My Rant about the quality of life going down in America?

[aaron_mag]

First off I am not arguing if 47% is too much or too little (cowards way out ). My argument is simply that the whole, "the government doesn't need to take care of that little old lady down the street when she has no food because she is an American and Americans will take care of her" BS. Yes I said BS.

First off you are right that if the government didn't take care of some of these issues other aid organizations would fill the void to a degree. This was true in early American history and also true in Roman times. In Roman times it happened to create legions that were loyal to their general (who was actually paying their wages) versus the state. In American history you had best remember who had helped you out when times were tough when it came to the casting of your vote.

As far as social darwinism goes this is typically advocated by those that are the most comfortable at the moment. They tend to forget that things change and technology changes things. Once they find themselves uprooted by technology and told to earn their living for minimum wage they start howling about the injustice of it all.

[Restola]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
In American history you had best remember who had helped you out when times were tough when it came to the casting of your vote.

Bad idea. Voting purely on how much support (money) you get from a certain politician is not a positive contribution to society. You are voting to take more of someone else's money and give it to yourself. We are approaching a critical mass. A huge percentage of Americans currently receive money that isn't theirs (it may be in the 40% range, but I'll need to research it again to get the exact number). At the current trend however, in the next 10-15 years we'll pass the point where more than half the people are now receiving money (or other near-liquid support) from the government. We know NOW that a tiny percentage of the population is paying to support this. How long do you think this will continue? How much of the incentive to earn more, to produce jobs, to develop technology, to do your best to support your family, can we remove before enough people just stop caring? Government grows every year. Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter. So we'll find out soon enough.

Government's war on poverty, which many would argue has been a total failure, it's just one part of whats wrong with where we are going. I can't support any program like this, no matter how good it feels. They simply don't work for one (or are vastly less efficient than private organizations), and they promote a path that I don't want to travel down (but we are headed towards anyways).

"[A democracy] can only exist until voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury."

[KHartley]

College Boy thank you for the condolences. I appreciate it. It has been a very hard week.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Restola
Bad idea. Voting purely on how much support (money) you get from a certain politician is not a positive contribution to society.

That is my point!!!! In Roman society people started voting (with their muscle) with their stomachs instead of what was good for the state. Do you want to return to Tammany Hall where you were helped when times were tough but you better vote right? Like corrupt political machines? Why not have the mob help you out when you are down and out in return for future favors. All this talk of a total capitalist society is a bunch of BS. It would be nice to believe that good christians would supply that which was needed and we would all live idyllic lives like Little House on the Prairie but history has shown a different story.....

[Restola]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
It would be nice to believe that good christians would supply that which was needed and we would all live idyllic lives like Little House on the Prairie but history has shown a different story.....

Dispite your sarcasm, that's the way it worked for over 150 years in America. Through several wars on our own territory even...

You prove that you are part of the problem you fear. You can't remember or imagine a time before government tried to do everything, so you think we have it great now, and need more government to really fix things right. If the Federal government had stayed anywhere within the bounds of the Constitution, little waves of support for bad ideas wouldn't matter (since it takes much much more to change the Constitution). The states could do what they wanted, have giant governments, steal money from their citizens to share the wealth, be on display for other states to copy or learn from. But instead our federal elected officials, in a bid to get themselves more power and reelected, sidestepped it all almost a century ago.

Something big is going to happen within our lifetimes (and I say that knowing full well there is a bias that every generation thinks that they are the most important one). The current trend of more and more government programs supported by fewer and fewer tax payers simply cannot continue. By the time we reach the end of this growth, we would have had over 150 years of smaller government which lead to amazing prosperity and becomming the super power, but less than 100 years of out of control government growth/spending leading to whatever dead end we are going towards. Hopefully we'll return to the old way. I doubt we can really stop it now. Like I said, whether Bush or Gore is president, no matter who controls congress, government grows each year.

So yes, quality of life is going to be effected by all of this. It depends on which side of the game you are on. If you are intelligent, hard working, caring, then the government will continue to take more and more of your money until you cannot support it any longer. If you are lazy, stupid, unconcerned, then the government will continue to give you more and more of someone else's money as long as you vote for them.

Bigger government is not the answer to fix the quality of life question. It's a dead end that we are racing towards at full speed. Our way of life worked for over 150 years before government growth sky-rocketed. It would work again.

And if you really believe that capitalism will be the death of America, then this is my last post, as that is totally ridiculous. Check your definitions, you might mean a 100% democracy...

[Collegeboy]

So do you think the majority of people in the US are stupid, lazy, and unconcered.

The hardest working people in this country are the ones making the below poverty and right above poverty levels. They can not enjoy the high pay that others get, yet they work just as hard if not harder.

Why don't you come down and see what work the poor have to do just to surive.

It is sickening to hear you say that those who are lazy unintellegent and unconcered are the ones who are making you have to pay your fair share.

[Restola]

It's amusing that even though I have stated in this thread multiple times that I fully support helping the poor in every way, that as soon as I say the government isn't the best organization to do it, you think that's sickening.

