SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (41945)4/24/2013 8:00:46 PM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
Why are liberal utopias always places with no historical diversity? Countries like Denmark and in this country, places like Vermont, Portland, etc?

In Denmark's case that's changing. The Muslim population has grown to 5% over a couple decades and is clearly going to wreck the liberal welfare state. Muslims receive 40% of welfare payments and commit a majority of crime there.

blog.balder.org

Even without the Muslims, the Danish welfare state won't last:

Danes Rethink a Welfare State Ample to a Fault

Jan Grarup for The New York Times
Robert Nielsen, 45, said proudly last year that he had basically been on welfare since 2001.


By SUZANNE DALEY



Published: April 20, 2013
COPENHAGEN — It began as a stunt intended to prove that hardship and poverty still existed in this small, wealthy country, but it backfired badly. Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is.

turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard. The 36-year-old single mother, given the pseudonym “Carina” in the news media, had more money to spend than many of the country’s full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16. In past years, Danes might have shrugged off the case, finding Carina more pitiable than anything else. But even before her story was in the headlines 16 months ago, they were deeply engaged in a debate about whether their beloved welfare state, perhaps Europe’s most generous, had become too rich, undermining the country’s work ethic. Carina helped tip the scales.

With little fuss or political protest — or notice abroad — Denmark has been at work overhauling entitlements, trying to prod Danes into working more or longer or both.
.......
Carina was not the only welfare recipient to fuel the sense that Denmark’s system has somehow gotten out of kilter. Robert Nielsen, 45, made headlines last September when he was interviewed on television, admitting that he had basically been on welfare since 2001.

Mr. Nielsen said he was able-bodied but had no intention of taking a demeaning job, like working at a fast-food restaurant. He made do quite well on welfare, he said. He even owns his own co-op apartment.

Unlike Carina, who will no longer give interviews, Mr. Nielsen, called “Lazy Robert” by the news media, seems to be enjoying the attention. He says that he is greeted warmly on the street all the time. “Luckily, I am born and live in Denmark, where the government is willing to support my life,” he said.

Some Danes say the existence of people like Carina and Mr. Nielsen comes as no surprise. Lene Malmberg, who lives in Odsherred and works part time as a secretary despite a serious brain injury that has affected her short-term memory, said the Carina story was not news to her. At one point, she said, before her accident when she worked full time, her sister was receiving benefits and getting more money than she was.

“The system is wrong somehow, I agree,” she said. “I wanted to work. But she was a little bit: ‘Why work?’ ”
nytimes.com

BTW since you've brought up Denmark an ideal ..... how come they can have school choice, but Americans can't?

oldfraser.lexi.net



To: koan who wrote (41945)4/24/2013 11:37:25 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 85487
 
APRIL 24, 2013

Montana Won’t Miss You
Farewell Max Baucus
by JOSHUA FRANK
Yesterday, Montana Senator Max Baucus announced he was set to retire at the end of his current term. As one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington he will surely leave a void, at least for the DC lobbyists that pay to play. However, as a native Montanan, I can assure you Max won’t be missed by those who have fought to keep watersheds from being pillaged for lumber, or dirty coal from being extracted and incinerated. He will, no doubt, leave the smarmy K Street crowd, heath insurance scammers and the resource extraction industry with a bit of heartache. Max Baucus is, as Alexander Cockburn once put it to me, the most corrupt Democrat in Washington. I won’t argue that.

While still in high school I had the pleasure of flying across the country to DC for a weeklong youth workshop on leadership and democracy. I remember the excitement I had knowing I was about to meet both of my Montana senators. Back then I was a proud Democrat. Having joined the Party only two months earlier, the prospect of rubbing shoulders with a veteran Democrat, I thought, was sure to be the highlight of the trip.

The swank décor of the hallways on the Hill mesmerized me as I winded through the legislative chambers. The bright carpet and gorgeous, slightly older interns meandering around the foyers made me think that perhaps politics had its subtle rewards. My intrepid journey from wing to wing led me to the bustling office of Montana Senator Max Baucus.

Max wasn’t in, however, so a cheery office assistant led me to a committee meeting that the Senator was attending. “It will be just a few minutes,” she said, continuing to chat with me about the beauty and serenity of Montana. She had grown up in Great Falls or somewhere nearby, and missed the quiet open range and starry nights. I must have reminded her of what she was like before deciding to test the dirty waters of Washington politics.

A few minutes later, Max scurried out and shook my hand as if I were the elected official he had traveled a thousand miles to meet. “So glad to finally meet you,” he said. “How in the hell does he know who I am?” I thought. He didn’t, of course. He was just politicking.

Max wasn’t a good ol’ boy like Conrad Burns, his rival Republican from Montana at the time, who said during his first campaign in 1988 that he would help single mothers by “[telling] them to find a husband.” But Max was sleazy in his own right. His gaudy single-knot tie and wing-tip shoes caught my eye immediately. I remember wondering how long Baucus had been away from the Big Sky Country.

