|
|
Post by davdesid on Nov 13, 2010 17:07:28 GMT -8
There is hope for you if you can see the humor from Joe at the expense of the Obamas. Win, there is humor in just about everything. Its just that Joe's sense of humor tickles me. He is an extremely intelligent man. And, Obama is as fair a target for a good lampoon as anyone else. I gave it when Bush was president and I can take it with Obama in charge.  You're a good sport, waztec... I hope the few mouth-frothing libs on here can take a lampoon like this without screaming RACISM:  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 8:17:31 GMT -8
More information on job loss. Older male workers are about twice as likely to die the year they lose their jobs and a sizable statistical percentage of them are more likely to die in succeeding years later, compared to those who do not lose their jobs. Unemployed people face permanent reductions in earning power as a result of their job loss with the inequity lasting at least two decades. Many older workers (50s to 60s) will never find work after a job loss. Unemployment is worse than a three pack a day habit. And the odds that we will extend unemployment benefits is low. Spineless Democrats combined with callous Republicans should kill a fair number of our fellow citizens. Now, that's leadership.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 8:59:34 GMT -8
You know what? It's not the government's job to provide for people.
Life can be tough. Life isn't always fair.
The government's job is to set up an economic system where everybody has a fair shot at competing for jobs. That doesn't mean that everyone can be a winner. Life doesn't work that way, nor should it.
People have been going through this for centuries, only now there is a ton of support and backup (the safety net) that didn't exist prior to the Great Depression.
The government does need to make sure that the economic system that they set up has a good chance of growth to create new jobs and allow for the unemployed to find new jobs. Taxing the hell out of businesses and the rich certainly doesn't help that to happen. That's the money that could otherwise be invested in businesses, which would help create job growth. Take that money away and business grows more slowly, creating fewer jobs - perpetuating the unemployment problem.
Unemployment benefits currently extend, what? 99 weeks? That's an awfully long time. The more government spends on unemployment benefits the more money they have to take out of the economy that would otherwise be available for investment in business. (The wealthy can do one of three things with their money - spend it, which stimulates growth; save it, which gives banks more money to lend which stimulates growth; or invest it, which stimulates growth. Taking money away from them reduces growth in the economy and prolongs unemployment for millions of people.)
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 9:16:08 GMT -8
You know what? It's not the government's job to provide for people. Life can be tough. Life isn't always fair. The government's job is to set up an economic system where everybody has a fair shot at competing for jobs. That doesn't mean that everyone can be a winner. Life doesn't work that way, nor should it. People have been going through this for centuries, only now there is a ton of support and backup (the safety net) that didn't exist prior to the Great Depression. The government does need to make sure that the economic system that they set up has a good chance of growth to create new jobs and allow for the unemployed to find new jobs. Taxing the hell out of businesses and the rich certainly doesn't help that to happen. That's the money that could otherwise be invested in businesses, which would help create job growth. Take that money away and business grows more slowly, creating fewer jobs - perpetuating the unemployment problem. Unemployment benefits currently extend, what? 99 weeks? That's an awfully long time. The more government spends on unemployment benefits the more money they have to take out of the economy that would otherwise be available for investment in business. (The wealthy can do one of three things with their money - spend it, which stimulates growth; save it, which gives banks more money to lend which stimulates growth; or invest it, which stimulates growth. Taking money away from them reduces growth in the economy and prolongs unemployment for millions of people.) If your statement is true, why even coalesce into societies at all? Why promote general welfare and the common good? Let them get sick and let them die does not qualify as an answer if our constitution exists to facilitate Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 9:37:05 GMT -8
