Rant: Dems tone-deaf on resentment against "freeloaders."

Dems don't have a clue on how to deal with "freeloading" and the "welfare state." They have the winning position on the issue, but they are too timid and unoriginal to win. The irony is thick. Dems habitually argue badly (execrably) for a good cause.

Dems (and goof liberals who won't even commit to being Dems) keep saying things like:
1. Society needs to care for its weakest members.
2. We need a social safety net.
3. We don't need tax cuts for the rich.
4. We care about people, not property.

If the idea is to see how badly we can lose an argument, how indoctrinated we can be, then we should continue to lead with losers like the above. We should just keep parroting each other's parroting. Then none of the good things we care about will ever get anywhere, but we can feel good about how we talked the talk.

Dems need to revisit why they believe the things they do and reestablish their faith in their positions, intellectually, emotionally, morally, and ethically. We can't move people, capture their loyalty, convince people if we don't know why we ourselves are moved, captured, and convinced.

All of the positions above are two-edged swords. If we wield them without understanding them, then we will fail.

Start with the first: Society (supposedly) needs to care for its weakest members. Why? Why not just live and let die? Why not be "Darwinist?"

If you don't know, find out. But it's counterproductive to bleat out such (IMO, correct) conclusions without being able to specifically say why we believe them.

Dems need to realize that all people resent "freeloaders." They resent having to work to eke out a living only to see other people eking out the same or better living without having to work. The fact that the hand-out comes from taxes is not the primary issue. That is merely insult on top of injury.

The simple fact that any money coming from anywhere (the rich, Mars, who cares?) is ever used to equalize working, striving (I won't say necessarily honest) people with deadbeats and freeloaders is a primary source of resentment. People may say they don't want "their tax dollars" used to help people who don't deserve help. But, IMO, they simply don't want any money used to help people who "don't deserve help," regardless of whose money it is.

That might help explain why people don't really resent Bush's tax cuts for the rich all that much. They don't want the money from the rich being used for bad "government" ideas like dishing out welfare to the undeserving, especially to the neighbors and classes with whom they are competing. (It's a stupid, accounting-ignorant, self-defeating response, but that's the response.)

So the Dem position needs to be strongly, vocally anti-freeloader. We have to be anti-freeloader or we won't be allowed to be anti-poverty. There are endless political riffs that can be played on freeloading once we have our position right on it.

For example, the biggest freeloader who ever lived is currently in the Oval Office. And he has stacked the government with incompetent freeloaders.

And a chicken hawk is a type of freeloader...

And Halliburton freeloaded in Iraq...

Anyway, I just wanted to see what people think about this issue.

human thing to do. What more justification is needed? (Unfortunately, the wingnuts don't even know what is in the book they hold to be most sacred - Jesus's teachings were all about helping others, loving others. As Al Franken said (paraphrased): This guy Bush isn't a Christian. Jesus wasn't about giving tax breaks to the rich.

You don't need any more justification, but other people do. I think people generally do want to care for their weakest members and help them, even Republicans.

Jesus teachings are extremely good reasons. But Dems are loath to use them.

But there are other reasons, including basic human instincts about not wanting to see innocent people suffer, to nurture others and be happy when they are happy. Those are good reasons.

We seldom say them. That leaves us vulnerable to having the weakest in our society demonized as in the case of the "hordes of looters" panic the right was trying to spread recently.

Also, there is a point where a person's human compassion loses precedence to that person's own survival and wellbeing. There is a point where the sacrifice needed to help someone else exceeds our capacity to sacrifice ourselves or, especially, to ask someone else to sacrifice themselves.

laid off when school closed? Poor black farmer who loses everything when hurricane wipes out home? 2 year old babies starving in poverty while parents are out trying to score drugs? Millions without health insurance?

Which group gets help?

In a country as rich and capable as ours, there should be no one starving. Why should one person have so much wealth that they could not use it in 100 lifetimes while others starve or die for want of basic medical care?

I do NOT see someone with a six figure income being taxed at a 30% rate as having their survival threatened.

However I do have a problem seeing a family of 4 struggle to live on $15,000 a year with no health insurance.

Our GOP trash heap has fostered the ownership society without shame. Keep what you have - climb the backs of those less fortunate and unable to defend themselves - take more.

Pigs at the trough.

of tiny hairs, each of which splits in to hundreds more? so cool, sooo sticky!

Check out the stories listed in this link.

Geckos feet are another one of natures "miracles" of engineering.

among one another over who is most worthy...who is deserving and conversely, who isn't. (Is it mothers with children, the disabled, vets, families, HIV positive people who most deserve help?) This is horrible, and we should never allow ourselves to be sucked into it.

function is to support and maintain the common good. One way to do that is to provide for the unfortunate and the needy.

The government is responsible for making sure that those whose benefit greatly from what society has to offer give something back to the society that has enriched them.

Yes. Taxes.

where as working people are the majority. I think this poster has
provoked me to think about both sides of the coin.

x(

but at the same time...

:popcorn:

and move we adjourn! :puke:

peopLe Like this make me sick. when they're supposedLy on our side, it's worse.

I am totally on the side of curing poverty. Providing child care, health care, food, etc., I am totally for it. But I know why I am for it. I am for it, because it makes me happy to see people happy. I'm for it, because I want children to be happy and grow strong.

No one should be against it, yet they are.

Why?

Because some on our side don't want to do the heavy lifting needed to sell and persuade.

We don't have anyone out there saying "We don't like freeloading." We don't. That is not what food stamps and free health care (for example) are. But we let the opposition say it is.

Then we stand back and poo-poo them as not standing up for the weakest and other such platitudes. Again, the platitudes are true and right. They are just weak in the Madison Avenue rhetorical hell we are caught in.

On edit: Peace. Sorry to be so pushy.

I think most of our behavior is biological in nature. We don't want the weak to succeed because that means less for us.

All of life is about fighting that not-so-nice instinct we inherited from our knuckle dragging ancestors!

there is a finite pot of wealth. If one getsmore the other gets
less. That is not how American economy works. The American economic
pot either expands or shrinks. It is never constant. I am for policies
which wxpand the pot, thereby increasing the tax intake by the treasury
which should then be used to take of the "weak".

