There Are More Liberal Americans Than Conservatives... I Know Why Too!

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (43 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image90
    GA Andersonposted 8 years ago

    Thanks to Credence2 for sparking an interesting thought with this comment;
    "Regardless, there are lot more of US [Liberals] than then are of you [Conservatives] based on demographic trends obvious to us all. So, what are you going to do, the right still has declining fortunes for large part of the American electorate. "
    (See his full comment and context of the thread here: The delusions of the left)

    There are many points to my rationalization, but I think there are more Liberal ie. "Left" Americans than Conservative ie. "Right" Americans because the "Left" includes a larger block of government program beneficiaries.

    Know what I mean Vern?
    Vote for a Democrat and get free healthcare, more food stamps, etc. We will take from the rich and give to the poor. We know life is hard, vote for us and we will take care of you. (Remember the news clip of the exultant 2008 Obama voter that was gonna get some of that Obama cash for rent and car payments? (he, Obama, had an Obama stash))

    Of course that was way overstated, but the point is that I think a Conservative person is more inclined to believe in the concept of personal responsibility than a Liberal is. And since I think there are a lot more "take the easy road" people in the world than there are motivated self-achievers, that is why I think the Blues outnumber the Reds.

    The Reds, on the other hand, have a whole basket full of perspective problems of their own. So don't misconstrue my comment. I am a purple and see as many problems with the Right's ideals as I do with the Left's.

    Just sayin'


    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      this is the discussion I have wanted for a long time. Greetings, Old Poolman and when I am done I hope to get the frog out of the prince's throat.
      Excerpt from the link provided here:

      Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society” in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work.  A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.  (See Figure 1.)  This figure has changed little in the past few years.

      In a December 2011 op-ed, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned ominously of the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the “Entitlement Society,” predicting that in a few years, “we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival.”  “Government dependency,” he wrote, “can only foster passivity and sloth.”[2]  Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum said that recent expansions in the “reach of government” and the spending behind them are “systematically destroying the work ethic.”[3]

      The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job. 

      Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.  People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.
      This is so stark a contradiction from stuff that typically comes from the right, it needs to be refuted with solid evidence to the contrary. I am not much of fan of anything  Mitt-witt says,  so bring it on......  So there are your moochers, our elderly citizens over 65, not the welfare queen, surprised?

      Where does the right get this idea of a America inundated with moochers, did it start with Reagan and the 'welfare queen" analogy.

      Outside of clinging to what conservatives like to wrap themselves up in like a warm blanket or take in like a sip of brandy on a cold night, here is some more startling data. There are many sources that support this data so this is not Fox news. … taxes.html

      to give the gist, it is odd that the states that are doing the most mooching are in the red column with one or two exception from a list of the most offending 10. So there is disconnect when people tell me that the only reason left leaning candidates win is this idea of the mooching philosophy, which is just bunk.

      Ever wonder why American Jews, Asians, those of the most successful in terms of economic attainment in this society, vote predominantly for Obama and the Democrats? How does any of this fit in with the 'mooching theory'?  Why do those states with the most of its residents on the federal dole count themselves as solid red/GOP bastions? How does any of this fit in with the theory?

      1. profile image0
        Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Hello Credence, I trust life in Florida is being kind to you.

        I base my feelings on observations I have formed from observing real live people.  I'll give you one example.  I befriended a young married couple with one child.  The wife was working part-time in a nursing home and he stayed home to care for the child.  They of course are eligible for food stamps, earned income credits, food banks, and other entitlement programs.  I asked him how much longer they planned to live under these conditions.  He explained how at minimum wage the cost of child care and travel expenses would be more than he could earn.  Now this is a very nice young man who is not afraid of hard work.

        I called in some old favours and was able to get him a job in the Swimming Pool Service industry for over $20 per hour to start.  He is still there and doing very well.  But when he took the job his wife was very concerned they would lose their entitlements.  Her husband explained to me that she has been on some form of public assistance since birth, she was afraid to leave that behind.

