• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Want a free house?

Soapweed

Well-known member
This came in an e-mail, and is quite thought-provoking.

Want a free house?

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation of the health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued: They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, "Isn't Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick."

A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, "Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market wouldn't work for health care."

Another said, "The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate."

At this, I had more than enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. "Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?"

They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

"I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?"

They looked at each other in astonishment. "Why would you do something like that?" asked a young man, "There isn't anything for free in this world." They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.

"I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money whatsoever. Anyone interested?"

In unison, a resounding "Yeah" fills the room.
"Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain."

I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust.

"I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules."

Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces.

The perky young woman asked, "What are the rules?"

I smiled and said, "I don't know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you."

They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, "What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man."

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. "I am serious, this is a legitimate offer."

They gaped at me for a moment.

"I'll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?" boasted the youngest among them.

"Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?" I asked.

The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. "Oh yeah! Where do I sign up?"

I took a napkin and wrote, "I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction."

I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.

"Where are the keys to my new house?" he asked in a mocking tone of voice.

All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

"Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere to from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys." I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

"Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?" the young man appeared irritated.

"You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement."

The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people.

"You can shove that stupid deal up your a** old man. I want no part of it!" exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

'You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends. You cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master."

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

"What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn, and for that which you did not earn, you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away. Therefore, it is not freedom at all."

With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. "This is the nature of your new health care legislation."

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation -- and was surprised by applause.

The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, "Thank you, Sir. These kids don't understand Liberty ."

He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, "You earned this one. It is an honor to pick up the tab."

I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

1. Remember... Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

2. THIS SHOULD GO AROUND THE UNITED STATES SO PEOPLE CAN SEE JUST WHAT IS GOING ON. MAYBE EVEN THE POLITICALLY BLIND ONES WILL LEARN SOMETHING FROM IT.

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the American Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Probabally more fitting to the unions who use the labor forces to allow a few get rich....

that's the end result of socialism, whether it is corporate or personal.

It's too bad that the "left" does not understand what Capitalism is, versus corporatism
 

TSR

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Probabally more fitting to the unions who use the labor forces to allow a few get rich....

Since unions only make up about 6% of the labor force according to what i've read, it seems to me the vast majority of workers are non-union and the corporations are doing the most "using" of gov't to their own ends. An example is the low pay of Wal-Mart workers allowing them to get gov't entitlements at the expense of the taxpayer. Oh well the Walmart family only controls about a third of the nations wealth according to one source I've read,if this is true, maybe they will go on to control 80 to 90%, capitalism at its finest.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/business/union-membership-drops-despite-job-growth.html?_r=0


guess these reports are wrong huh TSR

At least in the non union shops a worker can pick up a gum wrapper,,where as union shops the workers cannot do anything that is not in their job description including getting rid of a safety hazard,,, :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
The union non union argument could go on for decades.. but the fact is,.. the union is not what it was.. and more people are realizing it..

the only reason the unions have the 6% is the states that still allow closed shops.. and goverment employees..


An example is the low pay of Wal-Mart workers allowing them to get gov't entitlements at the expense of the taxpayer.

union guys often want to compare a professional or goverment job to a retailer like walmart..

why not compare a union retailer to a non union retailer?.. (other then not liking the results)

how is walmart any different then the local supermarkets that are closed shop union?

these jobs used to be decent jobs.. but now most workers are limited to 28 hours and no fixed scedule so the corporation can avoid paying additional benefits..

there is no difference.. other then the pay.. (walmart has a higher starting pay) add in no union withholding and a better benefits package after 6 months..

yep the closed shop union store gets worse benefits and still waits six months to get them..

so those same subsidies that unions claim walmart will get in welfare and other benefits.. will be given to the employees of the union closed shop grocery chains..



the grocery store examples may not cover every example.. but then.. 94% of the workers can't all be wrong..
 

Steve

Well-known member
TSR said:
Wonder if that last statement in the article by Henry Ford would also apply to corporations?