What do the conservatives say every time we want to raise the minimum wage? "That's going to cost the small businesses money." They seem to overlook the fact that more money will be in the hands of consumers by raising the wages, and that will benefit them in return. What do corporate bean counters say about pay gains? "There must be productivity gains to justify it." So they get their productivity gains and then they say, "no, there just isn't room in the current business climate to justify pay raises." I'm sorry, but I smell a mole here. I've heard the same "it's not a zero sum economy" crap from my far right brother. Like I said in the subject line, in theory, but not in practice.

So, how do we frame food stamps, free health care, etc., if we want to tease out the "freeloader" notion?

Food stamps are given to only those who can not feed themselves.
In this nation of plenty which produces more food products than any
country in the world, it is a sin to have people go without adequate
food. However food stamps should not be given out to able minded and
able bodied persons except on a temporary & emergency situation basis.

It is too easy to get addicted to handouts.

Are you saying that the party needs to be pro-freeloader or that freeloaders don't exist? Just wondering...

The OP is tapping into questions you'd better be prepared to answer because these questions resonate with a helluva lot of Americans, no matter whether your ineffably delicate sensitivities are offended or not. When you finally pull your heads out of where you have them buried, I don't think it's gonna be sand you find behind your ears.

... you prove my point. Maybe you don't know?

saying that, doesn't make it so. but have fun.

and the left has been afraid to shout that fact.

The GOP is about accumulation of wealth, period. Yet the left never shouts out.

everyone needs help from time to time. I'm ready to respond to any freeper in the town where I work with a specific argument; back in 1961, the creek that runs through town flooded and totally devistated the area, putting downtown under several feet of water. Lives were lost, and the town, having just lost one of its major employers, was not able to do much about the disaster. Millions of federal dollars poured in, creating a dam and levee system that has protected the town ever since. Downtown was rennovated, and is still vibrant, a minor miracle, I think, in a time of WalMart megastores. New businesses came and the town has done well.

I think most everyone can find a specific incident where a town or an individual was helped by the federal government. They can relate that incident to the freeper, and then ask where we would be if the feds hadn't helped because "someone" might be "freeloading".

I have learned in a long life of helping folks out is that most of them don't "deserve" it. I'm the annoying person who stops and gives the guy on the corner all my change even though I have heard he probably makes more in a day than I do. But that isn't for me to question. He expresses need, I have it so I give it. I ruminated about this for many years before I just let it go.

Your point is an interesting one.

a bit about "deserving." We are all products of our environment, where and to whom we were born, and also products of our choices. If in this world we only were granted what we deserve... well, should we treat cancer patients who smoke? How about people with cardiac problems because of their lifestyle? Bad choices, bad consequences. But we are all in this together and we all make bad choices at times and one of our lessons here is to hang together and help each other out.

There have been dozens of times when I've given to a person who didn't use the money as he said he would, and this would sometimes bug me.

When it does I think of Jesus' disciples telling Jesus 'but when were you hungry or naked,' and he told them that each time you do for the least of mine, you do for me. That's enough for me because the least of us is him.

One time I was getting on the Staten Island ferry and a guy on a bike rode up to me and siad 'hey man, can I have a quarter to get on the ferry." I gave it to him and he immediately turned the bike around and rode back into Manhattan and I thought "sucker."

But there have been many other times.

Recently a guy asked me outside a dairy queen if I had money for lunch for him and his kid. I gave him $ 5. He went in and bought a couple orders of biscuits and gravy and they ate lunch.

So, you're going to get taken sometimes, but you must give anyway, or that's the conclusion I've come to after many years anyway.

like mike brown.

taxes for wartime & the corporations who get all manner of government contracts but don't pay taxes.

Public needs to know how much caring for the poor actually costs as opposed to how much has been handed out to carpetbaggers.

Numbers that prove that $ caring for poor, feeding, housing, healthcare, actually reduce costs down the road as opposed to what $ costs are of "no bid contracts, etc,)

How much of tax cut money to corporations actually goes back into the economy via reinvestment and rehiring and how much goes to exec salaries and off shore accounts.

I really appreciate challenging thoughts like these.

Here are my opinions:

There will always be certain members of any society who cannot take care of themselves. No one wants to think that, if they ever have a terrible accident, and become paralyzed, that they will just be left to die. Therefore, people in general have a strong desire to offer some protection to other people in these situations.

So that is a clear example of someone who is not a freeloader. So who is a freeloader? Someone able bodied to work? Someone mentally able to work? What if both these conditions are met, but the person can't find a job? How much effort is required to find a job in order to not be termed a freeloader? Should you move to another city? Where do you get the money to move? How would you know where to go? Who will be kind enough to give you a job when you have gone 2 years without working, have no references, and no particular skills?

So if we want to make a distinction between people who need help vs people who just want help, we have to make these decisions, and we have to make them on a case by case basis. So in essence we would need to give people a trial, or some kind of exam before they would be eligible for aid.

Is that cost effective? Or is it better to distribute aid more freely, knowing that a fairly small percentage of those receiving it are doing so without good reason?

I think that most people don't want to be poor. If you have a clear way of getting yourself out of poverty, you're going to do it. Some people are rewarded enough by getting money for doing nothing, so we need to be careful about how much money is enough to survive while also pursuing better situations, without giving so much money that there's no reason to try for better.

Yes - there is nothing more infuriating than watching someone get rewarded more for doing less work than yourself. This "fairness" reaction has even been very easily studied in more species than humans.

It comes down to this: like all societal issues, there is no clear decision. We can't say that since some people freeload, we must no longer help anyone. We need to find a comfortable area where we feel that most of the people who truly need help can get it, and that the amount of freeloading that exists is tolerable. We can't eliminate it, because we can't clearly identify it. Any two people will not be able to agree on every case that someone does, or does not deserve help.

So the only fairness to be had is either no one gets any tax breaks or welfare or student loans or federal disaster relief, or everyone can, but there will be some unavoidable freeloading.

It would be like punishing children - remember when one kid in class would misbehave, and the entire class was punished? THAT is more infuriatingly unfair than the same kid getting a free ice cream cone for getting a good grade on a test that they cheated on.

a response, but you have stated it so clearly. It is so easy to judge someone without knowing what they have faced in their life. I cringe everytime I hear someone use the term, "freeloader" because it is so often unfairly applied.

also have jobs.

