum has realized he cannot defeat Romney.  Romney already leads 2-to-1 over Santorum, his closest challenger.  Newt is out and doesn't even know it.  But, Santorum is openly stating his strategy is no longer to "win" but to deny Romney the "win"... keep Romney from getting this magic number of delegates to cinch the nomination.  Seems his plan is get to the convention and try to convince everyone that, even though he couldn't win enough popular votes to get the nomination himself, that it should just be given to him.

I have a problem with that.

My first opportunity to vote was during the Baxley/Graddic debacle.  I voted for Graddic.  Graddic won the nomination for Governor.  I don't remember if Baxley sued or just had the Democrat leadership give him the nomination, but it was taken from Graddic.  I, along with enough other folks, voted for Hunt in that following election and he won.  That Graddic vote was the first, last and only vote I have ever given a Democrat candidate.  If you get the most X, whatever x is, you should win.  26 years and I still remember how mad I was over my vote not counting.

Again, I've already said Santorum, for all his faults, IS more conservative than Romney.  But trying to steal during the convention what you couldn't outright win during the primaries is just plain wrong.  If the magic number isn't reached, then he who has the most X should win.

Did I "settle" in voting for Romney.  A little.  He's done and said a lot of things in his public life that were wrong headed and just plain political.  But, he's a politician.  Reality is that politics is SO dirty only the fickle get in.

But, he's saying the right things now.  And that's about all you can ever hope to get out of a politician.  Agreement today.  Because they will change tomorrow.

Romney is moderate. Yes he is.  He was defeated in 2008 by another moderate.  Yes he was.

But, there is something that he has going for him now that he didn't have then.

Three plus years of an Obama presidency.

The base WILL support whoever our candidate is.  Yes we will.  Yes you will.  If Romney can reach these mythical "undecided" "independents", then great.

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA.  Period.

I habe Papiere, seit ich 14 Jahre alt war!

I have no tolerance at all for people who oppose showing ID to vote.

Period. None. Nada.

The phrase "show their papers" is purely meant to bring hysteria, reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

I was issued "papers", i.e. my motorcycle license, when I was 14.  I've never hesitated to show them to anyone who asked, from the video rental clerk to the occasional police officer.  My grandparents continued to renew their licenses up to the day of their death.

The peak of my rebellion regarding ID is that I had my Social Security number removed from them.

This idea that showing a state issued picture ID is equivalent to Jim Crow laws is just ludicrous.

If you want to vote in OUR country, you should HAVE to show SOME standard form of OUR ID.

"Rights" must bear some small smidgen of "responsibility" or they're worthless. If you're too lazy to bother getting an ID, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Afraid to get an ID because you're already in trouble with the law? All the more reason you shouldn't be voting.

Why the current administration and Democrats in general are hell bent on guaranteeing the supposed "right" of illegals to vote is just brazen.

Justice Dept opposes Texas voter ID law

They're All The Same... Aren't they?

I keep hearing folks say that it doesn't really matter who goes to Washington, because they're all crooks.  Funny thing is, it is immediately followed by the statement that your crooks are worse than theirs...

I've referenced before  the concept put forth by Mark Twain that if the only tool you have is a hammer, soon every problem begins to look like a nail.  I've also pointed out that ALL politicians perceive themselves as only having one tool: spending your money.  The difference is what they spend it on and, the point of this post, how fast they spend it.

Liberals want to spend money (not their money, your money) on every bleeding heart cause under the sun.  They parade an endless stream of victims past the cameras in Washington to explain why they need to fling funds at every sad-sack situation in the world.  This usually equates to dumping the money down a hole for deadbeats, slackers and con men.

Conservatives want to spend money on the Military.  You know, those folks who have signed the dotted line that they will die in service to their county.

Moderates want to do both so as to not tick either side off.  Look under the word moderate in the dictionary and you will see a photo of John McCain.

Here is the point.  During the election of 2008, we had to choose between a liberal and a moderate.  Both wanted, ultimately, the same thing.  The rub was how fast to get there.  I don't remember there being a large difference in McCain and Obama, it's just McCain was content to slowly drive the country to financial oblivion by spending countless sums on every sad situation in the world, while Obama was going to kick in the afterburners and get us there in a hurry.

I looked up some numbers.  I didn't get these from Pelosi's office, like some sham of a graph spreading around FaceBook.  I went to the governments own official websites and pulled this info.

The day Clinton took office, the country was 217 years old.  In that amount of time the debt had accululated to $4.2T.

During the eight years of Clinton, he increased that to $5.7T, an increase of $1.5T.

During the eight years of W, he increased that to $10.6T, an increase of $4.9T.  (True conservatives were railing against this spending excess.  For the record, W was a social conservative but a fiscal moderate, a la McCain.)

During the first three years of O, he has increased that to $15.5T, an increase of $4.9T.

O has increased the debt as much in three years as Bush did in eight.

Stop.  Go back.  Read that part again.

$4.9T over eight years was appalling.  What do you call $4.9T over three?

All politicians are driving us to financial ruin.  It is the only tool they see in their bag, spending our money.  But the RATE at which O has hurried us down the road is just staggering.

So, you tell me... Are they all the same?

One Born Every Minute?

When George Stephanopolous asked a question regarding banning birth control during one of the Republican Primary debates, the candidates fumbled the question.  Why?  Because the question was so far out of left field that they were just, well, dumbfounded at it.

Nobody was talking about birth control.  Nobody was talking about banning it.  It was a complete red herring.

But now, jump a few months forward.

George, former (and likely current) Democratic operative, has completely fabricated out of thin air a non existent issue that Obama is more than willing to capitalize on.

Obama decreed (unconstitutionally) that ALL insurance must pay for birth control and abortion pills.  Even insurance provided by Catholic institutions, which oppose birth control and abortion, MUST provide it to their employees.  At the time, one was left with complete befuddlement as to why he would attack the Catholic Church in this manner.

This is being framed as "why are you against birth control" type questions now to all the candidates.  Nobody is against birth control, except maybe Santorum, but even that is his personal view for his personal family.  The question should be "who does the President think he is thinking he can issue a mandate this way"...

Jump forward to this weeks testimony in congress regarding law students having to pay for their own contraception.  Imagine.  College students having to buy their own birth control pills and condoms to hook up.    The numbers quoted were $1000 per year for birth control.  That's 5 condoms per day, per student, every day of the year.  And wanting someone else to pay for it.  Basically, having someone else pay for them to have unimaginable amounts of sex.  It is that analysis that led Rush Limbaugh to point out that people who are paid to have large amounts of sex are "sluts", a tongue-in-cheek conclusion meant to flamboyantly point out the fallacy in the policy.

Now, for the first time I can remember, even Rush has been forced to retreat and offer an apology.

All of this furor stemming from George's off-the-wall question.

Now, Obama has invited himself to a women's college to give their commencement (see below).  Gee, wonder what he's gonna talk about?  Am I the only one that sees this as a contrived, invented cause?

P.T. Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute.  I hope women in general don't fall for this.  If they do, well, P.T. nailed 'em.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/213955-obama-asks-to-

The Devil's in the Details

Short and sweet today...

If you attend church regularly and you don't hear something very similar to what Rick Santorum said regarding the Devil targeting our society through every avenue available to him... you should switch churches.

Period.

That is all.

Election 2012: Makers vs. Takers

My wife recounted a story within the last two weeks of being in line at the grocery store behind a lady in her twenties with a toddler.  She had two "food stamp" checks in her hand because they hadn't issued her her "card" yet.  Each check was for $400.  We know because she was chatting up the cashier about how she was spending  one this week and going to come back next week and spend the other.  She told how she had gotten on the program because she didn't get any child support from the child's father, at least not above board (wink, wink).  These were her words, not my mine.  She then finished with that transaction and started a second buggy for which she paid with WIC.  Keep in mind, there are just two of them, the mother and the toddler.

My wife checked out her stuff and walked into the parking lot just in time to see her pull out in a much nicer vehicle than anything in my drive way.

This woman just spent more on the two of them than my wife spends in two weeks on the six of us.

The American tax payer is being fleeced.  Period.  It is not "charity" if I'm forced to give it.  Taxes are not charity.  Charity comes with some amount of discernment.  Apparently, government has none.  If needy people were actually dependent on charity they would have to at least make themselves appear believable.  That is not required if you're on the government teet.

"Entitlements" are going to be the end of the country.  It's not any simpler than that.  Half of the country pays no Federal payroll tax.  Upset about the "one percenters"?  God bless 'em.  I'm upset about the "fifty percenters".  Freeloaders who know that they'll never go hungry, naked or homeless as long as taxpayers keep giving up their hard earned money to those who won't.

I keep hearing about the unemployment statistics.  How they don't include people who have stopped looking for work.  How do you do that?  How do you ever "stop looking for work"?  How does that enter someone's mind?

I worked with a man once who, between jobs, roofed houses.  I can't imagine a more difficult job.  One that didn't pay anything near what he was used to, but he said he had to do something to keep bills paid and food on the table.  Nowadays, between food stamps, WIC, two years of unemployment, and now this article (see below)... why bother.  A study out of FL recently pointed out that extending unemployment benefits actually hindered folks from taking jobs.  They would wait for a job that paid better, or had a shorter commute, or was easier rather than having to take the first thing to come along to pay the bills.  Heck, their bills are paid so why hurry.

I'll leave with this, an article about how deadbeats (my word) that run all their other benefits out are turning to Disability Benefits.  Good grief...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/19/report-millions-jobless-file-for-disability-when-unemployment-benefits-run-out/?test=latestnews