Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we are seeing is a testament to how deeply conditioned many people have become by years of propaganda from the right-wing think tanks who have convinced people that "social responsibility" and social conscience is not part of the basis of our success as a county, and that personal responsibility is the be-all, end-all. It justifies greed, makes people proud to be selfish and greedy, and allows them to feel justified in not developing any compassion for others in their community. It's just that belief that "I've got mine, to hell with everyone else."
The gist of your statement is that personal responsibility is a bad thing. This may be the reason that progressive ideas aren't workable.
The gist of your statement is that personal responsibility is a bad thing. This may be the reason that progressive ideas aren't workable.
Part of progressiveness is to convince people they are victims and only government can save them and provide for them.
I'm certainly glad the FCC gave up the approach of "compassion" and audited the Lifeline program and kicked out 41% of the subscribers for not qualifying for the program.
We need to give up "compassion" and audit the other 83 means tested programs as well.
The gist of your statement is that personal responsibility is a bad thing. This may be the reason that progressive ideas aren't workable.
No, not at all. That is NOT what I said. Your assumption is wrong. So let me say it directly: Personal responsibility is enormously important, as is social responsibility. It takes BOTH to have a thriving, healthy, successful community.
No, not at all. That is NOT what I said. Your assumption is wrong. So let me say it directly: Personal responsibility is enormously important, as is social responsibility. It takes BOTH to have a thriving, healthy, successful community.
We, as the United States, already practice social responsibility in the form of government subsidies to people who fall under the poverty threshold. If someone wants to not be eligible for government subsidies, it is their personal responsibility to obtain the experience, skill, and/or education to ensure that they can obtain employment which pays a wage which will place them above the poverty threshold.
Part of progressiveness is to convince people they are victims and only government can save them and provide for them.
I'm certainly glad the FCC gave up the approach of "compassion" and audited the Lifeline program and kicked out 41% of the subscribers for not qualifying for the program.
We need to give up "compassion" and audit the other 83 means tested programs as well.
You are absolutely WRONG regarding what you think is "part of progressiveness." I'm a progressive, I have many friends who are progressives, and NONE OF US believe that "being a victim" is good for anyone. Yet the FACT REMAINS that there are victims in the world.
You all don't "need to give up on compassion"......you already have given up on it and no longer seem to be capable of experiencing that trait at all. It's all about you, you, you....to hell with anyone else. The belief in "personal responsibility only" is just a rationalization which makes people feel good about being greedy.
Btw, have you got the name of that "Dem playbook" you can give us so I can get a copy? I'd love to read it.
IMO, you are arguing an outdated business model for our new service-based economy in the U.S. Your business model is the road to the U.S. becoming a poverty-stricken third-world country except for a very tiny, ultra wealthy few. My statement is not about "emotion." Basically, you are arguing that no one has any social responsibility, that the only value there is is personal responsibility, and IMO, that's the problem. After all, didn't the U.S. Supreme rule that corporations are "people" and have the rights of individual citizens....therefore, they should also have a social conscience and live up to their social responsibility. They'll still make an abundance of cash even if they give employees a small raise in the minimum wage to a living wage.
Your statement is absolutely about emotion and does nothing to support the idea that the taxpayers are "subsidizing" Walmart.
The supply and demand dynamic does not change in a service based economy. This is pure fantasy, completely unsupported by fact, and IMO nothing more than a way to pull out random terminology in order to sound as if you have an actual argument. Which you don't.
The idea of "social responsibility" goes both ways, by the way. Who is anyone to pin social responsibility on one and only one party?
I'm arguing about where the social responsibility rests, if you had actually tried to comprehend what I was saying, you would have gotten that. But of course, that's much more difficult than citing catch phrases without really saying anything of substance, so why bother.
If any of you had paid the slightest attention to what I said rather than repeat the same old "you don't want the poor to have enough to survive" then we could discuss the issue.
My point goes directly to support the idea that welfare IS a necessity in society.
A job worked full time should at least pay enough that a person can live on without the need for government assistance. To pay less, borders on slavery. Wages have been stagnant the past ten years while prices have risen. Meanwhile many conservatives are complaining about the increased use of food stamps, etc..... DUH!
You start off by repeating the assertion that I spent half of a page dissecting, without countering any of arguments.
The rest of this is hyperbole (ie borders on slavery) and as such it won't receive a substantive response.
If any of you had paid the slightest attention to what I said rather than repeat the same old "you don't want the poor to have enough to survive" then we could discuss the issue.
My point goes directly to support the idea that welfare IS a necessity in society.
But maybe I was expecting too much.
That's what I said too in different words.
Americans cannot afford to live in America anymore.
And the proof is that the government is subsidizing for people making $90K per year.
Means testing now goes to 400% of poverty line.
Few means tested programs are at 100% anymore. SNAP starts at 130% poverty line.
I never thought I would see Americans argue in support of wages so low that people cannot support themselves on it working full time!
I'm not arguing in support of those wages, I'm arguing against the existence of voodoo economics in which we pin costs wherever we please based on catchy talking points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
