US Census Numbers Worth Consideing

[rushmc 18]

Quote

86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/86m-full-time-private-sector-workers-sustain-148m-benefit-takers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Boogers 0]

We've reached the tipping point where the producers are now slaves of the takers. The takers, being the majority, will continue to vote to take more, while the producers, can do nothing about the taking which comes out of their wallets.

[quade 3]

They should probably all "go Galt" and leave then.

Seriously. Go for it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

article isn't clear on whether government employees are also counted in the numbers of "takers"

however, I wonder if the 'taker' number might be bolstered by minors, etc.......

it might or might not balance out, don't know, don't want to do the research

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

quade

They should probably all "go Galt" and leave then.
Seriously. Go for it.

so you aren't disputing the article?

is it a good thing? or a bad thing then?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

rehmwa

***They should probably all "go Galt" and leave then.
Seriously. Go for it.

so you aren't disputing the article?

is it a good thing? or a bad thing then?

I am disputing the childish Randian notion of what constitutes a "maker" and "taker."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,464]

>however, I wonder if the 'taker' number might be bolstered by minors, etc

Got a two year old taker and a 79 year old taker in my family. Heck, in my immediate family we've got more takers than makers. All they do is take, take, take . . .

[Amazon 7]

quade

******They should probably all "go Galt" and leave then.
Seriously. Go for it.

so you aren't disputing the article?

is it a good thing? or a bad thing then?

I am disputing the childish I really wish the GOP would choose who the hell they really are...

Follow Ayn Rand or follow Jesus... Pick an ideology but you cant have both of those as your guiding lights.

Currently the Randians... are in charge.. while claiming they follow Jesus..

[quade 3]

Amazon

*********They should probably all "go Galt" and leave then.
Seriously. Go for it.

so you aren't disputing the article?
is it a good thing? or a bad thing then?
I am disputing the childish I really wish the GOP would choose who the hell they really are...
Follow Ayn Rand or follow Jesus...

Or, a person could pick a non-extremist position having nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

quade

************They should probably all "go Galt" and leave then.
Seriously. Go for it.

so you aren't disputing the article?
is it a good thing? or a bad thing then?
I am disputing the childish I really wish the GOP would choose who the hell they really are...
Follow Ayn Rand or follow Jesus...

Or, a person could pick a non-extremist position having nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

Like that would happen in todays American Taliban addled GOP.. what were you thinking.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Got a two year old taker and a 79 year old taker in my family. Heck, in my immediate family we've got more takers than makers. All they do is take, take, take . . .

Since a 'taker' is anyone in a family where one member gets some benefit, I guess my wife and I are both 'takers' since I get disability.

Of course, we are also 'makers' since we both work full time in the private sector, and pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year.

I'm also anticipating some right wingers complaining that I shouldn't get disability, since I'm able to work. As I matter of fact, that very thing was said by a poster here before.

My point is, the categories are overlapping, and some people who are 'takers' aren't such a drag on society that they are portrayed as.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

My point is, the categories are overlapping, and some people who are 'takers' aren't such a drag on society that they are portrayed as.

I actually clicked the link - Despite the author's bias - I think I tried to put the takers into categories without any positive or negative context. Just very simply:

makers - private sector income
takers - government provided income

the labels strictly as a means to define that whatever money the government provides, still needs to come from an external source (or print it.....)

at least that's my take on it...



but that certainly was a lot of defensive posts on the matter anyway

let's call it category 1 and category A - does that help?


so - which should we have more of for a healthy economy?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

DanG

Quote

Got a two year old taker and a 79 year old taker in my family. Heck, in my immediate family we've got more takers than makers. All they do is take, take, take . . .

Since a 'taker' is anyone in a family where one member gets some benefit, I guess my wife and I are both 'takers' since I get disability.

Of course, we are also 'makers' since we both work full time in the private sector, and pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes every year.

I'm also anticipating some right wingers complaining that I shouldn't get disability, since I'm able to work. As I matter of fact, that very thing was said by a poster here before.

My point is, the categories are overlapping, and some people who are 'takers' aren't such a drag on society that they are portrayed as.

I also think most of those takers actually participate in the economy and spend what little they get on things like food and shelter..

Contrast that with those who OWN most of those who are Makers... they send their wealth offshore where it has been removed from our economy.
But that is ok it seems as long as they claim to be Patriots while wrapping themselves in the American Flag.

[rehmwa 2]

Amazon

I also think most of those takers actually participate in the economy and spend what little they get on things like food and shelter...

certainly - but it doesn't cancel the fact that the money has to eventually come from somewhere else (from a maker, or print it)


If the government just took everything from everyone and then gave it out to liberal preferences we'd have 100% takers.

what percentage would be makers then? 10%, 60%?

or would we make ourselves feel better and just redefine the terms so it's also 100%?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,464]

>but it doesn't cancel the fact that the money has to eventually come from
>somewhere else (from a maker, or print it)

Agreed. And on the opposite side, the roads that maker uses to ship his products has to come from a taker, and his overseas shipping routes have to be defended by all the takers in uniform. A healthy economy is generally going to need both.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>but it doesn't cancel the fact that the money has to eventually come from
>somewhere else (from a maker, or print it)

Agreed. And on the opposite side, the roads that maker uses to ship his products has to come from a taker, and his overseas shipping routes have to be defended by all the takers in uniform. A healthy economy is generally going to need both.

you keep thinking the term 'taker' is negative - I dispute that broad assumption (strawman). I'm wondering if the ratio is healthy. Not that a category exists.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

rehmwa

***I also think most of those takers actually participate in the economy and spend what little they get on things like food and shelter...

certainly - but it doesn't cancel the fact that the money has to eventually come from somewhere else (from a maker, or print it)

OR.. do as Henry Ford did.. and pay his MAKERS more so they could afford his products. The takers also them become makers to produce more consumer goods that also strengthen the economy further.
We live in a consumer based society, when you remove the wealth from that economy the Makers have nothing to make since no one has the money to buy what they make and are trying to sell.