        Now with Obamacare rules cutting many jobs to 30 hours or less per week more and more people are feeling the financial pinch and needing assistance.  If I take away your opportunities and make you dependent on me I own you.  That is how I view what the government has done to us over the last several Presidents.  Our government truly likes having masses of people who depend on them for almost everything.

        Oh how I wish you would have stopped in Arizona on your way to Florida.  I would love to chat with you for awhile and get to understand your view of the world as opposed to how I see things.  Heck, my view may even be wrong but it is the way I see what is happening.

        By eliminating opportunities and dangling the entitlement carrot our government will eventually own everyone who chases the carrot.

        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Hey OP, thanks for checking in. Things are OK here in Florida, but if I had my choice, I would have checked into Arizona, a nice place called Sierra Vista. The right climate and location and much closer to my native Colorado,  however the missus liked the humidity and proximity to the ocean. I have learned to pick my battles carefully.

          I have a lot of observed situations and beliefs, but I could not say that what I see speaks to the 'big picture', what is the truth in regards to the vast majority of countrymen?
          I am not buying the entitlement thing, I see plenty of hardworking people in the service industries, with both adults in a household having to work when a couple of generations ago, one working class/middle class job was enough to support a family. Things have changed. My father says I had it easy and his father coming up in depression era America said the same thing about him. The succeeding generation may well be the first that cannot be said to be doing as well or better than its predecessor.

          When I went through the California deserts on the way to the LA flight to Hawaii, almost 5 years ago, I commented on how poorly the roads have been maintained, cursing then Gov Schwarzenegger under my breath. When Obama proposed the idea of transferring money to the states to address needed public works projects with jobs going to middle class and their subsequent spending increasing economic fortunes for all, what was the problem. Did we think that massive tax breaks for the very well heeled would find its way into greater employment opportunity for others or merely into their investment portfolios? These are some of the differences of perspective that I would find interesting to discuss. We may be observing the same events and have a different interpretation as to its cause, why?  We are in the modern age and can keep a running conversation, the next best thing to discussing things over a lager or two

          Lets increase opportunity from the standpoint of middle and working class families, build from the middle out rather than the top down.

          1. profile image0
            Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Credence, Sierra Vista would have been a great choice.  If you get tired of Florida please consider a move to Sierra Vista.  If you ever do get to Arizona the steaks and lager are on me.

            My biggest concern is the lack of opportunity available to most people today.  For a multitude of reasons, many of the really good paying jobs are gone.  Our schools no longer teach shop classes that often led to a young person picking a trade they liked and making that their career.  I spent much of my life working in the telephone industry.  Back then if one was lucky enough to get hired by a Public Utility they had a really good job for life, and a nice retirement.  Sadly, those days are just about gone.

            I have a problem with the thinking that anyone who makes more than I do being taxed at a higher rate than I am.  What is fair about that?  I think the tax rate should be set for everyone at the same rate with no damn deductions at all.  As it stands now, the very wealthy are able to buy tax loopholes that result in them paying virtually no taxes.  If I am only willing to work part time why should the guy who works full time be taxed at a higher rate?

            The middle class in this country is rapidly disappearing.  The way the system is structured the middle class bears the burden for those who can't pay and for those who won't pay.  In fact, I am in favor of scrapping our current tax structure and implementing a National Sales Tax.  That way every time someone spends a dollar they pay their tax, including drug dealers and prostitutes.  No forms to fill out and no check in the mail.  No loopholes for the rich either.
            Our government has been stealing all of the money sent in for Social Security for a long time.  Now they have to borrow money to pay those who paid into the system.  Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.

            Your idea of building from the middle out would go far for getting this country back on track again.  But just how do we do that?  Government regulations and bureaucratic red-tape make it nearly impossible to start a new business any more.   Small business owners really do employ a huge number of our citizens.  We should encourage business start-ups rather than make it nearly impossible.

            Darn this would make a great discussion over a steak and a beer.

