@Lyle: What happens when there are more takers than makers?
@Sara: Glad to see your back, and as sharp as ever! Nice analogy.

Actually, it's more like Obama wants to have the only restaurant in town, and he doesn't want anyone to eat at home, either. His argument is that the more food he gives people who don't pay, the less they will need it. Giving them more food is somehow supposed to change their behavior in the future, resulting in them wanting to pay for it.

Craig, what exactly has Paul Ryan made, except BS?

Come to think of it, what about Mitt? Let's add a third category. Destroyer.

@Lyle Ruble... I hunger for your counter analogy/response blog........

I'll get you started with an opening that I more or less 'borrowed' from another 'blog response to another blog'. The names have been changed to protect the innocent:

I have read and reread Sara Conrad's blog post titled “Food for Thought...” and I found her analogy not only wrong, but painfully misleading and unrealistic. I can understand Sara’s passion and his dedication to get her candidates elected, but I don’t agree with her unrealistic approach.

Schmitzy, lets add a fourth category, moocher. That would be the ones with the free meal with no willingness to help offset the cost of the meal passed on to the others.

And since you haven't paid Hoffa his 50 buck, you fall into that category!

Kieth: As usual, your empty comment is not worth a lengthy reply. Try rehab, please.

@Lyle -

Your counter argument to Sara's analogy doesn't quite reflect reality, as government is not "the only source" of taking care of those who are unable to care for themselves in our society - there are private charities, religious missions and outreaches, community groups and organizations, etc.

Accordingly, your counter-argument to Sara's analogy fails and actually supports the validity of her analogy.

Vote ROMNEY/RYAN/THOMPSON today!!!

@Lyle
Your statement, "it the only source of food", is exactly why the people on the east coast are still suffering. They played your hand and assumed the the government was the source of support and just like in New Orleans it is proving the ultimate failure of government. In fact, one of the first requests of the local authorities was to ask the federal government to step back its regulations which were interfering with the their ability to help people.

@J.B. Schmidt -- Yes, think of all the deep-sea fishing opportunities when your first floor is underwater! We don't need no stinkin' federal government -- unless we're Chris Christie.

@Randy
With nearly 2 million without power and gas rationing what exactly has the government done to help when they had almost a 1 week warning? FEMA has failed again.

Lyle?

Yeah. Ask Chris Christie. Please, ask Chris Christie.

@Steve-- Funny, but neither did my former boss create with his own hands the product he sold. He did the selling and brought in the business, sure, but he didn't quite grasp where he'd be without his production workers.

There's a thing called symbiosis, where both partners in the relationship benefit to their profit, but take it too far and it become parasitism. A wise parasite doesn't kill its host. We can argue all day about who are the parasites and who are the hosts, but Mitt Romney never made anything in his life. He just skimmed off the cream from others who did while paying a lower tax rate than the actual producers.

blah blah blah. Remember your audience here Randy. Your rant may work with a poor uneducated non producer city dweller. Who will scream out "hell yeah Obama Obama Obama".

You are talking to a producer here, an employer, someone that built a business from scratch who actually MADE/invented products before getting too large. You are full of BS and I have a feeling you know it. We all do our part. Some of us just do more than others proportionately.

So Randy, what the workers be doing without their "parasite"? Doing a different job for a different "parasite". Very few workers don't have the knowledge or desire to start a company. And when they do, they suddenly realize how much work is involved.

Take an assembler at a plant. Yes, he puts the parts together, he makes sure everything specs out, and he tests it to make sure it functions correctly.
But who got the parts for him?
Who paid to get the design drawn?
Who pays the electric bill to provide the light he needs?
Who makes sure there is money to pay him?
Who pays the sales people to sell the product he made?
Who pays the business side of FICA and Medicare?
Who puts the 401K match into his account?
Who pays the business portion of his health insurance?

Starting to see the picture?

@Steve -- I understand my audience very well.

@Anti-Alinsky -- Didn't I say it's a symbiosis? Production needs ownership and vice versa. It's when the ownership feels entitled to the product and the profits while paying minimum wage and no benefits and then holds the workers in contempt for not making enough money to pay taxes (and expects them to do without medical care) that is becomes parasitism.

