Entitlement in America....

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

   
   Poor people have become the most entitled people in America.  They believe that others should provide them with a comfortable lifestyle.  They also assert that housing, education,  & health services are a right.  It used to be that poor people were humble.  They knew that they were at the bottom & accepted this.  They knew that if they wanted better, they would have to work & sacrifice for it.  However, this is no more.  Poor people in America want to live a middle class lifestyle without putting the preparation for it. Your thoughts?   Are the poor the MOST ENTITLED & GREEDY socioeconomic class?

   replyreport
   1. 86

      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      No!!! to the last question.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, poor people in America are the MOST ENTITLED.  They want to live the good life on other's dime.   They believe that they are entitled to housing, education, & even healthcare.  No one owes anyone anything.  Either work or do without & starve.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            AliciaCposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            So if a child in a poor family is dying from a medically treatable illness but his or her family can't afford to pay for the treatment, what would your reaction be?
            
            What about a person who suspects that they may have cancer but can't afford to pay for the diagnosis and/or treatment until the disease has spread and it's too late to save their life?

            replyreport
            1. 83

               gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I pay my medical bills.  As my late father stated, people must plan financially.  Too many poor people in America do things lackadaisically, not thinking about the ramifications of their actions.  Smart people plan financially.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Misbah786posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Can you kindly define the term "smart people"?
                  Time is a harsh thing; it has the power to change anyone's life at any time. In no time, yesterday's king can become today's beggar. There are tons of examples in History. Were those people stupid? I believe that being modest and compassionate to others is the only decent notion.

                  replyreport
2. 94

   AliciaCposted 2 years ago

   Maybe it's just the way that you've worded your post that's the problem, but I would say that of course healthcare is a right. All people who are sick should receive the necessary care. Basic housing and education to the end of high school are a right, too. I'm not talking about fancy houses and post-secondary education, but people from poor families (especially children) have the right to the basic necessities of life. I have never lived in a country where this wasn't accepted. It's sad if it's not the case where you live. I do agree that if able-bodied people want more than the basics, they should make an effort to reach their goal, however.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Misbah786posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      +10000000000000000000

      replyreport
3. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

   I am a vehement proponent of people doing for themselves. The solidly middle, upper middle, & upper classes shouldn't support the poor through inane social programs & policies.  The solidly middle class have been inordinately taxed to support social programs & policies which "benefit" poor people. Before the so-called war on poverty programs, the American middle class were doing fine but not after the implementation of the war on poverty programs. Since that implementation, poor people have become increasingly entitled & greedy-they want the good life on other people's dime, not theirs.  When poor people were hardscrabbled, they knew that if they wanted something, they had to work for it.  They also learned to do without.   Now today's poor have a gimme mentality-gimme, gimme, gimme.  My rule is that if one is poor, live with it or work hard to get out of it.  Many of the poor in America are that way by THEIR OWN choice. They WANT to be in that predicament.

   replyreport
4. 95

   Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

   Poor American people don't bother me, because they should be provided with a path out of poverty.  You have generations who know how to milk the system so they don't have to work.  They don't go to school, but they share information on how to get the best possible government benefits.  They only do this because those in government make it possible.
   
   What bothers me is ILLEGAL people complaining about how they aren't getting enough from the system.  NON-CITIZENS who want everything and more given to an American citizen and getting angry when they don't get it.  I don't understand the democrat's obsession with illegal immigrants, but it is an unhealthy obsession.
   
   I am always amazed when democrats can't comprehend the difference between legal and illegal immigrants.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      +100000000000000000000000000000000

      replyreport
5. 0

   Vladimir Karasposted 2 years ago

   There are always those who are abusing the system -- whether poor or rich. We might even say that the rich ones are those who do it the most because the all laws are tailored to cater to their greed. You try to get away with a murder if you don't have a small army of famous lawyers working for you.
   They are the ones who feel entitled to be pampered with all privileges, and they are the ones finding every loophole in laws to avoid paying taxes.
   
   Other than this elite which is actually ruling behind the throne, the most of the populace are the "commoners" -- people who simply don't have talents or ambitions to "buy" their happiness and a sense of personal value with money. After all, the statistics are clearly showing that those rich celebrities are not really some happy people.
   