            1. Credence2 profile image79
              Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

              OP, I will take you up on your offer at the first opportunity, I extend the same opportunity to you if you find yourself on a visit to the "Sunshine State"

              So what is happening on the job front? GA made a point in a earlier thread, one of which we  are all painfully aware. Technology, outsourcing has made many one time good jobs obsolete. But there is no hi-tech involved in getting roads and bridges repaired and it is not make work.

              There is a negative connotation that is associated with trade schools when compared with the standard 4 year college. I say that needs to be eliminated as the skilled employment opportunities are going to require a refit and retooling of the American labor force, like never seen before. Henry Ford's assembly line was the marvel of manufacturing in his era, but today robots can do more efficiently and at lower cost what it was men use to do. Now, people have to be trained in computers and robotics to repair the machines that do the work. I heard that Germany has a pretty good line up of trade schools to prepare for new workers that can function in a new economic climate.

              For the economy to work successfully it will require cooperation between labor, capital and government. You can bet that most modern economies have their governments looking down the road as to what will be competitive in the future instead of reacting to the lure of short term profits, at the expense of long term viability. We should be partners and not adversaries. What are we doing to prepare school children for the challenges of working in the new fields? There use to be metal and crafts shops in high school when I was a kid, perhaps we need to bring much of this back. The simple reality of capitalism is that no one is going to pay someone $20/hr for work that can be done for $3-$4. In this reality, the burger flipper and much of the service industry are condemned to endure lower wages, as their labor has less value. In the interest of maintaining the American standard of living for the majority of citizens here and to remain competitive on the international scene, we are going to have to look into these things.

              Rather than blame social security as fundamentally flawed, maybe we should look at who has had their hands in the cookie jar. People have been putting money into a piggy bank with a hole at the bottom for years. The politicians in Washington have used this fund as a slush to avoid raising taxes, or to finance boondoggles without the taxpayer feeling any pain. This was and is a travesty.

              I am for small business, for them to remain viable in this difficult economy they too have made many sacrifices. I am talking about the finance industry; the large companies, multinationals, wall street money changers, etc. As for regulations and bureaucracies, we are not for the 'red tape' for its own sake, but we live in a world where many take advantage in a myriad of ways. If there were not regulation, the industrial plant in town can just dump its wastes into the local waterways. Who is to stop them? It is much cheaper to dump than properly treat it. There has to be a balance between snarling small business in paperwork and responding to legitimate need for regulation to the protect the public. Without seeing it all, it is hard to say where the lines need to be drawn.

              When Obama offered a rescue plan passing money on to the states to hire people repair infrastructure and stave off the effect of serious downturn in the economy, the other side said NO and complained about socialism. It was known as the stimulus, regardless of what 'the right' may say it saved the American economy from sinking beyond the point of no return. I say if we had more in the program along this line we could have done better, faster.

              Giving money to the rich through taxes, hoping that they would invest, hire and such is tainted. No one is going to start a business nor expand without demand. The middle and working classes is where the bulk of "demand" lies.

              thanks, we will talk again

              1. profile image0
                Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Credence, you are once again right on the money with this comment.  The EPA was a necessary evil to prevent industry from making much of this country uninhabitable.  But with time, the EPA has gained far too much power and makes unnecessary rules that destroy many small business owners.  Even when proven wrong, the EPA will not change any of their rules no matter how ridiculous the rule may be.

                Trade schools would be a great way to get this country on the move again.  There are just some jobs that can't and won't be replaced by robots or machines.  We could learn a great deal by looking at some of the programs being utilized in other countries.

                There was a young lady on TV whining about not being able to find suitable employment even with her college degree.  When asked what her college major was, she replied "Egyption Art."  College is a great thing but students need to look at the current demand for whaterver they choose as a career.

                There are high paying jobs available for those with the necessary skills, but few opportunities exist for gaining those skills.  That is where our educational system could really help this country.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                While Obama had a decent idea in the stimulus to rebuild infrastructure, he wasted it by requiring that it all be "shovel ready".  With requirements for endless studies that eliminated all work that wasn't already funded and either proceeding or on the very verge of it.