@Randy1949

"A wise parasite doesn't kill its host."

Hmmm... the recent GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, several municipal and county governments across the nation declaring bankruptcy, and several states with trillions in accrued debt and unfunded liabilities.

Sure looks like the labor unions have turned into unwise parasites, doesn't it?

Ranall- It is your ilk that is killing the host. Between unions and Obama, the hosts are dciding to leave this area and once gone, may never come back. Yes, you guys are the parasites on society. Gimme, gimme, gimme. I deserve it. i'm entitled. blah, blah, blah....

Really, Brian? You speak as if I had ever belonged to a union or failed to pay my taxes.

Randy1949 wrote: "...@Anti-Alinsky -- Didn't I say it's a symbiosis? Production needs ownership and vice versa. It's when the ownership feels entitled to the product and the profits while paying minimum wage and no benefits and then holds the workers in contempt for not making enough money to pay taxes (and expects them to do without medical care) that is becomes parasitism."

Yes, but then you went on to bash business, and Mitt Romney in particular. Do you want to do a little more backpedalling and tell your boss how great he is?

Ready to watch Romney lose in PA tomorrow?

http://limerick.patch.com/users/mr-independent-voter

Please post where he broke a tax law or why he overpaid in 2011. Did you pay $2 in taxes last year?

@Mr. I Voter - You need to read a little more carefully. Just because someone gets a tax exemption on a portion of their finances does not mean that they did not pay taxes on the rest of their income.

If your link is "food for thought," you missed your mouth.

Keith,

I'm leaving to vote in 5 minutes. I will be thinking of you when I mark the ballot.

Too bad she didn't use a book business analogy. There's local evidence still around of the failure of socialism, even on a microscopic level in an area highly amenable to that particular political/socio-economic bent, to provide a sustainable, vibrant economy.

A cooperative book store that failed due to incompetent management that didn't understand what it took to properly build a business and make it succeed - the comparison is frighteningly scary!!!

ROMNEY/RYAN/THOMPSON 2012!!!

An independent book store paid for by the taxpayers and duped members. Now that's progressive! What's next? Buggy whip factory? Building typewriters? All progressive thoughts. It amazes me that the liberal mind promotes itself as progressives when it's exact opposite: trying to block progress by giving tax incentives to loser businesses and then taxing heavily the winning business by raising the corporate tax to the highest rates in the world. Progressive? Really?

I remember someone said to me years ago that "life's losers vote Democrat". At the time I wanted to disagree vehemently. The last few years have changed my mind. Just take a look at the major voting blocks for the Democratic party and tell me most of those groups don't fall into the category of life's losers.

I do think I'll be eating in the "luxury" dining room...because I live in the greatest country in the world....where I can start a small business and have all the opportunity right here to make it a success & accomplish my dreams come true. Is it easy? No. It's not. It's hard as heck. But it's worth every drop of blood, sweat, & tears. I'm lucky I was born here. I'm not going to waste that amazing gift from God by adopting an entitlement mindset & mooching off of others. Period. The End.

Yeah, yeah. I wish you luck hiring decent employees with that attitude. You're the maker and they're the 'entitled'. What blood have you shed so far?

Randy,

Why did you think she was talking about employees being mooches? You really have issues with entrepreneurs, for some reason.

Entitlements and employment are difficult to confuse with one another, but somehow you managed.

According to our files, Randall has not been Mr. Successful in the business world...this explains his huge chip on his shoulder.

Actually, I find Randy fascinating. He is intelligent and articulate, even when he is wrong. I'd love to hear his story. I can't figure him out, but I'd buy lunch, just for the opportunity.

Luke, I'll sum it up for you and save you $20 bucks. He is envious of others and wants to stick it to folks who have most likely been better at managing their money. This is all about greed , envy and jealously of people who are more prudent in life.

@Pennypacker -- We're actually doing better now self-employed than when I was working for your idolized entrepreneurs. It's just that providing a 'luxury' service in this economy can be challenging.

As for not being prudent and managing my money well, thanks for the laugh. I needed one today.

