Why there are THOSE among many Americans who ADAMANTLY REFUSE to
realize, recognize, and acknowledge that there are SOME PEOPLE who simply refuse to better themselves, expecting for others to rescue them from their dire socioeconomic situation? There are people who maintain that such people are victims of the dominant sociocultural majority who are oppressing the former. When will people come to the realization that many people are in dire and less than positive socioeconomic stuations because of THE CHOICES they make? Let's discuss this.
GREAT POINT!
Here's one example:
I work at a school. I overheard one of our classified staff (no degree) say something during the election. She said, "I sure hope Obama wins. I don't want to have to go back to school. I'm so burned out." She elaborated. You see, she's on public assistance, and she was worried that without the liberal policies of Obama, she might lose that assistance. Yes, she has a job, but she doesn't want to better herself by going back to school. She simply feels that the government owes assistance to her, because she doesn't earn much; this is why she voted for President Obama. There is something inherently wrong with a system that encourages people to stagnate and not work towards bettering themselves.Totally concur with this. I have seen this among the working poor. They complain about how they are struggling yet they refuse to further their education or to take jobs with greater responsibility. OH NO, they feel that such would be a GREAT INCONVENIENCE and HEADACHE. Well, how do people become more affluent and successful? They further their education and make sacrifices; also, they are in highly responsible positions. Responsible positions often PAYS MORE because of what it entails. It is so SAD that many poor people REFUSE TO realize this reality. Hard work=success + wealth.
It is a FACT that wealthier people work longer and harder than the poor. Look at celebrities, they are among the hardest working people. It is not unusual for wealthier people to work 60-80 hours per week. Many poor people complain working NORMAL work hours. This is a SAD world we live in when people hate the successful but are QUITE LOATHE to make the sacrifices in order to be successful. They would rather live 'THE EASY LIFE", complaining to those who would listen. To paraphrase, many people want to get to heaven but do not want to die. Well the same applies to those who want all the accolades of success but refuse to work towards it, they want to be affluent and successful by proxy. Well, IT DOES NOT work THAT WAY! The WAY some people "THINK." As I have said before, many poor people in America WANT to be that way.
How do you ensure efforts to encourage the shirkers into self-reliance, don't penalise those people who are hard-working and want to succeed but (for whatever reason) are struggling financially and need some assistance. How do you distinguish between those two groups?
And if part of the problem stems from people making "bad choices", then rather than condeming people after the fact, wouldn't it be more useful to identify those most at risk of making such bad choices, become a role-model, and help them to make better ones?One can educate such people all they wish to but many of them refuse to become enlightened and are entrenched in their particular pathology. Many poor people have a different modus operandi than the middle, upper middle, and upper classes. They have an extremely fatalistic, passive, and victim mentality and approach to life. They have to help themselves if they wish to get out of poverty!
That's a good point. You certainly aren't going to get into the middle class by waiting for the government to do it for you. When the government provides financial assistance, it often results in complacency and diminished motivation to improve one's life by attaining further education or training. Then, so many people complain about capitalism and how it results in a polarization of classes, how poor people never get out of their financial plight. Maybe they don't get out of their financial plight, because they are satisfied after receiving financial aid. It's kind of like paying farmers not to farm. We're quite literally paying people not to further their own marketability in the job market. It's no wonder that few poor people ever reach the middle class, and when they do, they are a big success story.
There seems to be a difference to me between a hand up and a handout. Because of the recession there have been many who have been forced into financial difficulty who were not there before.
Yes, I want to be clear here. I have no problem with helping people who are struggling, people who probably don't want the help and would do anything possible to get off of assistance. The problem is that many people don't feel that way. Many people feel that the government owes assistance to them, because they have not attained marketable skills for whatever reason. I know people who struggled and worked their way off of assistance, and I know people who will always be on assistance. There is a difference.
You have made the differentation, and it is clear, thanks.
How do you distinguish between these groups? How do you ensure measures to reduce the number of those who want a hand-out, don't penalise those who need a hand-up?
It is indeed a problem, and a big one - one that we've made nearly no real effort to solve and one that is the cause of much anger and disgust towards those truly in need.
One answer might be to give the low level welfare dept. workers some responsibility and authority to make judgement calls. Extremely difficult as every single person denied the funds they are "entitled" to will scream to high heaven, but it could be done.
Another might be to require that everyone receiving benefits work for them. Make work jobs if need be, but work a normal work week with benefits tied to how much they earn.
It CAN be done, but only at the cost of politicians losing votes, and is not PC at all. It is, after all, demeaning to do simple labor.Why not make real jobs with real pay for the unemployed?
While I understand you are not, I am very uncomfortable putting government in the position of direct competition with the free market by producing products or services that are highly subsidized (or even 100% subsidized). That can only lead to the destruction of otherwise successful businesses.
On the other hand, if properly done, it will encourage welfare recipients to look for "real" work in "real" jobs and through time, encourage more businesses to grow and/or expand while removing the entitlement philosophy and cutting govt. outlays to those that don't want to work.My local council helps to create new jobs, not in competition with private enterprise but in cooperation.
Who paid the start up costs? The competition, through taxation? Who will cover any losses? The competition? Doesn't sound like cooperation to me...
Or do you mean they are offering a product that others, although they legally could, do not offer? I would find that rather hard to believe...So who pays the costs of the "no jobs" you favour?
I know one thing for sure, your idea does not turn out productive members of society who pay taxes and rates, or consume above the bare minimum.
As for providing services that others could legally offer but don't - we have that great socialist (!) institution called the EU that expressly forbids any local or national government authority from providing such services.
You lucky man John, its not Birmingham city council then.............
They tried that John it's called the civil service and public sector. Probably the most inefficient way to use taxpayers money ever invented.
Honestly, I wish I had the answer. I see the problem, but I don't profess to have the answer.
Here's one thought that comes to mind. Instead of helping with perpetual assistance, maybe we could help with education, training, and even relocation costs. I'm not real fond of this idea, but it beats giving money with absolutely no return on our investment. That's exactly what public assistance should be, an investment in helping somebody get out of poverty and not a support system for people who have become complacent.
- PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago
0Why are there THOSE among many Americans who CONSTANTLY HARP upon the subject of POOR people making bad CHOICES. These Americans ADAMANTLY REFUSE to acknowledge that this small subset of the underprivileged is not representative of the typical person who lives in poverty, but INSTEAD want to WAG THEIR FINGERS and TSK TSK about those "lazy freeloaders." WHY do these Americans FEEL the need to PASS JUDGMENT upon others? Perhaps it is a way to PAT THEMSELVES on the BACK while REFUSING to acknowledge that they can take SOME BUT NOT ALL of the credit, as well some but not all of the BLAME, for the circumstances of their own lives.
Many poor people DO make bad choices, believe it or not! That is ALL I have to say!
And many rich people do too, but they are fortunate enough to have a cushion to protect against those bad choices. Look at Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton, Robert Downey, Jr., Lindsay Lohan, Elvis Presley, ad nauseum.
Sorry, Grace, I have to support Pretty Panther's on this line of reasoning. Being lazy is not an exclusive character trait of the poor, but alas being lazy will cost them far more.The cushion that the affluent receive is not necessarily from the benifit of hard work on their part.
I am an eternal optimist who believe that most people down on their luck are working for a solution and not sitting around waiting for a handout.
EA makes the short sighted politically bigoted observation assuming Obama is all about handouts based on a comment he heard from one person.
Yes, many people make bad choices. You can see that anywhere. As a shrink, I have seen millionaires who have made terrible choices and have lost everything....physicians becoming addicts, stock brokers making crazy bets, business people who rob the store in order to gamble in Vegas.
Just a thought.....but you can see people make bad choices right here if you look close enough. It's kind of a human trait to not always get in right in an environment that is constantly changing.
Why do some Americans do that? Frustration is the answer. It's frustrating to go to work each day, struggle to make ends meet, cut costs, make the tough decisions on what luxuries your children can and can't have, and then watch as some people sit on a couch each day collecting government checks off of our hard-earned taxes. While these people typically don't live in luxury and they certainly usually struggle too, it's frustrating to see them live life off of our hard work. If they worked and paid taxes too, we might not have to pay as much.
It's all very frustrating, and in the teaching profession, I see it all the time. It KILLS me to see what this does to those children whose parents do nothing but collect checks. These poor kids have little chance of escaping generational poverty. They often have no desire to do well in school, as they don't really see themselves succeeding in life. They have no consistency, because their parents are moving from government housing to government housing every few months. Now, I know that you might think this is uncommon, but unfortunately, it's quite common in many areas of our country. I work at a poor school, and it's prevalent here, very prevalent.+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!
Wealth is very important to me. Wealth is the difference between living like a human being, being in charge of one's life and destiny and constantly worrying about one's existence, living from hand to mouth. No person who truly respects and love himself/herself WANTS to be POOR at the behest of others and being at the mercy of others. It is so sad to see that to many people, wealth is a bad word. Well, it is NOT! Wealth is greatness and good! It's GOOD not to struggle , BEING ABLE to LIVE WELL! POVERTY, not WEALTH, is the aberrant social disease!
"Compassion will cure more sins than condemnation."--Henry Ward Beecher
The roots of systemic poverty are varied and intertwined. Your focus on one small aspect of human character while simultaneously dismissing well-researched and documented social, cultural, historical, and economic factors is disturbing. Your intentional disregard for the complexity of the issue reveals a shallowness of thought that could easily be labeled a social disease.True compassion is helping people get out of their impoverished circumstances. Perpetual handouts that are often generational do little to encourage many to better themselves and actually escape into the middle class. Welfare should be a hand up rather than a perpetual suspension of lateral mobility. Helping people actually get out of their dire economic circumstances permanently and without future government assistance would be true compassion. What we have right now fails to do that for many and actually encourages many to continue down the road they have already been traveling. That's not true compassion.
Agree. I wonder what gm is doing to help, besides judge the character of the poor on internet forums?
I agree that there are systemic problems that exacerbate generational poverty.The BEST way to help a person is for HIM/HER to HELP and LIFT UP himself/herself. That is ALL I have to say on the subject. We have been giving monies and implementing poverty programs in America; the end result is the welfare malaise this great nation is in. Helping many poor people only makes them LAZIER and MORE ENTITLED. Well, NO ONE owes YOU anything as an ABLE-BODIED adult!
+1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! The Lord helps those who help themselves. To teach a person to fish plays ma$$ive dividends as opposed to giving him/her fish!
Why does it have to be WEALTH? What is wrong with just living at a comfortable level with all of your needs met and a few luxuries.
Wanting anything more than that is reprehensible to me and is considered GREED in my book.Needs - food, shelter and clothing. 1,800 calories per day, a tent and one change of clothing. Or did you mean a little more?
The point is that those "needs" have continued to grow to include what were considered absolute luxuries a few decades ago and still are in most of the world. What we now consider a "few simple luxuries" was rich beyond dreams of avarice not long ago.
So who decides what a "need" is and which "luxuries" are reasonable and which are greed? Is it greedy to have a cell phone, computer, TV (with satellite) and steak? Is it greedy to take in a movie once a month? Once a week? Are we greedy for discarding clothing that is quite serviceable but not stylish any more?
No two people will agree - I know a woman that raised cain with the cable company because it took several days to get cable into her house - she had four children and it was an absolute necessity (which has been dropped now in favor of a YMCA family membership
).I see. To you it's ok to be greedy. Anyone who truly has thier priorities straight will KNOW what greed is and what isn't.
You just want an exuse to be greedy and have more than your fair share. The majority of people do. That's the main reason the world is so fucked up.Sorry, Janesix, I live more simply than the large majority of Americans, and I'm quite happy with it. A computer, TV (with satellite) and a tracphone, yes, but that's about all. An old RV that I love to go camping in - camping has been the only vacation I've ever taken in my 63 years. Clothes are good until holey and hang the fashion industry.
But I doubt that YOU would be happy living my life - few people would be. They need fancy designer clothes somehow, and a hair stylist and manicure every month. They need something more than a decade old car that runs fine but doesn't look fancy and new. They need a whole lot of things that just don't exist in my life and most of all they need to keep up with the Joneses. None of which appeals to me in the slightest.