                1. Credence2 profile image79
                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I am pleased that you had no problem with the basic concept.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Your figures will change radically when you take out the SS retirement plan that the elderly have paid for and are getting back.  Somehow that seems to be considered an "entitlement" when producing such statistics, but of course it is nothing of the sort.

        Medicaid, yes, but then that is not available to that mass of elderly that are getting all the money.  The can only get medi[b[care[/b] which, like SS payments, they have paid dearly for.

        Now take out at least half of disability payments as unneeded and unnecessary.  Disability has to be the most fraud ridden program in the whole entitlement scheme and for good reason.  (Which is really unfortunate because those that DO actually need and deserve it have a hard time getting it because of the fraud).

        That leaves the partially employed and under-employed getting the bulk of the payments.  But why?  Because they won't accept training?  Because they refuse to relocate?  Because they chose to have large families they cannot support?  Because they demand a standard of living equal to someone that HAS been trained and received an job commensurate with that training?

        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I hear you, Wilderness.

          I guess I just a hard time seeing where the American economic system is in danger of being overrun by moochers.
          We had a lot of people having to fall back on social services because of the economic downturn, one on a scale unknown for over 80 years. I don't correlate those rising numbers with sloth and laziness of the majority of American able bodied workers.

          Yes, I heard about abuse of the SSDI, but I also know that the well heeled are opening offshore accounts to avoid paying income taxes.  We have always had people that try to 'beat' the system. Nothing new there. To speak on terms of the American public having a 'entitlement mentality' is reaching. Because of the lack of opportunity, people have become desperate, that's all. The idea that there are all these 'layabouts' not wanting to work, implying that Democrats stay in office because of the votes of these laybaouts is pure fabrication.
          What portion of the partially employed and underemployed can be large enough to justify a statement of a 'national entitlement mentality'? There are plenty of good people who survive and do the best they can to make adjustments for finding and keeping work. Where does the idea come that they are all moochers and it is all their fault? The point that you make in your last paragraph can be considered sensationalist, where is the evidence that makes the case that the majority of  these people are deliberately avoiding work?

          1. profile image0
            Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            One thing to keep in mind is the Obamacare 30 hour or less rule.  Those that were just barely making it on 40 hours are now having to find a second job or turn to assistance programs to survive.  I really don't believe the full impact of the 30 hour law was even understood when it was made a law.  Nobody in their right mind would run a business the way the government tries to run theirs.

            1. Credence2 profile image79
              Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

              You could be very well right about that assessment, I need to get a better understanding of this provision in the ACA, to gauge the pros and cons.

              1. profile image0
                Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I personally know many people working for a large restaurant chain who were cut from 40 and over hours per week to 29 or fewer hours.  My own daughter was one of them.  Most of them are now working two jobs and that of course made the unemployment number look really good.

                The less than 30 hours law allowed employers to be exempt from providing healthcare benefits to their employees and not have to pay the fines for not doing so.  What big corporation wouldn't jump at the chance to avoid this huge expense?  This should never have been included in the Obamacare set of rules.

                Could they not see this cut in hours hurting many who depend on their jobs to survive?  I really feel this was just another way to get more people dependent on government for at least part of their survival.  Could this be why there was such a large increase in the number of people on food stamps?  I would almost bet it is.

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  "The less than 30 hours law allowed employers to be exempt from providing healthcare benefits to their employees and not have to pay the fines for not doing so.  What big corporation wouldn't jump at the chance to avoid this huge expense?  This should never have been included in the Obamacare set of rules."

                  You made a good point with that statement. It is making a lot of news recently. But why isn't another question being asked, or making the news... "What is the rational for the government to have the authority to make any business provide healthcare to its employees?"  Shouldn't that be an employer's choice?

                  When did employer-provided healthcare change from a recruitment/retention inducement to an obligation?


                  1. profile image0
                    Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Your correct.  I was describing a "symptom" and you are describing the "disease."