@Randy1949 -

Why would the "people who grow the food and deliver it to the restaurant" never be able to afford to eat in the luxury dining room? And why would they always necessarily need to be eating in the 'luxury dining room,' as opposed to the regular dining room at the restaurant?

Where in the analogy is Sara advocating for the exploitation of labor exactly?

A fair day's pay for a fair day's work doesn't guarantee that everyone would necessarily be able to constantly eat in the luxury dining room. But it would provide them with the means to be able to patronize the regular dining room - and what is so wrong with that?

Are you arguing in favor of a guaranteed equality of outcome that you believe government should be providing by redistributing wealth? Isn't that textbook communism?

In case you didn't get the memo, Nixon took us off the gold standard over 30+ years ago. Wealth is now unlimited - based only on the perceived value an individual creates. The ability for everyone to be wealthy is there, but it's up to them to make it a reality for themselves.

@JRH -- Go back and take a second look at the blog, where she says that the dining room has been divided in two -- one part for the paying customers and one for the free food. There was no third option.

All I'm arguing for is a society in which the guy who buses the tables would be able to afford to eat in that restaurant and pay for the privilege on his day off. If you don't pay the bus-boy enough to afford the meal, then don't begrudge him the free food. And please don't make snarky comments about the increased crime in the parking lot.

Sara, my Christian upbringing taught me that I was born in sin, which I interpret to mean as being an unproductive, selfish person. It's my job as a Christian and human being to change and grow, to love my neighbor, and to serve, so that at the end of my life I am as close to being a productive and selfless person that I can be. In the Bible we are taught to be Good Samaritans, to help those less fortunate, and even (in Revelations) that we will eventually be judged on how we served God through our service to strangers/those in need. I find it very difficult to jibe my Christian training with what you state, "adopting an entitlement mindset & mooching off of others." That view of the very people that Christ embraced (the sinners, the poor, the sick, and the disabled) seems a precise "waste [of] that amazing gift from God." Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly and I would appreciate a bit more explanation. Thanks,

Bren: Wasn't there something about eating a days fill in another persons field is not a crime, but taking more than a days fill was?
One may interpret that as feed the hungry to make them strong enough to work for their food.

@Randy1949 -

It's the failing and non-preferred restaurant in Sara's hypothetical analogy that is divided into two dining rooms - the paying an non-paying sections. And because the paying section is subsidizing the costs of the non-paying section, the prices are more expensive in the paying section, thus it's completely conceivable that the guy busing the tables in that restaurant would not be able to afford to eat at that restaurant.

In Sara's preferred successful restaurant, "the dining room is not divided and there are no comped meals offered at the tables next to yours." Everyone pays and prices are lower across the board because of this, thus that guy busing the tables at that restaurant is able to afford to eat at that restaurant.

Are you saying that you prefer the unsuccessful lower quality divided dining room restaurant to Sara's preferred everyone pays, lower prices, and better quality restaurant?

Hoffa thinks that you're not understanding the analogy correctly.

I'm sure those who can will patronize the new restaurant and the prices will stay low until the older restaurant is driven out of business. Then the new one will stop running at a loss and the prices will go up. That's how it works in real life.

Greg, Mark 14:7 states, "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." Deuteronomy 15:11: "For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command you, saying, you shall open your hand wide unto your brother, to your poor, and to your needy, in your land." These, and numerous other references in the Old and New Testaments, teach that there will always be people who cannot function in well in society at a given time, and that it is the responsibility of those who can/do to be understanding and compassionate.

It wasn't so very long ago when a successful person was gauged by their ability to chase a critter with a spear or gather berries from the upper vines. ; )

@Bren -

Never realized how much religion supposedly governs your life - interesting!

@Randy1949 -

Are you saying that the government is in danger of being ousted by a competitive private sector that will only institute monopolistic controls once it has successful done away with government?

Wow, the conspiracy theories are getting worse by the day!

From what Bren stated, it sounds to me that entitlement programs are a clear violation of Church and State. We need to end them all...

