Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
It’s not easy to pull yourself out of poverty PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

Robert Reich, in his recent column “Conservatives point to poverty,” criticizes conservatives because they place more emphasis on the problem of poverty than they do on inequality. Why not?

We should care more about the poor than we do about the gap between the super rich and the impoverished. What difference does it make whether there are 10 or 1,000 billionaires in the country? The important measure is the number of people in poverty and how well are we doing in making it possible for them to succeed.

Liberals continue to generate class envy. And yet, income inequality has increased during the Obama years. Their stale solutions rest on higher taxes on the wealthy and more entitlement spending.

Economist Walter Williams makes the case that taxing the rich more actually represents the government confiscating money from one group and giving to another. Politicians solicit votes from one segment of the population by promising various kinds of goodies. “Don’t worry, we will just tax the rich guys more.”

Reich laments inequality of political power between the rich and the poor. That has always been partially true. But both Republicans and Democrats inhabit the halls of influence. And the middle class exerts great power at the voting booth through union activism and other forces.

Liberals harp on the influence of corporations, but they don’t criticize their wealthy, left wing buddies in the entertainment industry.

We must not be so naive as to think that it is easy to pull yourself out of poverty. The barriers are not power structures or the number of rich citizens among us. But the government needs to stay out of the way of progress. There is too much regulation making it difficult for businesses to hire more workers. The Congressional Budget Office this week estimated that Obamacare will result in the loss of 2.5 million full-time jobs in the next few years.

Let’s do better as a society. We can learn lessons from our immigrant ancestors. Nearly all of them came to their new land with meager possessions. They worked hard. In time, the rules for success became apparent. Three things are important for a young person. Graduate from high school, don’t get addicted to drugs or alcohol, and don’t have a child before you get married.

Warren E. Anderson

Conover

Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:18 PM
 

Comments  

 
-6 #32 Frank Gabl 2014-02-27 15:08
Jeff,

Actually, you did respond in the textbook manner that confirms my conclusions.

Yet, I must admit that I didn't intend for it to end up this way.
Quote
 
 
+8 #31 Jeff Laadt 2014-02-27 11:12
Frank

OK, have it your way. There is no possible response to such craziness.

Jeff Laadt
Quote
 
 
-7 #30 Frank Gabl 2014-02-27 09:37
Jeff,

This could be just another exercise in futility since at this point you usually try to protect yourself from too much exposure and go silent.

That aside, based on your response maybe I didn’t make myself clear, that indeed, I was complimenting you on articulation, but of course, not the substance.

Yet, before you get too giddy and blow me a kiss (I hope Tony didn’t read that), I must say you liberals are nothing more than robotic hypocrites. In one breath, Dr. Anderson is “confused,”
“possesses third-grade reading skills” and is “willfully misleading” (akin to someone I’ve gone a thousand rounds with which really makes it a low blow). In the next breath you indict yourself as the one who actually is petty and unreasonable by calling me out simply for expressing my true convictions as you had just exercised on Mr. Anderson.

Cont. below:
Quote
 
 
-8 #29 Frank Gabl 2014-02-27 09:33
Continued:

But there’s a much more complicated dynamic at play when a person employs the same ingredients that they’re using to make a case against their perceived perpetrator. As in, accusing me of a “personal attack” against Barack Obama for simply telling it like it is.

And although I have no degree in psychology, this dynamic is basic 101.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/0001251

You’re in denial. You’ve put your whole existence into helping facilitate the transformation of America. And just when it’s all miraculously lining up as a possibility (albeit, through morally bankrupt deceit and deception), you, Barack Obama and all of the true believers are too proud and embarrassed to admit that it really does not work.

So just like Barack Obama, you lash out against those who threaten to expose everything you’ve ever hoped and dreamed of to be nothing more than another nail in the coffin of socialism.
Quote
 
 
+6 #28 Jeff Laadt 2014-02-26 14:27
Frank
Actually, I do believe Anderson to be willfully misleading.

I share your contempt for the news media for taking a complicated issue and reducing it to politically charged sound bites. I don't fault the CBO. The report is pretty straight forward, and they are not responsible for the way others interpret it.

I'm glad you find my convictions "flawless", although I suspect you meant something other than a compliment.

But why must you, once again, end up with such a mean-spirited personal attack on the President. I'm perfectly aware of how you feel, but accusing him of "purposeful destruction of America" is a bit much. Why not just state your arguments and set aside the hate.

It makes you look petty and unreasonable.

Jeff Laadt
Quote
 
 
-6 #27 Frank Gabl 2014-02-26 07:58
Tony,

The claim that your “vision fails you sometimes” does makes complete sense since you’ve demonstrated time and time again that you are incapable of seeing Barack Obama for the morally bankrupt individual that he truly is.

Other than that, you can try to walk back those incredibly embarrassing, yet telling, public announcements about your community standing and sexual confusion all you want, but there’s enough evidence, just in post 20 alone, that will stick with you for many years to come.
Quote
 
 
+6 #26 Anthony Corallo 2014-02-25 15:07
Frank, I misspelled Freud. But then my vision fails me sometimes.What you don't understand and failed to pickup on was the village is Eagle River. I served my one day as the village idiot and moved out. You do such a good job it is obvious, they the News Review allow you unlimited rant,
Frank, you often berate the President. Shameful! from an immature adult!
We shall meet one day in Eagle River and become great friends.
Tony
Quote
 
 
-5 #25 Frank Gabl 2014-02-25 13:40
Jeff,

No, Mr. Anderson was not "less than accurate," unfortunately, he was wrong. However, I hardly believe he meant to deceive as you initially concluded.

I mainly blame the media from both sides, as well as the CBO for not anticipating the confusion on such a highly-charged issue.

As far as the determinations and consequences in the report, you've predictably articulated your philosophical convictions flawlessly.

However, my predictable convictions, in simple terms, goes something like this:

You can put lipstick on a pig all day long to make it look like something it's not, and you can add a dozen more posts to gussy-up the CBO report all you want, but Obamacare is still all about control, redistribution (theft) from the haves to the have nots, and the purposeful destruction of America via socialistic principles.
Quote
 
 
-8 #24 Frank Gabl 2014-02-25 12:21
Tony,

I'm not quite sure Dr. Phil reads this News-Review forum.

So let me attempt to explain why you've recently developed this deep-seated need, to not only tell the world that you've been a "village idiot" in the past, but now feel the compulsion to air-out your innermost sexual feelings and desires in such a public fashion:

Sadly, you are a longtime product of liberalism - and shall we say - your "chickens are coming home to roost."

By the way, "real Americans" don't disrespect the current Oval Office occupant of the United States of America by referring to him as "Fraud," even if it's true. Shame.
Quote
 
 
+6 #23 Jeff Laadt 2014-02-25 06:43
Second, if we are to recognize whatever "distortions" the ACA may inflict on any future labor market, we must also recognize the distortions implicit in the pre-ACA market as well. Workers compelled to work longer, or at multiple jobs, in order to secure health coverage represent no less a disruption in a "free" market. If we really want to avoid such effects, then we must either remove the health system from the labor market entirely, or mandate universal coverage for every worker from every employer.

For this debate, and for system change generally, removing the link between health and employment is clearly the better choice.

Jeff Laadt
Quote
 

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.


Security code
Refresh