[rehmwa 2]

Hi Jeannie - you are off on your own tangent. good points, but not what I'm talking about. Productivity vs pay scale is market driven, lots of inputs (and threads) about that already in place here. Lots of threads also about citizens choosing to shelter they money vs government forcing them to do so due to lopsided policies. I don't have a dog in that fight, I understand both sides of the discussion.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,464]

>you keep thinking the term 'taker' is negative

Why do you assume that? By the definition in the OP, takers include soldiers, road construction workers, ATC controllers etc etc. What is inherently negative about them?

[Amazon 7]

rehmwa

Hi Jeannie - you are off on your own tangent. good points, but not what I'm talking about. Productivity vs pay scale is market driven, lots of inputs (and threads) about that already in place here. Lots of threads also about citizens choosing to shelter they money vs government forcing them to do so due to lopsided policies. I don't have a dog in that fight, I understand both sides of the discussion.

Its about the NUMBERS.... if you want more makers...instead of takers.... well paid AMERICAN jobs are important.. especially when a "Patriot" wishes to wrap himself in our flag yet do great harm to the country as a whole.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>you keep thinking the term 'taker' is negative

Why do you assume that? By the definition in the OP, takers include soldiers, road construction workers, ATC controllers etc etc. What is inherently negative about them?

I noticed there was no mention of the many BILLIONS of welfare that is going to neither the Makers or the Takers....but to those who OWN them.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>you keep thinking the term 'taker' is negative

Why do you assume that? By the definition in the OP, takers include soldiers, road construction workers, ATC controllers etc etc. What is inherently negative about them?

Why do I assume that you assume it's negative? or are you trying to throw out another strawman by putting words on my posts?

I assumed you were setting up a strawman by purposely inferring that the term 'taker' was negative (rather than built of many categories some neg and some not) and you were gonna take the easy way out and argue against that - based on your words and tone of post. But your posts were sandwiched between jean and Dan's posts, so maybe I read the total and not just yours.


anyway - is more takers than makers a good ratio?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Amazon

I noticed there was no mention of the many BILLIONS of welfare that is going to neither the Makers or the Takers....but to those who OWN them.

So you are saying the the ratio of takers to makers is even HIGHER -

I agree. so is it bad or good?



It's kind of a moot point really - if we talked instead about makers vs takers in terms of dollar amounts. then we are simply saying we are running at a deficit. People rationalize that that is a great thing also.



the point of the article is simply this - What are the consequences (read expected human behavior) in a society where makers vs takers are loaded where takers are overwhelmingly in the majority.......

We get a bunch of bumper sticker arguments and political BS (even in the article) - when it's really a decent concept to consider.

it worries me - apparently others think it's a wonderful thing

others seem to just ignore it so they can grind their own axes as tangents

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

rehmwa

***I noticed there was no mention of the many BILLIONS of welfare that is going to neither the Makers or the Takers....but to those who OWN them.

So you are saying the the ratio of takers to makers is even HIGHER -

I agree. so is it bad or good?



It's kind of a moot point really - if we talked instead about makers vs takers in terms of dollar amounts. then we are simply saying we are running at a deficit. People rationalize that that is a great thing also.



the point of the article is simply this - What are the consequences (read expected human behavior) in a society where makers vs takers are loaded where takers are overwhelmingly in the majority.......

We get a bunch of bumper sticker arguments and political BS (even in the article) - when it's really a decent concept to consider.

it worries me - apparently others think it's a wonderful thing

others seem to just ignore it so they can grind their own axes as tangents

Personally I am good with means testing for TAKERS... and then train them or make an environment where they can support themselves.
I think MAJOR corporations that make profits in the BILLIONS should not be listed on the TAKING lists.. and should be paying TAXES instead of getting a free ride.
Taking should be based in NEED.. not GREED

[SkyDekker 1,150]

rehmwa

***>but it doesn't cancel the fact that the money has to eventually come from
>somewhere else (from a maker, or print it)

Agreed. And on the opposite side, the roads that maker uses to ship his products has to come from a taker, and his overseas shipping routes have to be defended by all the takers in uniform. A healthy economy is generally going to need both.

you keep thinking the term 'taker' is negative - I dispute that broad assumption (strawman). I'm wondering if the ratio is healthy. Not that a category exists.

I think the ratio is useless without furtehr information. Lets look at it at a small scale.

Let's assume a ratio of 1 maker for every 10 takers.

Now let's assume that the one maker is providing $100 and the 10 takers are taking $10 combined.

That 10% ratio is pretty damn good you would think.

Now lets assume the 1 maker is providing $10 and the 10 takers take $100 combined.

That 10% ratio is aweful.

I am so confused is the 10% ratio good, bad....or a useless sounbite meant to get people upset at all those takers?