                    Your right, providing healthcare to employees should be up to the individual employer, not dictated by the government.

                2. rhamson profile image73
                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  This was never about government mandated healthcare. What it was about is the healthcare insurance companies. Without a mandate the roles would virtually remain the same as older people are in need of coverage than younger healthier prospective customers. How much it cost was played against how many so that the shear numbers would double the take of the healthcare insurers. Nothing moves along in this country without someone getting paid and preferably well.

          2. profile image0
            Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Well said Credence, but then the obvious answer is to fix the economy by taking a hard look at all of the government regulations for business's.  It wouldn't hurt to stop the governments insane spending spree and lower taxes either.  Small business could rescue this economy if they were allowed to do so.

            1. Credence2 profile image79
              Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, I have no problem checking out how things can be streamlined. As for the spending spree, choices need to made that the politicians have yet to show the courage to make. Where do we start, social security, entitlements, foreign aid, the military? Whose ox do we gore? There remains many areas that both sides of the political divide can identify as wasteful, maybe we can start here?

              This last downturn was not only severe but different in nature. I don't think that small business have the resources to train a new cadre of workers in the new disciplines. They need to have people ready to step into the new jobs. I think the current problem is beyond rectification by just bolstering small business in of itself.

              1. profile image0
                Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Please don't get me started on spending cuts.  Foreign aid would be a great starting point.  We give billions to countries that hate us, and much of that money is stolen before it is distributed.

                I read where the foreign aid pay book is not one that can be changed by line item.  It is a single document and no country can be scratched off the list even by the President.

                If I recall, even China is still on this list.  We send them money they loan back to us plus interest.

                There are still hundreds, if not thousands of "butterfly" and "field mice" study grants being issued every year.  Many of these grants go directly to the friends and relatives of Politicians.  You and I both know the Politician involved with the grant gets some personal reward for making it happen.

                Not saying that some research grants are not needed and worth the money.  There just needs to be better control over which grants make it through the system to cut out some of the corruption.

                1. Credence2 profile image79
                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  We could probably trim a great deal of the federal spending on the points that you and I agree on can be cut, but remain in place for purely bureaucratic and selfish political reasons. As a former  federal procurement professional, I recall the goal of all federal agencies was to spend all that was allotted to them by September 30 of each or receive less the next fiscal year. This is a wasteful mindset in itself, how much room is there for improvement?

                  1. profile image0
                    Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    The end of the government fiscal year is a dream for salesmen.  They make a large percentage of their annual income selling goods to the government to use up any left over money.

                    A Corporation I worked for did it the same way.  Just take last years budget, spend it all, and add some to it for next year.  Then they introduced "Zero based budgeting."  That meant every department head started with zero dollars and had to break down and identify all the projected costs for the next year.  They took it all the way down to the paper clip and pencil level.

                    The result was costs went down and profits went up.  That would work the same for government but they will never do it.

          3. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think it quite reasonable to continually talk as we were in the middle of the biggest recession since WWII.  We aren't - my state is showing the lowest unemployment in nearly a century.

            But the demographics HAVE changed.  A great many people are either going to have to re-train or relocate...or keep relying on those "entitlements".

            My last statement is the most telling, I think, of that whole list: "Because they demand a standard of living equal to someone that HAS been trained and received an job commensurate with that training?"  With the changing job descriptions, lots of people have seen their income fall drastically, but don't accept that their standard of living must also fall until they can gain that income back.  The stockbrokers working at fast food, the vice presidents pushing brooms: these people are either going to have to find a new career or be stuck with low income.  Those jobs aren't coming back in the near future, and for good reason.  There are (were) a great many white collar jobs that simply didn't return value for the wages being paid, and companies have discovered that. 

            I completely recognize that there are thousands (millions) of hard working people out there that are making peanuts.  So retrain, for God's sake!  If you're willing to learn and work, there IS a job for you, but sitting on your rear end crying that digging ditches or flipping burgers won't support your family of 6 isn't doing any good!  (Except keeping the food stamps coming in - the system is designed to make it very, very difficult to get off of those entitlements once you've made the turn down that road.)

