Who are the "Makers" and the "Takers"?

christiefan915

Catalyst
Some here use this a lot in their posts and I decided to research it. This article makes perfect sense.

"Since the end of the presidential election last week, I've been seeing a lot of tweets and blog posts that will say something like "takers outvoted the makers"(see here, here, and here for examples). I find the "makers and takers" narrative fascinating. I've found few other narratives that so quickly and easily divides Americans and get us to hate each other. I wanted to take a closer look at the supposed logic behind it.

"Makers and Takers" is a right-wing meme. The basic story is thus: The economy is make up of people who make stuff and people who take stuff. The takers take from the makers - usually using the power of government. The story comes from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. But she called them producers and looters.

Unfortunately, as often as conservatives will refer to "takers" as the problem, they rarely define or identify who these nasty people we're supposed to hate are. Mostly, it seems to be based entirely on whether or not you pay federal income tax(payroll and other federal taxes don't count). That is the impression I get from Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and other random conservatives. The conservative commentator, Mary Matalin, helps clarify a little more. Old people and veterans don't count, only people who use any anti-poverty program.

So, let's look at two different people. Let's take a single parent with two children. The parent works 2 jobs. 28 hours a week at Walmart, and another job at Home Depot working another 28 hours(give or take since schedules in retail shops tend to fluctuate). At each job this person works hard and therefore earns above minimum wage... about $8.50. Neither job pays benefits. This translates to just under $2,000 a month(before payroll taxes and state income taxes). That makes him qualified for a small amount of food stamps and for their kids to get Medicaid. In right-wing language, this 56 hours a week worker is a "taker" and a "moocher" and a "looter".

Let's take another person. Say, a former presidential candidate who made 14 million dollars last year by doing nothing. He pays about a 15% tax rate in income taxes. He didn't do anything except give his money to a banker. But since he paid income taxes, In right-wing language, that makes him a "maker" and a "producer".

In this scenario, I question the right-wing framing of maker and taker. Who is truly the maker, and who is the taker? Are the minimum wage (or just above minimum wage) workers really taking? Is that work of packing your groceries and loading the shelves that meaningless? Is the work of giving someone else your money so important that it is the equivalent of MAKING something?

I would be tempted to reverse it and call the rich guy the "takers" and the workers (who are actually WORKING) the "makers". But I find this whole narrative odious and would rather see it die than co-opted. We're all in this together and we all have something to contribute to society. If we think individuals are taking advantage of the system let's deal with that. Let's not deal with it by demonizing the most vulnerable people in our society."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/14/1161568/-Who-are-the-Makers-and-the-Takers#
 
coming from the dailykos, this is more orwellian than fact. especially considering that we had a huge multi paged discussion about preppers where alot of liberals first derided those who would prepare for long term survival by believing that the government would save them in a couple of weeks anyway, then going on to further say that if the gov didn't come in, they would just take from the preppers because they wouldn't share.
 
coming from the dailykos, this is more orwellian than fact. especially considering that we had a huge multi paged discussion about preppers where alot of liberals first derided those who would prepare for long term survival by believing that the government would save them in a couple of weeks anyway, then going on to further say that if the gov didn't come in, they would just take from the preppers because they wouldn't share.

I lifted it from the Dailykos and they lifted it from something called http://www.snowcow.com/society/who-are-the-makers-and-the-takers/

In any case I was talking about day to day living, not some doomsday scenario.
 
You just need a new perspective.....the true perspective ....

Makers and Takers is a book by Peter Schweizer. It was published by Doubleday in June 2008. The book's thesis is summarized in its subtitle: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less …etc....

Ayn Rand is one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century. … Academics have often dismissed her ideas as "pop" philosophy. As a best-selling novelist, a controversial, flamboyant polemicist, and a woman in a male dominated profession, Rand remained outside the academy throughout her life.

Her works had inspired passionate responses that echo the uncompromising nature of her moral vision. In many cases, her audiences were either cultish in their devotion or savage in their attacks.
The left was infuriated by her anticommunist, pro-capitalist politics, whereas the right was disgusted by her atheism and civil libertarianism.
The left is still infuriated by her anticommunnist, pro-capitalist politics and
the right no longer gives a shit about her atheism and civil libertarianism.

Why is the still infuriated by her anti-communnist and pro-capitalist politics ?
Because the left has grown closer and closer to communism in the form of socialism
and because they still preach the corporations are the enemy, and the wealthy only deserve
our envy and hate.
 
You just need a new perspective.....the true perspective ....

Makers and Takers is a book by Peter Schweizer. It was published by Doubleday in June 2008. The book's thesis is summarized in its subtitle: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less …etc....