Mr. Hoffa, indeed it does. That's why I struggle with some of the views and attitudes presented as "Christian" in some areas of the political arena. They seem diametrically opposed to the tenets of faith that I was taught.

Cow, I believe it is entirely appropriate for a government created by and for the people to care for those in need. There are some aspects of care in which religion and state can work in harmony and this is one, I believe. Caring for servicemen and women, disaster relief, etc.

What did I do? Why am I being replied to in this thread?

@Bren

Notice that "you" does not refer to government. It actually refers to YOU helping a non-abstract brother.

Luke, I interpret "You" as being alive and on this planet!

@Bren

Sorry, but your interpretation is not possible. There is no abstract or literary "you" in Koine Greek. See Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.

"You" refers to the person being addressed, and the "brother" is not abstract.

I don't know who this 'Randall' is, Pennypacker. And I have yet to mooch. I've always been one of those people growing the food and serving it at the table. I pay taxes. I'm not in that 47% that you, Sara, and Mitt hold in such contempt.

And yet you are happy to pay for their rent, food, phone and (I highly suspect) booze for that 47% (which I am pretty sure include Schmitzy).

Realize it isn't the rich paying for these things, they just find a way to pass it on to the consumer. Take B.O.'s healthcare. Health insurers are in the business to make money. The cost for pre-existing conditions, lifting of the lifetime cap and paying to insure people that can't afford it just get passed along to the consumer. Which is why my healthcare insurance is going up 12% this year and projected for 9% next year.

And don't delude yourself with the phrase "they have to justify their costs". How can you not justify those costs?

@H.E. Pennypacker....I've paid taxes my whole working life and now that I'm retired I still pay taxes, including income taxes. The big difference is that I am paying on a smaller income and part of it is deferred because of my retirement. I don't know why you insist on painting such an inaccurate picture of things you have absolutely no knowledge of.

Randy1949 - you say you were always one of those people growing the food and serving it. I am assuming you did that job because you wanted to - not because you were forced to? You must have somewhere decided that that was good enough and you didn't need to take any steps such as higher education to advance yourself so perhaps you could eat in the good dining room and not do the serving? See, that's the problem with you libs - you just assume you are stuck in the same place forever, stuck with your lot in life and no one would let you become more successful. Or is being successful a sin? That's the attitude that makes taking liberals seriously impossible.

@sunrocket -- First of all, the growing and serving of the food was metaphorical. Second, you couldn't be more wrong about the higher education. You should never assume.

The one thing I did wrong was to do something i was good at rather than go for an MBA.

Randy - I know it was a metaphor - I too to something I love and am good at as opposed to something just for money. But by doing that I realize I will only eat in the good dining room as a special treat. For that I am willing to sacrifice a high paying job for personal happiness.

Thank you! :)

@Craig -

Do you expect us to all hold hands around a camp fire while making s'mores and singing kumbaya - you honestly think that Schmitzy would show up with the marshmallows like he's supposed to?

Hear, hear!

JRH: I would not include Schmitzy, unless we all were in agreement to make it an intervention.
Honestly, I think we all would get along just fine in person.
Though I must confess my "get along" comment was not to be taken seriously.
Bren: I don't know what you were cheering for?

Getting along, Craig!

Bren: Whoosh- that went over my head.

If the majority of the customers like pie....then yes....the new restaurant will most definitely have pie. :)

Awesome!!

I vote for pie, lots of pie!

But there are "moochers" and "takers", how do you address that?

I hunger for your counterpoint analogy/response blog, too........

Include some pie;Greg likes pie.

Don't assign Schmitzy to marshmallow duty;Hoffa likes S'mores.

Seriously, Greg, there probably ARE people who prefer to live off the system rather than try for something better, but i don't think they're as numerous as many of you think. There are many others who need a hand because their jobs disappeared and their new ones don't pay. They're working just as hard as you do but for much less.in return. They don't deserve to be called moochers.

The federal government was never intended to be a non-profit or a corporation. It was never to the brother's keeper that the left dreams of. Its funny that in all of civilization, only the government had all the answers. I remember the word's of Ronald Reagan; "Government is not solution, government is the problem." Or JFK; " Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Wow, a Republican and a Democrat.