I also find that very few people aren't greedy in that they want more than bare necessities (that food, shelter and clothing idea). We ALL want more, it's just that some of us can afford more than others and to others that somehow makes them greedy. Because they can buy what you want but can't afford.
And that's the reason the world is so fucked up - that people aren't satisfied with what they have but always want something someone else has worked for and can afford but they can't afford themselves.Again, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
Odd how necessities change, isn't it? I grew up in a 3 bedroom home that was literally a trash pit before Dad remodeled with his own two hands. One bath, 3 bedrooms for two adults and 3 kids. 80% of our groceries came from canning our garden (that we all helped work) produce and Dad's hunting of deer and elk. One telephone, one old car. A motorola radio, no TV. Entertainment was an evening Scrabble game - no movies. I don't think I had a store bought pair of pants until I left home although I DID have a bicycle purchased with money from my paper route.
And we weren't poor - we were well fed (better than most families today), warm and with a roof. We just didn't have the dozens of expensive luxuries that are now considered survival necessities.
Wilderness, I think that you exaggerate a bit. The economic crisis and the effects are upon people who cannot pay the rent, put food on their tables, etc. I had nothing to do with manicures. I am sure that many, myself, included would not find your life so spartan. At least you know that you are going to eat and have a roof over your head. I am sure that the vast majority of those without would be pleased with these basic provisions.
All true. The crisis has hurt, and hurt badly. It is improving, though, and would be even better for those that won't work if they would step up and take a job. Any job that will feed their families whether it is beneath their dignity or not.
And many would find my life not so spartan; I DID use the term "majority", not 100%. I do maintain, though, that I am in a small minority with what I'm happy with - while you insinuate that there are huge numbers of starving, homeless people in the US it isn't true. I have never even heard of someone dying from starvation in this country; the distended bellies in all the UNICEF ads aren't seen here. Homeless; absolutely, but there are few that are that way for long unless they wish to be (and quite a few do).I hear you, Wilderness, my point is that there are fewer of there interminably lazy than what society would have us believe. There has been plenty of downsizing stories with tales of people laid off and taking jobs at a fraction of their previous salary to support themselves and their families. That is the far more common reality. There has been a structural change in the economy that is responsible for so much that the powers that be are reluctant for the public to have reminders as to how we got here.
I think that because of the economy, the number people who no longer have the luxury to continue chasing after 'things' is growing. I do not say that there are huge numbers of starving people, but there are many more that are hungry to the point of nutritional deficiencies, which is catastrophic for the young.
You guys that live in the mountain west have got it made, you get to trap or catch your dinner and have the clear blue skies as your roof.Hello Wilderness. Good to chat with you tonight.
Credence2 make a valid point. Because you do not see children with swollen bellies, you believe there are no children going hungry in this country. WRONG! “In 2010, 17.2 million households in the USA, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States.” {1}
What does “food insecure” mean, you ask?
There is a reason why we do not hear about “hunger” and “starvation” any more. In 2006, definitions in the US were revised to eliminate references to hunger. Starving to death is now described as various categories of “food insecurity.” Therefore, Wilderness, starvation still exists in this country but under a new name.
What was called “food insecurity with hunger” prior to 2006 is now called “very low food insecurity.” {2}
This means the food intake of household members was reduced because of a lack of money and other resources for food. In short, people in the US are feeling hungry, “the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food,” for days each year. {3}
Are huge numbers starving in the USA?
I would say food intake below levels considered adequate is “starving to death.” Would you agree Wilderness? Well, during 2010, one percent of households with children had at least one child who “experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers.” That works out to 390,000 starving children.
I believe you, Wilderness, when you say, “I have never even heard of someone dying from starvation in this country.” However, hundreds of thousands of Americans, both adults and children, suffering from malnutrition are slowly starving every day in this country, but when they die from a multitude of illnesses associated with poor nutrition, “starvation” is never entered on the death certificate.
{1} http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Lea … _facts.htm
{2} Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, Steven Carlson. 2009. " Household Food Security in the United States, 2008." United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. ERR-49. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR83/ERR83.pdf. p. iii-iv
{3} Oxford English Dictionary 1971And in response, the Conservatives say, "They have no bread to eat? Well, let them eat cake, then."
"I would say food intake below levels considered adequate is “starving to death.” Would you agree Wilderness?"
No. "starving to death" means dying from lack of food, not being hungry. If you wish to redefine the ter,, then I will agree with what you say - that there are hungry people in the country and if you want to define "starving to death" as meaning hungry you are correct. But it still doesn't mean dying from lack of food and is nothing more than a political ploy to make hunger sound far worse than it is.
Disease and poor health from poor nutrition is another matter, although the two DO coincide to some degree. I say that because sufficient food (calories) does NOT equate to a healthy diet today like it did in the past. Far too much available funds are wasted on junk that can hardly be considered "food" at all. So the two do coincide, but only to a small degree.
Children all too often have another problem as well; parents that spend limited funds on luxuries other than food. Alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, whatever it is, and it will always be the children that suffer. When parents begin selling their food stamps (fairly common) that is an inevitable result, but society cannot carry all the blame there and cannot "fix" the problem without taking the children away from their parents - something we are very reluctant to do.
From a Forbes 2012 article.
I have posted link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewo … e-percent/
Americans haven’t seen a disparity this wide since before the Great Depression — and it keeps growing...
Why do I doubt that anyone here was around during the Depression???
The Fallacy of Hard Work
It’s a common belief in America that all people have the same opportunity for success as the top 1 percent. Most people consider success to be a by-product of hard work, and hard work is something that Americans are extremely familiar with. In fact, Americans have increased productivity by 80 percent since 1979; unfortunately, their income hasn’t risen accordingly, if at all.
The average worker in an American company makes substantially less than supervisors and executives. In fact, corporate executives make 62 times more money than an average worker in bonuses alone, not counting the executive’s actual salary. For every corporate bonus, the company could have paid 62 employees. In fact, incentive pay actually rose 30 percent from years before the recession.Clearly the CEO who chats with his friends in his office is working 62x harder than the guy who loads several-hundred-pound crates into his trucks. Clearly.