Ayn Rand is one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century. … Academics have often dismissed her ideas as "pop" philosophy. As a best-selling novelist, a controversial, flamboyant polemicist, and a woman in a male dominated profession, Rand remained outside the academy throughout her life.

Her works had inspired passionate responses that echo the uncompromising nature of her moral vision. In many cases, her audiences were either cultish in their devotion or savage in their attacks.
The left was infuriated by her anticommunist, pro-capitalist politics, whereas the right was disgusted by her atheism and civil libertarianism.
The left is still infuriated by her anticommunnist, pro-capitalist politics and
the right no longer gives a shit about her atheism and civil libertarianism.

Why is the still infuriated by her anti-communnist and pro-capitalist politics ?
Because the left has grown closer and closer to communism in the form of socialism
and because they still preach the corporations are the enemy, and the wealthy only deserve
our envy and hate.

Arguing about Rand is nothing more than exchanging opinions and I don't have a high opinion of her philosophy.

What about the points made in the article, for instance: "...a former presidential candidate who made 14 million dollars last year by doing nothing. He pays about a 15% tax rate in income taxes. He didn't do anything except give his money to a banker. But since he paid income taxes, In right-wing language, that makes him a "maker" and a "producer".

And to expand on that thought, some cons here are claiming that the boomers are takers while gen X are the makers. Using that logic, these people would be takers: Mitt Romney, G.W. bush, Steve Forbes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Darrell Issa and Rick Scott, to name a few conservative millionaires.
 
Arguing about Rand is nothing more than exchanging opinions and I don't have a high opinion of her philosophy.

What about the points made in the article, for instance: "...a former presidential candidate who made 14 million dollars last year by doing nothing. He pays about a 15% tax rate in income taxes. He didn't do anything except give his money to a banker. But since he paid income taxes, In right-wing language, that makes him a "maker" and a "producer".

And to expand on that thought, some cons here are claiming that the boomers are takers while gen X are the makers. Using that logic, these people would be takers: Mitt Romney, G.W. bush, Steve Forbes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Darrell Issa and Rick Scott, to name a few conservative millionaires.
something that might come as a shock to you, but democrat politicians are also millionaires. just saying.
 
Actually, there are lots of takers. They aren't just the welfare queens. They include Buffett, GE any of those who use taxpayer money to further their economic goals

Now one can argue that Buffett pays taxes and he does, but he is still a taker. He uses the power of the government to line his pockets.

And then of course there is the classic welfare queen. I do however reject the premise that they are to be hated. They just need to be taken off of the gobblement teat
 
it's very simple. do you put more into society than take it out. if you invented a company that has provided a living for thousands of people, you could never be a taker. takers are in the red to society.
 
it's very simple. do you put more into society than take it out. if you invented a company that has provided a living for thousands of people, you could never be a taker. takers are in the red to society.

I disagree with your premise. Warren Buffett is as much a taker as any welfare queen
 
I disagree with your premise. Warren Buffett is as much a taker as any welfare queen

you cannot disagree with my premise. either someone puts more in than they take out or they don't. it's all about your net. if it is your contention buffet takes out more than he has put in, then he is a taker.
 
Could a "taker" become a "maker"? What if some people wouldn't have become "makers" if they had not at one time been "takers"? Mitt Romney's dad was on welfare, then he became rich and now Mitt is a "maker". Or is he?
 
Could a "taker" become a "maker"? What if some people wouldn't have become "makers" if they had not at one time been "takers"? Mitt Romney's dad was on welfare, then he became rich and now Mitt is a "maker". Or is he?

Here is a simple breakdown. Takers are proles and those who pander to proles for power. Makers, are not.
 
The churches are the takers, many are tax schemes.

I don't know if this is ignorance, profiling or both.

I will agree with you that the Church is a business and needs to stop presenting itself as a charity. But to jump to "churches are the takers" is pretty ignorant. People in the church give to help spread the word of Christ so people don't end up acting like you basically. Guess you didn't hear the word...
 
Here is a simple breakdown. Takers are proles and those who pander to proles for power. Makers, are not.

The proles constitute 85% of the population......."Pandering" vs. "knowing what America wants" is different. America is the people, not the Government and CERTAINLY not the Business. Learn that kiddo.

The day business took over Congress was the day un-brainy little puppets like you were created to scream "We need profit over humanity!". Basic ignorance. The VERY thing our founders ran from.. An elite class of religion that wants to dominate/punish all others who aren't like them.

I mean, this is extremely basic but you kids can't see it. You point at blacks and muslims the same way Hitler pointed at Jews and can't see it. Why can't you small brains realize we are all the same we just have different features? The only reason some of us act differently is because some of us were declined education and freedom and were oppressed, you understand that (R)ight?
 
Back
Top