You know what? It's not the government's job to provide for people. Life can be tough. Life isn't always fair. The government's job is to set up an economic system where everybody has a fair shot at competing for jobs. That doesn't mean that everyone can be a winner. Life doesn't work that way, nor should it. People have been going through this for centuries, only now there is a ton of support and backup (the safety net) that didn't exist prior to the Great Depression. The government does need to make sure that the economic system that they set up has a good chance of growth to create new jobs and allow for the unemployed to find new jobs. Taxing the hell out of businesses and the rich certainly doesn't help that to happen. That's the money that could otherwise be invested in businesses, which would help create job growth. Take that money away and business grows more slowly, creating fewer jobs - perpetuating the unemployment problem. Unemployment benefits currently extend, what? 99 weeks? That's an awfully long time. The more government spends on unemployment benefits the more money they have to take out of the economy that would otherwise be available for investment in business. (The wealthy can do one of three things with their money - spend it, which stimulates growth; save it, which gives banks more money to lend which stimulates growth; or invest it, which stimulates growth. Taking money away from them reduces growth in the economy and prolongs unemployment for millions of people.) If your statement is true, why even coalesce into societies at all? Why promote general welfare and the common good? Let them get sick and let them die does not qualify as an answer if our constitution exists to facilitate Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution does not guarantee that people will not get sick (they will always get sick) or that they won't die (everybody dies), or that they will be happy. Nor can any constitution guarantee that. The government's job is to set up an economic system that works. A system that provides an environment where businesses can grow and create new jobs. The government cannot pay for everyone's food, shelter, and clothing (let alone health care). To do so the government has to take the money from somewhere - and the place they have to steal the money from is the overall economy, slowing it down and reducing job growth. It's a catch 22. The more the government does to directly help people financially the more it hurts the overall economy slowing job growth and prolonging unemployment. And, for the record, I never once said, "Let them get sick, let them die." That's a horrible distortion and you should be embarrassed for even posting that. That's the worst kind of political discourse possible - demonizing those on the other side and claiming that they want people to get sick and die. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 10:20:22 GMT -8
"Life can be tough. Life isn't always fair."If your statement is true, why even coalesce into societies at all? Why promote general welfare and the common good? Let them get sick and let them die does not qualify as an answer if our constitution exists to facilitate Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution does not guarantee that people will not get sick (they will always get sick) or that they won't die (everybody dies), or that they will be happy. Nor can any constitution guarantee that. The government's job is to set up an economic system that works. A system that provides an environment where businesses can grow and create new jobs. The government cannot pay for everyone's food, shelter, and clothing (let alone health care). To do so the government has to take the money from somewhere - and the place they have to steal the money from is the overall economy, slowing it down and reducing job growth. It's a catch 22. The more the government does to directly help people financially the more it hurts the overall economy slowing job growth and prolonging unemployment. And, for the record, I never once said, "Let them get sick, let them die." That's a horrible distortion and you should be embarrassed for even posting that. That's the worst kind of political discourse possible - demonizing those on the other side and claiming that they want people to get sick and die.
That's a horrible distortion and you should be embarrassed for even posting that. That's the worst kind of political discourse possible - demonizing those on the other side and claiming that they want people to get sick and die. [/quote] [/i]
Your point is well taken and I apologize for the inelegant language. Of course you do not want to hurt anyone. But, what is the ultimate result of stopping unemployment and casting the unemployed as undeserving (a conservative punch line-not necessarily yours)? "Life can be tough. Life isn't always fair." You can blithely spout the euphemism, but you need to be fully aware of what that particular easy rationalization means. And just because that statement is true, is it not also true that our progress as a species has been in the fight against that very truth? My point was that we coalesce into societies for mutual welfare. If unemployment kills people we should be looking for ways to help them. Let me put it this way. Liberals are selfish. We see that our next door neighbor's (who lives just to the west) house is on fire. The wind is blowing West to East. Liberals see that house fire as a threat to their own well being. I see the plight of the unemployed as a threat to my well being, because, ultimately, it is. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 14, 2010 10:28:01 GMT -8
The government's job is to set up an economic system that works. A system that provides an environment where businesses can grow and create new jobs.
