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.
I have one of the best paying jobs in my small town. And I am training, college, for a better job. Keep your mouth shut if nothing useful is going to come out of it.
Why do we insist that the rich have "earned" their wealth when most have inherited their money, social position and legal privilege? Why do we allow the rich to exist outside the law like the famous drug addict Rush Limbaugh? Why is it necessary to have a divided society with a very small elite and a mass of the rest and a huge amount of poverty to warn the middle class that there is something worse than commercial exploitation.
Why are we not Sweden? We are not Sweden because the very rich that own, run and define our social standards of our country do not want us to be as egalitarian and prosperous a place as Sweden.
And why should we strip away ones wealth regardless of it being earned or inherited? The taxes were paid along the way.
For the sake of argument I will assume all poor people are poor because society sucks and it has nothing to do with their own actions, decisions, ineptitude, or work ethic.
How long should we as a society support them? 1 year? 10 years or for life? At what point do we allow them to stand on their own? Because lets face it. If you pay someone to stay home rather than work they will never want to work. Why should they? Life is pretty good when its a perpetual vacation. And we will pay for this by? Oh yeah we will tax the people who do work hard, who do save, who do make good decisions who do plan for their futures. I see that makes perfect sense and it is completely fair.
Sweden don't they have legalized drug use? Don't they have a park where dopers go to buy drugs legally and the state provides needles?
Well the swedes do build the SAAB which are nice cars.
Why do we insist that the rich have "earned" their wealth when most have inherited their money, social position and legal privilege? Why do we allow the rich to exist outside the law like the famous drug addict Rush Limbaugh? Why is it necessary to have a divided society with a very small elite and a mass of the rest and a huge amount of poverty to warn the middle class that there is something worse than commercial exploitation.
Why are we not Sweden? We are not Sweden because the very rich that own, run and define our social standards of our country do not want us to be as egalitarian and prosperous a place as Sweden.
The country wasn't made on communism or socialism. They left that kind of thought behind when they sailed over the pond. I guess if moving backwards is the wanted direction...The settlers didn't arrive with "free" health care. I say "free" because it isn't free. And making everyone equal isn't the american way....China can help you with that.
How long should we as a society support them? 1 year? 10 years or for life? At what point do we allow them to stand on their own? Because lets face it. If you pay someone to stay home rather than work they will never want to work. Why should they? Life is pretty good when its a perpetual vacation.
Half of the poor are kids. Your complaints don't actually apply to them. So, suppose we divide up the problem. We'll deal with these adult types later, but first, what should we do about the kids? Presumably, we want them to have a decent diet, at least essential health care, access to education, and so forth. How should we go about making sure that those things are available to them?
And for our fundie friends, would it help if I mentioned that these are all former fetuses? As of not very long ago in many cases...
Why do we insist that the rich have "earned" their wealth when most have inherited their money, social position and legal privilege? Why do we allow the rich to exist outside the law like the famous drug addict Rush Limbaugh? Why is it necessary to have a divided society with a very small elite and a mass of the rest and a huge amount of poverty to warn the middle class that there is something worse than commercial exploitation.
Why are we not Sweden? We are not Sweden because the very rich that own, run and define our social standards of our country do not want us to be as egalitarian and prosperous a place as Sweden.
Most have inherited there wealth? Have any data to support that?
I think New York City has a higher population that Sweden. Completely different country, and situation. Don't compare them.
Half of the poor are kids. Your complaints don't actually apply to them. So, suppose we divide up the problem. We'll deal with these adult types later, but first, what should we do about the kids? Presumably, we want them to have a decent diet, at least essential health care, access to education, and so forth. How should we go about making sure that those things are available to them?
And for our fundie friends, would it help if I mentioned that these are all former fetuses? As of not very long ago in many cases...
You can't really separate the adults from the children. You have to look at the whole picture.
How long should we as a society support them? 1 year? 10 years or for life? At what point do we allow them to stand on their own? Because lets face it. If you pay someone to stay home rather than work they will never want to work. Why should they? .
What's wrong with that? You conservatives view this all from a position of envy and hatred. There are plenty of resources to go around to meet basic human needs. Ideally, people should work because they think their work has value and they feel productive, not because they are wage-slaves. I don't think work for the sake of working has any real value. People should be productive but I don't believe it is your business to define a productive life, people need to discover that for themselves.
We all need to get beyond the "us-vs.-them" mentality, and focus on solutions that can transform our society. That means getting beyond finding winners and losers and going beyond narrow self-interest.
The country wasn't made on communism or socialism. They left that kind of thought behind when they sailed over the pond. I guess if moving backwards is the wanted direction...The settlers didn't arrive with "free" health care. I say "free" because it isn't free. And making everyone equal isn't the american way....China can help you with that.
Why are people hung up on "ism" this and "ism" that. How about pragmatism. There are people in our societies who are not productive, be it for physical problems, social problems or mental problems. How about we use our resources to help those people overcome their problems throught therapy, education, finacial aid, and/or compassion.
I know there are a number of John Galt wantabees on this forum who would be quite prepared to let these people die on the vine but I wonder if that is what true Americans want? Is that really the American way now, to let people die in the gutter?
I'm getting mixed messaes here. I'm hearing people say that people are irresponsible if they donot get enough jobs to make enough money for a better (read more consumerist) lifestlye. Then I hear that when they were kids, they were not raised properly so they don't know any better.
So, which do you want mom to do? Get a job and put the kids in daycare? Or stay home with the kids to make sure they are brought up in a caring environment with mom imparting her posotive values on them and correcting their attitude? And cook the meals with wholesome food from scratch, to save a hundred a month or so. And not have to buy extra clothes for her to go to work, and a second car for her to go to work, and pay for child care for her to go to work.
Asking Mom to get a job is imposing a condition where much if not nearly all her income is invested in the logistics of being a working mom, while abandoning the children to a haphazard acquisition of unwholesome and unmonitored values which could result in their continuing the poverty pattern into the next generation. Yet, you say these people, by the very act of raising their children with watchful supervision of values and attitude, "chose to be poor" and blame them for any shortfalls in economic wherewithal.
How come we're not allowed to say that if you can't afford to raise kids properly or without receiving "assistance" from the government (taxpayers), then maybe you should not have kids (let alone 4)?
Jmarq is right...people often put themselves in these situations.
"Oh, my goodness! I make $5 an hour! How ever will I support my family of 5?" Wtf? Why on earth do you have one kid, let alone a family of 5?
I'm not trying to be rude or mean, but children are a huge financial responsibility...why aren't people thinking of this? Why would you purposely have a kid if you can't pay for its food, education, health insurance, etc?
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.