A lot of the resentment toward welfare recipients is that the threshold for assistance is set in ways that require a certain amount of dishonesty in order to qualify for benefits. When you live in a county where the threshold for indigent medical care is $200/mo or a state that counts student loan money as income, disqualifying even couples making $400/mo from food stamps, or a country that allows businesses to fire people with disabilities for their disabilities while claiming that the firing is because the person wasn't actually disabled, etc, you can expect that some of those people who need help but are denied it are going to feel resentment.

What should Democrats do? Pay attention to the needs of those on the margins of disaster. That's where Democrats have been failing and where Republicans have been mopping up by playing the politics of resentment.

I agree completely.

.

People either feel a part of society or they feel outside of it. Those who feel a part or within a society easily reach out to others. Those outside of it, who are sociopaths like Bush, Norquist, Limbaugh etc can easily dismiss the needy while preying on the society as a whole.

The Beatitudes are always a good place to start. People are rarely on the fence about their message. People on the left recognize themselves in the Beatitudes. Those on the right ignore them in favor of the ten commandments. Heal vs Heel.

This is what I say:

I'd rather feed one freeloader than let a thousand honest needy people suffer. There's always going to be crooks and cheats at every level of society. You deal with crooks and cheats by going after crooks and cheats, not by assuming that everyone is dishonest.

For me, this is pretty simple. I also believe that most people are law-abiding and trustworthy enough to own weapons, and that those that aren't should be dealt with on a case by case basis. I believe that hardly anyone who buys Sudafed is making crank, and that it is wrong to punish the majority for the misdeeds of a few by taking a useful medication off the shelves. Just in general, most people are no worse than I am. I know that I am not perfect, but I am not so imperfect that I should be deprived of basic rights, including the right to my society's assistance in time of need. I feel that way about me, and about everyone else. Most people judge others by themselves. So that makes me wonder about those who think the world is full of crooks and cheats--is that how they see themselves?

I liked that....a lot. Thank you for that response, and thanks for the original post.

I guess lobbying Congress for unfair laws, fucking over the environment for profit, tax evasion, stealing 401 K's, slashing pension funds, laying of people to please stock market freeloaders, losing 9 Billion Dollars of taxpayers money, getting no bid contracts isn't freeloading/looting.

Everytime you see somebody break into/loot some Corporate Dept store, Drug store , Convenience store etc, compare that against the net value of the former examples of Corporate "looting/freeloading".

Guess which is adds up to more?

He's all about "framing," or restating our values in more convincing ways.

It's inexpensive, it's an easy read, and it'll change the way you think.

NGU.

Repugs have been VERY successful with making the average working class person think that those on welfare are living way better than they are...of course, in most instances, that's just not true. And most don't like a freeloader, that's just the way it is.

A personal story.
Some years ago, I had just gotten home from an 11 hour shift at the shithole factory I worked in. (the money was decent for the area, but I was mostly scraping) It had snowed a ton that day (in northern Michigan, go figure..) So I got home from work, and had to shovel about 4 feet of snow from my little driveway. The guy who lived across the street from me was a known, lifelong welfare guy, seemed able bodied from my estimation and all, so there wasn't a real reason for the govt. assistance. So here I am, busting my ass shoveling.

And he comes out, fires up this huge snowblower, and does his driveway.

Wrong or right, I was fairly pissed about it. And the Repugs play into that anger, although it's probably the exception, not the rule.

Welfare is currently crapped up, and we need to deal with it. The issue is very much freeloaders, and the ways in which welfare for instance rewards them. For instance, if you are recieving welfare here in WA, attempts to get a job which pays less then the welfare benifits you recieve will cause you to lose those benifits ENTIRELY. WTF? We should be encouraging people to work, not discouraging it.

We need a welfare system that brings people up, to thier potential, and teaches them that they can be competant on their own, and gives them the skills to do just that. If I had my way, I would radically overhaul welfare. I would make it so anybody in the country can WORK any day they want to, and get a little money. If we could do that one thing, provide work for the poor, we would do vastly more for them and get rid of the freeloader title.

You'd have to take into account things like, do they transportation or access to public transit, child care, clothing, are they a HS graduate or not, literate, speak english, ....you get the idea.

We could provide whatever they need, so long as the end goal is to have them empowered and in charge of their own lives, not slaves to a system that treats them like they will never be anybody!

If a mother takes in a couple neighbor's children along with her own so that they can work, she should be paid a living wage for that work! If someone beautifies a neighborhood by planning and painting murals on the walls of buildings she should be paid a living wage to support society in that way.

DAMN! You're right about one thing regarding the "welfare system" (that's neither a system nor welfare). There should be a minimum living wage that NO-ONE is allowed to slip under.

I'm tired of this bullshit "personal responsibility" crap the repukes keep shoveling out.

Get this, it's a biologic FACT that human beings are social animals. We are wired to help each other. We are programmed by evolution to live in groups helping each other through the struggle.

Hillary WAS right about one thing, "it takes a village".

Assuming that each "family unit" is a totally autonomous island and should sink or swim on its own is BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT.

That has never been the case, even before Welfare "Reform" - single parents are covered under the Federal Program which used to be called ADC- "Aid to Dependent Children - and were required to seek work after the child turned 6.

Now, under Clinton's Welfare "Reform" they are required to seek work once an infant is three MONTHS old (in NY - I can't remember if the States have any flexiblility on this).

Adults without children in the household are left to the States.

Here in NY there has always been a Work Requirement for single adults - they are required to seek work, and if they can't find any, eventually required to "work" for their check.

Even before the misnamed "Reform" which has caused untold hardship, there were programs (again in NY and I'm sure in other States) to help
people find and keep work.

Welfare Grants in most States are far below the Poverty Guidelines for both individuals and families. It doesn't take much of a job to put a person above the Welfare Grant allowance.

"Welfare Grants in most States are far below the Poverty Guidelines for both individuals and families. It doesn't take much of a job to put a person above the Welfare Grant allowance."

Yeah, then they can move up to the ranks of the working poor -- with no health care and no way to pay the rent. Boy, that's a step up! :sarcasm:

Social service programs in this country comprise a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate welfare that is at hand these days. Everything from airlines to energy companies are feeding at the taxpayer trough while maintaining huge balances on the books.

It is just as imporatant to a well functioning society to hold its business interests accountable as it is to maintain a sound strategy for self sufficiency among its citizens.

Strategies abound but so do stereotypes and bigotry. I've seen people become homeless b/c of a broken fuel pump. Has any company of note in America lost its ability to have a roof over its head b/c they culdn't pay the heat bill.