Erik, where in our Constitution does it say that?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 10:39:32 GMT -8
The government's job is to set up an economic system that works. A system that provides an environment where businesses can grow and create new jobs. Erik, where in our Constitution does it say that? We both know that isn't in the constitution, but it is ANY government's job to do that. To not do that would create economic chaos. However, paying for people's food, shelter, and clothing is NOT a given part of any government's job. Individuals do have a responsibility to take care of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 10:58:06 GMT -8
The constitution does not guarantee that people will not get sick (they will always get sick) or that they won't die (everybody dies), or that they will be happy. Nor can any constitution guarantee that. The government's job is to set up an economic system that works. A system that provides an environment where businesses can grow and create new jobs. The government cannot pay for everyone's food, shelter, and clothing (let alone health care). To do so the government has to take the money from somewhere - and the place they have to steal the money from is the overall economy, slowing it down and reducing job growth. It's a catch 22. The more the government does to directly help people financially the more it hurts the overall economy slowing job growth and prolonging unemployment. And, for the record, I never once said, "Let them get sick, let them die." That's a horrible distortion and you should be embarrassed for even posting that. That's the worst kind of political discourse possible - demonizing those on the other side and claiming that they want people to get sick and die. And, for the record, I never once said, "Let them get sick, let them die."
That's a horrible distortion and you should be embarrassed for even posting that. That's the worst kind of political discourse possible - demonizing those on the other side and claiming that they want people to get sick and die. [/i]
Your point is well taken and I apologize for the inelegant language. Of course you do not want to hurt anyone. But, what is the ultimate result of stopping unemployment and casting the unemployed as undeserving (a conservative punch line-not necessarily yours)? "Life can be tough. Life isn't always fair." You can blithely spout the euphemism, but you need to be fully aware of what that particular easy rationalization means. And just because that statement is true, is it not also true that our progress as a species has been in the fight against that very truth? [/quote] That is a fight we cannot win. Life will never be fair, and life will always be tough. It must be. People need incentives to work hard. Overcoming life's inequities is the challenge that people must rise to in order to become better individuals. Some people will make bad decisions and fail. Such is life. I've made bad decisions and could be much better off than I am. I'm not going to blame anyone else for my mistakes and demand money from the government because I screwed up. I will never do that. That would be stealing from people who have earned that money. I don't buy that premise. I don't believe that unemployment kills people any more than any other life stress does. I work in an office with 2,000 people. I personally know 5 people who have taken stress leave from work. They can't handle the stress of their jobs. So their jobs were killing them. Just like you claim unemployment does. People die of job stress related stuff (heart attacks, etc) all the time, so should we put an end to high stress jobs, too? How so? If your neighbor keels over from a heart attack how does that affect you? You may feel sad, but everyone dies. That may sound callous, but you can't stop death. I wish we could - I'd rather not die myself, and I'd certainly like to see my daughter live forever, too. This generalized, "Plight of the unemployed," really likely only applies to a small percentage of the overall unemployed. Most people are unemployed for a relatively short time in their lives - even though a recession/slow recovery like this one. Hell, my company is hiring all the time. Last year at the depths of the recession I was talking to one of the people on our hiring team and they were disappointed with the turnout for one of our job fairs - it was half of what they had gotten a year earlier. Where are all the unemployed people who are supposedly desperate for jobs? We've got decent paying jobs with great benefits and we can't get good turnouts??? With ads in the paper, no less?? I honestly believe that the, "Plight of the unemployed," is overblown to a degree. Most people have the coping skills to deal with bumps in the road. SOME of the unemployed are in dire circumstances, yes, and for them help should be made available. But financial help should not be indefinite. More of an emphasis should be put on job training and job search help. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 11:38:43 GMT -8
[/i]
