Oh $%^#, Here WE Go Yet AGAIN.....ENOUGH is E-NOUGH...

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   
   What makes able-bodied, healthy, & intelligent Americans to believe that they are ENTITLED to live the good life but NEVER by their efforts.  They believe that their family members, other relatives, others, charities, & most of all, the government owes them a comfortable life?  Why are people so dependent upon others to foot their bills & pay for their lifestyle?  When will people learn to do for themselves?  Remember, the worst thing that one can do for poor people is to give them because such giving makes them even lazier & more dependent...…..Let the discussion begin...…...

   replyreport
   1. 80

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The simple reason is that you won't survive on your own. You need others to survive. Where do you go when you've got cancer or a "simple" broken leg. To people who can help you.
      If you live alone you will get crazy. You need others to talk to. To change ideas, love, and problems.
      Especially when you have a bad time you need others. Knowing this, people help others because out of empathy. It could happen to you, a car accident or losing a child. Feeling the loss and sorrow of others is incredibly important. To help others is incredibly important.
      That's why a social structure in a society is so important. To support people who have difficulties in life, disabled, sick, problems with finding a job. etc.
      A government is there to build a society where people can thrive. Where people are given the best opportunities to grow and get the best out of life. Everybody needs support and a government should build those supports. Like schooling, health, food, and safety. Without this support, a society is doomed to fall into chaos and poverty.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I concur with what you say here, Peterstreep.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Remember the saying, God helps those who help themselves.   America is increasing becoming a parasitic society w/people increasing depending upon others for support whether it is relatives, charities, or the gub'mint.  It is high time that people rely on...…..THEMSELVES.  That is what MATURE ADULTS DO.  It is IMMATURE people who look to others to support them.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               God does not exist, so please leave her out of the quotation.

               replyreport
            2. 78

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               The saying that you refer to is not biblical and cannot be associated with anything God had said.
               
               I am more concerned with America becoming an oligarchal empire with those not assigned to the coronated nobility as nothing more than serfs in an increasingly feudalistic situation. The idea of a true meritocracy is mere illusion.
               
               If you and others expect to continue life in relative comfort best to avoid the tar/feathers and pitchforks.
               
               I am a mature adult, and I see the writing on the wall. You are quick to consign the fate of all of us to the caprice and whims of the wealthy corporate class. Well, I will always resist and have none of it.

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  "If you and others expect to continue life in relative comfort best to avoid the tar/feathers and pitchforks."
                  
                  Assuming I'm reading what you meant, this is a problem for much of the developed world.
                  
                  As people figure out (as they have done throughout Europe and North America) they can vote themselves "bread and circuses" at the expense of other people the country goes downhill.  This is inevitable, for such socialism always has a major problem; eventually it runs out of other people's money and fails miserably.
                  
                  We are at the point where "tar and feather" is becoming more and more the reaction to anyone unwilling to support the rest of the world on their shoulders.  And it WILL show when they either pack it in for greener pastures or simply quit producing as the return no longer matches the effort.

                  replyreport
      2. 93

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         And yet the US went for many, many, many decades without these supports from government, and rather than falling into chaos and poverty built the greatest nation on earth (IMO, of course).  Indeed, every country that has gone very far towards the socialism you say is necessary to avoid chaos has descended into chaos and poverty itself.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            EXACTLY,  supporting able-bodied people only impoverish countries.  I will give you an analogy-let us say that there is one affluent relative who supports 3 parasitic GROWN relatives who have the emotional, intellectual, & physical capabilities to be self-sufficient.  That affluent relative is becoming poorer supporting these parasitic relatives & also this relative's financial support is in the end causing these three relatives to become lazy & dependent thus losing any incentive to become self-supporting.   In essence, these parasitic relatives feel that they have no need to do for themselves as the affluent relative is footing their bills.  The affluent relative should have taken a harsher, tougher stance-demanding that the 3 relatives become self-supporting.   Yes, people have to learn to be responsible, accountable, & SUPPORT THEMSELVES- that is what adults do.  Only IMMATURE, IRRESPONSIBLE people demand, even expect for other people to FOOT THEIR BILLS & SUPPORT THEM.

            replyreport
         2. 80

            peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I was also thinking about the billions of support for farmers. The car industry, the oil industry, etc. They are all subsidized. Without the money of the government, your daily potatoes would be far more expensive. Lot's of products you buy are sponsored by the government. Do you call this sponsoring also socialism?

            replyreport
            1. 93

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Some of it is.  Some is not; some (most of it, I believe) is the government buying something it wants from companies.  Government wants less grain; it pays farmers not to farm.  I don't know of any checks written to the car industry.  Oil - government wants more oil being produced and pays companies to drill wells.
               
               This is a tried and true method of buying what is wanted without it ever seeing the budget or light of day.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Economics is too complicated for me. All those tax cuts, tariffs, etc. Flowers grown in Holland, flown to Africa to be wrapped up in plastic and flown back to Holland to be sold.....crazy. Same with cars and lots of other products, they travel the world over before they end up in the shops. All this because of tax cuts and the use of low wages...

                  replyreport
         3. 87

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I hear what you are saying, Wilderness, and I think that what some of these people are saying is that times have changed. Don't take this as advocation of laziness from me, just an explanation. When you get my age, you've watched the times change. I am a WWII baby. My parents were children of the Great Depression, and my dad and two other family members were veterans who survived the great war. I watched this generation survive and listened to my father and grandfather preach self-sufficiency. So much so, that I voted for Barry Goldwater the first time I ever voted. Heck, I even worked in his campaign (so did Hillary, by the way).
            One result was that the U.S. moved from a society of tribal communities in which everybody had a built-in support system to a mobile society. Families split up and moved all over the country. Sadly, they lost their close families they no longer had to depend on. I saw that happen to mine.
            Then Lyndon Johnson became president, and the Vietnam War occurred. His "Great Society" tore down the old homes families had lived in and built large complexes that were rented to strangers. Rental subsidies became the norm, and so did food stamps in many cases. Our first taste of socialism.
            Even I saw that sometimes a family had to have help. I found myself and my children stranded in Kansas. I'd lost my job and had only enough money to move back home on. We depended on food stamps for a couple of months until we got home and I finally got a minimum wage job. It was embarrassing to me, and I'd drive for miles out of the way to a grocery store to use those food stamps where nobody knew me. I still remembered my upbringing and did everything I could to remain self-sufficient. However, too many people found that they liked having government help. And you know the rest of the story. I worked hard until I got a decent job and with a great retirement because I had good family support as a child. But look at all these people who didn't have a father to lecture them and nag them on to success. I think they used their government as their "family" just as we children of the Greatest Generation depended on our families to raise us to be successful. I don't like where society went, but I do think I understand it.
            The question is, "can we go back?" I think this country is too big and spread out, and we've passed the point of no return. But I still won't vote for a socialist ticket, nor will I vote for a ticket that refuses to help a man (or woman) in genuine need.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I can only add a simple ^5 MizBejabbers. It appears we are of similar age and circumstances. (although it sounds like you may be a couple-three years older)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I probably am a couple or three years older GA. I'm probably the oldest person on HP.

                  replyreport
   2. 81

      MisterHubs1982posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So how did YOU become independent? How did you get the land for your food? How did you build your home or provide the materials to make your own clothes? How do you plan to pass on your genetics to the next generation? What is independence to you?
      
      I'm curious. I'll admit, I do have some dependency issues, but I also realize that I have to handle certain situations on my own. That doesn't mean you should completely shut out the world as a symbol of your strength. Darwinism still takes place regardless of independence or not. Fortunately, I serve a living God of abundance, BUT I still have to labor for it.

      replyreport
2. 90

   GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

   You beat me to it bud. Point for point.
   
   I was in agreement with Peterstreep's comment, although I may have used 'community' where he used "empathy," right up until his last paragraph.
   
   I disagree that it is the government's job to ensure that community-support ethos. I would have used your words to explain that disagreement—but you got there first.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 80

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps. people help other people for lots of different reasons.
      But help and work together we must (and do). A government tries to bring structure in a society. By schooling, police force, laws and regulations. etc.
      Religion also had this function. Like a weekly routine to go to the church or sjoel. and things like the 10 commandments. Or the 7 works of mercy..
      I think if you want to construct a strong society you also have to help those who can't help for themselves. (if you have the luxury, but we do, in the western world.)

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The key word is "can't".  Can't help themselves.
         
         I absolutely refuse to believe that half the US is mentally or physically disabled to the point that they are incapable of supporting themselves, yet that's what we see.  That every other person "can't" care for themselves.  Or won't - of the two I find that the "won't" is far more common than we are willing to recognize.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            So do I.  Most poor people in America can but WON'T or DON'T help themselves.  These people are intelligent & able-bodied but they rather make excuses than DO.  They hate their poverty & envy those who are more affluent but use illogical rationalizations i.e. excuses to avoid facing the fact that it is their UNINTELLIGENT, IRRESPONSIBLE choices that landed them in poverty in the first place.   They want THAT GOOD LIFE but are QUITE LOATHE to EARN it through WORK, they would rather have others whether it is RELATIVES, CHARITIES, or the GOVERNMENT to GIVE THEM THAT GOOD LIFE!!

            replyreport
      2. 90

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I agree Peterstreep. Just as I agreed with most of your initial comment. But this is an issue of degrees, and it is on the "degrees" that we differ.
         
         I want a government that provides a level playing field and sets the ground rules, not one that coaches the game.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "I want a government that provides a level playing field and sets the ground rules, not one that coaches the game."
            
            That is all that I ever really wanted, but conservatives want to allow certain that are considered more equal than others their advantages of having a playing field leveled in their favor, and water down what ground rules there are. All this under the guise of too much government?
            
            Is that a reasonable assessment?

            replyreport
            1. 84

               gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I just want people to be adult enough to take responsibility & be accountable to themselves.  The only person who can help you is YOU, not others, other relatives, nor the government.   People have to pull themselves up.  Only immature people want others & outside forces to support them.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  So, is there anything wrong in the goal of having people be self sufficient but have unfair disadvantages removed so that they can expect to compete on a fair basis? Or do you think that the wealthy should rule us all and the idea of "the people" is just an abstraction?

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     The wealthy don't rule us.  The wealthy has power because money bestows power-that is just pure inductive & deductive logic.   Money is power. The problem w/the poor in America is that they have a victimology, passive mindset.  The poor are anti-achievement.  The poor want OTHERS to pay their way & foot their bill.  The poor want OTHERS to be as poor as THEY ARE. 
                     
                     The poor AREN'T angels.  The poor in America ELECTED to be poor on the bases of their irresponsible & unintelligent behavioral & thought patterns.  There are actions which people do to be & remain poor.  Let's use deductive analysis.  If one elects not to get a relevant education, h/she will be poor.  If one marries in one teens & early twenties, h/she will be poor.  If one has children that one can't afford, not only will h/she be poor but his/her children will also be poor.   If one has a lot of children, h/she will be poor.   Poor people are poor based upon being irresponsible & thoughtless. 
                     
                     Credence2, stop making excuses for the American poor.  If one makes one bed for ill, h/she MUST SUFFER the consequences.  American social programs are making the lives of the poor easier which result in them losing incentives to improve themselves.  If such programs were either drastically reduced or eliminated, the poor will learn to either do for themselves or STARVE...……..The poor in America need a swift kick in the assets...…...The American poor have been mollycoddled far too much.....Time to cut the social programs which will make the poor DO FOR THEMSELVES.....

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        My problem with you is this basic: this equation
                        
                        ( poor = lazy and stupid). Well, this is not a constant nor is it consistently true.
                        
                        You obviously have bought in to the lie that America is this great land of opportunity, when actual opportunities for true social mobility has declined over the last generation. Conservatives are determined to maintain that status quo at any cost.
                        
                        
                        Randy, in another thread, pointed out that the lives of sharecroppers in the South within my lifetime as desperately poor. Were they lazy and stupid or were they subject to an insidious racist economic system designed to keep them poor and powerless?
                        
                        Your easy acceptance of all the right's bull*** in this matter is most astounding, Grace.
                        
                        
                        As for money is power, I propose to limit the influence of that power and those who would wield it over the rest us, beyond the preview of democratic principles.
                        
                        Government of the people, by the people and for the people cannot be "for sale".

                        replyreport
            2. 90

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, I think that is a reasonable assessment—for both party's efforts and goals. Conservatives don't own that agenda.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  On the contrary, GA. I believe that the conservatives are primary in opposing the idea of level playing fields and ground rules.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     It is no surprise that we disagree. I think we could get into a good point and counter-point exchange of examples, but it wouldn't change either of our perspectives.
                     
                     Especially since you are so 'hard-headed' about yours. (Do you remember our Voter ID discussions?) ;-)
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        I think you vastly underestimate how deeply bias, both unconscious and conscious, affects conservative policy positions. It also affects liberal policy positions, but far less so when it comes to race, gender, and many other "cultural"  attributes..

                        replyreport
                        1. 93

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           And the left's bias against our God given morals and ethical standards?  Or even against God himself?
                           
                           With our refusal to even try and understand the "other" side of the equation, just put it down as something basically wrong somehow, we are creating a very deep divide in our country and it's cultural, to the point that it could almost be said we have two cultures operating in the same country.  Inevitable when right and wrong are rooted in our very attitudes rather than rational though and concern for how others feel.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              I have great concern with how others feel, but I confess I have more empathy with those who are treated as "less than" because of someone's need to legislate their God-given morals or family values to control others than I do with those who feel their values are threatened by someone else's freedom.

                              replyreport
                              1. 87

                                 MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 I agree with you, PP. I reject the Christians' "God-given morals" being legislated upon us, especially in light of their hypocrisy. Did you know that our laws of indecency are based on community standards? (Source: Journalism 101) This means that they were inconsistent nationwide. If you didn't like the standards in your community, you either followed them or moved to a community that was more broad-minded. Jesus taught love, not monitor your neighbors' behavior.
                                 
                                 But neither can I accept the socialism that the socialist left is pushing. How did the once-considerate of fellow man party come to embrace the parasite. Oh, I know, it was to fight back at the "moral majority" conservatives and corporate parasites who had taken over the other party. Now we seem to be stuck with two extremes.
                                 
                                 I suggest that the middle of the roaders of both parties pull out and form their own party. I hear a lot of people say that they are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. I wonder which of the three would be the biggest party then.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 84

                                    gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    MB, although the majority are centrists, it is the more extreme in both parties who are always heard.  Many Americans consider being Independent being a so-called fence sitter.  Also, many people fear being centrist because they contend that they will be unpopular within their respective liberal &/or conservative group.   Nowadays,  Democrat is synonymous w/straight liberal, even progressive while Republican is synonymous w/straight conservative, even reactionary.

                                    replyreport
                              2. 93

                                 wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 So do I, as a matter of fact.  But I also recognize (or try to) the feeling and attitudes, the biases, of someone that has grown up learning those God-given morals and values as the only one that are true and need to be followed.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 78

                              Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              Let me share a hypothetical with you, Wilderness
                              
                              I have always been a fan of the Sci-fi series Star Trek. In its reboot a couple of years ago, gay characters were introduced and were kissing as a man and woman would normally kiss in a romantic scene. I was appalled and embarrassed as this could not be MY Star Trek, where was the elegant and dignified Jean Luc Picard?
                              
                              But I reminded myself just 50 years ago, an episode of the original series in 1967 featured an interracial kiss from the Captain Kirk character to his female black Communications Officer. Although as part of the dialogue that kiss was not consensual, it brought "the house down" around the country. Many of the NBC affiliated stations either did not air the episode or censored the scene, particularly in the South.
                              
                              So where does the Right's God given morals begin and end? It was in the late 1960's when laws prohibiting miscegenation were finally struck down by the Supreme Court.
                              
                              While we wait for morally priggish hypocrites to feel comfortable with a change, others are denied their rights and told to be patient until the most laggard catches up and adjusts. Sometimes, it was evident that no change at all was the desired outcome.
                              
                              Who has the right to impose such a circumstance upon anyone? So, with that background, I will learn to live with frank homosexual displays on television rather than live with what the alternative would mean.

                              replyreport
                              1. 93

                                 wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 You missed the entire point, Credence.  You don't get to pick and choose which of the right's biases are wrong and which are right - they do. 
                                 
                                 The original post, to PP was about bias.  It wasn't about truth or reality, but bias.  Both sides have their own, and both sides declare it right.
                                 
                                 When you simply write off a bias different than your own as "wrong", without ever trying to understand or empathize with others, the result is just what we see; an increasing polarization with both sides clinging to their biases and declaring that any other is "wrong".
                                 
                                 Personally I have to agree with you on many things here - the biases of the far right, declaring God's will should apply to everyone, is my biggest complaint of them.  But then so are the claims of the left, declaring that their own biases must apply to everyone and be accept as gospel by everyone.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    Ok, Wilderness, what am I missing regarding your point of view?
                                    
                                    Explain if you please how the Left's biases is as problematic as those on the Right?
                                    
                                    Declaring that God's will as THEY interpret it should apply to anyone, even atheist or agnostic and should be codified into law is a big Bias. What on the Left compares with it?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 84

                                       gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       The left also push their bias unto the American population as does the right.  Both are extremists.  While the right believe in a theocracy, the left believes in socialism.   The right believes in pro-life, a strict dichotomous morality, & pro-religion while the left believes in creating more social programs to enable the lazy & dependent thus taxing the hell out of the middle class.  The left also preaches so-called income equality which on its face is totally ridiculous.  See where I am going Credence2.  Both right & left can be extremists but you fault the right, NEVER THE LEFT....

                                       report
                              2. 90

                                 IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    Much appreciate it, thanks....

                                    replyreport
                        2. 90

                           GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           That's a fair point. I think it is arguable, (such as the example Wilderness points out), but generally fair.
                           
                           However, I don't think the strong biases that can be attributed to liberals, (again, such as Wilderness' point), could be considered "unconscious." I think those are very consciously considered.  I am much more forgiving of unconscious bias than purposeful bias.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                     2. 78

                        Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        I would enjoy a good point counter point of examples and don't be premature in thinking that I won't listen and consider your position if you Present your contrary evidence well.
                        
                        Yes, I tend to be adamant in my views and usually everybody can know what I stand for and why. No fence sitting here.....
                        
                        Yes, I came away from the voter ID discussions accepting the idea of voter ID under prescribed conditions.

                        replyreport
                        1. 90

                           GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Sounds good. I will see if I can cherry-pick a point from the article and start a thread on it.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
         2. 80

            peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I go for that one GA.
            Coaching the game would take away the initiative to do things. But again. I guess it's the "degrees" where the discussion is.
            To me it looks as if the government is coaching the game. Making rules that benefit the powers that be. (nothing new though) The division between the ultra-rich and the other 99% looks to me as an unstable and dangerous situation. And I don't see a problem, for example, to tax the ultra-rich and use this money for society.
            It's completely unfair to see that Amazon is not paying any taxes at all thanks to regulations made by the governments.
            It's a complicated discussion (just as a society is complicated). coaching the game doesn't work, I completely agree. systems like in the USSR and many other dictatorships collapse sooner or later. China saw this as well and is today a capitalistic society ruled from above.
            I guess, the governments around the world are different as well because of the history of the country. Rusia had a csar and a system ruled by a family. Stalinism was the same. And Putin looks like a modern csar to me.
            China had an Emperor, and the one-party system is more or less the same. People get used to a system I guess through the ages...(just a thought).
            I'm very happy that for a couple of years Spain broke with the 2 party system (thanks to corruption scandals by the ruling party) and has now 5 parties to choose from. (two left wing parties, three right-wing parties.). And so the government always has to seek a coalition. (coming from Holland, I was used to coalition governments...so there you go...it's what you are used to...)

            replyreport