Inequities abound in America and that is the issue that will surround us all for at least the next twenty years.

If we stopped wasting, I believe nobody would starve. But I also agree with the original post...I think there's a dignity to giving people work, to letting them feel self sufficient that we should pursue.

there isn't enough work and there isn't enough money with the work. So the government gives what are called entitlements and that is work too b/c the way in which one qualifies for those entitlements requires time and effort to get them bu countless workers. Caseworkers, the people assigned in the various agencies that determine eligibility cost money too, some are good, most are overwhelmed or poorly trained. There isn't enough money in these programs for waste and the families are not self sufficient.

The waste in America comes in at the level of the big guys; defense is the biggest spender,pork legislation encompassing many agencies and government levels, and just about any federal agency you can name. The front end of funding, the IRS, goes after little guys b/c they don't have the resources to land the big fish. So long as the Bush cabal is in power, they won't be given that power either.

Democrats would make a better case for themselves if they cried foul on high spending in non social responsibiity areas. Reinforcing the myths presently in place about Dem's and a welfare state merely plays into the hands of the critics.

The better and more efficient our welfare system is the easier it will be to land supporters. I believe a good welfare system could increase the GDP considerably. I agree with you that its mission critical to keep social programs, even if they are less efficient than they could be. But I agree with the OP on the idea that its important to eradicate freeloaders. There are people in this state who I have meet who are parasitizing the food stamp system through applying while working untaxed jobs. Then there are families who need it and aren't getting it. We have an obligation not just to the future of welfare, but to those families who are really in need, to create systems which eradicate parasites.

Life in the USA is very expensive. For a social service system to be efficient, we need fewer regulations and more competant personnel. It will always come back to ethical and competant people.

The only people in the US who I have heard of get screwed under the table are illegal aliens and fugitives. Generally under the table work pays more than the same work above the table, and is done by skilled laborers on projects small enough to slip under the radar of the IRS. It is cheaper for the employer, and more lucrative for the employee. The deals are set up like this because the employer usually understands that the employee can report him to the IRS at anytime. The only time when its not like this is when the employee has more to fear from the government than the employer.

dogsitting,ebay,laundry,food service,construction,word processing, exotic dancing, private stripping,catering,church work...

Most of the very poor people I work with are females, single head of household. These are some of the jobs they seek or perform under the table. And no, they are not paid commensurate with "legal" employment. Nor do they receive benefits, paid sick or vacation time or workman's comp.

If you know a stripper, prostitute, tattoo artist, etc. that makes less than your average $5.15 an hour minimum wage worker, give me their number!!! I'll be their pimpess! ;)
seriously, my only point is that people who don't pay taxes have no right taking money from taxpayers, that's all.

will not be able to any longer. Same for migrant workers. The students who are here on visa's should not be allowed to go to public universities, walk on our sidwalks or drive on our roads. Even our air is subsidized by tax dollars. I understand what sounds like a frustration and I even share it now and then. This week my property taxes are due. I don't want to pay them, I need to pay them.

Tattoo's aren't too much here, pretty cheap and very popular at this time. People can make really good money stripping but the effects on the self esteem of the stripper's kids is terrible.

Well, nice talking to ya'

are the biggest drain on society.

They should be drown in a bathtub...

in services. That is the plain fact of the matter. For the last 100 years government has been trying to do a balancing act on the supposed three tiers of our economic society. All of them are complaining, all of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time....

http://www.meredithmaran.com/mag_chrn_queen.htm

Other sociologsts have studied this problem for some time and have concluded that the actual number of welfare 'cheats' is really low, compared to the number of people (mostly elderly or children) who actually need to be there. I for one, don't have any problem with maintaining a safety net for members of our society, and would feel ashamed of myself if I did not support it. Are tehre welfare cheats? Undoubtedly, but one must ask if it is fair to label an entire group of people as lazy and dishonest because of the actions of a very few? If that be the case, then indeed all of us are guilty of being warmongering, elitist, racist imperialists. right?

... I am arguing for. Another poster above (pop goes the weasel) also said it well in saying "I'd rather feed one freeloader than let a thousand honest needy people suffer." I would say that argument holds, even if the proportion is dramatically less. One in ten, one in five being freeloaders? Should the poor then be made to suffer? I don't think so.

We need to know the proportions. We need people to know the people who are being helped are basically good people, that the help is helping, and that it is appreciated.

And your right, that the way the answer is framed is critical to gaining the support of average overburdened working smuck just trying to muddle through life and improve their childrens lot in life.

Since I'm a public school teacher that's taught for 18 years at the same 100% African American, 90%+ poverty rate elementary school. I'll deal with the Education issue.

The prison industrial complex gets $30,000 of our taxes every year for every child that grows up to a life of crime. On the other hand spending an additional $5000 per year per at risk student, would not only drastically reduce the number of at risk children that grow up to be habitual criminals costing taxpayers 30,000 per year and disfunctional parents cranking out at risk children but would increase the number of functional adult parents and taxpayers for the next generation which will have to deal with a whole bunch of freeloading bald and toothless babyboomers wanting to retire.

Hence, Republicans view poverty as a revenue stream for their 'base' just as they view FEMA, the Iraq War, Social Security, Medicare, Public Education, etc. Democrats on the other hand view poverty as a problem that burdens us all that must be solved so the next generation may be free of it.

You're right. People do hate freeloaders but the problem is that your typical anti-freeloader just doesn't have a clue as to how he/she is being played 24/7.

What they don't know is that the extent to how redistribution of wealth doesn't go down but UP! And it's not just about tax breaks either. Loan guarantees, subsidies, R&D, no-bid overinflated contracts, on and on and on. What the poor (the stereotyped freeloader) gets is a mere fraction of what the corporate welfare queens get.

And even if Larry in the projects is loafing about and should be putting more time in looking for a job; chances are the best job he's gonna get is sweeping floors at the local elementary school. So, we get pissed as hell at THIS GUY.

But then we don't blink an eye if Laurence III has a lavish sweet sixteen party for daughter Felecia at his Hamptons estate complete with live entertainment (he knows Barry Manilow AND P. Diddy personally), top-shelf catering (his wife works out at the same gym as Stephanie March, aka Mrs. Bobby Flay), a social register extravaganza, and then writes it off as a business expense, the whole thing probably costing more than 10 years worth of checks sent to poor Larry.