Your point is well taken and I apologize for the inelegant language. Of course you do not want to hurt anyone. But, what is the ultimate result of stopping unemployment and casting the unemployed as undeserving (a conservative punch line-not necessarily yours)? "Life can be tough. Life isn't always fair." You can blithely spout the euphemism, but you need to be fully aware of what that particular easy rationalization means. And just because that statement is true, is it not also true that our progress as a species has been in the fight against that very truth? [/quote] That is a fight we cannot win. Life will never be fair, and life will always be tough. It must be. People need incentives to work hard. Overcoming life's inequities is the challenge that people must rise to in order to become better individuals. Some people will make bad decisions and fail. Such is life. I've made bad decisions and could be much better off than I am. I'm not going to blame anyone else for my mistakes and demand money from the government because I screwed up. I will never do that. That would be stealing from people who have earned that money. I don't buy that premise. I don't believe that unemployment kills people any more than any other life stress does. I work in an office with 2,000 people. I personally know 5 people who have taken stress leave from work. They can't handle the stress of their jobs. So their jobs were killing them. Just like you claim unemployment does. People die of job stress related stuff (heart attacks, etc) all the time, so should we put an end to high stress jobs, too? How so? If your neighbor keels over from a heart attack how does that affect you? You may feel sad, but everyone dies. That may sound callous, but you can't stop death. I wish we could - I'd rather not die myself, and I'd certainly like to see my daughter live forever, too. This generalized, "Plight of the unemployed," really likely only applies to a small percentage of the overall unemployed. Most people are unemployed for a relatively short time in their lives - even though a recession/slow recovery like this one. Hell, my company is hiring all the time. Last year at the depths of the recession I was talking to one of the people on our hiring team and they were disappointed with the turnout for one of our job fairs - it was half of what they had gotten a year earlier. Where are all the unemployed people who are supposedly desperate for jobs? We've got decent paying jobs with great benefits and we can't get good turnouts??? With ads in the paper, no less?? I honestly believe that the, "Plight of the unemployed," is overblown to a degree. Most people have the coping skills to deal with bumps in the road. SOME of the unemployed are in dire circumstances, yes, and for them help should be made available. But financial help should not be indefinite. More of an emphasis should be put on job training and job search help.[/quote] "People need incentives to work hard. Overcoming life's inequities is the challenge that people must rise to in order to become better individuals." I worked just as hard for 1.97 an hour as I did for $80,000. Ruthless competition does not improve people's character. "Some people will make bad decisions and fail. Such is life. I've made bad decisions and could be much better off than I am. I'm not going to blame anyone else for my mistakes and demand money from the government because I screwed up. I will never do that. That would be stealing from people who have earned that money."
What if your bad decision is being 60 years old and sick? " I personally know 5 people who have taken stress leave from work. They can't handle the stress of their jobs." How absolutely awful. What are those firm doing to those people? I personally know stress to a point you cannot imagine. So, I have great sympathy for those who have problems handling it. (Incidentally, some firms hire people knowing full well that they will drive them out from stress. They even know how long it will take to do it. They hire with that in mind. It is particularly prevalent in some financial firms.) "So their jobs were killing them. Just like you claim unemployment does. People die of job stress related stuff (heart attacks, etc) all the time, so should we put an end to high stress jobs, too?" Not everyone has a job that triturates them. "That is a fight we cannot win. Life will never be fair, and life will always be tough. It must be. People need incentives to work hard. Overcoming life's inequities is the challenge that people must rise to in order to become better individuals." And yet the whole of human history has been a fight against just that. Should we just give up trying because it costs some people some money? Or, should we go back to the Neanderthal time? How so? If your neighbor keels over from a heart attack how does that affect you? You may feel sad, but everyone dies. That may sound callous, but you can't stop death. I wish we could - I'd rather not die myself, and I'd certainly like to see my daughter live forever, too.If you cannot make the connection, I will never convince you of it. However, if the wind is blowing from the west and my house is east and next door, I better get a frigging hose-fast. The more people who are unemployed, the more likely the things my company sells will not find an audience, causing my job loss too. Can you not make the connection between your own welfare and others? This generalized, "Plight of the unemployed," really likely only applies to a small percentage of the overall unemployed. Most people are unemployed for a relatively short time in their lives - even though a recession/slow recovery like this one.Not this time. Hell, my company is hiring all the time. Last year at the depths of the recession I was talking to one of the people on our hiring team and they were disappointed with the turnout for one of our job fairs - it was half of what they had gotten a year earlier.
