Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

What dependency is

October 9, 2013

Some confuse people voluntarily working together to their mutual benefit and usually to the benefit of others, as dependency. Dependency is relying upon others to provide for you....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(29)

DavidBross

Oct-10-13 3:21 AM

But, if employees organize, then aren't they part of a union? In your original letter, belonging to a union was a sign of dependency.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-09-13 9:49 PM

Erik, so much to say on this topic....gov't having the power to make or break a business is not, I suspect, why they shop around for the sweetest tax deal. It's their bottom line. They also shop around for lowest wage rates, and right to work(for less) states, etc. It is the gov't(US, the people) that sets up the legal and physical infrastructure that any business gets to operate and hopefully prosper under. What tax abatements represent is really reverse socialism. Instead of private capital doing what it should do, these private businesses shop around and essentially extort public capital in the form of tax abatements and credits, thereby instituting reverse socialism. Shouldn't all Americans be against this? As for small gov't as originally intended, history happened. We're now a world superpower. I should think these romantic notions of "gee, if only our gov't were small enough" would've been put aside forthrightly upon a quick examination of our history. States' rights

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Oct-09-13 7:51 PM

If employees organize, it doesn’t change the fact that employees and employers are working together to the benefit of both.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Oct-09-13 7:26 PM

But, Phil, won't it be much more likely that the employees of a company will organize than if the typical employment model is several people working for any given employer?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Oct-09-13 4:14 PM

David, companies hiring workers and workers taking jobs with companies is a great example of people working together to the benefit of both. It makes no difference what the size of the company or workforce is, the principle is the same.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-09-13 4:01 PM

FortySixand2 asked:

"Would the fact that businesses shop themselves around for freebies in the form of tax abatements, etc fall under "dependency"?"

Yes!

But companies would not do this, nor engage in lobbyists if the gov't did not have the power to make or break those businesses.

You might say the influence came from business first and gov't did what they were paid for. Either way, it is wrong.

Make the federal gov't small and focused on only a few tasks as outlined in the Constitution.

Turn everything else over to the states. Then you can live where the gov't is best for you and I can live where the gov't is best for me.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Oct-09-13 3:52 PM

Going back to Phil's original letter, I believe that the idea he expressed about working independently would work best in a society that is based on the Master Craftsman, Journeyman, Apprentice model. I have trouble seeing how it will work in a society that has many large employers employing many employees.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Oct-09-13 2:02 PM

sideliner..MrShaman

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Oct-09-13 1:22 PM

I can’t dispute your last post enigma.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Oct-09-13 12:54 PM

Who, pray tell, is Self-licker?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-09-13 12:50 PM

Francine, I have to tell you, I'm starting to gain some respect for you. You show some discernment in your posts. It's not often on here that conservatives have teaching moments directed at each other. And you hinted at the end where you believe in natural selection (evolution). Careful with that, the cons will kick you off their team on that one!

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-09-13 12:42 PM

Would the fact that businesses shop themselves around for freebies in the form of tax abatements, etc fall under "dependency"?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Oct-09-13 12:10 PM

Phil, Fair enough, but I still maintain that Chuck does more to discredit himself than you (or anyone else) ever could, by virtue of his ridiculaous statements. I also stick by my 'half a brain' statement. There are unfortunately too many people who either don't have or don't use half a brain. Their minds are made up and no amount of information or reason will change them.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Oct-09-13 8:48 AM

Enigma, it takes two people to make a feud. I’m simply clarifying a point that was, I believe, misrepresented in an earlier letter. I’d do that no matter who wrote the letter.

I disagree with your statement that everyone with half a brain should already know that, there seem to be many who haven’t thought it through.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Oct-09-13 8:48 AM

Trickle down might work if it weren't for the sponges at the top.

The economy from 1977 to 1981, I believe, was the result of the ending of the Viet Nam war combined with soaring energy prices

From 81 to 89, I remember mortgage rates around 12-13%, a couple of recessions, and our debt increasing substantially.