I agree that the CEO doesn't work as hard, physically. I also have nothing but respect for the people who do the real work. Further, no CEO is worth the millions of dollars they "earn." Still, it is true that a good CEO can make decisions that earn or save millions or even billions of dollars. There are more people who can do the labor than there are people who can make those crucial decisions that save millions and millions of dollars. That has to have some value, as most of us can't do that sort of thing. I guess what I'm saying is there is an argument for both sides. Still, no CEO is worth 20 million dollars when their average employee is earning 30 thousand dollars, to totally make up a few statistics. Something is just wrong with that kind of thinking.
I am pleasantly surprised to hear this line of reasoning from you EA. I agree completely. You're slippin, the left is rubbing off on you.........
LOL
Are you trying to talk me out of it? Actually, I really mean what I said. I do have a profound respect for the people who do the real work.
Mighty Mom, I read the Forbes link through, this is powerful stuff from a respected business publication. What say the rightwinger in the face of such a damning confession? As I suspected all along, the President is correct and the fatcats-bougeoisie, whatever, are handing us all a red herring. This article is very important as to the information it imparts combined with coming from a messenger no one is going to argue with.
Thanks
- PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago0
Sanctimonious libertarian friend of mine: "I worked HARD for everything I have; I deserve everything I have because I EARNED it all on my own."f
Sanctimonious libertarian friend's college education was fully paid for by her parents. Her living expenses were also fully paid by her parents until after she received her graduate degree at the age of 26. Now, she still lives with her parents and at the age of 32 believes all of that savings she socks away every month because she doesn't pay for her own housing and food she fully earned solely through her own hard work. Oh, and her chronic health problems are paid for by the health insurance she gets from her government job.
Yet, she gripes about a coworker who grew up with a drug-addicted Mom until she was put in foster care at 16 and has so far managed to get two years of college under her belt through a government program. Coworker is studying while working full time. Yet, coworker is a parasite because she dares to receive assistance that has helped her move from poverty to lower middle class.
Many conservatives and libertarians suffer the delusion that they are spectacularly self-sufficient and have worked for everything they have. Sanctimonious, hypocritical bull-hockey. Very few people can legitimately claim to have earned their riches, however modest, all on their own.I don't see that attitude as unusual. It's a part of why so many college students are highly liberal.
As long as someone is taking, not giving, it is quite all right. As soon as they are forced to give instead, and the shoe is on the other foot, it's not OK at all. Friend is taking from one source while giving to another - the one is fine but the another is abhorrent. Sanctimonious indeed.
What will be the probability for a single mother living in the project to make it on her own? The government owes assistance to the people living in poverty. Oil companies have privileges and people don't? I want my share of taxes to go to an impoverished family versus to nourish the fantasies of my government to wage another war in the middle east.
If the government owes the poor money, they must have done something to earn it. What might that have been? To exist?
I'm sure Paris Hilton has done a lot to earn her fame and fortune.
Good answer. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the question, but I'm sure it's a good answer to some question somewhere.
I doubt that the poor "allowed" any such thing. They therefore aren't "owed" money for something they didn't do and even if they did allow it that is no reason for others (represented by government) to pay them for something of no value.
Try again?But only by being poor or unemployed do they allow the wealthy to be rich.
First, that some people are rich does not mean that some must be poor. Poverty has many reasons, and only one of them is that someone else has stolen their belongings.
Secondly, even if it were true, that some are rich and some are poor has nothing to do with me. Why then do you figure that my government, using [/i]my[/i] property (money), owes the poor anything at all? I am not responsible for the laziness of the poor, the poor decisions they've made, their inability to learn or produce or the bad luck they've found themselves in. So how do I (through my government) owe them anything?
" I want my share of taxes to go to an impoverished family versus to nourish the fantasies of my government to wage another war in the middle east.'
Max,
A true humanitarian has come this way!
So how do you stop malnutrition?
By giving them food? Or by giving them money?As we've tried both and neither works, a different solution needs to be found.
Perhaps giving them money, but ONLY in return for a 40 hour week of make-work thus encouraging people to find better jobs?That displaces current workers, and so all you've done is switch the unemployment line around.
Way to go?To some degree it does. However, it takes 50 people with shovels to match the output of 1 person with a backhoe - you lose one good worker but gain experience in working for 50 more.
There are also jobs that simply aren't being done well, if at all, today. Put brooms in 10,000 unemployed hands and put them in the streets. It doesn't have to be a job that needs doing, just one the forces 40 hours of low quality time and effort to receive the pittance necessary to live.
Costly, yes, but if it encourages just a few to end their dependence on charity in favor of getting a real job it is money well spent.You forget that the system is designed to need a large pool of unemployed.
And who would actually pay for these 10,000 unemployed with brooms in their hands?But they already pay for them to not look for work so what's the difference of putting a broom in their hands or sending them off to be educated?
The difference is that Wilderness believes that it would stir all those lazy blighter's into getting a "real" job.
Oh I see where you are coming from John and would agree with you to a point. It may instil a work ethic in a few but I doubt it will stir the lazy bones to anything except hone their skiving skills.
I still believe a compulsory education program would be the best thing.Have better educated unemployed!
Just how many burger flippers have degrees?
Does the market need any more?They could be educated to look for work and why they should look for work.
By your own admission we import educated people from abroad because there are not enough here already.
Isn't it time we started pointing people in the right direction? Why do we need to educate burger flippers when we need nurses, engineers, doctors, teachers etc.etc<sigh> the degree holding burger flippers comment was a reference to all those who got suckered into going to university to better themselves as doctors, engineers, teachers etc but found that there were no jobs for them so took the only jobs they could find.
Do you know what percentage of under 25s are unemployed?Do you know how many had the right degree? How many jobs are there for people with a performing arts degree?
How many overseas doctors and nurses work in the NHS?
There are over 400.000 vacancies unfilled in the UK jobs market because of skills shortage.There are actually 400,000 jobs unfilled in IT. With the best will in the world, jobs that not everybody is cut out for and all the training in the world would never fit unsuitable people into those jobs.
A degree is a degree, doesn't matter what t is in, for example, a friend of mine has a very successful career in computing with a degree in geology.Flexibility John, that's what is required. And now you are tarring everyone with the same brush, of course not everybody is suitable to do certain jobs but you don't think there is choice with over 2 million unemployed?