            1. profile image0
              Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Wow, I could not have said this any better than you just did.  I recently helped a young man get a good paying job where he is learning a good trade.  He is married with one child.  His wife was reluctant to have him change jobs because they would lose their food stamps.

              He called the food stamp people and told them he no longer wanted their "entitlement."  They told him that to get off the food stamps he would need to provide copies of his bank statement, a paycheck stub, and a letter from his employer.

              He said to them that all he needed to get on food stamps was a drivers license and SS card, but it made no difference to them.  It seems that since there is a child involved other agencies such a CPS now demand proof of sufficient income to stop the food stamps.

              How insane is this?  My guess is there was no page in their training manual to instruct them on how to stop paying for food stamps so it is easier to just keep sending the money.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                States get "federal money" (meaning money from people in a different state) into their tax base by encouraging the use of entitlement programs, in particular food stamps.  It is very much to the states benefit to keep that money coming in and to heck with worrying about the people footing the bill.

                Still, I hadn't heard of being forced to provide proof like that.  Wonder what would happen if the man simply quit replying and put all the vouchers (credit card, etc.) into a bag to turn over to the feds when they came to charge him with fraud.

                1. profile image0
                  Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  That is exactly what he is doing.  I believe they call them "EBT Cards" that are funded once per month.  They are still putting funds on his card but he has not been spending any of the money on food.

                  To me, this is just proof our government wants as many citizens on Entitlements as they can get.  If they feed you they own you.

            2. Credence2 profile image79
              Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

              The impression that seems to be going around are that people rather sit than move or retrain. There are economic costs associated with moving and retraining, who has the money? I just think that the problem is as simple as people not willing to get off from their rumps... Idaho is not what I consider representative of the larger nation, of course it is doing better. Yes, things are improving but faster in some parts of the country as compared with others.

              So you have a few nutcases making insane demands for a parity that they have not earned neither through education nor experience. I still say that does not speak to why the vast majority that are unemployed or underemployed is in that state. I have heard about all the stirring up of trouble and demands for higher wages in the fast food industry for example. But, I don't think to put a broad blanket on those on the lower economic margins and say that it is always their fault as to why they are in economic distress is fair and unsubstantiated except from the  standpoint of the Romney crowd.  Yes, there are new economic realities that we all have to contend with, I am for a handup and not a handout. Is the infrastructure available to allow people who have lost employment  to avail themselves of opportunities for reeducation? What happens when you are over 50?  Are the rungs available to make a handup possible? Most people have made the transition to lower paying jobs with lower standards of living regardless if they wanted to or not. Adapt or die, and MOST are adapting.

              1. profile image0
                Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Credence - I could not argue with a single thing you said in this comment.  Your right about the cost of relocating, if I'm out of work and broke how am I supposed to do that?  The retraining would take cooperation from big business and the government working together.  Neither one can do it by themselves.
                Raising the minimum wage is not the answer either.  Those are the jobs that used to go to young people just out of high school.  They were never meant to be a lifetime career.
                I really believe this problem could be solved, or at least reduced, if the right people would really develope a plan and make it happen.

                1. Credence2 profile image79
                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  OP, government's involvement in making our workers more competitive in a global economy is a essential part of the big picture. I have misgivings about the minimum wage, but generally support the President's initiative for a $9.00-$10.00 floor. The problem is that there are many adults supporting families from this wage. Every penny the firm does not pay is more from the taxpayers to make the difference between what it cost to live and the shortfall. GA mentioned that the benefits as currently provided to those that are economically in  distress have been made more generous over a recent period of  time.  The number of available jobs are increasingly in this category and we are fresh out of teenagers. While I don't trust an untethered free-market, artificial tinkering could have its own problems. I have to mull this all over a bit more. But, there can be no denying that we are to end up a nation of burger flipper.Those that are blessed with the resources to educate and train into the fields that are in demand today with higher compensation, or be relegated to the status of a economic untouchable, with little or no prospect for the future.  The middle road is offering an aggressive trade school program making  available  all possible concessions to those that would not otherwise be able to pay. So, the onus is still on the individual to improve his or herself while providing them  a realistic route as to how to accomplish this. Otherwise, we will see the standard of living that we have come to enjoy erode before our very eyes. If the purchasing power of these poorer workers decline, it is going to ripple through out the economy, and there will be peace for none of us. Those that have been comfortable will become uncomfortable under the circumstances.