Extreme examples, no doubt, but it's just to show why our whole society needs a serious reality check.

He's just "Diddy" now.

:popcorn:

...by telling them they "don't have a clue" or that they need "a serious reality check." It's damn well true, but it don't win friends and influence people, to borrow from Dale Carnegie.

Pick up a copy of "Don't Think of an Elephant." Please.

NGU.

And you're missing MY point which is that people need to be led into rethinking what the concept of "looters" is all about, by hook or by crook.

Also, you're talking to an ex-Randroid, recovering conspiratorialist, right-wing laissez fairy who at one time would've condemned you ALL as a bunch of poverty-pimping, commie-socialist-altriust-collectivist-mystic statists trying to destroy America. Believe me, I do understand what an uphill battle it's going to be, aka don't count on all this being resolved in 2006 or 2008. These bastards stole the hearts and minds over a 40-year period, with the greatest inroads happening about 20 years ago in that wacky Ronald Reagan/Alex B. Keaton era when conservatism was THE in thing.

NGU.

;-)

prescribe now . . . the cure would only be available to those who donate enough $$$ . . .

Remember, the people who were taught to read (not really that long ago) had to pledge their entire life to the church - before they were allowed access to "the truth" . . .

"Free-loading" was used as a racist term for Welfare. I do not tolerate racism. To this day I resist that word and cringe when I hear it. Safety nets are needed in a society for the poorest, not only as a hand up to them at a time when they can't do for themselves, but because as a nation, we desperately need to start doing things JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHTAND PROPER.

As a nation we will provide a tax cut to the richest of the rich. We will talk about ending the Estate Tax for them. But, let a family who can't feed their children ask for food stamp assistance, or for welfare because they can't afford to heat their homes, feed their kids, AND get medical care for their children, and they are "FREE-LOADERS".

This is the wealthiest nation on the earth. If people can countenence welfare for the richest and for the corporations, they had better stop thinking of a hand up to a fellow citizen as "free-loading". I don't care if you do think it's a loser of an issue. It's just the right thing to do.

TC

are the ones who are born rich.

They neither toil nor spin and receive the main bounty.

But that's "class war". Can't have that...

It IS dangerous to use that word against anyone who's not ruling class.

For the vast majority of those of us in the working class, we're all just a couple of paychecks away from "freeloader"...

The real agenda is saying who gets what and telling others what they can or can't afford to have. Race also has a part to play as most sheepicans think the majority of welfare people are black. i've seen and heard sheepicans try to practice medicine by saying who is and who isn't disabled. with no medical training and no doctorate degrees they can look at someone and decide that person is or isn't handi-capped. After all they know a blind person or a person in a wheelchair that has a good paying job, when asked where that person is so I can ask him how he got hired its the same, well he works where I work but I don't know him personally.

A code word for 'anyone who belongs to a group I don't like who is somehow receiving my tax dollars.' Everyone has a friend and/or relative who would be considered a freeloader by someone else's standards. Some of them may have a very legitimate reason. Not all disabilities are physical and blatantly visible. Between outsourcing of plenty of good jobs and the trucking in of immigrants for the lousy ones (surely most of the people entering this country realize that Bushco is slowly making America a crappier place to live than the nations they're fleeing), some people aren't going to be able to find a job. Some people are also just skeeves who milk the system for all they can get and simply don't have the advantages of their well-heeled moocher counterparts (**cough**Dubya**cough**Brownie**cough**).

As for the snowblower incident mentioned below (above?), maybe that individual was able to save his government funds because he didn't have any bad habits and practiced sound finances. It does happen. He may also be giving back to the community in other ways that he's just not getting paid for.

Instead of resentment, maybe one should ask to borrow the snowblower.

That's how the Goonish Oaf Party gained and kept control. They played off this resentment. They kept the 2004 election in stealing range by dropping the homophobia card at every possible opportunity (without some Repukes caving in, MA citizens wouldn't have the right to SSM. Allowing it once in Kerry's home state and fighting it elsewhere was all part of their dialectic. Look for the Governator to do the same in early 2008 so they can pull this one again.) They used one violent criminal to represent an entire race to snag the win in 1988. (The actions of a few people in New Orleans who stole goods that had probably been written off by their owners and no longer officially existed anyway put this card back in their hand for 2006.)

Class-based arguments don't work. No one in this country wants to see themselves as poor and downtrodden even if they are. As long as they can believe they're in the middle and not part of the "other", they'll rail against national health care despite needing health insurance themselves, they'll defend outsourcing as long as it's not their job, ...well, you get the idea.

Instead of railing against freeloaders, we should point out that there aren't really any, but the people using their innate skills for cheating and lying are far more dangerous when they have millions to play with rather than a 600-buck welfare check.

:thumbsup:


And point taken.

And, Welcome to DU! I feel odd welcoming someone, I haven't been here long myself.

But what the hell.

Welcome to DU :hi:

I never thought about that until reading a few posts here. I can clearly see how resentment against "freeloaders" is indeed another racial issue. Though I get really messed up about that because as soon as I think racism, I automatically think classism.

I come from a very racist, right wing family....Archie Bunker is THE man....yet I can see them vilifying what they would term "white trash" as readily as they do blacks, Hispanics....anyone non-Caucasian. So, that steers me in the direction that it's equally classism.

About the classism thing: so many of the low-middle to middle class people are so over-extended that they aren't far from being in the same boat as those they despise. Come October with the credit card change, I anticipate lots of people will be singing a different tune about many things.

Whatever it is, it all sucks.

The sheepican is one of those rare people that think because they go to the right church and give 10% of their income to the church they are able to buy off bad things happening to them. Notice that sheepicans think lists and tough on crime laws deter crime. Everyone of them say they are right to lifers but they all believe in the death penalty. They work hard and are the only ones that pay taxes so they feel that they have a right to say who deserves what and what they can buy with food stamps. Trust me I saw on a site where the sheepicans were ranting and raving about people on welfare were driving brand new caddies and buying steaks, they saw it with their own eyes. When told that welfare people can not own new cars and because they don't live with the person buying steaks they have no ideal what that person eats the rest of the month. Maybe that person was buying steaks for something special or for a treat after eating beans, ham hocks, greens and chit-lins all the month before. All I can say is sheepicans like to judge others on what one or 2 do. Funny thing though, is every sheepican i ever met or talked to believe these same exact things. BTW, trust me when i say its racial. Go to the republican forums and you'll see that welfare, inner city crime and child molesting are all blamed on one race.

gone to the BCCI (Saudis) to provide a safety net for Bush43, we would not be saddled by him. Hmmmmmm, maybe the Freeps have a point. \\end sarcasm

over the years, I will express agreement that those who can work should. Yes the "system" has problems. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Fix the system.