I asked Max about Washington life, and we poked fun at Conrad Burns, whom I had met earlier in the day. Whereas Baucus’ busy over packed office was full of citizens who seemed to give a shit, Conrad’s quarters were filled with wide leather couches and trophy animals that hung on his plush papered walls. We joked about Burns’ assistants who were advising him on how he should vote on specific legislation even though they had never even traveled to Montana.

It didn’t hurt that Max knew my uncle who ran a little grocery store in Lockwood, a small town outside of the city where I grew up. It made me think Max was one of us, a regular guy who represented regular folks. I let the used car salesman attire slide; the guy was all right.

My trip ended soon thereafter. I had met some interesting people, seen a lot of monuments and museums, and was enthralled with how the system actually worked. Or at least I thought I understood how it all functioned. The runners, the lobbyists, the rookies, the senior congressional leaders, the reporters, and oh those interns. I thought I had it down. I couldn’t wait to get home to tell my family what I’d learned, whom I’d met, and how Senator Baucus knew my dad’s brother. I was even contemplating the best way for me to help his upcoming election campaign.

It wasn’t more than six months later that I was knocked to my senses. The fairytale had ended. I read in the newspaper that my buddy Max had supported the North America Free Trade Agreement a few years prior. By then, I was diving into local environmental issues and came across the effects of NAFTA and the senators who supported it. Baucus was at the top of the hit-list. I couldn’t’ t believe it.

Upon further exploration, I learned that Baucus sat on the influential congressional committees, including the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Environment and Public Works, and Finance and Joint Taxation. I learned how this man whom I had come to admire — for no real reason other than his bashing of a Republican — had succumbed to the interests of campaign contributors time and again. I found out how his seat on the Finance committee scored him bundles of cash from the health care industry and some big corporations I had never even heard of, including JP Morgan, Brown & Foreman, and Citigroup.

I also learned how my hero supported welfare reform, Fast Track, and President Clinton’s Salvage Rider Act, all of which blatantly raped the Montana forests I loved so dearly. A year later in college I read an old article by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair in the Washington Post, which disclosed how actor Robert Redford had campaigned for Baucus by dropping letters in the mailboxes of elite Hollywood liberals, hoping to entice them to donate money to the Montanan for his astute convictions for environmental justice.

But as St. Clair and Cockburn put it so poignantly, “Across the length and breadth of Congress, it is impossible to uncover a more tenacious front-man for the mining, timber, and grazing industries … it was Baucus who crushed the Clinton administration’s timid effort to reform federal mining and grazing policies and terminate below-cost timber sales to big timber companies subsidized by the taxpayers.”

I was indignant. “How could he …?!” I pondered. “If the Democrats aren’t saving our natural resources, who the hell is?”

That anger has festered in me to this day. Max Baucus may still be the most corporate –entrenched, conniving Democrat in Washington. Thanks to Max, Americans now have Obamacare, a health care system written by the health care lobby for the health care industry. Truth be told, Max was never one of us.

I doubt that Max has ever hiked or driven through Montana’s Yaak River basin, where a massive forest service sale has destroyed critical grizzly bear habitat. I’d bet he’s never seen what the massive clear cuts have done to the region’s ecosystem, as tributaries have turned a pale yellow from mud and debris. And I cannot imagine Baucus ever apologizing for the legislation he supported during the Clinton years that’s to blame for it all. Many groups have challenged the illegalities of the outright pillage but all of these suits have been defeated or dismissed because the Salvage law gives the forest service “discretion to disregard entirely the effect on the grizzly bear.” All this from the party I once belonged.

I can’t fathom that Baucus has sat down and spoken with the hundreds of poor single mothers in rural Montana who cannot afford to put their kids in daycare because they are forced to work at places like Wal-Mart where they earn little more than minimum wage. I am sure they’d love to tell him how grateful they are for their newfound careers and Clinton’s welfare reform that put them to work. Unlike many progressives who are preoccupied with the wars in the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, these Montanans have more pressing concerns. They are turned off by politics because they have trouble keeping food in the fridge and buying holiday gifts for their kids. For someone most of us it’s a luxury to be politically active.

People continue to believe it’s only the Republicans who have undermined everything progressives have fought for. I once believed this to be the case. I hated conservatives for their outright disregard for the little guy. But my short voyage out east as a teenager turned into a life lesson: political affiliation means little when talking about real life consequences of compromising ideals. I think this is a lesson we must all keep in mind as many look to the Democrats, naively hoping that they can save us from the strangle of the Republican chock hold. Let’s not allow fancy rhetoric or party loyalty derail our need for real change or our push for single-payer health care.

Occasionally I wonder how my grandfather, who I am told was a staunch Democrat, would feel about all this. He wasn’t a flashy man, like the Democrats in Washington today, but a hard working North Dakotan farmer who, as the story is told, even detested his neighbor for being what he called “one of those damned Republicans.” Back then it was thought Democrats, although never progressive, stood for something genuine and were even elected into office because rural folk could discern the subtle difference between a donkey and an elephant.

Farewell Max. I won’t be missing you.