                  1. profile image0
                    Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Credence - The minimum wage issue is complicated to say the least.  Most minimum wage jobs were once entry level positions where young people could enter the workforce and learn how to earn a paycheck.  Many of these young people first have to be taught basic things like the importance of showing up to work every day and to be there on time.  Some of them with iniative actually work their way up through the ranks and even buy their own franchise.

                    I used to tell my children that even though they were employed they should be looking for better opportunities every day of their lives.  To become content with flipping burgers and making that their lifetime career would be a big mistake.  Fortunately they all listened to that advice and have done quite well.

                    Many business operations operate on a very small profit margin and depend on high volume to bring in operating capital.  When their profit margin goes to zero they have no choice but to raise the price of their goods or services.  That affects every consumer of the products requiring yet another boost in minimum wages.  A vicious and never ending cycle.

                    Two things are wrong with the current approach to our current serious issues.  A basic law of physics says "Every action has an opposite and equal reaction."  This law is ignored in most of the decisions being made today.

                    The other thing is it is usually impossible to solve a huge problem with on single move.  But even big problems can be solved if done one step at a time while paying attention to the basic law of physics.

                    Government and much of big business is stuck in the "We've always done it this way" mode, and they need to get over that.

              2. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Damned sensible response. Bravo!

                (but I think the segment Wilderness speaks of is more than just a few rare cases)


      3. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Oh my! I just discovered that the Noble Prize-worthy response I left for this must have been eaten by the data grinch in the Cloud. Oh well, I am not up to a second such Herculean effort, so here is the short version.

        I am usually a fan of CBPP, but in this case I think they have missed the point. I doubt that many of the folks proclaiming the rise of a welfare state or entitlement mentality are talking about total Fed. welfare expenditures - I think they are talking about the rise in recipients of that money.

        So, I don't think the acknowledgement that 90% of the money spent goes to old and/or disabled folks is pertinent. I think they also include Social Security in that number, (or not, the point is the same), which may technically be an "entitlement" program, but I think the general public that contributes to it all of their working years might see it differently.

        It seems to me this discussion, (moochers, freeloaders and layabouts), if it is about the amount of dollars spent, should be in the context of the 9/10% non-elderly or disabled.

        I would also take the descriptors moochers and freeloaders off of the table because even though such a segment probably exists - I think it is such a minor number as to be insignificant for purposes other than painting a damning picture of our entitlement programs.

        With that said, my original intentions were to the fact of the increase, (a very large increase), in the number of citizens participating as beneficiaries, (have you compared the number of folks receiving  the SNAP benefits now vs. 8 years ago? (yes, I am aware of the effects of the recession))

        Have you noticed the new thresholds for eligibility for many of the programs? 130% of poverty level for this one or 300% of poverty level for that one? Have you noticed how the programs have expanded beyond the original SNAP and WIC programs? (ps. remember the news Pelosi made trying to get Pampers approved as a welfare need?)

        But back to the OP, I think that a voter that is a beneficiary of a program would be more likely to support politicians that want to keep, (or expand), the program than to vote for one calling for its demise...

        To your American Jews and Asians point, hmm... that bears a little more study.


        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          GA, I cannot deny that programs have been expanding.. Now that the crisis is over, we should throttle  back a bit. It would seem to be true that a beneficiary would be more likely than not to support politicians that support the programs, but that does not explain the many that do not vote along that pattern, the red states, etc. It has always been said that many of the poorest are aligned with the political right and does not vote in what would appear to be in its economic interests. How do we explain that?