One of the biggest roadblocks to communication comes from different perceptions and variations in people's abilities to empathize or imagine the situation of someone else.

If they started off with less and worked hard and got more, some people will swear that anyone should be able to do so.

That gap in experience, perception, empathy seems as big as the Grand Canyon.

There is a saying about "walk a mile in my shoes."

To me the problem in discussing this with freepers, conservative Repubs, or even Libertarians is that you open yourself wide for ridicule and contradiction. Like "oh poor victims..."

You've heard it too, I'm sure.

Almost all physical illnesses are met with doubt even by the medical community when they first appear on the scene. Even AIDS was claimed to be psychological at first.

Don't bother with the psychological problems so many people have but are afraid to admit or discuss.

So what are we left with?

Freeloading is bad. Helping those in need is good. Being "in need" in a way considered valid by society is vague and not clearly defined.

I think back again to what Wes Clark once said: Some people are born on third base, but they think they've hit a home run.

Dubya.

Some people consciously manipulate others to believe in their "rugged individualism" ideas. Some people just feel that way themselves.

No answers, just thoughts.

Why is it that a woman (or man) raising kids, volunteering at school, community activities, and/or taking care of extended family is "not doing anything" while highly placed government and Halliburton vacation junkies are "doing something"? Is she/he freeloading, if she/he gives "free" labor and saves society from taking care of say, an elderly family member or neighbor? We often view taking care of our own families as "doing nothing" when in reality we are raising the next generation to take care of this country and the world. I might also ask, who was raised who is now in Iraq? It is most certainly not any rich kid!

Right now, Welfare Reform says you are "doing nothing" unless you work a paid job, and that babies and children being raised in daycare is "better" than if their parent is at home with them. It actually costs the taxpayer more when a low paying parent works for a wage, because he/she are not paid enough to afford childcare (around 1200.00 a month for one baby), rent, and food, and the family needs subsidy for all of those necessities.

If low income parents were allowed to stay home with their children, the costs would be about 1/3 as much, with health care included! A full time minimum wage job in my state (and we have one of the the highest minimum wage in the nation) brings home about 1300.00 a month. Do the math and you will see how foolish is this thinking. You will realize how we are actually subsidizing deadbeat corporations to use women and men like these parents for their crap unbenefitted labor, while their children languish without them in their lives....

Meantime companies and executives, like the Enron and Halliburton people enjoy huge tax breaks and government handouts so they can cheat their workers and give themselves fat golden parachutes. If you look at the budget you will find that literally these handouts are thousands of times more out of our tax dollars than if we gave our national safety net what it needs! Defining work is all about funding. When we as a nation, begin to value work that is not paid, as being as valuable ~ maybe even more valuable than paid work ~ then we will come a long way, IMO. Then we can not call someone working for one's family and community "freeloading."

I know, I know it is often called (gasp) OMG! "socialism" if we do what European countries have been doing all along, but tell me now, who lives better? In truth we already have an American version of socialism ~ it is just socialism for the rich that we pay for, nobody else benefits as they do from our collective tax dollars. Now tell me again, who lives better than the rest of us?


So it all depends on how we define and value work. As long as we collectively believe that "work" only means paid work, well we will continue to pay for entitled rich people's golden parachutes while the people doing without continue to starve.

My 2 cents worth

Cat In Seattle


Edited for spelling

worthy of its own thread

I'd also add the arts to the mix.

As a (somtimes) professional musician who many times in the 60s and 70s took advantage of the ONLY support for the popular/folk arts in this country -- Welfare -- consider work in the arts to be esteemable labor worthy of support.

I long for the day of the WPA when artists, musicians and actors were paid by the government to tell the truth.

Life without art would be meaningless.

Not only should we respect the Arts as being "work", we can also see how important it is as a education and to our daily lives in general. For instance, music enhances math comprehension and it is also one of the best "team builders" a teacher can incorporate. It is important to incorporate the arts into our national psyche because it encourages creative and critical thinking.

The things our society disregards such as music is sad because it would actually give so much more richness to our communities. I can appreciate what you are saying about trying to be a musician while also being a parent. I am a poet, in my "spare time" (haha), I have written a book (unpublished) which I gave to my church as a tithe, but I often tell my fellow worshippers it won't help much until I am gone, because poets are never famous until they are dead. I think this lack of recognition is often true of the visual arts as well, such as with painters.

Work could be defined as the things we do that contributes to our communities and to our society. Right now a "McJob" is the only way we are made to feel we have done something ~ and it is the only thing supposedly worthy of having our government financially support us. The fact that we only regard this kind of paid work as being such a contribution, is not only sad it is counterproductive because we are disregarding some of the most important unpaid contributions and talents that people give to our country. And that is a waste, IMO.



Cat In Seattle <-------who remembers being inspired and comforted by Jacob Lawrence paintings on the hallway walls of her school, a WPA paid artist who is now considered one of our foremost painters in the last century and who would not have been able to give this beauty and inspriation, if he had not been paid WPA wages.

Edited for spelling

Many people genuinely believe that there is a whole lot of people living high on the hog on welfare.

First of all--as other posters mentioned--the vast majority of poor who receive some form of assistance are working

It is simply not true that there are lots of undeserving freeloaders getting a free ride on welfare--it is one big bright and shining lie.

Born very rich...

Legacy student at Yale

Viet-nam era no-show. Too "well connected" to become cannon fodder.

1978 - bush takes $17,000 from his "education trust fund" to start Arbusto (Spanish for bush) a soon to be heavily in debt "energy" company.

1984 - bush bailed out by friends of poppy - William DeWitt's Spectrum 7 oil company.

1986 - Harken Energy (more poppy cronies) buys out Spectrum after bush loses an additional $400,000.

In the buyout, bush and partners given more than $2,000,000 of stock.

bush becomes a 'director' and was hired as a 'Consultant' to Harken. He received another $600,000 of stock and has been paid between $42,000 and $120,000 per year.