   Not everybody is cut for running a business, and, while it may be a matter of laziness for some, most of them were born into this materialistically oriented world without resources to educate themselves and to "make something of themselves".
   When the government stops spending trillions on bribing the countries with strategic positions, also on advancing their military power out of a sickening paranoia of seeing nonexistent enemies and also creating some in their pursuit of a world dominance -- there will be more than enough money for schooling, sheltering, and for medical care for every human being. We are not talking "communism" or "socialism", but a system where ALL people are treated as humans, not just some chosen ones -- the way it is in some Scandinavian, and other countries.
   Of all "...isms", I am for humanism, whatever form it may take.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Misbah786posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      We are not talking "communism" or "socialism", but a system where ALL people are treated as humans, not just some chosen ones -- the way it is in some Scandinavian, and other countries.
      Of all "...isms", I am for humanism, whatever form it may take.
      
      Mr. Val, I agree. Some may believe you're wearing rose-colored glasses, but who cares? I'm wearing them as well. I've always said that I despise all that horrible terms that ends on -isms, but thanks for including humanism on the list; I love this term.
      Blessings to you!

      replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The government isn't here to financially support people.  People ought to be responsible enough to provide for their own housing, health care, education, & anything else they need.  People must learn to do for themselves!
      
      The only people that I would provide for are my children.  I believe in giving my children a financial head start in life.  Otherwise, other people are on their own.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Agree, to a point.  I understand that there are people in our country that are unable to support themselves; they are disabled for one reason or another to the point that they simply cannot supply their own needs.  And I believe that it is good for our country to supply that need.  I also believe that there are people that have suffered a setback - perhaps an illness, an accident, even a simple job loss - that need a helping hand for a time, and I again believe it is in our best interests to provide that help.
         
         But I also recognize that over half our people are now considered "disabled" somehow as to need support, and that simply is not true.  We have crossed the line into socialism, or marxism if you prefer, to the point that producers are expected and required to provide for those that choose not to participate in providing for the needs or those of the country, and neither will they provide for their own needs.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Not talking about the disabled, those who are temporarily down on one's luck, & otherwise challenged.  Such people need safety nets.   What I am addressing are able bodied people who ADAMANTLY REFUSE to uplift themselves. They want THAT GOOD LIFE but AREN'T ABOUT TO EXERT AN EFFORT to attain that good life.  They are the people who DEMAND that others whether relatives, charities, or the gub'mint give them the life that they contend they deserve.

            replyreport
6. 0

   Vladimir Karasposted 2 years ago

   Misbah, dear -- There is nothing like "rose-colored-glasses" preventing me from seeing the realisms of this world, and I am far from foreseeing an idealized outcome in this crazy world where all values came down to money.
   I am also way too old to play naiive -- it's simply that the prosperity of a country is not measured by the prosperity of the few, but of the majority.
   
   If I were an American, I would be by far more hurt seeing my government spend my tax dollars for the foreign interests of our corporative elite with political/economic wars, bribes, and a totally unnecessary military spending on over 75 military bases around the globe -- than spending a funny fraction of that money on the poor.
   
   But the typical American is totally buying their government's ambitions to attain a global hegemony through coercion, intimidation, economic terrorism (also called "sanctions") -- and otherwise sticking its nose into other country's business, instead of first taking care of their poor, illiterate, and medically unprotected.
   
   So, we are left with a choice what to criticize -- illegal aliens' milking the revenue purse, or our much more costly interference in the world -- and our global ambitions seem to prevail in that choice.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Misbah786posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, Mr. Val

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         People are sick of people who don't contribute to society.   Tax dollars are supporting people who refuse to uplift themselves educationally and socioeconomically.  Such people adamantly refuse to help themselves but insist & demand that other people support them financially.   No one is entitled to anything others work for.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Misbah786posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            As Linda mentioned above, people from poor families have the right to basic needs. Why is America so afraid of basic human rights when they are respected throughout the globe, including the third-world countries?

            replyreport
            1. 83

               gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               If poor people want basic needs, they should supply those needs themselves.  The government isn't in the business to provide basic needs.  Such a premise is beyond ludicrous & into horrific.   Poor people have to work for their needs like other people.

               replyreport
7. 0

   Vladimir Karasposted 2 years ago

   In every society in the world there is a low class of WORKING people -- not talking here about those surviving on social services. So, unless we want to get rid of all low paid laborers, retail workers, lawn mowing people, bus drivers...etc, we are stuck with some WORKING human beings who cannot afford a major surgery without losing a house to pay for it, cannot save up to give their kids a decent education, and can't hardly pay their monthly bills.
   