I would say it applied to Chrysler,.. who is now owned by some other corporation.. (Fiat)

many corporations use every loophole and break they can get.. and when the going gets tough.. file bankruptcy,.. reorganize and jump back o0n the gravy chain... these breaks often give the larger corporation and unfair advantage..

it is long past time to cut off these breaks,.. and level the playing field..

with Obama we have seen a level of handouts and payoffs almost unheard of.. with very little of it tricking down to main-street..

yet those who complain the loudest about corporate handouts still voted him back in office WHY?

was their hand in the cookie jar to?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
The union non union argument could go on for decades.. but the fact is,.. the union is not what it was.. and more people are realizing it..

the only reason the unions have the 6% is the states that still allow closed shops.. and goverment employees..


An example is the low pay of Wal-Mart workers allowing them to get gov't entitlements at the expense of the taxpayer.

union guys often want to compare a professional or goverment job to a retailer like walmart..

why not compare a union retailer to a non union retailer?.. (other then not liking the results)

how is walmart any different then the local supermarkets that are closed shop union?

these jobs used to be decent jobs.. but now most workers are limited to 28 hours and no fixed scedule so the corporation can avoid paying additional benefits..

there is no difference.. other then the pay.. (walmart has a higher starting pay) add in no union withholding and a better benefits package after 6 months..

yep the closed shop union store gets worse benefits and still waits six months to get them..

so those same subsidies that unions claim walmart will get in welfare and other benefits.. will be given to the employees of the union closed shop grocery chains..



the grocery store examples may not cover every example.. but then.. 94% of the workers can't all be wrong..

Steve are grocery stores the only ones with unions??? How about a statistic on the difference between union pay and non-union pay?? As I watched Fox news (which I don't do very often) the other day it was either 4 or 7 thousand annually on average.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Who pays that difference?????the consumer does for over priced products, lazy workers and union bosses that line their own pockets with the workers wages
 

Steve

Well-known member
TSR said:
Steve said:
The union non union argument could go on for decades.. but the fact is,.. the union is not what it was.. and more people are realizing it..

the only reason the unions have the 6% is the states that still allow closed shops.. and goverment employees..


An example is the low pay of Wal-Mart workers allowing them to get gov't entitlements at the expense of the taxpayer.

union guys often want to compare a professional or goverment job to a retailer like walmart..

why not compare a union retailer to a non union retailer?.. (other then not liking the results)

how is walmart any different then the local supermarkets that are closed shop union?

these jobs used to be decent jobs.. but now most workers are limited to 28 hours and no fixed scedule so the corporation can avoid paying additional benefits..

there is no difference.. other then the pay.. (walmart has a higher starting pay) add in no union withholding and a better benefits package after 6 months..

yep the closed shop union store gets worse benefits and still waits six months to get them..

so those same subsidies that unions claim walmart will get in welfare and other benefits.. will be given to the employees of the union closed shop grocery chains..



the grocery store examples may not cover every example.. but then.. 94% of the workers can't all be wrong..

Steve are grocery stores the only ones with unions??? How about a statistic on the difference between union pay and non-union pay?? As I watched Fox news (which I don't do very often) the other day it was either 4 or 7 thousand annually on average.

no but often those who support unions compare walmart to other areas such as manufacturing or teaching..

but fail to admit that union grocery stores are worse in almost every worker benefit,.. the pay is worse,.. the benefits are worse.. and the hours are worse...

and the reason is that unions often over the years negotiated for existing workers selling out future workers.. who have no choice but to "join" the union..

one area of the sell out is benefits.. they often only apply to full time employees.. so now almost all new hires are part time.. despite that fact that they hours and scedule could easily support full time employees..

the same is now happening with Obamacare.. it sold out the poor... who are now forced to either take a huge pay cut,.. or get two part time jobs..

as for the wage difference.. everyone knows uncle sam pays better then a comparable job in the private sector..

In 2012, 7.3 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.0 million union workers in the private sector.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

with over half of the union employees working for the goverment in one form or another.. this would easily explain the pay difference..

Within the public sector, local government
workers had the highest union membership rate, 41.7 percent.

This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Private-sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and utilities (20.6 percent) and construction (13.2 percent).

mostly skilled employees who would have a slightly higher pay rate..

then those in retail or farming..


Low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.4 percent) (See table 3.)

union employees are dropping in most sectors.. partly due to a bad economy.. partly due to many not seeing any benefit of belonging to a union...

if all states were right to work and all jobs a choice.. union membership would plummet..