1987 - Jackson Stephens, BCCI (Bank of Crooks and Criminals International) and a Saudi tycoon provide more money for the bush company.

1990 - bush sells remaining stock options for $846,560 (200% profit) and left the oil business. Harken goes into the tank. There's evidence that bush was tipped off that Harken was going under so he bailed.

1989 - bush was included in the purchase of the Texas Rangers baseball team with more poppy cronies using his stock options as collateral.

He made $15,000,000 off the Rangers with the help of $135 Million in corporate welfare from Arlington taxpayers (for a new stadium).

Never managed a successful business enterprise.

Never had to work a day in his life. He was a complete figure-head for the Rangers while they groomed him for Governor of Texas (poor Texas).

Now THAT'S a freeloader!!!!

Rice Farmer Dave calls in every week to the local community radio station's Saturday morning talk show to tell us that we are all communists and stealing from him.

In my county, Butte County CA, our subsidies for the rice crops exceed the value of the crop one year in three. That is, total subsidy payments by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT exceed the total value of ALL of the rice grown in the county.

This does not include the cost of the water projects that bring rice farmer Dave his water or the roads (beautiful slices of pristine pavement) that have no other purpose than to go by Dave's farm.

Rice Farmer Dave has a big ass house, huge truck, a bass boat, ATV and god knows how much equipment. He complains about "freeloaders" a whole bunch.

I know dozens of rich white guys who "own rental property" and otherwise do jack. They leveraged assets in a rising market in a way that most working people cannot. They pay far less in taxes on those properties than they cost the county in service costs. I know, I'm the guy who meets the sherrif for evictions.

Who's really freeloading? The working mom or Rice Farmer Dave?

"As you do unto the least of you, so you do unto me" Jesus of Nazareth.

Repeat it verbatim, every single time. If Jesus thought so, than the least we can do as a nation is follow his lead. God Bless the USA!!

PS: I'm an Atheist. This will work however. Make a Repub argue against Jesus Christ. Their faces swell up and turn red, like a Ball Park frank in a microwave.

In Germany it is no problem. People are happy to pay the big taxes to help the others. Everyone has bad luck and must leave work or stay home with children, or gets sick, so everyone helps to take care. it is like this in Sweden also. Put it that way: we only get angry when the government is confused and thinks that hurting the no-luck people will help the economy. Like now, under Schroeder. But now he has made his party look bad, so maybe people will vote too much for the CDU and Merkel and that will be worse...

You are maybe right for Americans with the "cowboy I do it myself" thinking, but not for Europe where people think that the society is important. We all push together for success. We have problems sometimes, yes, but we work together which is why the EU and Germany are strong.

And welcome to DU!

I've been finding myself becoming almost as emotionally invested in the electoral outcomes in Germany and other European nations with strong social welfare systems, as I am in American politics. I hope Merkel doesn't get a chance to work her ways on Germany's economic system, but it sounds like Schröder has been doing just fine dismantling the social welfare system on his own. I personally hope your new Left Party gets a bigger share of the vote than is expected at the moment, in the hope that it will send a message to the SPD and other parties that the German people still want a strong social welfare system. I admire and envy the way the German economic system is set up to care for its people, and I truly wish (and hope!) that the majority in the US will soon demand the same from their government. I hope it won't take another Depression or severe recession to make it so. I think the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina woke up a lot of Americans to the ways that Republicans and conservative Democrats have turned their backs on the poor in the US. The media teaches most people how to think in this country, and the media finally showed images that are too horrible to deny (if they would only do the same for the war in Iraq, Bush would never have been re-elected).

Freundliche Grüße aus America

Why do you suppose minorities will gobble up tax dollars whenever possible. Is nothing owed those people for all the years in fact centuries of discrimination and slavery. For a large part of our history Blacks were forbidden to have any sort of education. A person could be jailed for educating a black person. White America has spent centuries keeping minorities down so as to elevate their own siblings and then bitch when minorities accept government monies to survive. America needs to "Get Over It" when they get upset over governmental charity. It is such a tiny fraction of our wealth and yet it is more important to kill othert humans than to help Americans. "Get Over It" America I would rather help to support a thousand unjust welfare reciprients than buy one bullet to kill with. But then I believe in Christ's words.

votes with this arguement. they will say, "it was centuries ago" & you liberals just being liberal with my money", etc.

of the person who has been propogandized so much for the past 20+ years per reagan's faux welfare cadillac mother - regardless - to those folks any govt money recipient is a "freeloader."

Most folks in the moderate middle (independent and both sides of the asile - but close to center) understand the need for a safety net - it is to them that these discussions should be framed.

Make comparisons to the economic structures (class strata) in third world countries where there is an oligarch class - and everyone else. Get folks to think back to the great depression - where there was great fear as to our country heading in that direction (few really, really rich - and a whole lot of "peasant" poor.) Who do we want to be? IF we want to continue to slide in that direction - and only a few can be at the top - how will they ensure that their families and children will end up on the inside of the gated communities?

Don't know that pandering to the selfish and class bigoted is really going to get us anywhere.

I also don't think there's any way to convince the true believers.

So when Democrats speak on this issue, they can attempt to counter the rabid arguments of the right wing nuts. But those people will not be convinced.

The OTHER alternative is to speak through and despite all the static, propaganda, hate, and all the rest of it. Speak to the sane among us, in a reasonable way.

It means we actually don't need to counter all the fringe arguments, and prejudices. At least not for the purpose of convincing people to support our candidates or policies.

All our side needs to do is to set forth our beliefs, and ignore the spin from the radical right.

And watch our back, be alert to propaganda being imposed on kids or anyone that might be vulnerable to brainwashing.

but a "Hand-up".

Halliburton should be equated and we need to make our arguments to account for this resentment. That's novel, so help for poor people and the powerless is freeloading as is Halliburton which a gambit for the rich and powerful. Hmm. That's a brain-dead premise for a thread, but even a decapitated chicken can run for awhile.

It's not a hand-out, it's a hand-up.
The best social program is a job.

Funny how we always get back to the very strong American work ethic and how it has always been a double-edged sword. On the one hand we admire work and place hig moral value and identification on the fact that we work. It's part of the American nature. We believe that hard work is both it's own reward and that those who have accumulated money must be, on some level, good and decent people who deserve what they get.