Where are all the unemployed people who are supposedly desperate for jobs? We've got decent paying jobs with great benefits and we can't get good turnouts??? With ads in the paper, no less??You have not given me sufficient facts to determine why your company has no turn out. Where I work, literally hundreds apply for a single job. I honestly believe that the, "Plight of the unemployed," is overblown to a degree. Most people have the coping skills to deal with bumps in the road. Too you maybe. Not to them. SOME of the unemployed are in dire circumstances, yes, and for them help should be made available. But financial help should not be indefinite. More of an emphasis should be put on job training and job search help.Tell that to a laid off person who is 55. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 12:06:03 GMT -8
"People need incentives to work hard. Overcoming life's inequities is the challenge that people must rise to in order to become better individuals." I worked just as hard for 1.97 an hour as I did for $80,000. Ruthless competition does not improve people's character. Actually, it does improve job performance in many cases. It's an added incentive. People who have no risk of losing their jobs and have regular pay raises have no incentive to work hard. That isn't a decision, is it? And most people at 60 are still very healthy. You're talking about the tiny minority of people that make up the exception, not the rule. Some people cannot deal with jobs that require a high level of job performance each and every month. I have worked in three different capacities where I am now, and while I have experienced burnout and some job stress I've never felt overwhelmed by it. A vast majority of people who work there don't - but some people just can't cope with stress. They're likely the same people who cannot cope with the stress of being unemployed. The exact same people just under different circumstances. When they're working they can't handle the stress, and when they're unemplyed they can't handle the stress. Either way they can't handle it and it negatively affects their health and well being. But some people just can't handle stress, period. Job stress or unemployment stress - they can't handle it at all. We can't do everything for everyone. We don't need a nanny state. I am fully capable of taking care of myself without the government stepping in. MOST people are. And we should NEVER give up as individuals in a fight to make our personal circumstances better. So if my neighbor is out of work I should pay him? Come on! That's what you are essentially advocating - when someone is out of work the rest of us should chip in to take care of them like children. That takes money out of the economy prolonging their unemployment. And that's what you'd expect for jobs that start at $35,000 and give full health and dental benefits (as well as life insurance, profit sharing, and a 401K). Some people need to toughen up. Jeez - people from 100 years ago would tell you that we're all just a bunch of wimps. SOME of the unemployed are in dire circumstances, yes, and for them help should be made available. But financial help should not be indefinite. More of an emphasis should be put on job training and job search help.Tell that to a laid off person who is 55.[/quote] I sure will. The government should assist them in finding a job. I'd absolutely tell them that. I'd tell them that the better use of money is in helping people find work rather than paying them when they can't. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 12:16:29 GMT -8
"People need incentives to work hard. Overcoming life's inequities is the challenge that people must rise to in order to become better individuals." I worked just as hard for 1.97 an hour as I did for $80,000. Ruthless competition does not improve people's character. Actually, it does improve job performance in many cases. It's an added incentive. People who have no risk of losing their jobs and have regular pay raises have no incentive to work hard. That isn't a decision, is it? And most people at 60 are still very healthy. You're talking about the tiny minority of people that make up the exception, not the rule. Some people cannot deal with jobs that require a high level of job performance each and every month. I have worked in three different capacities where I am now, and while I have experienced burnout and some job stress I've never felt overwhelmed by it. A vast majority of people who work there don't - but some people just can't cope with stress. They're likely the same people who cannot cope with the stress of being unemployed. The exact same people just under different circumstances. When they're working they can't handle the stress, and when they're unemplyed they can't handle the stress. Either way they can't handle it and it negatively affects their health and well being. But some people just can't handle stress, period. Job stress or unemployment stress - they can't handle it at all. We can't do everything for everyone. We don't need a nanny state. I am fully capable of taking care of myself without the government stepping in. MOST people are. And we should NEVER give up as individuals in a fight to make our personal circumstances better. So if my neighbor is out of work I should pay him? Come on! That's what you are essentially advocating - when someone is out of work the rest of us should chip in to take care of them like children. That takes money out of the economy prolonging their unemployment. And that's what you'd expect for jobs that start at $35,000 and give full health and