          I question the accuracy of the Romney Corollary; the sheer  number of people that are so dependent on government that all other considerations about the candidate and party and what it represents are ignored... With the points I made about the obvious contradictions regarding voting patterns of  Jews and Asians, the reasons that people vote they way they do are a bit more complicated than the conservatives would have us believe.

    2. someonewhoknows profile image73
      someonewhoknowsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Why don't we talk about honesty,integrity and trust ! Non of which are present in a lot of people right and left. Conservative or liberal ! It's a fact that a certain percentage of conservatives are only conservatives in name only.We call them "Republican's in name only" . People like Former president Ronald Reagan is a prime example. He used to be a democrat and changed over to being a Republican because he saw his income taxes skyrocket because he was in a higher tax bracket and he didn't like that at all! He also saw that just because he was making more money than most other people were was not a good enough reason to being taxed so much more than most everyone else!
      Then again why should those make so little.Barley enough to survive be taxed as much as those who so much better off then the poor! The middle class which has been shrinking has been taking more of a beating than some people and corporation's that open offshore bank account's in order to prevent  money from getting taxed or being seen as assets by certain government agencies like the I.R.S.
      Not that I'm a fan of the I.R.S. But, to be fair the income tax system is voluntary after all right!
      So, if you want anything in the way of benefits you have to contribute to the system. Unfortunately the social security system has never been used exclusively for the benefit of those individuals and companies who contributed to the system. In ,fact all that money was put into the government's general fund and used to pay for things like foreign war's. The social security system has had to borrow billions upon billions  of dollars in order to pay out benefits. Why it,so many war vets get practically nothing when it comes to healthcare! Because somebody in government is hoping they will die before they can get any benefits. That's not the way it used to be!

    3. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Being a Conservative is darn hard work.  When things get tough we find a second job rather than turn to government for handouts.  We pay for our own cell phones, buy our own groceries, and don't expect free health care.  Many of us started a business, worked hard and became successful, and are now considered to be members of the evil rich.

      But with that being said I dislike the business's who have moved their operations to other countries yet still enjoy all of the advantages offered by this country.

      Like you, I fall somewhere in the middle but lean somewhat to the right.  I find some good and bad things on both sides.  Political corruption and greed have no party lines.

      We now have a couple generations who feel welfare is the governments job and a way of life, so I expect the trend will continue.  America will never again be what it once was.

  2. The Frog Prince profile image73
    The Frog Princeposted 8 years ago

    Actually statistically they don't but to an emotional liberal progressive FACTS just don't matter so why argue the point.

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hmm.. a quick Google search to verify your reply ended with a toss-up. It seems there are as many "polls, surveys, etc." saying there are more Democrats as there are giving Republicans the edge.

      I did notice a historical trend that showed the Democrats on top with a recent two-year change showing Republican gains.

      I think a link war could go either way, but here is Gallup's take on the trend.


  3. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Actually , extreme  right or  left political views represent about 10 % each , most people ultimately reside  in the middle , hence all the political , social and  activist-ic apathy in this country {America | . There is however a growing  mass of those who live on the government entitlements  than ever ,ON BOTH SIDES ,  and Approaching 40%  in fact is the tipping point  where we become  a true "econo-socialism" , where the government supports  a majority of  it's populace .

    1. Castlepaloma profile image76
      Castlepalomaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Never voted in my life, more on the libretarian side of things. Only man who has the intelligents  to run America is Republican Ron Paul. No, no we can't have that, they need

      1. profile image0
        Old Poolmanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Are you saying that most libretarian's never vote?  I had never heard this before and would have to wonder why this would be.

  4. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    In Russia , in China !  In any other , socialist or  communist  country .  When a centralized  governing body dictates  what a  member ,individual or corporate , as part of a free market system should do , we become just like  them . 

    Time for an American revolution  Ben , Tom , George ,  !


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)