Why Do Progressives Feel They Are Entitled

When it comes to work they think they're always under paid.
They have a terrible work ethic.
Feel they no it all.
And are the first ones to file for unemployment, workers compensation and lawsuits.

If they feel so taken advantage of, why don't they ever start their own business?

Everything you say is true.

And that is why Red states receive more federal dollars than they send to the goverment

Been there, You are exactly right. History tells us the south never recovered after the railroads were built up north. They did not have the industrial development because of it and it has been the low income area of our country since. In my state NM, our previous democrat governor did what any good dem leader does and ran deficits/debt through the roof. Like Maryland, they put a repub (Suzanna Martinez) in as governor, they get out of debt and then they will probably put another loser in and then run up debt again. They do this cycle in MD too. Most states with Repub governors could give our president a good teaching on how to turn things around.

But Cheesus...those stats are just "libruh mediah". We all know those are fabricated.
Both sides of the aisle hand out the same boards for us to hit ourselves in the faces with over and over....it`s just the board labeled conservative is bigger and stupider looking.

Even the way beenthere`s post is constructed, it uses all the traps and ignorance spewed forth from the faux news tongue chewers. No information, just opinion...and an ignorant opinion at that.

It should be understood that both sides don`t care about the people, only money.

ScottNM said:

Been there, You are exactly right. History tells us the south never recovered after the railroads were built up north. They did not have the industrial development because of it and it has been the low income area of our country since. In my state NM, our previous democrat governor did what any good dem leader does and ran deficits/debt through the roof. Like Maryland, they put a repub (Suzanna Martinez) in as governor, they get out of debt and then they will probably put another loser in and then run up debt again. They do this cycle in MD too. Most states with Repub governors could give our president a good teaching on how to turn things around.

Click to expand...

They put a democrat as Govenor in California and look what happened to their debt

[h=1]California Analyst Sees Annual Surpluses of $10 Billion[/h]
By James Nash - Nov 21, 2013 2:00 AM CT

beenthere said:

When it comes to work they think they're always under paid.
They have a terrible work ethic.
Feel they no it all.
And are the first ones to file for unemployment, workers compensation and lawsuits.

If they feel so taken advantage of, why don't they ever start their own business?

Click to expand...

where's your proof that what you say is true. or is this your opinion ???

beenthere said:

When it comes to work they think they're always under paid.
They have a terrible work ethic.
Feel they no it all.
And are the first ones to file for unemployment, workers compensation and lawsuits.

If they feel so taken advantage of, why don't they ever start their own business?

Click to expand...

they are victims, they have been taught from birth to look outside themselves for the causes of any problems they see rather than trying to find what part they themselves play in the creation of that problem, it's never them, they are always the aggrieved party, it's always the other guy who is wrong and if you disagree with them, they become casually, viciously ignorant.

...and they never use logic to 'prove' their point, it's always emotional talking points and character assassination.

peace, bozo

ChesusRice said:

They put a democrat as Govenor in California and look what happened to their debt [h=1]California Analyst Sees Annual Surpluses of $10 Billion[/h] By James Nash - Nov 21, 2013 2:00 AM CT

Click to expand...

You could just as easily contribute that to Schwarzenegger, since it was a result of policies from the last few years. Before him, the deficit was through the roof, under Democrats. But we don't expect any honesty from you.

Progressives are entitled to, and happily drive neo-cons crazy, because they are just smarter than your average dumb as a fuck conservative. Seems pretty simple to me.

[h=1]The Myth of Red State Welfare[/h]By Sierra Rayne

During the last few years, a key liberal talking point has been "red state welfare." The argument is that the states that get more from the federal government than they pay in taxes tend to be red states, whereas the states that give more to the federal government than they pay in taxes tend to be blue states. This "red state welfare" hypothesis falls completely apart when we look at the data.
The so-called top 10 "red states" on welfare are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia, and Kentucky.
The purportedly bottom 10 "blue states" not on welfare are New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, [COLOR=#11B000 !important]California, New York, and Colorado.
To show how mindless this liberal proposition is, the "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election. This results in entirely junk science.
First off, states that are either "haves" (i.e., give more to the federal government than they receive) or "have-nots" (i.e., get more from the federal government than they give) do not just arise overnight. State finances take decades to develop as either "haves" or "have-nots," so looking at only a single election is meaningless. Rather, we need to look at how a state has voted over several decades to obtain any relevant insights.
Furthermore, it's equally nonsensical to just consider how a state votes for the president. We also need to look at how each state votes for its senators, representatives, and even governors. Given how Congress has the "power of the purse," this is core to assessing how a state's welfare status relates to its Democrat versus Republican voting record. And this is where the "red state welfare" hypothesis disintegrates.
The following table shows the percentage of person-years between 1980 and 2013 for which each of the top and bottom welfare states voted Democrat at the presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial levels.