dental benefits (as well as life insurance, profit sharing, and a 401K). Some people need to toughen up. Jeez - people from 100 years ago would tell you that we're all just a bunch of wimps. SOME of the unemployed are in dire circumstances, yes, and for them help should be made available. But financial help should not be indefinite. More of an emphasis should be put on job training and job search help.Tell that to a laid off person who is 55. Don't you find that our discussions become tedious after a while? Our discussion is just like shining a flashlight into a mirror. None of it gets to the other side of the glass. I will never believe as you do. It is as simple and as complex as that. And that calcified disagreement is why this country will not resolve our problem until something really serious happens. See you then. Is your side is right? I fear it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 14, 2010 12:18:28 GMT -8
The government's job is to set up an economic system that works. A system that provides an environment where businesses can grow and create new jobs. Erik, where in our Constitution does it say that? We both know that isn't in the constitution, but it is ANY government's job to do that. To not do that would create economic chaos. However, paying for people's food, shelter, and clothing is NOT a given part of any government's job. Individuals do have a responsibility to take care of themselves. This, I think, is one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think government is formed to protect and serve business. Liberals think government is formed to protect and serve people. Erik, government is not the Chamber of Commerce, with powers of taxation and coercion. Our Constitution says, "We The People...", not "we business interests". Individuals do need to take care of themselves. Over history they have found the best way to do this is to form together in groups for mutual benefit, support, and protection. Government would be an example of that. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 12:25:24 GMT -8
We both know that isn't in the constitution, but it is ANY government's job to do that. To not do that would create economic chaos. However, paying for people's food, shelter, and clothing is NOT a given part of any government's job. Individuals do have a responsibility to take care of themselves. This, I think, is one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think government is formed to protect and serve business. Liberals think government is formed to protect and serve people. Erik, government is not the Chamber of Commerce, with powers of taxation and coercion. Our Constitution says, "We The People...", not "we business interests". Individuals do need to take care of themselves. Over history they have found the best way to do this is to form together in groups for mutual benefit, support, and protection. Government would be an example of that. The basic issue is whether you are willing to sacrifice your immediate gratification for something better later. Some get it some don't. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 12:26:44 GMT -8
We both know that isn't in the constitution, but it is ANY government's job to do that. To not do that would create economic chaos. However, paying for people's food, shelter, and clothing is NOT a given part of any government's job. Individuals do have a responsibility to take care of themselves. This, I think, is one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think government is formed to protect and serve business. Liberals think government is formed to protect and serve people. That premise is mistaken. Conservatives think government is formed to protect individuals and their individual rights. The government has a duty to protect our most precious right - our lives - from all threats foreign and domestic (using the military and police). Business IS the people. People own the businesses. Businesses EMPLOY people. Businesses are not the bad guys to be demonized. Only because back then ALL businesses were individually owned and operated. People and business were one and the same. I disagree - Governments were formed to create ORDER. Part of that order is creating a stable economic system. Without order there is anarchy. Governments protect people by creating laws to protect lives and property rights. It doesn't take a village. It takes individuals with good work ethic. People rise to the occasion. I have faith and belief in peoples' abilities to take care of themselves. Most conservatives do. It would seem that liberals don't believe in the ability of individuals to take care of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 12:29:46 GMT -8
This, I think, is one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think government is formed to protect and serve business. Liberals think government is formed to protect and serve people. That premise is mistaken. Conservatives think government is formed to protect individuals and their individual rights. The government has a duty to protect our most precious right - our lives - from all threats foreign and domestic (using the military and police). Business IS the people. People own the businesses. Businesses EMPLOY people. Businesses are not the bad guys to be demonized. Only because back then ALL businesses were individually owned and operated. People and business were one and the same. I disagree - Governments were formed to create ORDER. Part of that order is creating a stable economic system. Without order there is anarchy. Governments protect people by creating laws to protect lives and property rights. It doesn't take a village. It takes individuals with good work ethic. People rise to the occasion. I have faith and belief in peoples' abilities to take care of themselves. Most conservatives do. It would seem that liberals don't believe in the ability of individuals to take care of themselves. "It doesn't take a village." That "village" is responsible for everything you have. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 12:31:27 GMT -8