[Star_Base_CGI]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
So do you think the majority of people in the US are stupid, lazy, and unconcered.

The hardest working people in this country are the ones making the below poverty and right above poverty levels. They can not enjoy the high pay that others get, yet they work just as hard if not harder.

Why don't you come down and see what work the poor have to do just to surive.

It is sickening to hear you say that those who are lazy unintellegent and unconcered are the ones who are making you have to pay your fair share.

The less you make the harder you work.

Look at the garbage man that spends 8 hours a day behind a stinky truck humping cans. Now granted that Guy might be out of prison...

Than Look at Ozzy. Ozzys probably been out of prison. Hardest thing Ozzy has to do is lecture his kids because they dont have any boundries...

Dont play with the guns and 5 minutes later their playing with the guns???

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Restola

So yes, quality of life is going to be effected by all of this. It depends on which side of the game you are on. If you are intelligent, hard working, caring, then the government will continue to take more and more of your money until you cannot support it any longer. If you are lazy, stupid, unconcerned, then the government will continue to give you more and more of someone else's money as long as you vote for them.

This is what I was responding too.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Star_Base_CGI
The less you make the harder you work.

That is a generality and is BS in my experience. The richest men I know are also the hardest workers. Granted there will be poor people that work hard and rich people that are lazy bastards, I'm just saying the generality is wrong.

I will say I don't know a single poor person who works over 80 hours a week, but I know plenty that B & M about having no money and work 20-30 hours a week.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by ShooterJM


That is a generality and is BS in my experience. The richest men I know are also the hardest workers. Granted there will be poor people that work hard and rich people that are lazy bastards, I'm just saying the generality is wrong.

I will say I don't know a single poor person who works over 80 hours a week, but I know plenty that B & M about having no money and work 20-30 hours a week.

How many poor people can work over 40 hours a week and still have a job, for many companies will fire you for working overtime.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
How many poor people can work over 40 hours a week and still have a job, for many companies will fire you for working overtime.

So work two jobs. Or three. Nothing says you can only have one job.

[Star_Base_CGI]

If you work 3 jobs you are not getting time and a half. You are still working for slave wage...

How many jobs should one work to be able to eat and have cloths? Notice above thread said $30 for pizza and haircut at "great clips".

There for the less you make the harder you work. You just proved it...

How many millionares have to work 3 part time jobs to eat?

Granted Mac and cheese not bourban chicken.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Star_Base_CGI
If you work 3 jobs you are not getting time and a half. You are still working for slave wage...

How many jobs should one work to be able to eat and have cloths? Notice above thread said $30 for pizza and haircut at "great clips".

There for the less you make the harder you work. You just proved it...

How many millionares have to work 3 part time jobs to eat?

Granted Mac and cheese not bourban chicken.

Well when I work 60-70 hours a week I don't get overtime either. What's the difference between me working 60 hours a week at one job and someone else working 3 jobs at 20 hours each, for a total of 60 hours a week? I'm not going to feel sorry for anyone who has the capacity to work and chooses not too. I know a guy who has a masters degree in english who is going to lose his house because he "can't find another job". Of course he's been offered jobs that paid less then he wanted and were "beneath him", but would allow him to make ends meet while he continued looking for his dream job, but he doesn't want those.

That's another thing I've noticed. I can't count how many times I've talked to poorer or unemployed friends who won't take a job because it's "beneath them". What kind of crap is that?

Show me the number of people who are poor and work as much as they can to survive and I'll feel sorry for them. But you know what? They are the minority.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by ShooterJM


Well when I work 60-70 hours a week I don't get overtime either. What's the difference between me working 60 hours a week at one job and someone else working 3 jobs at 20 hours each, for a total of 60 hours a week? I'm not going to feel sorry for anyone who has the capacity to work and chooses not too. I know a guy who has a masters degree in english who is going to lose his house because he "can't find another job". Of course he's been offered jobs that paid less then he wanted and were "beneath him", but would allow him to make ends meet while he continued looking for his dream job, but he doesn't want those.

That's another thing I've noticed. I can't count how many times I've talked to poorer or unemployed friends who won't take a job because it's "beneath them". What kind of crap is that?

Show me the number of people who are poor and work as much as they can to survive and I'll feel sorry for them. But you know what? They are the minority.

Don't you find it sad that a person is forced to work 80+ hours a week just to survive, while other working less hours and far less labor, are making a killing off of the labor of the poor.

Why does a CEO make a million a year, because his employees makes hardly anything. Why do middle management make 75,000 +, because the other employees make hardly anything.

You say someone should be forced to get another job or two to survive. What about there children then. Should we then send all children to orphanages until they are 18 for their parents have to work everyday for most of the day just to get by. Why don't we just prevent the bottom class from having children, make them all wear khaki and have them work. While we are at it why don't we take away all their feelings for outside emotions, so that they can be a better worker. I mean they have no use in them for they have no children to raise, and they will be greater workers if they can only concentrate on work.