I trained as a bricklayer and then a furnace engineer and now I have spent 26 yrs in the security industry, I admit I would not make a good doctor or geologist but I found something so I could pay my way in life without relying on the welfare state.
Yes it's been hard but if I can do it anyone can, all you need is a can so attitude. It took my brother over 230 job applications and 43 interviews before he got a job as milk rounds man, something he dislikes but he perceivers with because he has to pay his bills. And even though it is different than the job he trained to do he understands that in the end its work.
I doubt if some would see a medical degree in the same light as a performing arts degree John.I hardly think that pointing out that everybody is different is tarring everybody with the same brush!
You know to get a degree you don't just go to a university and ask for one. You have to study for it, even an arts degree!
If you are studying for a degree whilst unemployed you have to do it part time or else have independent means of support.
Studying part time means that it takes around seven years to get a degree, a lot longer if you want to be a doctor!
And all that with no guarantee of a job at the end.
Your brother was lucky, I know people who have applied for far more than 230 jobs that they are well capable of doing but without any success.I know what is entailed in getting a degree John, I have worked at university and colleges in the past 7 years. I have seen all sorts of shinanigans, Tom foolery and down right hard work.
Most of the student I have had the pleasure of meeting are optimistic about their future, they understand that there has been a global downturn in the employment market but most understand that it is temporary. And there Are still plenty of graduates obtaining employment even if its mot in the field they studied in.
So should all those people stop looking for work then John? Have they considered all the options? How many do you know who have been able to gain employment, or are you telling me everybody you know has been unable to obtain any sort of employment?Again, you put words into my mouth that have no place there.
Of course the shouldn't stop looking for work, I just get tired of the idea, expressed by some, that everybody can instantly get a job if they really want to.And I am just tired of people saying these long term unemployed cant get a job when they really mean they wont get a job because they are better off on benefits.
Why are you so tired of people saying that they can't get jobs?
Does it stop you feeling smug and comfortable knowing that the system you support keeps people in poverty?Poverty?
The system in the UK keeps no one in poverty, it keeps them on welfare it so good. The system was never designed that way, it was to keep people from starving whilst that found work.
Smug is a socialist trait John and as you well know I could never be accused of that.Which UK do you live in? The welfare system in the UK is the worst in the industrial countries of the EU!
It is entirely designed to keep people from rioting,give them enough to fill themselves up with stodge.
I know no smug socialists, unlike the plenty of smug conservatives around me.I live in the UK where no one has starved to death John!
And it hasn't stopped people from rioting (2012) it was designed to stop people starving and that is what it has done, some (and I hope you noticed I have said some) have now accepted it as their way of life.
Plenty of smug socialists John, usually union bosses and respect party members. Plenty of conservatives are smug I agree but I'm not one of those either.People can live in poverty without starving to death.
Neither doe it stop some rioting over government oppression, but generally it stops them rioting for lack of food. BTW, how do you know that the rioters of 2012 were all unemployed?
As I said, I know no smug socialists but plenty of smug conservatives.Have a look at the offenders John, mostly unemployed.
Socialists seem to think if you cant buy the latest items you are living in poverty. How does that equate to the poverty in the third world? I am positive that many begging on the streets of India would swap places with the so called poverty stricken of Branford any day.
You have obviously never met Bob Crow then.........................Yes, and my mother always used to tell me to think of the starving children in China when I didn't want to eat my meal.
Actually, it's conservatives who think that they are living in poverty if they can't afford the latest thing.Starving children in china, I thought that didn't happen under communism (the little brother of socialism)?
Conservatives may very well think they are living in poverty if they cant afford them, but they will then get of their arses and work harder to get them.
If the apples belong to me could I sell them for profit under a socialist state?I would have no problem with you selling or trading your apples. That isn't capitalism, it's commerce.
Sorry John its capitalism
Why?
Because I am producing apples for profit.Not only are you totally misinformed about socialism, you are totally misinformed about capitalism.
I think you need to look up the basic definitions of capitalism and commerce.
No, you do, and not the all absolving capitalist definition of capitalism either. Go for the facts.
Tell me, why are capitalism and commerce considered one and the same thing when commerce is as old as time and capitalism came about with the industrial revolution?http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio … capitalism
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio … h/commerce
I don't consider them one and the same thing however capitalism does require an amount of commerce.
Capitalism has been around far longer than that John, ever since time began ownership of something was a right, socialists want to take that right away.Capitalism in its modern form is usually traced to the Mercantilism of the 16th–18th Centuries.
Shall we talk about common land? Held and used by everybody in a parish until the capitalists changed the law to allow them to enclose it and use it for thier own ends with no recompense to the losers?
Ownership is not the foundation of capitalism and was never a right.So still not understanding the dictionary definitions then John.
Ownership is a right, if I buy, build or obtain from someone something it is rightfully mine. If I steal something whatever it is it is not rightfully mine, therefor those who stole the common land have no rightful ownership of it and negates your argument about it.Ownership is not the foundation of capitalism!
Capitalism is based on stealing that which does not belong to you and claiming it as your own. That, rather than negating my argument, confirms it.
"Own" only means "to possess" it has nothing to do with either money or capitalism. Think of it, I give my daughter a car. She then owns it, I don't. No money has changed hands. In no way could that be considered a capitalist transaction.
Or consider a primitive tribe. One of them builds his family a shelter. That is his own. Nobody will take it off him except by an act of war, But he knows nothing of money, has none and doesn't even understand the concept!
Do you really believe he was a capitalist?If you give your daughter a car then she owns it, right, if you daughter then decides to sell that car it has worth, she sets the price and it is paid by the then new owner of the vehicle. In the first place you had to purchase the ownership of the vehicle unless it was given to you, but the original owner would have purchased the vehicle. Capitalism
If you build a shelter you need materials, you either purchase them or you own them already. if you own them already where did you get them?
Lets take the primitive tribesman, where does he live? On his land or someone else's (there has always been land considered to belong to someone unless its a desert or of that nature). The primitive tribesman builds a shelter for his family, someone comes along and takes away materials in that shelter, he has no recourse if he doesn't own it, if he does its then theft. If he owns it he also has the right to sell, trade or barter it.
