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 would never trade places with anyone in the lower 50%. I experienced crappy rental housing and living off a few hundred dollars a week as a single 20 something. I couldn't imagine raising children that way.
The idea that the poor in this country feed off the rich in the US is hilarious. The truly wealthy feed off the prosperity of this country far more than anyone else. They benefit the most from it's stability: stable economy, law and order, and legal system. No one in that position would even consider switching places with someone at the bottom.
The jobs that used to go to those people at the bottom were sold out to other countries out of greed by the 1% with the aid of our government. You used to be able to afford a home with a high school diploma working at a factory. That economy doesn't exist here anymore. There aren't enough good paying jobs to go around, so you will have an underclass until you fix that issue.
The funniest thing is how middle class Joe Schmoes have been duped into thinking that they have more in common than the 1%...mostly because they view bottom 50% as minority leaches. In that aspect, the right wing and it's media apparatus have been extraordinarly successful in their propaganda campaign.
I love how you just leave out specifically who sold out many of those jobs, that being good old Bill Clinton with GAT & NAFTA.
One wonders with your right wing comment if you would not specifically mention which (R) president did it had they been responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by westboundrambler
I love how you say "poor are responsible for their situation due to lifestyle choices", then you say you were poor, hilarious. What if someone made those accusations about you in your 20's.
Wow, you really have a reading comprehension problem. Yes I said I was poor starting out, but it was not because of poor choices.
Rather I like most people who come from modest means had to struggle in the beginning because my parents knew I'd be stronger for it.
So I started by renting a room with other roommates when I left home, and worked several jobs to get by. However I never was satisfied with just surviving money, so I continued my education and specifically went to school for new lines of work. Yet as I was doing this, I had little money, hence the poor comment.
My poor comment regarding the people stuck being poor is something very different. Maybe they didn't graduate HS like I did, which allowed me to take the next step. Maybe they got hooked on dope, which I never did, etc.
So you can try to pic and choose only the things I say that you can try to twist into your own narrative. The fact is that I worked my way up because I did not make bad choices, and was never satisfied with just getting by.
Shouldn't be hard to understand if you are really interested in reading without an agenda.
The GOP was in control of both the house and Senate when NAFTA was signed, its their problem. The GOP is not for the average or below average earner in this country.
If the TPP gets passed its because the House controlled GOP pass it.
I love how you just leave out specifically who sold out many of those jobs, that being good old Bill Clinton with GAT & NAFTA.
One wonders with your right wing comment if you would not specifically mention which (R) president did it had they been responsible.
You avoided the actual point and turned it into, surprise for this forum, a hammer-headed partisan diatribe in a feeble attempt to deflect from the real issue.
Clinton absolutely enabled the "giant sucking sound"..he was considered a "conservative" on the economy, and as someone else said, very few in the GOP opposed this bill...I believe more Democrats did at the time, actually. Either way, the great God of the GOP Ronald Reagan would have gone down the same path.
The fact is that most of the people on here calling the bottom 50% lazy are hard right in ideology, so that's who it needs to be addressed to.
The GOP was in control of both the house and Senate when NAFTA was signed, its their problem. The GOP is not for the average or below average earner in this country.
If the TPP gets passed its because the House controlled GOP pass it.
You know what, I agree with you. HOWEVER, I always find it funny how people will say president XYZ did this (something good) when the other party controls Congress, but gets no credit (i.e. good economy when Republicans controlled Congress during the Clinton years). Yet if something is perceived as bad, then they want to blame whomever is in Congress instead of the president of their party.
I will note that Clinton did not veto the bill with the Congress having to try and override it. So while your comment is accurate, Bill Clinton has his DNA all over it as well.
As to the TPP, guess what, Obama has been lobbying for it even against his parties own wishes. So unless you want to have selective memory (as you apparently do with Clinton/NAFTA), Obama will be responsible for this, since Congress would not have the votes to override a veto. Plus Obama is all in over it. Agreed?
You avoided the actual point and turned it into, surprise for this forum, a hammer-headed partisan diatribe in a feeble attempt to deflect from the real issue.
Clinton absolutely enabled the "giant sucking sound"..he was considered a "conservative" on the economy, and as someone else said, very few in the GOP opposed this bill...I believe more Democrats did at the time, actually. Either way, the great God of the GOP Ronald Reagan would have gone down the same path.
The fact is that most of the people on here calling the bottom 50% lazy are hard right in ideology, so that's who it needs to be addressed to.
My goodness, if we were near each other in person, I don't know if I would smack you upside your head to knock some sense into you, or buy you a beer.
The smacking you would come from your apparent left wing ideology believing that many of the poor are just there because of circumstances beyond their control. Yet you wont admit that tough love (so to speak) is really what it needed.
Some people for lack of a better way of putting it, are slugs. If you feed them every day, they will come to expect it, and eventually become dependent on it. Yet if you tell them the gravy train is coming to a stop, they will not starve, and instead learn to fend for themselves (i.e. the fishing analogy).
There are many generations of entitlement minded people who pay for nothing, from health care to housing, food, etc.
They have no shame, they have no ambition. They are just dependent on the taxpayers and enabled by the government to get services with no skin in the game. This statement does not encompass all the poor, but it is a large segment which you and your ilk conveniently ignore. I know they exist because I personally know several now, and have seen many over the years in my professional life.