To: koan who wrote (41945)4/25/2013 2:01:47 AM
From: average joe3 Recommendations  Respond to of 85487
 
The most advanced cultures are always the liberal ones and the most primitive the most conservative.
I'm sorry Koan but civilization has been advancing away from the tribe for the past 10,000 years. Sorry you failed to notice but facts don't change because you fail to notice them.

To: Ron who wrote (106388)12/24/2011 6:32:44 PM
From: koanRead Replies (1) of 133536
The rich must be brought to bay by our tribe. We are facing a hard winter, and some of the tribes members have more food than they can eat. The tribal elders must insist the rich share the food with the poor.

The rich are served by the tribe, protected by the tribe and they owe that to the tribe. And this is a Republic and in a republic the people decide the will of the tribe. If the rich don't want to do their fair share and want to leave, let them.

But the tribe must be the deciders, not the rich.



To: koan who wrote (41945)4/26/2013 7:15:33 AM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
Jihad Bums

By
William Sullivan

[iframe name="aswift_0" width="300" height="250" id="aswift_0" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowtransparency="true"][/iframe] As most have already heard, the brothers Tsarnaev lived on the taxpayer dole before bombing the Boston Marathon. The American response to this revelation is nicely summed up on the cover of The Boston Herald, in big, bold print: "WHAT NERVE."
Yes, how dare they? How dare they take our money and then hate us for giving it to them? How could they do such a thing?

It's really rather simple why we have this reaction. Americans have an improper understanding of what welfare actually is. Many among us believe it to be charity and have the naiveté to believe that it will be accepted by poor, beleaguered beneficiaries as such.

But welfare bestows entitlement, not charity -- and its result is not gratitude, but resentment. Democrats are all too willing to nurture those feelings of resentment, and the bulk of their constituents may be content with continued promises to grant them a pittance more in the next election cycle. But that is not good enough for Islamic fundamentalists. Allah promises Muslims the world. He does not promise them a tiny sum of wealth which has been redistributed by infidel magistrates. So it should be unsurprising that such resentment among Muslims manifests itself in jihad.

Moreover, such Muslims do not find any shame in collecting welfare, but find your payment of welfare to be a shame upon you. It is entirely normal in terms of Islamic jurisprudence and history that wealth is redistributed from non-Muslims to Muslims, a forced payment for protection called jizyah. The literal foundation for this practice can found the Quran, Surah 9:29, which relates:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.



This practice of exacting jizyah from non-Muslims is profoundly tied to jihad, as is evident in this verse, and has been routinely implemented throughout history in the wake of Islamic conquest. It is viewed as a spoil of holy war, meant to rob and humiliate non-Muslims, and has no noble purpose of any kind.

So according to Islamic jurisprudence and history, it is only natural that non-Muslims provide payment to help Muslims finance jihad. That is just the just natural order of things. What is not natural is the current hierarchy of authority between the two groups. We are not yet "subdued," and that is why there is such a broad compulsion to jihad.

Notorious cleric Anjem Choudary, a longtime jihad bum living in England who now collects roughly $40,000 annually in benefits from the British government, explains exactly how he feels Muslims should view welfare. He calls it a "Jihadi Allowance." "We are on Jihad Seekers Allowance, we take the Jizya which is ours anyway," he says.

He finds Britain's producers worthy not of thanks, but of ridicule. He mocks English 9-to-5ers, saying that some of the greatest Muslims rarely worked at all, save a day or two out of the week. They were primarily "busy with jihad and things like that."

"We are going to take England -- the Muslims are coming," he says. "These people are like a tsunami going across Europe. And over here we're just relaxing, taking over Bradford brother. The reality is changing."

He said these words to a meager audience of thirty, but that doesn't change the fact that he is right. Millions of immigrants from the Muslim world infest enclaves around the urban cities of France, for example. They live on welfare, just relaxing, taking over Marseille brother.

Idle hands are the devil's playthings, they say, and idle Muslim hands are no different. These Muslims do not participate in French society and have nothing to do but reflect upon their own culture. So is it any wonder that many in these Muslim ghettoes find the most useful thing to do with their time is beat homosexuals and Jews and engage in what the Daily Mail dubs a "French Intifada" -- i.e., jihad?

Our initial reaction to the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers lived on welfare should not be that we are appalled that they would "have the nerve" to do this to us after we've done so much for them. Rather, this revelation should act as a defibrillator shocking us from unconsciousness to reality. And the reality is that we are financing our own destruction with our careless welfare and immigration policies, which are designed not to protect American citizens' lives and equity as they should be designed, but to make Americans feel like we are doing some good for poor immigrants of all backgrounds.

In response its own dire circumstances, France has just revisited its welfare policy in regard to incoming and returning immigrants and slashed all payments by 83%. I would say that now is the time that we do the same, but the truth is, we should have done something like this a long, long time ago.

Now, we would do much better to eliminate incoming immigrants' welfare payments altogether and make no bones about implementing rigid selectivity for the immigrants we choose to accept, lest self-financed Islamic terrorism become a more common occurrence.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/jihad_bums.html#ixzz2RZDJdYrf
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook