TexasCHLforum.com

Crossfire wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:With no small amount of skepticism, the Moderators agreed to open both Off Topic and "Political" forums. For the most part, the Off Topic forum has been successful and we are pleasantly surprised.

However, the "Political" forum is not an "anything goes" forum, although it's heading in that direction. The caption reads "This is the place for gun-related political discussions." Let's get this forum back on topic.

Chas.

I'm thinking this topic never was in compliance with anything "tangentially related to guns, shooting, self-defense, Second Amendment, etc.", so there is no way to get it back "on-topic".

How about we lock it now?

2crazy2carry wrote:What is wrong with entitlements in the first place?

Republicans talk all about the "lazy bums" getting free money from Uncle Sam but never raise an eye brow to all the companies that take free money from uncle sam.

What is a small business loan? Its FREEEEEE money. Yet many republicans are small business owners who have taking FREEEE money.

Rather than attack entitlements maybe we should attack the gapping hole in our economic laws like the deletion of the Glass-Stegal law, or stock trade laws that allow thousands and thousands of trades to be made in micro seconds of the same stock items.

Its so easy to look at ppl on hard times who need some individual help and financial assistance. But it takes a strong person to challenge their views and to EDUCATE themselves to the idea that its not the guy on unemployment thats the problem; its the way our publicly traded corporations, major banks, and governement have been conducting themselves in a way that is not in the best the interest of the ppl of this country.

We are the richest country in the world and can easily help ppl struggling without a job, but no economy can withstand the literal "legalized" extraction of its monetary assests and nothing is circulated into the system to replace that which was taken out. Printing new money has been the answer but that is a fraudulent replacement of monetary value and it is killing us with inflation.

I wish ppl who are going to speak about economics and complain about entiltements and how they hurt our economy, would get an education and learn that there is a list of things hurting our economy right now. Entitlements is not even in the top 10 of what is reducing the money supply in this country. Entitlements is a talking point, a punch line, and a distraction from whats really hurting us and what reforms are really needed to get this country going back in the right direction.

To add, I dont want to hear anything about wealth redistribution. The core value of democracy is that power is equally DISTRIBUTED to all citizens. Money in our country is power. We should all have some sort of access to enough money to atleast have power over our own lives. If corporations of banks rig the playing field and it is no longer fair, then the government has the duty to re-level the field so all can have a chance at power over their own lives.

Secondly, wealth redistribution has taken place for about the last 30 years. Its all ran uphill with the promise that it would run back down hill. Problem is if you give a company money, the ceo is going to give the extra money to the share holders and themselves if you dont make it law that they cannot do that. Yes governement can serve a positive role in preventing greed on such massive scales it can cause schools, fire departments, and police stations to go broke, and ppls 401k's to be robbed. Regulating greeed is part of our countries history that seems lost these days. That what the monopoly laws were about. Same for the laws passed after the great depression. For the last 20-30 years now the laws have seemed to change and undo most of those laws. It seems to encourage greed. Its time for that to change.

So when we hear the government tryng to take steps to "spread the wealth" ppl need to stop pretending they are wealthy and that it is going to effect them. Fact is most ppl are not wealthy enough to actually help the economy if their "wealth" was redistributed in some manner. The governement needs to protect our right to have power over our own lives. Protecting the monetary system that disperses the money in our system to ensure there is enough to go around for atleast these basic powers is their job.

Lastly...what the heck do these anti redistribution ppl think the purpose on an economy is?...To distribut the wealth of a nation out to its citizens.........so if the money is distributed in an unblanced way due to an imblanaced economy what action should a govenrnment take on behalf of the ppl? Well i would sumbit some sort of REDISTIBUTION is necessary as well as changes to the economic system to prevent the imbalance from distorting the dispersment from happening again.

Ok...rant over...flame away...hope just maybe one person might have actually jumped off the entitlements bandwagon after reading this.

Abraham wrote:Katygunnut stated: "Entitlement" means something that people are entitled to, as opposed to a hand-out"

Quite right!

Over time, the Orwellian use of the word "Entitlement" has become synonymous with government "hand out". Social Security is not an entitlement as it's commonly known, i.e., money given by the government to the undeserving through welfare, food stamps, etc., but yes, Social Security payments are truly an entitlement when this word is applied properly.

I'm alarmed by the use of the word "Entitlement", again as it's commonly now known, when it's applied to Social Security.

Social Security is NOT a "hand out".

I'm attempting, rather clumsily, to make this point.

Speculation?

Ameer wrote:The socialist security payments are not based on what you paid in, so it's no different than any other government handout in practice.

Abraham wrote:Recently, on Fox News, Social Security has been referred to as an entitlement.

Given we've no choice but to "invest" in it with earned income, how on earth can it be an entitlement? Yes, there are such things as survivor benefits, but again the benefits for the survivors were "earned" by force of law by the late person.

So how can Social Security be lumped into the unearned trough such as welfare that many undeserving enjoy?

Anyone here know?