   And of course, our response to that is: "My heart doesn't bleed for them, let them starve, let them die, let their kids die -- as long as my own are O.K."
   
   In America there are about 31 million people without any medical insurance at all -- and my wild guess would be that there are no 31 million of illegal immigrants there.
   
   So, again, what is the purpose of the government -- beyond parties bitching against each other, making wars, and eternally preparing for a major one like a bunch of paranoid lunatics pushed around by the gun industry to invent new and new enemies?
   
   And why do the politicians so badly need those votes and tax money from those millions of LOW class people -- those SAME ones that they will let starve, because "it's not their problem that workers chose not to be teachers and rocket scientists".
   
   In my humble opinion -- if we need those laborers, because middle class people won't touch their jobs -- then someone might as well make sure their basic needs are met without them going part time after work to sit at a sidewalk and beg. Side by side with some war veterans who proudly fought for their country -- just to end up like that.
   
   In that same humble opinion -- with it happening in one mighty, rich, superior land of opportunity and dreamland like America -- it sounds quite embarrassing. Actually, America is only the 13th in the world by the people's standard of living -- and hey, it certainly is NOT because illegal aliens have anything to do with any of it.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "So, again, what is the purpose of the government"
      
      To protect the people from invasion.
      To provide a handful of services (water, sewer, etc.) that cannot be reasonably done privately.
      To provide protection from other people (police as opposed to military).
      To provide a medium of exchange (money).
      To collect taxes as needed for the needs of the country (as opposed to individuals).
      
      There are others, but nowhere in the list is found to play Robin Hood, taking from one to give to another.  That is the responsibility of individuals, as they see fit.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         +10000000000

         replyreport
8. 0

   Vladimir Karasposted 2 years ago

   After facing a bunch of undeniable truths -- which we don't want to address because there are no counter-arguments -- we pick one thing that seems like "weak" enough that we can disagree with.
   Well, at that point I am stepping out, nothing more for me to say. LOL, because at the next round my arguments may become incorrect
   "because maybe I misspelled something".

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      *shrug*  You asked, I answered with my own opinion.  Others, as you are well aware, will disagree and insist that Marxism (from each according to...you know the rest) is the primary function of government.

      replyreport
9. 0

   Vladimir Karasposted 2 years ago

   My main argument was gravitating around the simple truth that government is not playing a "Robin Hood" by giving to their own people that same money which they are lavishly handing out to strategically important countries -- in the name of "national interests".
   Especially when one is known to be one of the most corrupt governments in Europe, by the admission of their own people.
   
   Bush's war cost trillions of dollars and didn't accomplish anything other than increase national debt and make the gun industry laugh all the way to the bank. Money is being politically wasted left-right-and-center, while 30 million people have no basic medical insurance. That makes Canada's complete population, and here everyone is medically insured -- while we are not having a "Marxism", but billionaires which are impossible under Marxism.
   
   Of course that "it's the government's job to protect the people from invasion" -- the only thing remaining to be explained is -- whether the "invaders" are to be somebody real or imaginary. It doesn't take a genius to know that nobody would ever attack America, or any other possessor of nukes, for the same matter.
   Constant inventing enemies is a classical formula of all manipulators -- whether political, religious, medical, or mafioso -- "invent an enemy and present yourself as the only savior".
   
   Back to the meat of my argument -- a father who would rather give money to a stranger than to his own -- even if lazy or underachieving -- kids, is not a father.
   So that's the central point that I've been making all the time here. And that's why I am losing willingness to further participate, when this point is ignored and something on the periphery of my statements appears more important to be addressed, just for the need to make me wrong.
   I respect others' opinion as long as my own is not twisted around.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Why are billionaires possible in Canada?  What happens to their wealth, if the government doesn't take it away?
      