[also I do not intentionally deflect (i.e. spin) as that is a common tactic of the liberals. I will however inject some real life stories/experiences, but will always be willing to address specific topics]
The beer would be bought because unlike many who want to give sole credit to Clinton for the economy, you at least seem to see through a few things. Clinton was fiscally conservative in some areas, and he was also very pragmatic.
Thus he was able to work with the (R) Congress to keep the country moving in the right direction. NAFTA in my view was a mistake, at least to the degree it allowed this counties core to be excised. Many a decent job went outside or borders, which destroyed many hard working American families. Read Pat Buchanan's book/s on this subject.
Clinton, while not being a "conservative" by any means, was not going to fight the R's based on ideology (like Obama does), when he saw the ship heading in the right direction.
So as long as you are capable of giving conservative governance credit for the good economy of the 90's, there is still hope for you yet.
My goodness, if we were near each other in person, I don't know if I would smack you upside your head to knock some sense into you, or buy you a beer.
The smacking you would come from your apparent left wing ideology believing that many of the poor are just there because of circumstances beyond their control. Yet you wont admit that tough love (so to speak) is really what it needed.
Some people for lack of a better way of putting it, are slugs. If you feed them every day, they will come to expect it, and eventually become dependent on it. Yet if you tell them the gravy train is coming to a stop, they will not starve, and instead learn to fend for themselves (i.e. the fishing analogy).
There are many generations of entitlement minded people who pay for nothing, from health care to housing, food, etc.
They have no shame, they have no ambition. They are just dependent on the taxpayers and enabled by the government to get services with no skin in the game. This statement does not encompass all the poor, but it is a large segment which you and your ilk conveniently ignore. I know they exist because I personally know several now, and have seen many over the years in my professional life.
[also I do not intentionally deflect (i.e. spin) as that is a common tactic of the liberals. I will however inject some real life stories/experiences, but will always be willing to address specific topics]
The beer would be bought because unlike many who want to give sole credit to Clinton for the economy, you at least seem to see through a few things. Clinton was fiscally conservative in some areas, and he was also very pragmatic.
Thus he was able to work with the (R) Congress to keep the country moving in the right direction. NAFTA in my view was a mistake, at least to the degree it allowed this counties core to be excised. Many a decent job went outside or borders, which destroyed many hard working American families. Read Pat Buchanan's book/s on this subject.
Clinton, while not being a "conservative" by any means, was not going to fight the R's based on ideology (like Obama does), when he saw the ship heading in the right direction.
So as long as you are capable of giving conservative governance credit for the good economy of the 90's, there is still hope for you yet.
`
You project your beliefs about inner city welfare recipients onto all of the 50%. ......which shows a complete lack of understanding, or more likely, a warped perspective based on what you want to believe as opposed to reality. The 50% are the 50%, instead of maybe the 10% they should be, exactly BECAUSE of the jobs that the majority GOP, with Clintons help, enabled companies to ship overseas with no penalty, in addition to myriad other tax and policy decisions that make it beneficial for companies to screw American workers while reaping the rewards of our system and government. Yes there are a certain group of conservatives like Buchanan who put Americans first and not the corporate ogligarchy, but they have not...and still do not..drive GOP policy.
You talk about people pulling themselves up by getting jobs..that just aren't there. But, it makes you feel superior, so keep going with it.
My goodness, if we were near each other in person, I don't know if I would smack you upside your head to knock some sense into you, or buy you a beer.
The smacking you would come from your apparent left wing ideology believing that many of the poor are just there because of circumstances beyond their control. Yet you wont admit that tough love (so to speak) is really what it needed.
Some people for lack of a better way of putting it, are slugs. If you feed them every day, they will come to expect it, and eventually become dependent on it. Yet if you tell them the gravy train is coming to a stop, they will not starve, and instead learn to fend for themselves (i.e. the fishing analogy).
There are many generations of entitlement minded people who pay for nothing, from health care to housing, food, etc.
They have no shame, they have no ambition. They are just dependent on the taxpayers and enabled by the government to get services with no skin in the game. This statement does not encompass all the poor, but it is a large segment which you and your ilk conveniently ignore. I know they exist because I personally know several now, and have seen many over the years in my professional life.
[also I do not intentionally deflect (i.e. spin) as that is a common tactic of the liberals. I will however inject some real life stories/experiences, but will always be willing to address specific topics]
The beer would be bought because unlike many who want to give sole credit to Clinton for the economy, you at least seem to see through a few things. Clinton was fiscally conservative in some areas, and he was also very pragmatic.
Thus he was able to work with the (R) Congress to keep the country moving in the right direction. NAFTA in my view was a mistake, at least to the degree it allowed this counties core to be excised. Many a decent job went outside or borders, which destroyed many hard working American families. Read Pat Buchanan's book/s on this subject.
Clinton, while not being a "conservative" by any means, was not going to fight the R's based on ideology (like Obama does), when he saw the ship heading in the right direction.
So as long as you are capable of giving conservative governance credit for the good economy of the 90's, there is still hope for you yet.
The Obama stimulus package was much of this type of theory..
It failed miserably.
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.