(why are liberals and unions so anti choice? )..

the decision to belong to a union should be between an employee and the union..

not the union and the employer..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
"liberals/progressives" don't recognize corporatism, when implemented under a Democrat President/congress/union, because they falsely believe it is a "right wing" ideology.

It is corporate socialism, which is "left"
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
"liberals/progressives" don't recognize corporatism, when implemented under a Democrat President/congress/union, because they falsely believe it is a "right wing" ideology.

It is corporate socialism, which is "left"

I'm certainly glad no corporate socialism took place under any Republican administration. Enlightening to know that. Yeah Right!
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
"liberals/progressives" don't recognize corporatism, when implemented under a Democrat President/congress/union, because they falsely believe it is a "right wing" ideology.

It is corporate socialism, which is "left"

I'm certainly glad no corporate socialism took place under any Republican administration. Enlightening to know that. Yeah Right!

Methinks maybe some liberals do not know the definition of some of the things they vilify?:
Social corporatism is a form of economic tripartite corporatism supported by social democratic political parties based upon a "social partnership" between capital and labour interest groups as well as between the market economy and state interventionism that is considered a compromise to regulate conflict between capital and labour by mandating them to engage in mutual consultations that are mediated by the government
 

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
TSR said:
Steve said:
The union non union argument could go on for decades.. but the fact is,.. the union is not what it was.. and more people are realizing it..

the only reason the unions have the 6% is the states that still allow closed shops.. and goverment employees..




union guys often want to compare a professional or goverment job to a retailer like walmart..

why not compare a union retailer to a non union retailer?.. (other then not liking the results)

how is walmart any different then the local supermarkets that are closed shop union?

these jobs used to be decent jobs.. but now most workers are limited to 28 hours and no fixed scedule so the corporation can avoid paying additional benefits..

there is no difference.. other then the pay.. (walmart has a higher starting pay) add in no union withholding and a better benefits package after 6 months..

yep the closed shop union store gets worse benefits and still waits six months to get them..

so those same subsidies that unions claim walmart will get in welfare and other benefits.. will be given to the employees of the union closed shop grocery chains..



the grocery store examples may not cover every example.. but then.. 94% of the workers can't all be wrong..

Steve are grocery stores the only ones with unions??? How about a statistic on the difference between union pay and non-union pay?? As I watched Fox news (which I don't do very often) the other day it was either 4 or 7 thousand annually on average.

no but often those who support unions compare walmart to other areas such as manufacturing or teaching..

but fail to admit that union grocery stores are worse in almost every worker benefit,.. the pay is worse,.. the benefits are worse.. and the hours are worse...

and the reason is that unions often over the years negotiated for existing workers selling out future workers.. who have no choice but to "join" the union..

one area of the sell out is benefits.. they often only apply to full time employees.. so now almost all new hires are part time.. despite that fact that they hours and scedule could easily support full time employees..

the same is now happening with Obamacare.. it sold out the poor... who are now forced to either take a huge pay cut,.. or get two part time jobs..

as for the wage difference.. everyone knows uncle sam pays better then a comparable job in the private sector..

In 2012, 7.3 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.0 million union workers in the private sector.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

with over half of the union employees working for the goverment in one form or another.. this would easily explain the pay difference..

Within the public sector, local government
workers had the highest union membership rate, 41.7 percent.

This group includes workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Private-sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and utilities (20.6 percent) and construction (13.2 percent).

mostly skilled employees who would have a slightly higher pay rate..

then those in retail or farming..


Low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.4 percent) (See table 3.)

union employees are dropping in most sectors.. partly due to a bad economy.. partly due to many not seeing any benefit of belonging to a union...

if all states were right to work and all jobs a choice.. union membership would plummet..


(why are liberals and unions so anti choice? )..

the decision to belong to a union should be between an employee and the union..

not the union and the employer..

My ~6% number was strictly for private sector unions which still make more money than non-union private sector, at least from what I've read. With regards to Wal Mart, it is a little more than a grocery store imo. Maybe we'll see the day when you can buy your new car there, your tractor, seed, etc. That'll be great won't it?
I'm pro-choice on the issue but whether you joined or not, here in TN you still received the same benefits negotiated by the union. And none of the non-union members that I saw turned any of those benefits down---Imagine that.
 
Top