      No, it doesn't take a genius to know that American will never be attacked.  Or any of the other countries we have treaties with.  All it takes is a working crystal ball, which I doubt you or anyone else has.
      
      Government is not a father.  Perhaps that's the biggest bone of contention - you, and other socialistic countries, view it as exactly that.  A father that will take care of you.  But for most Americans that is not the case - rather government is regarded as a necessary evil, and one to be kept to a minimum.

      replyreport
10. 0

    Vladimir Karasposted 2 years ago

    When you, Americans. talk about "socialism", you make me laugh -- I was born and raised in a socialist/communist regime, served one of the roughest armies as a drill sergeant, with no hot water, with some foods where you first had to remove some wiggling things out of your plate, with praying to get sick so you are spared from the drills.
    
    In socialism there are no rich people. You can't say a word against the leader without being thrown in jail, the key being thrown away. You cannot express your political opinion, and you are just a depersonalized particle of the national mass.
    
    So I hear you say how "we, socialists, see our government as a father". My friend, Canada is just as "socialist" as your America, and just like you, we have this "freedom" to call our leader an "idiot", and just like you we see our politicians as a necessary evil. I don't know where you get all these ideas about "socialism" -- but it just may come from the national level of being brainwashed by all kinds of propaganda.
    
    The assets of the rich cannot be nationalized, because that would be an act against Constitution -- giving a green light to the military to step in, since the military took an oath to protect the Constitution and the people -- not the administration.
    
    So, all that boogieman of socialism  in either Canada or in America is but a joke.
    But why am I yapping all this -- everybody just loves their own interpretation of everything.
    As I am getting older, (77 at this time), it's getting harder to find this "Stop" button. I'll try not to look anymore at this discussion. Well, I took a little break from some much more important things. Had a little fun here. Thanks for the company, I enjoyed and appreciated the conversation.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

       You're right of course - modern socialism is closer to Marxism than it is socialism.  It refers mostly to the economics of government being responsible for the care and support of individuals.
       
       But if the wealth of the rich isn't taken, where does Canada get the money to pay for all the freebies given to its citizens?

       replyreport
11. 88

    Jodahposted 2 years ago

    +1000

    replyreport
12. 81

    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    I can't subscribe to the idea of a "night watchman" government that has the limited function of guaranteeing security and little more. We are a community and owe a duty of care to all our members. Of course, some will take advantage but they probably cost less than is lost through the wealthy taking advantage of tax loopholes.
    "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

    replyreport
    1. 89

       wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

       Can't blame the wealthy for not paying more taxes than is owed; we ALL do that.
       
       If you don't like "loopholes", close them.  Personally I would rather see government simply write a subsidy check rather than offer a tax reduction for doing what the government wants.  More transparency that way.

       replyreport
    2. 83

       gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

       NO ONE OWNS ANYONE ANYTHING.  It is time that people REALIZE this.   Each tub sits on its own bottom.   God help those who help themselves.   Be accountable, be responsible.  Work for what one want in life or do without, starve.

       replyreport
       1. 94

          AliciaCposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          There's a different attitude in Canada. I live in the Greater Vancouver region. The Greater Vancouver Food Bank has multiple outlets and offers regular or occasional food to people in need, whatever their life stage. They interview people on the first visit and ask to see certain documents (respectfully, as they say) to ensure that people need food support. Low income is one of the criteria for food bank use. People aren't left to starve if they don't have the money to buy sufficient or nutritious food for themselves or their family, even if they have a job.

          replyreport
          1. 95

             Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

             There are thousands of food banks all over the United States that perform the same function.  They are used by tens of millions of people.

             replyreport
             1. 94

                AliciaCposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                That’s great to hear. It means that people in need don’t need to starve, as long as they or a helper can get to the food bank or as long as the bank delivers food.

                replyreport
    3. 95

       Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

       "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need"
       
       Interesting...this is a quote from Karl Marx famous author of the "Communist Manifesto."

       replyreport