You try living for the past many decades on government american cheese and say NO to it!!!! You get hooked on the cheese, thats alls I am saying.

I wouldn't know, Mini-Me, I've never had any government cheese.

LOL
One Randy1949 is enough- there ain't enough cheese for everyone.

Greg, professional assessment is key. What impatience might interpret in an ungenerous way can be symptomatic of a serious underlying issue. If we, for example, are looking at an individual who appears to be lazy and not want to work, it's important to think about that. Is unproductivity basic human nature? I would argue that the human being by nature is fundamentally ambitious, competitive, and self-interested. Therefore a disconnect exists and the reasons why must be explored, understood, and addressed, really on the individual level.

I realize that this level of care takes significant time and effort, but I believe that empowerment of people, a (once) traditional Republican Party value, is the path to growth and success, economically, socially, across the board. When we underfund/defund empowerment programs, we as a nation and people are diminished.

Personally, if there is one thing I have tried to learn in my life it is not to take people/situations at face value. My responsibility is to learn and do what I can to help, not hinder.

Who wants to help me make cheese?
"Not I", said the cow,
"Not I", said the fox
"not I", said the squirrel..........

Bren, Please list these empowerment programs, so we all are on the same page.

@Bren -

Please define "empowerment programs," giving concrete examples of such programs in our current system of federal government.

Greg, I consider school and college readiness programs empowerment. Job programs. Programs that help people who have lost their way and have no one to help them regain the path. Programs that keep food on the table for children and parents who are trying to succeed and the elderly and disabled and that keep people in good health are empowerment. I don't have time to make a laundry list but I think you get the gist.

But in all of these, as I wrote earlier, assessment is key. There has to be forward movement or understanding for the inertia and another plan made and implemented. There is potential for reclamation and success in every person.

I think that in order for one of those programs to be truly empowering, there must not only be an easy way to wean the person off of the program, there must also be an incentive for the person to want to get off the program.

Cow, I agree that an empowerment program guides people toward solutions, except in the most extreme cases of cognitive and/or physical disability. But that means supporting the problem-solving, and being serious about assessment, evaluation, and accountability. For the client and the agency. Program budget cuts simultaneously erode the number of people who could/should be served and the efficiency of program delivery and measurement. This lack of comprehensiveness leads in the worst cases to multi-generational dysfunction.

...and that's exactly what the Left has given us over the years. Not sure if it is intentional or not, but through these types of programs, the government has created a 'dependent' class.

Bren, Since every program could fit your definition and there really is a limit to funding, should you not accept more easily that there are moochers and that they are the ones depriving the people that should be being empowered? Would professional assessment involve means testing and would you be willing to cut everyone from the program that met the means determination?

Cow, I'm not sure the Left is entirely to blame. Evaluation identifies problems, but real work is needed to determine what is the best course and in turn, evaluate the results of the new direction. The Right contributes to the issue by cutting funding for programs, which hampers the less-lovely aspects of service, i.e. assessment and evaluation. Thus unsuccessful/inefficient activities continue without revision, and no one is well served. There will always be social ills that cannot be resolved through a government program, such as racism. This particular problem undermines social progress at so many levels, and yet no amount of money will provide a cure. It has to be self-inspired.

Greg, I agree with Randy--I believe there are far fewer "moochers." I do believe there are people in society who are just not geared for advanced technology for example; who would have been successful 50, even 15 years ago in a trade or service. Today, without a mindset for technology or academia, this person may find themselves in a position that doesn't pay well and/or is susceptible to outsourcing. Right to Work legislation undermines trade unions and leads to wage diminishment. Is a person such as this a "moocher?" I would most emphatically disagree with that assessment. But how to give that person a boost? There are so many shades of grey in this situation.

Obviously not the real Randy1949.

And here is my imitator from Tosa!

Pathetic.

seriously fake Randy: Why not use another screen name so you can make your point, if there is one you want to make?

Randy, this is why you have to trademark your username. You have no legal recourse now. This concludes your free advise provided by Steve®

@Steve -- That is actually some useful advice, assuming I can get my character map to copy something unique into my profile username.