We are watching in real time a very real struggle for control of our very culture / government / economy. The outcome of this struggle will decide everything about our lives for the foreseeable future.
In this struggle, there are two groups of victims. For our purposes, I’ll call them “Takers” and “Workers”.
“Takers” live off of government handouts. This group obviously would be distressed if anything happened to decrease those handouts.
“Takers” include those on welfare, to some extent those on unemployment (who want benefits extended), all of the near 50% who pay no taxes but draw the benefits, etc. It also includes unions who make their money off the back of their members, but who exercise influence and control of Democrats who work to protect their own income base (union donations and business opportunities). Such as GE, and Jeffrey Immelt, for instance, who paid no taxes and has the ear of Obama.
Oh, and “Takers” also includes all government employees, who generally draw pay and benefits substantially higher than those in the private sector (those who pay for their pay and benefits, that is). If you work for the government, by definition you are a “Taker”, because somebody else has to pay for your salary and benefits. All of them.
There is one notable exception – military fighting personnel. It’s true that they are paid for entirely by workers, the same as Takers – but they are productive, and giving, in a way that most other government employees are not. The military fighting personnel are necessary.
On the other side are the “Workers”.
“Workers” are those who work for a living and pay taxes to support themselves and all the “Takers”. The money has to come from somewhere. “Workers” are basically all those in the private sector that pay taxes. They don’t have any say as to whether they will pay taxes, and they have precious little say in how much they are required to pay. Most people only have two options – be a “worker” or go over to the other side and become a “taker”.
Both Takers and Workers survive on the wealth generated by the Workers.
There is a third group. The third group is in control, so we’ll call them the “Bosses”.
“Bosses” want everybody to be sucking at the public teat, i.e. be Takers. Because those who do are controlled by them, to some extent. For instance, if a retired person is utterly dependent on that social security check, they are pretty much going to have to vote against any threat to it, aren’t they? No matter what they privately think, they will vote against any perceived threat to social security. Because they have to have it.
It’s all about control. If you have a man by the short hairs, you can pretty much lead him anywhere.
So “Bosses” are those at the top who actively encourage and desire for everybody to become “Takers”. They like takers, because they can control takers.
Bosses also like “workers” because workers pay for everything. Bosses view workers the same way a farmer views a cow: a piece of meat on which you want maximum output from minimum input and expense. In the mind of Bosses, the only real consideration is whether they are getting that maximum output. This is why you see the push by Obama to raise taxes “on the wealthy”.
Bosses act in ways that will preserve their power and control. They live off the workers the same as the Takers do, but at a higher level – think Nancy Pelosi’s royalty-class air transport, and Obama’s million-dollar vacations – and they exert control, as well. Bosses are Takers, but Takers are not necessarily, or even usually, Bosses.
In reality, most people are a mix of “worker” and “Taker”. But people certainly lean one way or the other.
The reason the “Bosses” hate the Tea Party is that the Tea Party represents an uprising of the “workers” who resent being used in this way. The Tea Party, and those who believe the same, wants to kick out the Bosses, and move all the Takers who are physically and mentally competent to work, back over to the productive area of the workers – at which point the workers will get to keep more of the fruit of their labor, since they won’t have nearly so much dead weight (Takers) to support. And mostly, the workers just want to keep more of what they earn, to do with as they please. This is called “prosperity”.
The Bosses, of course, want the cow to go back to being a cow. Put that uppity cow back in his pen! Hook her back up to the milk machine!
Is the cow happy? Not so much.
I think the founding fathers of the United States intended for most people to be “workers”. But when people find a away to get something for nothing, they usually take it. Now they are reaching the point where the “taking” is unsustainable – they are pulling too much blood out of that cow, and the cow is getting anemic.
Thinking about it, I realize this situation can only happen when government structure allows the people to vote. If the people couldn’t vote (i.e. exert some slight control over who the bosses are), the Bosses wouldn’t need the Takers – and everybody would become workers without choice – i.e. slaves.
Obviously this is why controlling the vote is so important to Democrats, who use Acorn (whatever their name is now) and other means to try to influence elections. So we need to be very careful to protect the sanctity of the vote as a concept and procedure that means something in our governance.
So it could actually be worse. We could be like North Korea, where all of this would be moot, and people are simply assets of the state to be used as needed.
Thank God we haven’t gone there – yet.