On the other hand, we suspect that the game is rigged against most of us and that the fix is in. The great job will go to the nephew of the boss, the promotion went to the weaselly bastard who brown-nosed more than worked and so forth. We have deep ambevalence that the system is fair and that we will ever reap a fair reward.

Demogogues have always been able to manipulate those feelings. They hae been able to simultaneously evoke the need to condemn 'the other' for not playing by the rules and not working. And we resent the hell out of the people who make the system work in a way that benefits the favored.

This has always been the stuff of politics. You can play it as populism and pray it doesn't degrade into racist tirades against 'the other.' (And the Rethugs are playing this card hard for next year with their campaign against 'illegal immigrants.' It's the nasty side of the populism card.)

We do need a counter-argument. We have one. It's to stress that someone needs to stand up for ordinary Americans and ask for their fair share. Clinton did this.

We live in a capitalist economy that DEMANDS a minimum of 5%+ unemployed TO WORK!!!

Now, what do you do with the unlucky 10-20 million people who don't and CAN'T HAVE A JOB!!!!

This whole damn setup is a myth. A sick joke.

is entirely acceptable, and in fact the GOAL, then how can we in the same breath either condemn those without work or call them freeloaders. They are the sacrificial lambs of our economy, that's what they are.

by pointing out that he was attending a state university (my alma mater).

He had been ranting about "socialism" and all its inherent ills, etc.

When I enlightened him to the fact that the taxpayers (including me) were subsidizing his education, he sputtered like a motorcycle with vapor lock.

I then asked him if he was, by his own definition, a "socialist."

When he tried to shift the topic to something else, I suggested he "do the right thing" and attend the local Wesleyan university (at a cost of many, many more thousands of dollars a year). That way, I suggested, he would not be such a burden on society! Obviously, that burned him up a bit.

People do not wake up until their own ox is gored.

that millions of poor and middle class renters are paying full taxes in order to finance homeowners, who get a REDUCTION in taxes for being lucky enough to afford a home.

WARNING: this will not be well-received.

DISCLAIMER: I actually am not opposed to the mortgage deduction, I just like keeping things in perspective.

From my soclology class in college-there are three ways to keep people out of the job market 1) school 2) welfare 3) prison Education has become more costly; welfare has been curbed; and the prison population is growing. We are losing decent jobs in this country. Front page of the Salt Lake Tribune about three years ago had an article about a high number of state employees receiving food stamps, it was the only way to support their families. With losing jobs to the overseas market, what category are the majority of the American people going to fall into? I worked at Mervyn's about six years ago, part-time, you wouldn't believe the worker's who were working two and three jobs just to make ends meet. Face it, we're becoming a third world nation for the New World Order! I do not begrudge anyone who needs assistance, since I have had friends in that position. Mostly women with children, who went back to school and got a decent job after. That was then, this is now.

...stayed on welfare more than 2 years. Most women used it to get an education before Welfare "Reform". Going to school or getting training is now being discouraged and even sabotaged by the government. this only destines families to working low paying McJobs for the rest of their lives unless people stand up with low income people and let this country know this is wrong.

And we are subsidizing corporations for being so "nice" as to hire these people for their slave labor...

Also as an aside; most welfare workers have just under 2 children, 80% of them were married and recieve little or no support from the other parent (sick, imprisoned, or supporting other families), and 60% of welfare recipients are from domestic abuse families. Oh. And there are more white welfare recipients than black or any other minority recipients in this country....

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle <---proud to be a white welfare mom who is also working for pay, and who deep from my heart, support my black, asian, hispanic, africa an and other immigrant sistas and brothas who are struggling.

Edited for content

The first one was the author of the book noted below, based on following the lives of women who had been on welfare and after some of the "welfare reform" legislation passed, they got jobs. They weren't necessarily any better off financially, because they lost their health care coverage, and they of course had to spend less time with their kids.

It was a very interesting segment.


1. "Jason DeParle, the social policy reporter for the New York Times and the author of American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare, now in paperback."


The second was with a Professor at Harvard Law who spoke about the bankrupt bankruptcy bill. And the tactics used by the credit card companies in authoring that obscene bill.

Also very interesting.

I kind of chuckle a little when I see and hear the local commercials from law firms talking about the bankruptcy bill signed into law by President Bush and how harmful it could be to people's finances. And says you better hurry and file now if you're going to file, before the law takes effect.

It's a commercial for the law firm, that in the process must make a lot of people aware what good care our leader is taking of us all.


2 "Elizabeth Warren, a professor at the Harvard Law School, where she teaches contract law, bankruptcy and commercial law. She and her law students also run the Warren Reports blog on TPMCafe.com. Her most recent book is All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan. She'll talk about economic issues related to Hurricane Katrina victims, including the effects of Bankruptcy Bill."

Specializing in nursing home abuse actually has the chutzpah to refer to anti-trial attorney talking points in their ad. The lawyer says "If your home is clean and you take care of your patients, you won't have to worry about ME!"

you : 4. We care about people, not property.


I.E.

Bush aide (Karen Hughes): U.S. image tarnished by looting after the hurricane

Me: U.S. image tarnished by the abandonment of the people of New Orleans



What's your headline?

Sounds better in Italian. We need a serious movement to reduce work hours. Welfare has always been a cheapie solution to the problem of increasing productivity. If fewer and fewer people make more and more stuff, yet are not allowed to have the stuff unless they work, how long is this sustainable? We can't paper it over by increasing our prison population forever, can we?

...has a brilliant and comprehensive piece on the issue.

Originally a discussion of a paper by Nathan Glazer, it leads to the ineluctable conclusion that in the US, at least, 'freeloader' is shorthand for 'black'.

Citing a comprehensive study by economists Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser of Harvard and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth called, "Why Doesn't the United States have a European-Style Welfare State?" (Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2/2001) he shows that the reluctance of Americans to embrace an egalitarian economic philosophy goes back to the beginning of the republic. But what is interesting is that both he and the economists offer some pretty conclusive evidence that the main reason for American “exceptionalism” in this case is, quite simply, racism..

To a large extent, the term "freeloader" is racist shorthand. Ironically, I think that is another reason for us to take a position against freeloading. We can redefine the term by doing so.

It really should go back to meaning what it means, someone who contributes nothing but lives off of the work and sacrifice of others.

Bush's whole life story springs to mind.