This, I think, is one of the basic differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think government is formed to protect and serve business. Liberals think government is formed to protect and serve people. Erik, government is not the Chamber of Commerce, with powers of taxation and coercion. Our Constitution says, "We The People...", not "we business interests". Individuals do need to take care of themselves. Over history they have found the best way to do this is to form together in groups for mutual benefit, support, and protection. Government would be an example of that. The basic issue is whether you are willing to sacrifice your immediate gratification for something better later. There is nothing better later. The idea of some grand utopia is a myth. It will NEVER happen. You make the best of what you've got and enjoy the little things in life that make you happy. There will always be bad people who steal, who are lazy, who will hurt others. Those people will never ever go away, and for that better world - for that, "Something better later," they'd have to all go away. They won't. People can't wait for society or the government to make their lives better. They've got to roll up their sleeves and do it for themselves. Besides, what pride in accomplishment can there be when you are handed everything and work for nothing? No one being given handouts can have any self respect. Pride in accomplishment is the most important need to be filled in order to truly be happy. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 12:33:02 GMT -8
The basic issue is whether you are willing to sacrifice your immediate gratification for something better later. There is nothing better later. The idea of some grand utopia is a myth. It will NEVER happen. You make the best of what you've got and enjoy the little things in life that make you happy. There will always be bad people who steal, who are lazy, who will hurt others. Those people will never ever go away, and for that better world - for that, "Something better later," they'd have to all go away. They won't. People can't wait for society or the government to make their lives better. They've got to roll up their sleeves and do it for themselves. Besides, what pride in accomplishment can there be when you are handed everything and work for nothing? No one being given handouts can have any self respect. Pride in accomplishment is the most important need to be filled in order to truly be happy. Then why strive? What good is personal responsibility? Why improve yourself? Why go to college? Why raise your kids right? |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 12:35:25 GMT -8
It doesn't take a village. It takes individuals with good work ethic. People rise to the occasion. I have faith and belief in peoples' abilities to take care of themselves. Most conservatives do. It would seem that liberals don't believe in the ability of individuals to take care of themselves. That "village" is responsible for everything you have. bull$#!+. I've worked for everything I have. No one handed me my job - I went and earned it. No one handed me my home - I saved money for the down payment and am paying for it every two weeks. I find that notion that the, "Village," is responsible for everything I have (and everyone else has) to be incredibly insulting to the hard work I and everyone else who has achieved have put in. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 14, 2010 12:38:24 GMT -8
There is nothing better later. The idea of some grand utopia is a myth. It will NEVER happen. You make the best of what you've got and enjoy the little things in life that make you happy. There will always be bad people who steal, who are lazy, who will hurt others. Those people will never ever go away, and for that better world - for that, "Something better later," they'd have to all go away. They won't. People can't wait for society or the government to make their lives better. They've got to roll up their sleeves and do it for themselves. Besides, what pride in accomplishment can there be when you are handed everything and work for nothing? No one being given handouts can have any self respect. Pride in accomplishment is the most important need to be filled in order to truly be happy. Then why strive? What good is personal responsibility? Why improve yourself? Why go to college? Why raise your kids right? To make their lives better themselves. The idea that utopia can be reached is a ridiculous notion. "We should all sacrifice a larger percentage of our hard earned money in order to have a better society later on." THAT is the myth. It's a fraud. Human nature will never allow it to happen. We all have to make the best of our individual situations and strive to be the best people we can be. But we shouldn't have to pay for those who just didn't want to go to college, or for those who chose to party instead of study, or for those who just don't want to bother to go in to work today and get fired because of it. People who make s#!++y decisions like that should have to live with the consequences of their actions. Period. |
|