I remember Pres. Bush having to raise taxes because of the over spending of the 80's and the recessions.

As a result of the increased revenue, there was more investment in our economy causing a boom. The 90's was also the last time workers wages increased. Since then, wages been stagnant and so has our economy.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-09-13 8:44 AM

Gee, "trickle-down" worked pretty good as Reagan turned Carter's failing economy into a massive growth machine." - eriklatranyi

*

...At least, that's what those Texas-approved "History"-textbooks say....

*

See:

American Politics Journal -- The Real Reagan Legacy

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-09-13 8:36 AM

"The trickle down didn't work because:

#1 crony capitalism

#2 liberals lack the intelligence to understand the economic impact a tax has on the economy. ie, luxury tax on such things as yachts and private airplanes." - Boobie2

*

Yeah...sure...let's keep singing the praises of implementing tax-cuts, right BEFORE pulling-the-pin on 2 WARS!!

Granted, it was (only) intended to maximize returns on investments (in our defense-industry), but...how-much-more ca$h do those folks NEED??!!!

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Oct-09-13 8:22 AM

Enigma, you, I and the rest of the commentors in this forum know who this letter was directed at. But unlike chuckles, Phil had the decency to say "some people" instead of pointing out one specific person. I thought Phil did a great job of choosing his words carefully.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-09-13 8:17 AM

Gee, "trickle-down" worked pretty good as Reagan turned Carter's failing economy into a massive growth machine.

The liberal solution, gov't spending, that we have tried for the last five years is an absolute failure in comparison.

I'll take trickle-down any day!

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Oct-09-13 7:55 AM

Phil, While the general idea of what you are saying is correct, I don't condone your purpose in saying it. This letter is obviously a rebuttal to Chuck's rebuttal of one of your previous letters. A rebuttal for which Chuck was almost unanimously criticized. Your need to respond to Chuck is as detestable as his need to respond to you, not to mention that the best way to discredit most anything he says is to let it stand on its own. His foolishness is self evident. By participating with him in this tit-for-tat, you only diminish yourself. What you have said here is obvious to anyone with half a brain, and those who don't or won't get it, you have done no good. The next time you feel the need to write a letter on something we all know, maybe it could be that the sky is blue or water is wet, but please drop this personal feud with Chuck. It's getting very old.

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

Oct-09-13 7:41 AM

Great letter Mr. Underwood. Anyone with common sense can understand that you can't have more dependents than providers or you are doomed to fail. Sadly, we are getting close to that scenario.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Oct-09-13 7:18 AM

Francine, the Clown fish benefits from the arrangement with the Coral by gaining protection from predators and the Coral benefits by consuming scraps from the Clown fish’s meals. That’s cooperation, not dependency.

The ancestors I mentioned go a lot further back than early America.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-09-13 6:56 AM

"The reason Phil had to explain this is because the typical Liberal does not understand the role human nature has in our daily lives. Look at their ideas and their ideology and you see that most of them try to overrule human nature, which is why they usually don't accomplish what they were supposed to." - VinceKnauff

*

'Tis true. We did do a poor job of convincing (other) Americans that...the "trickle-down" (they patiently waited-for) wasn't likely to happen. It didn't work in the 1890s (when it was called "The horse and sparrow theory"), but...that would have been "too"-historical a reference, for most Americans...obviously.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Oct-09-13 6:45 AM

Mr. Shaman:

That Jamestown starving is because they experimented in a collective that failed miserably and nearly caused their demise.

That is no different than the collectivism liberals are forcing upon our nation today that will have similar results.

Thank you for making Phil's point.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-09-13 6:39 AM

"Our ancestors relied on voluntary cooperation for their safety and to provide food; our species wouldn't have made it otherwise. Voluntary cooperation is wired into our human nature by evolution, dependency is a later development..." - Phil Underwood

*

Dependency hadn't occurred THAT-much-later.

It was called "The Starving Time", at Jamestown.

1 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 29 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web