A Nation of VICTIMS, CRYBABIES, & DEPENDENTS

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   
   What happened to the independent, can do, go getter spirit that was America?  How has America regressed from an independent, can do, & go getter nation to the current nation of victims, crybabies, & dependents?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It is alive and well...in rural America.  On the farms, in the small towns and villages.  Wherever money and wealth has yet to become the goal of life, the independent go-getter spirit flourishes.
      
      It is only in those areas where the social ladder MUST be climbed, where wealth is the top priority, where pride comes from owning more things than the neighbor, do we see the life crushed out of independence and that so-important go getter attitude.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I like that, Wilderness. You almost sound like you're condemning Capitalism. That second paragraph perfectly describes Capitalism.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            He's also wrong. For example, rural areas are dependent on food stamps in greater proportions than urban areas. That go-getter attitude leads them to go get government assistance.
            
            I don't have a problem with people getting assistance that they need and quality for, but let's not push a false narrative that rural people are more independent from government assistance than are urban.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Good point.
               
               However, I would point to an effort in my state to garner more food stamp dollars.  Hundreds of thousands were spent, nearly all in canvassing rural areas looking for people qualifying for food stamps but not getting them.
               
               Not surprisingly it worked, and thousands more people were added to the roles of welfare clients...people that WERE self sufficient until the rich folks from the city showed up on their doorstep dropping "free" money as they went.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Lol. You are the king of rationalizations.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, a rationalization that resulted in higher taxes for no more reason than the stated wanted more federal funds in it's coffer.
                     
                     Same with the expansion of medicaid in my state; the state made no bones about it - indeed it was presented as a major selling point - that Idaho (a "take" state rather than a "give" state) deserved the money it paid in taxes, and that taking money paid in by people in other states would result in an increase in the tax receipts for state taxes.  That it might "help" a few people to become dependent on federal largess was largely ignored in favor of "We want more federal dollars in our state".
                     
                     But you go ahead and call it "rationalization" when people are doing fine...until the free money shows up on their doorstep.  It is, after all, the liberal way - to distribute what others have earned, needed or not.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, those fine, independent go-getters in rural America can't be blamed for accepting government aid, but those lazy, whiny leeches in urban America sure can. Not only that, it's the liberal government 's fault that those fine, independent, go-getters now receive more aid than those whiny, dependent urban dwellers.
                        
                        LOL.

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           PP, such irresponsible behavior occur both in rural & urban America.  There is no predominant area.  Those who expect, even demand handouts & financial support cut across racial, ethnic, gender, & urban/rural areas.   There are people who are irresponsible, content w/poverty, & want nothing more from life.   What I am addressing here are able-bodied, healthy, & intelligent people.   People who are challenged whether it is physical , mental, intellectual, &/or psychological should get help & assistance.   Not to assist nor help such people is the epitome of demonic, inhumane callousness.   Also there are those who fall on temporary hard times- they also should be helped.     But there are the generational poor who game the system, wanting to live a comfortable lifestyle on the tax dime of the middle class.

                           replyreport
                           1. 75

                              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Seems to me that the biggest difference in concept is that the liberal does not recognize those "generational poor"; everyone without a comfortable, luxurious (relative to past generations) lifestyle and are incapable, mentally or physically, of providing for themselves.  And that attitude is far more prevalent in the urban centers of our country than it is in the farming communities.
                              
                              For myself, I simply refuse to believe that half of our nation is incapable of supporting themselves, with some left over to contribute to the well being of the country.  I think far too much of my fellow man to take that step.

                              replyreport
                        2. 75

                           wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Once more, you really need to read and understand what is being said, for I never claimed anything like that.  People will take whatever they can get; it is the philosophy in the urban environment that causes people to simply live off of others.  Without that philosophy it wouldn't happen.
                           
                           So yes, it IS the liberal government's fault, to a very large degree, that causes people to lose that independence and self sufficiency in return for a lifetime of charity.  This should be obvious, for without that liberal philosophy we aren't going to see millions die each year; they WILL support themselves and WILL survive the experience.

                           replyreport
         2. 75

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The social ladder has nothing to do with capitalism.  Not even when that ladder is all about excessive consumerism (which it often is).

            replyreport
            1. 81

               crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I beg to disagree. The social ladder is part of a Capitalistic economy and culture.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Deal with it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     I can't tell what you're saying with your pithy comment, but I am not the one criticizing the product of a Capitalistic society. The social ladder is a product of Capitalism, not independent of it.

                     replyreport
      2. 85

         Miebakagh57posted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I agreed with wilderness. He made sense and interesting points. The independent, go-getter spirit can be found also in other countries, not just AMERICA! Thank you, guys!

         replyreport
   2. 81

      crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What are your news sources? What do you regularly read and watch? The reason I ask is that your perception is most likely based on what you read and watch. If you regularly watch Fox News and read Breitbart, you are much more likely to have this perception than if you watch and read something more mainstream, middle-of-the-road.

      replyreport