Possess
I own my own house, the land it sits on and the garden it is attached to, no one can take it away from me, unless of course the government deems it is now socialist and thieves it from me to put others in it who can fill the bedrooms (each according to their need right) but it has a value and that property can be brought or sold by me.
If I lived in social housing I would not own that house and it would have no value to me except shelter, if the organisation that was in control of that house wanted it back I would have no recourse at all.
Therefor ownership is more powerful than possession. Two completely different things.
Under the capitalist system I have every right to make something and sell it for profit, under a socialist system I have no right to do such a thing.
You don't always have to use money to get something you want, money is a tool that we use. Capitalism is about ownership and the right to dispose of that ownership for profit, whether it be for money or other goods or even good will if you chose.The only transaction relevant is that between my daughter and I. Nothing either before or after is of any relevance whatsoever.
As for materials, you find them and collect them with your own labour, no buying or selling involved.
I would like to know the foundation for your belief that land has always belonged to somebody!
I assume that you live in your house free from mortgage. Otherwise you have far less security than somebody living in social housing.
If you lived in social housing you would have absolute security just as long as you kept your side of the contract.
Capitalism is not about ownership and the right to dispose of anything. It is about accumulating capital at any cost.No John that's called greed not capitalism.
Collecting materials from your own land is fine, from someone else's is theft.
Please tell me when someone didn't own land then John.
If I had a mortgage I would be absolutely safe as long as I kept my side of the contract. The contract would also be less restricting and I would own it at the end.
The transaction between you and your daughter would be controlled by you, something you couldn't do if you didn't own the rights to the contract in the first place.But capitalism is greed!
Land ownership is far to complex for a forum such as this, but to answer your question, if you believe in the bible, how did Adam own the whole world, even those bits he knew not and who did he buy it off?
Unfortunately your mortgage is not that safe as many have found out recently.
It doesn't matter who the contract between me and my daughter is controlled by, ownership still changes hands without any exchange of money.John,
Capitalism can breed greed, but greed is a good motivator. Motivation is one of the key components to a robust economy.
Best wishes.Education Answer, I am in TOTAL agreement with you. However, there are going to be those who hate the concept of socioeconomic betterment because of the belief that money is evil and the idea of socioeconomic affluence is more egregious. There are people who espouse a poverty consciousness and a poverty mentality, They believe in total income distribution where ALL is equal.
Isn't it greedy to take money away from people who are successful, to punish their success? Why should anybody push themselves if all that will happen is you will end up giving a GREATER majority of your money to the government, so it can be wasted or distributed?
There is a problem, with any system from capitalism to communism and anything in between, that takes more than half of a person's money and leaves the smaller share to the person who earned it in the first place. Yes, we are taxed that much in America too. Add federal, state, local, sales, energy, air, land, inheritance, telephone, water usage, waste disposal, and the additional 100+ taxes together, and what you'll find is that the government, in one capacity or another, gets more of the money you earn than you do! That's WRONG. Taxing those who make a lot more money to give to the poor people who were taxed to death doesn't solve the problem in the first place. If taxes were lower, a lot of poor people wouldn't need rich people's money to be "given" to them. Yes, I know that poor people don't pay much in federal and state taxes. They still pay a lot, as we all do, of taxes on other things, such as sales, land, energy, etc.
We don't need the government to take more money away from rich people. We need the government to take less money away from all of us. Yes, GREED is evil. Our government is greedy. It takes more of our money than it leaves for us.It is GREEDY to take money from more successful people who WORKED HARD, SACRIFICED, and EARNED. There seems to be an animus against the more successful and affluent in American society. Education Answer, truly, truly sad indeed. Agree that the American government need to streamline our taxes, stop having our tax dollars pay for stupid, inane, and pointless governmental and research projects. If the government stops doing that, our tax spending will be cut in half! Fuirthermore, our tax dollars would be further cut by putting able bodied welfare recipients to work- and I AM a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!
Ownership of a commodity
Is part of capitalism, capitalism is not greed, greed is human characteristic that some cant control.
Land ownership is simple. Adam was given the land by god he then gave it to his sons and his sins gave it to their sons and somewhere down the line someone decided there was worth in his land so he sold it ( it may have been for gold or other goods, it doesn't have to be for money). Whether you believe in the bible or not mankind has always practiced commerce for profit.
The contract with your daughter would be worth the price of the car, she would then own the car and could sell it for profit. You had the means to make a profit and decided to pass that's and onto your daughter.Capitalism is greed. Greed is an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
Where can I inspect Adam's title deeds? If what you say is true then they must exist.
Practising commerce for profit is not capitalism.
It doesn't matter how you dress up the deal between my daughter and myself, there was nothing capitalist about it and it certainly wasn't motivated by greed.Well as I said you need to look up the definition of capitalism, greed is a totally different thing all together.
And Socialism all about who deserves what I suppose? So who decides who deserves what?
As for Adam I thought your question was hypothetical but then you did exactly the same thing with your vehicle (passed it on to your daughter).
So if practicing commerce for profit is not capitalism what is it?
Because your daughter received a vehicle for nothing she was able to profit by not having to purchase one herself.No, I think you need to avoid capitalist dictionary definitions and examine facts.
The people who are affected, rather than the people who aren't affected.
But I didn't give her unrestricted rights to every car that came after did I?
Quite simply, practising commerce is fair trade, what everybody claims capitalism is, but isn't. Commerce is one man producing something and exchanging it with another for an agreed price. Capitalism is about one man getting somebody to produce something at the lowest price possible and selling that product on to another at the highest price possible.
And where is the capitalism in that?What dictionary would you have me use? One that puts the socialist slant on it I suppose.
Who would those who are affected be? The workers? Now I can see by the way the unions and socialists work a street cleaner would be earning more than a doctor in their world.
She had access to a vehicle she did not have to pay for an therefor profited from it.No dictionary at all, use facts instead.
If you see street cleaners being paid more than doctors then you need new spectacles.
In your book then any act of charity is a capitalist act!! BS.Fact. Under capitalism I can own my own house, live where I like, work where I like, work hard or not work at all.
Fact. Under socialism I can do none of the above, the proof is of course no one has lived under socialism because its against basic human nature.
