Forgive a re-comment, because this really hits the spot.

I've been reading about the real estate collapse... The ratings agencies were incompetent, but people should have known better. Financial services isn't just the biggest sector of our economy, it's the one that attracts some of our best. They should have been seeing what was going on with the markets and instruments they were working with. Instead, they wanted to say "But it was triple-A! Not my fault!"

If people want to work in finance, a lot of them are going to have to learn to recognize value... And put their asses on the line when they do so. Forcing routine certification of bad paperwork is meaningless.

It's not just the finance and it's not just the United States... A whole lot of people are going to have to learn anew how to be useful to others.

And sweet baby Jesus, that includes the social sciences.

(Was I mentioning this sort of thing in recent comments? Why yes, and thanks for asking!)

Go-to resource. This guy was cited by Cosh.

So, yeah, entitlements....

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats today is who comes to the government with their hand out. With Republicans, it's the rich and corporations. With Democrats, it's the poor. Basically, both parties are panhandlers.

A couple of (possibly) relevant points.

1. Patrick, if you look at how many billionaires contribute to the Democratic party, you will find that there are many, many of the Uber-Wealthy who seem to 'lean left' as the saying goes.
Many of them are 'Trust-funders' but the "only the Rich and Corporations support the Republicans" is an old and very mistaken view of the split.
George Soros, does not strike me as either,
Conservative, or Right Wing.......

2. I am a disabled Air Force veteran(1983-1988).
(Hearing Loss, from working with F-15's)
I get $122.00 a month and VA care.
I'd gladly (Ok, not gladly, but at least calmly) give up my benefits, in order to keep the system solvent so that Social Security would continue to pay out. I suspect that many Lightly disabled like myself would forgo their benefits in order to help others. But, even should we do so, we (and the money we receive), are a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the tab for Medicare and S.S.
I think we are long past the time where any kind of voluntary give backs will correct the situation.
Many Americans will lose a great deal.
A few will lose everything.
And all of us will lose something.
It is just that simple.
As a citizens, we have come to believe the promises that were made. Many of us had a 'gut feeling' that those promises were not going to be kept. But we 'went along, to get along' and now we have arrived at the reckoning.
None of us like it.
However that does not matter.
America borrows about 40 cents of every dollar we spend.
As the saying goes, "Things that cannot continue, Won't!"
We have reached that point.
Do whatever you think is best to protect and provide for your loved ones, but don't expect the US Government to help you. It can't.
It is out of money, time, and leadership.

Hello, Thomas...nice to see you're joining in the noble of tradition of not reading what I say before you infer something.

Who said there were no uber-wealthy who lean left? Not I. That would be stupid, since everyone here has heard of George Soros. And Michael Moore isn't eating at any soup kitchens lately.

I am saying that the uber-wealthy who back tax cuts and bailouts are backing Republicans, ergo, when Republicans are in power the rich and corporations have their hands out. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more. Didn't say anything about all rich people backing Republicans.

Patrick:
Republicans are in power the rich and corporations have their hands out.

A vast oversimplification, but some truth to it.

But the big difference between your comparisons - the rich and corporations create wealth, hire people, and power the economy.

And the wealth creation is the biggest issue and the one the left refuses to try and understand. If they admit to it, their zero-sum math falls apart.

thomas:
you will find that there are many, many of the Uber-Wealthy who seem to 'lean left' as the saying goes.

Of course. To some degree, that's very logical. Failing to do so gets them vilified, attacked, and singled-out for retribution. (See Koch Brothers, for an example of not-liberal enough, so they must be personally attacked.)

Soros, who's radically left wing, is protected. If you're picking who to give your money to, one side has the mob, and one side will leave you mostly alone, it's an easy choice.

Patrick's right in that the poor go to the Democrats for government handouts. In private charity, Republicans out-give Democrats, but that's a matter for another debate.

Republicans doubt the efficacy of government-sponsored welfare and the past few decades have borne this out.

The real debate is the size and reach of the social safety net. Republicans believe in a smaller government social safety net and Democrats believe in a large one. Or they're both just buying votes.

But the rich and corporations go to both parties with their hands out. For example, GE leans Democratic because it gets money for "green" research and development. Apple and several high-tech companies support the Democrats because the Dems believe that government funding will stimulate high-tech development and spread money throughout the tech sector.

