I'm really not sure what the point is, above, at all. Whatever you're trying to say it's pretty unclear to me.
"A large academic study released in 2014 found US mobility overall has not changed appreciably in the last 25 years (for children born between 1971 and 1996), but a variety of up and down mobility changes were found in several different parts of the country. On average, American children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s." - wiki
The United States was founded on invividually inalienable human rights. If that's a starting point for conservatives then so be it. It doesn't mean that they don't understand the needs for government and the collective. If we forget that starting point then we run the risk of losing the basis of our founding. Socialism is complicated - and more complicated because the species that it serves, humanity, is inherently lazy. It's hard to make it work.
The last President to have a surplus was George W. Bush in 2001 (https://datalab.usaspending.gov/amer...eficit/trends/). The truth is that the government, on either side, could give a fuck about being responsible and balanced like the rest of us have to be. They want to spend money on different things and do so without responsibility.
I get that - but how is "the collective" approach doing in those population centers? NY is in huge trouble. NJ is in huge trouble. CA is in huge trouble. IL is in huge trouble. These are all "blue" states that have spending troubles and left leadership. I don't disagree with a lot of things that the left would like - I just don't see a way to pay for it all and all of those examples, above, can't pay for it either.
Bookmarks