I don't see the street cleaners earning more than doctors John because we don't live in a socialist system.
Mind you I do know a few bin men who earn up to £50k a year. ( when I say I know I mean I know them personally)
The act of charity could only exist under a capitalist system John.Under capitalism very few people actually own their houses, well not for very long anyway. You can only live where the system lets you afford and if you don't work hard you can kiss your house goodbye.
Nobody has lived under socialism because the capitalists make sure that the truth is well hidden.
But you said under a socialist system you saw the street cleaners earning more than doctors. Make up your mind!
And as for charity only being able to live under a capitalist system, well, that has to be the most ludicrous statement I've heard on here in a long time, if not ever.Well you know that statement is rubbish john, there are more people in the UK who own their own house now than at any other time in history. You would lose your home under the socialist system too if you decided not to work.
Come on John people are free to vote how they wish, capitalists don't have to make up stories about socialism people just know its unworkable because its totally against human nature.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I can see how the socialist would have street cleaners earning more than doctors.
I am sure that the socialist ideology denotes there would be no need for charity under their system, so charity could only exist under a capitalist system.
I think its ludicrous that socialists think their system could work.Another capitalist myth! Nobody owns their own house until the very last mortgage repayment is made. Until then they no more own their own house than a council tenant, probably less so.
If capitalists don't have to make up stories about socialism why do they?
Ah, I understand, only under a capitalist system would there be any need for charity!I am in a very good position because I have no mortgage. But if I had I would know after 25 years I wouldn't have to pay, after 25 years in social housing I would still be paying and still have nothing to show for it. My ex inlaws have lived in the same council house for 46 years, they have paid rent for that time and it is worth nothing to them personally, what a waste of their hard earned cash.
Come on John capitalists tell lies about socialism, what lies are those then?
Of course charity is capitalistic, there would be no need for it under socialism, isn't the chant of socialist no work no food, so the workshy would just starve. Or is the case that socialists would feed the workshy anyway.What about the large amount of extra disposable income available to those who rent council houses?
Over 46 years that would be rather a lot.
Lies about socialism! How about "street cleaners would get paid more than doctors"?
Again with charity, you are rather confused about that aren't you?What disposable income would that be then John? Maybe at the start of the mortgage but definitely at the end of it. My brothers mortgage is coming to full term and is £67 a month, how many council properties are that much at the moment then? And of course he won't pay anything after that unless the house needs repairs. If it cost the same over 40years I would still own the property at the end of it.
Prove they won't then. As we have never lived under a socialist system you can't, you can only say it won't happen.
Not really confused about it John maybe it you confusing me!We aren't talking about one instance in time and we aren't talking about somebody who has had the fortune to pay a heavy deposit. He won't only have to pay for repairs and maintenance after the mortgage is paid off, he will have been paying that for the full life of the mortgage.
Compare the cost of a couple starting on the housing ladder today with another couple taking a council house today.
And no, you made the claim, you prove that a street sweeper would earn more than a doctor under socialism.
So you are saying that if I threw off the system and went to live self sufficiently off the land, eschewing capitalism totally, if one day a traveller passed my door I would be unable to feed him and give him shelter?he still owns the house in the end john and paying rent for 46 years doesn't allow you to own it and as we have seen in Birmingham people who have paid rent for 30,40,60 years have been thrown out to house others.
Again its all to do with areas you decide to live in, for instance if you live in London I would agree that you need a hefty deposit where as in Burton on Trent you could buy the house for that deposit.
Well if you cant answer the question that answers mine.
That would be very charitable of you John but wouldn't it go against your socialist principles of no work no food?I can't comment on what is happening in Birmingham as I have no idea. But I do know that the idea and principle of social housing has been sadly traduced over recent years.
No, I said as you made the statement it was up to you to back it up, not to me to disprove it.
You still don't understand socialism do you!What is Socialism?
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.
But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.
In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.
Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.
Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.
So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.
We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.
In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.
Hello there, John. It has been a long time for us, has it not?
I always have a high regard for your level-headed stances, but I have to wonder how you arrived at the notion ownership is delayed until after the last mortgage payment. Here in the US, at least, title is transferred to the buyer at a closing in the form of a deed regardless of whether a mortgage is involved or not. You bought it; you own it, no matter how much you borrowed to get it. You might want to research the difference between a deed and a mortgage because I think your claim may be wrong in this case.
Try telling your lender that you are not sending them monthly mortgage payments any more because “their” house burned to the ground.
I noticed up above how hard it is to find standard definitions to establish common grounds for a dialog. Therefore, you might like this non-academic and more practical concept of ownership. Butler Schaffer at the Southwestern University School of Law postulates "whoever gets to make decisions about an item of property is the effective owner, regardless of what legal definitions may have to say about title." {1}
Again, it is nice to chat with you, John. Have a great day.
{1} http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.htmlFrom a practical standpoint, and speaking rather simplistically, control = ownership.
If you can paint, maintain, change or sell your house, you own it.
As the bank can do none of these things, they do not.Quill, you do have a deft touch.
I'm sure I am not alone in appreciating your contributions to these forums.
But don't let that go to your head, I'll find something less flattering to say later
GAI am sure that you will.
Thank you for the compliment.
Hello Quill. It has indeed been a long time hasn't it. That of course doesn't mean I've been ignoring your input.
I am indeed aware of the difference between a mortgage and a title deed, though not so aware of the differences between the US and the UK.
In the UK the lenders hold the title deeds, they require a good reason and money to release them!
If you actually owned your house, you could walk away from it with no obligation other than to leave the site in a safe state. The scenario you cite is no different to somebody living in rented accommodation.
In the UK at least it is quite common for a lender to stipulate what you can and can't do with the property and to require permission to do some things.
And you Quill, You force me to think in greater depth than most
Why would it have to be work, why not further education?
Give a man a fish it will feed him for a day teach him how to fish and he could feed himself for a lifetime.
This would also create more employment by creating more places in education.
Educated people drive a nation forward.+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
I would be very quick to include additional education in the "work" class, but...there are problems to be addressed.