​

Clearly, the so-called red states are far more likely overall to vote for a Republican presidential candidate than his Democratic counterpart when compared to the supposed blue states. But look at New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado. New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire have been evenly split on presidential candidates since 1980. Nevada and Colorado voted for both Bush 43 wins, and Colorado even went Republican during the 1996 Clinton landslide.At the senatorial level, how can you call North Dakota, Louisiana, and West Virginia "red states" when their voting record is overwhelmingly Democratic over the past three decades? Even South Dakota and New Mexico fail the "red state" test. West Virginia hasn't had a Republican senator since before 1960!
On the other side of the aisle, New Hampshire -- supposedly a blue state -- has only elected a single Democratic senator (the currently serving Jeanne Shaheen) since 1980. Minnesota and Colorado also fail the blue state designation based on who they have put in the Senate over this timeframe.
In the House of Representatives, it is absurd to characterize Mississippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, and South Dakota as red states when they have elected more Democrats than Republicans since 1980. North Dakota and West Virginia's choices for the House of Representatives are dominantly blue.
Similarly, New Hampshire and Delaware have elected predominantly Republicans in the House, and somehow they are blue states? Colorado and Nevada also don't pass the blue state test, and as recently as the 111th Congress, five of Colorado's seven representatives were Republican.
The gubernatorial comparison also strikes a blow to any "red state welfare" claims. There is no significant general difference in the overall red versus blue character of these states' governors. South Dakota hasn't had a Democratic governor in over 35 years, whereas Kentucky has only had one Republican governor since 1971. California's governors have been dominantly Republican for many decades, as have those of Illinois, Minnesota, Connecticut, and New Jersey.
[/COLOR]

justanotherbozo said:

they are victims, they have been taught from birth to look outside themselves for the causes of any problems they see rather than trying to find what part they themselves play in the creation of that problem, it's never them, they are always the aggrieved party, it's always the other guy who is wrong and if you disagree with them, they become casually, viciously ignorant.

...and they never use logic to 'prove' their point, it's always emotional talking points and character assassination.

peace, bozo

Click to expand...

What do you have to support this..or again is this opinion ??? What logic do you use to prove your point.

Of Course CNN, I DONT BELIEVE A WORD OF IT!!!!

ChesusRice said:

Everything you say is true.

And that is why Red states receive more federal dollars than they send to the goverment

Click to expand...

I think if welfare recipients had to go out and sweep the gutters and pick up trash around their neighborhoods for 8 hrs a day to get their welfare checks, you see more drop off welfare and find jobs.

~CReePeR~ said:

I think if welfare recipients had to go out and sweep the gutters and pick up trash around their neighborhoods for 8 hrs a day to get their welfare checks, you see more drop off welfare and find jobs.

Click to expand...

I think you are a puppet...Sad when grown men have to make many accounts to fake a debate

The flip side of this is that the 'non progressive' attribute all their success on their personal actions, rather than place of birth, social privilege, etc. Masters of their own destiny...

There is a middle ground.

What you're describing is a boogyman archetype. What about progressive political policy? vs your own.

First off, most people that are on welfare are forced to be there by social politics. They are simply unliked or unwanted by the establishment and tax dollars are spent to weed out the undesireables. These people are usually heavily investigated and anything found will be used against them, because of what the establishment chooses to believe. These people are not elected but appointed as staff and hired through resume, like a cop, social workers etc. The fact is, a person who has all their freedoms, rights and privelages intact should prosper to be a very rich person regardless of economic conditions.

londonfog said:

What do you have to support this..or again is this opinion ??? What logic do you use to prove your point.

Click to expand...

...it's called 'a preponderance of the evidence', ...the proof is everywhere for any willing to see it.

bozo

justanotherbozo said:

they are victims, they have been taught from birth to look outside themselves for the causes of any problems they see rather than trying to find what part they themselves play in the creation of that problem, it's never them, they are always the aggrieved party, it's always the other guy who is wrong and if you disagree with them, they become casually, viciously ignorant.

...and they never use logic to 'prove' their point, it's always emotional talking points and character assassination.

peace, bozo

Click to expand...

Really not much different it seems between the two the way you describe it. One notable distinction in the ideologies, is the lack of compassion exhibited by right as far as social plights are concerned, and the empathy for the less fortunate that is exhibited by the left. That is why liberals exist it seems, to counterbalance the self serving, self righteous attitudes of the conservatives. There has to be a balance between good and evil it seems, and that is where the libs come in, to offset evil. Peace

Jimdamick said:

Really not much different it seems between the two the way you describe it. One notable distinction in the ideologies, is the lack of compassion exhibited by right as far as social plights are concerned, and the empathy for the less fortunate that is exhibited by the left. That is why liberals exist it seems, to counterbalance the self serving, self righteous attitudes of the conservatives. There has to be a balance between good and evil it seems, and that is where the libs come in, to offset evil. Peace

Click to expand...

Obviously you have the decease called Liberalism. You are not alone unfortunately. A little history lesson.....Capitalism has made this country the richest most giving nation ever. Most of the free handouts are paid by wealthy people and corporations. This is reality: The top 10% of Americans pay 70% of federal income taxes and 50% of Americans pay no federal income taxes yet all you here is the liberals yell about equality. The liberals are like snake oil salesmen looking for someone to blame for their failed policies. The Nazis blamed the Jews while the liberals blame the wealthy in order to convince the weak minded to vote for them. Under liberalism, many middle class americans are going to pay more for O care. I recieved an operation last year that I waited 3 months to get. I have a friend in Canada who is 3 years and waiting for the same op with gov care. That is not compassion either.

I remember back in the seventies govenments gave special discounts to companies to hire students. Now it's anlawful to hire any person under the age of sixteen.