Many working class voters support the Republicans because of common beliefs in gun rights, reduced government-sponsored welfare, and similar beliefs about what constitutes social morality. Many corporations support Republicans because the Repubs advocate lower corporate taxes (through reductions when they can get them and loopholes when they cannot).

I am saying that the uber-wealthy who back tax cuts and bailouts are backing Republicans, ergo, when Republicans are in power the rich and corporations have their hands out.

Your original post did not qualify your statement that way, so thomas' conclusion wasn't unwarranted.

==============================

Both parties are full of full-time professional legislators more concerned with their next election cycle than with creating a government that works.

Who's to blame for this? We are.

We re-elect the guy who got caught with his hand in the till.

We reelect the guy who espouses family values and the cheats on his wife ... multiple times.

We elect and re-elect demagogues, serial adulterers, blatant hypocrites, con men, killers, drunks, scientific and cultural illiterates, the power mad, the naive, and lawyers.

Most of our politicians have never done anything but politics. They have no experience in the way things work or how wealth is created. Yet we select them to govern us.

Even when we know beyond a reasonable doubt exactly what they are, we elect them.

Because this time it will be different. We are the abused spouse of our politicians.

We have no short-term memory.

We are the American electorate. And we are dumber than a box of rocks.

One of the biggest corporate pigs at the trough is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM.) The previous CEO was a die hard democrat, but he made clear that he'd grease the palms of whoever was in office and they ALL took his money.

ADM is paying everyone off to support ethanol. Now it happens that liberals tend to support this more than conservatives (though in the states where ADM operates, I doubt the margin is very big.) But it doesn't matter--ADM wants subsidies and is will to pay big bucks to get them. And why not? Paying someone $100 million to get $500 million or more in subsidies is good business. But don't for a second believe that ADM actually believes the bullshit about ethanol.

I agree, the welfare state must die. Our insurance state, however, needs to quit lending our money out to whatever pork-barrel project Congress decides needs more grease.

The question is whether we can get back to private charities that force the recipient to either get "better" or they are left behind.

Of course not. We can't let anyone suffer, that's a violation of their "human rights". What about my human rights to not have to carry a freeloader along who contributes nothing? I suspect "human rights" is a euphemism for "fuck the productive classes".

demagogues, serial adulterers, blatant hypocrites, con men, killers, drunks, scientific and cultural illiterates, the power mad, the naive, and lawyers.

And Methodists.

According to this piece by Jason Ivey, the US caused the British riots by protecting the European welfare state and the expanding welfare state is contributing to the end of civilization:

...the thugs and looters have no regard for human life, rights, property, the rule of law, or civilization itself. Some rioters, speaking to reporters, claimed this was about showing "the rich" they could do what they wanted. These acts weren’t about economic wont, or racial inequity, or police brutality; this was straight-up moral degeneracy. Many of these people have no desire to actually work in exchange for money because they’re now several generations down the line of the dependent class.

In Britain, as in America, the "poor" have computers, smart phones, and high-definition televisions, but they’ve been taught for decades they’re owed something from someone else. They’ve been taught wealth is not the result of hard work, but something that should be taken from those who have whatever they do not. They’ve been taught family is meaningless and that reproduction’s greatest purpose is to ensure delivery of another government check.

Ivey goes on to say:

They weren’t born this way, but they were raised this way by Leftism run amuck and left unchecked. They are a mob, and the mob is growing and spreading and becoming more aggressive. They are parasites quickly sucking the blood of what’s left of civilized society throughout the Western world, from Greece and France to California and Wisconsin.

And, finally:

Britain and other European states became the rotting cultural cesspools they are today because of the American military. Thanks to our superiority, none of these other Western nations had to train men to fight, nor did they need worry much about the enemy next door. They were allowed to grow soft because the US was still hard. Their governments could become bloated service-providers furthering the objective of creating a permanent dependent class because they were safe to do so and no longer had to spend money on defense. America kept the [West] safe for cultural destruction. Freeloaders can be freeloaders, because not only do we encourage and promote freeloading, we militarily protect it.

We can create and support millions of Amy Winehouses because others have created the necessary wealth, the social engineers have replaced stigma with romanticism, and the military ensures this path can continue indefinitely. ... The Left’s degenerative morality successfully strengthened the parasite while weakening the host, and we all know at some point the host will die.

http://biggovernment.com/jivey/2011/08/14/u-s-military-protectors-of-the-selfish-class/