If going to school is classified as "work" does every student get welfare? How do you stop the inevitable abuse as students-to-be sit at home for a time, working the welfare system, and then go to school, keeping their welfare as they do so? Fix that problem (without simply supporting any and all students) and you'd get my immediate support. I'm a very firm believer in increasing marketable skills as one way out of poverty.
- delleaposted 11 years ago0
There are people who continually make stupid choices and in turn expect people who have continually made smart choices to bail them out of their troubles, but this is not the case for everybody that you might label as poor or lazy.
The simple fact that most of America's manufacturing and other key self-sustaining industries have all been outsourced to foreign countries, with thanks to all of the over-educated and overpaid CEO's and big government politicians. As long as these leeches keep having their pockets padded, they couldn't give a flipping damn about anybody else or the consequences of the narcissistic decisions that they make.
People cannot work if the jobs that they do have qualifications for are not available because people in India, China, and other countries have been handed said jobs on a big silver platter!
Obviously, where degrees are concerned, some people who are smart enough to get degrees are the ones that constantly whine about the people who aren't smart enough to get them... but just because someone isn't smart enough to have a mile-long resume full of educational milestones doesn't mean that they are not smart, period. There are endless examples here. Someone without a degree who is smart enough to tear apart a car engine and rebuild it blindfolded isn't stupid, it just means that they have a different area of expertise than someone who as wasted endless years on piling up degrees in their resume only to become a whining, smart-ass know-it-all.
In context... if the degree-less person who can rebuild car engines cannot work for a mechanic because they don't have a piece of paper, they are screwed, and it's not fair for many reasons. Not only is that engine expert out of work, but their expertise and their abilities are wasted (maybe they end up flipping burgers), and some wealthy over-educated moron somewhere also loses the benefit of that person's expert high quality handy-work on their broken down Lexus or Mercedes!
Let's face the facts... degrees aren't everything! In my line of work, I've encountered rich, over-educated morons who can't even brew a pot of coffee on their own if it's their maid's day off, coffee grounds and water all over the place! In fact, there is a local selectman in a neighboring town with a big fat resume who thinks he knows it all, and he's totally destroyed the reputation of his town... his town is constantly in the newspapers because of the never-ending stupid mistakes he's made as a selectman, and the taxpayers and voters in that town have been footing the bills for all of his mistakes, all because of his idiotic, over-educated narcissism! Sometimes people with too many degrees under their belt are too big for their britches!
All said, it's quite apparent that even those with degrees up the ying-yang are capable of making stupid choices! The problems we have...
are of our own making.
Every problem is a chance to increase our awareness of ourselves and life. To not face our problems head on is to avoid becoming stronger and wiser. It is important to embrace problems with bravery and determination. To do so, builds our inner strength.
Unless you like being a spiritual cream puff.Totally agree! People must learn to be accountable and take responsibility for their lives. The only person who can take a poor person out of poverty is him/her individual self, no one else!
Further thoughts and creative writing regarding the matter at hand posted by Gm:
Regarding the human condition: Independence and liberty bring forth happiness.
(In fact, I have finally accepted the fact that depending on anyone else or others for happiness will not bring about the desired result.
Also... contrary to popular beliefs, happiness is not a" warm puppy" or a" warm gun."
Or even being married to the "right person."
Or even having the Government and/or Others (through taxes) provide for the survival of its citizens.
Instead, True happiness comes from somewhere within us... somewhere in our own minds.
Therefore, It's possible to be happy for no reason at all.)
Furthermore...True happiness will bring forth enthusiasm and personal industry with the joy of doing,
of success,
of working with others,
of being alive.
And It starts with the child. Encouragement and inspiration is what we must provide every child. Not force. Forcing is taboo and ultimately causes the psychological condition of laziness. Lazy people are NOT happy.
(And I abhor summer being cut short in favor of an earlier start date for public school. Bah.)
Just meanderin' by to elucidate...
Hope is another powerful motivator of happiness.. If you buy a house, you have the joyful hope of owning it someday. This house meanwhile gives you and your family individual freedom. You do not have a landlord. You are king and queen in your own little kingdom. Yes you give to Caesar what is Caesar's... but no you don't have to deal directly with him.
Ownership of property is the basis of capitalism. The example of the car is an example of one transaction which still requires that the manufacturer was compensated originally and the manufacturer would have made the car with an uneven distribution of labour/reward.
The second example is outside capitalism because it does not effect others- although the notion of him them building a second home and controlling who lives there is capitalist in nature, even without knowledge of money.
Ownership of property is not, of itself, capitalism but as soon as you encourage ownership of property beyond what is necessary you are opening the door to the uneven distribution of labour and influence that are the hallmarks of capitalism.But the example was purely the transaction between myself and my daughter, nothing before or after affected that.
Agreed, though some seem to struggle with that concept.
Related Discussions
- 48
If you would only experience how hard rich people work.
by mio cid 11 years ago
Mike Huckabee ended his show with these words the other day.He said rich people should live with poor people for a few days so they would experience how hard their life is and poor people should live with rich people for a few days so they would see how hard they work. ...
- 619
Is giving money the only way to help poor people?
by Goodpal 3 years ago
Is giving money the only way to help poor people?You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money. - P. J. O'Rourke. What do you think?
- 84
Conservatives, Do YOU Feel That Many Poor People Make Excuses ?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
Disclaimer: Not addressing the hard working poor who are trying to better lives for their families; the underemployed; the unemployed; the needy elderly; the physically, mentally, emotionally, and psychologically handicapped who CAN'T help themselves; and, those who fell temporarily upon hard...
- 497
Why do so many Americans hate America? And if they hate it so much why don't the
by TheWorldNow 5 years ago
Why do so many Americans hate America? And if they hate it so much why don't they just leave?One thing that really bothers me is the way some Americans seem to hate everything about America. I'd just like to ask them: "If you hate everything about the country you live in then why are you...
- 51
Are rich people liars, cheats and thieves?
by promisem 6 years ago
In my experience, they are more than they are not. Science backs it up. Your thoughts?https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe … 503c1fe516
- 73
The K.I.S.S. Factor-It is VERY SIMPLE Really! Yes, Really!!
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
How can we REDUCE, if not ELIMINATE poverty in America? Let's get TRUTHFUL, even RAW here, no SOFTSOAPING here! Let's TELL IT LIKE IT IS!