Printable View
Common citizens have no chance at money or power? That sounds damn self-defeatist if you ask me. Of course you won't get anywhere if don't think you can, and thinking you can only serves as the motivation. I'm not going to be a blind-fool and say anyone with a hope and a dream can get what they want, because that just isn't true. But if that hope and dream drives someone to work like hell toward their goal, I think they can get where they want. Call me a foolish optimist.
I don't really understand this mindset. Do you guys really think extreme wealth is that far out of your reach? It doesn't seem that way to me - and I don't come from a wealthy family, I was raised by a single parent, so on. I'd be more pessimistic about my future if I knew I had 60% tax rates beating me down, destroying my ability to compound savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by sggg
I make twice as much as the average American now, and I'm 22 fucking years old - why? Of course, I'm not saying I have power, or money, now, but I've got a good shot at it, if I want it.
Sure, Bush Jr. came from a fine line of distinguished Connecticutians, but what about Reagan, or Clinton? Schwartzenegger was an Austrian immigrant who moved here 35 years ago, and now lives in a $18 million house and has a good shot on becoming the governor of the 5th largest economy in the world simply by dint of force of character.
I think a lot of people have very little chance at getting money, or power - like those of you who think like sggg, for example. That's hardly society's fault.
Accumulation of wealth by the few at the expense of the masses is a reality in the US. The whole "American Dream" is based on it. A large portion of the population is living below the poverty line barely able to afford housing / food, etc. and an elite few are able to accumulate ridiculous amounts of wealth ... this is not a democracy.
democracy has nothing to do with distribution of wealth, its the voting system. The stength of the american system is that people can accumulate wealth according to their work ethic and their abilities. despite the far left claptrap the net breeds, one does not accumulate nor maintain a sizeable fortune by being lazy nor incompetent. there are wealthy in every corner of the world, just because they get taxed more in certain countries than others does not mean that the wealth is any more fairly distributed , they still could raise the standard of living of the poorer by sacrificing more of their wealth, but that stifles the very spirit of economic progress, why work harder if you gain noting more for your labor? This whole thread is a sour grapes fest for the far left, we get the point, you dont like bush, we got it, now you can go back to grumbling about the evils of capitalism.
Well, this isn't a democracy so much as it is a republic, but neither have much to do with personal wealth. A place where all of the population is relatively equal in terms of finances would be a socialist country.Quote:
Originally Posted by icepop
Besides, the elite few with a ton of money are the ones giving me a job should I want one. :p
Back on topic here, one of the many signs that a nation is in it's twilight are in it's lack of adherence to the principles on which it was built. They are first compromised for the good of the people - this is where we're at (read: U.S. Patriot Act, it's a small sacrifice :rolleyes: ) - followed by some healthy reinterpritations so convoluted that lawers would blush at their mastery over the art of bastardizing a language, and finally out right betrayal of said principles.
Annother problem is over legislation. If you told George Washington that someday the govt. would be able to tell you what to eat, what to drink, what not to do to your body/life and so on he would've never bothered taking office. Fat tax? Why bother? It's just annother means by which the govt. would exert it's supremecy over the poor masses (the most likely to eat at fast food places) while catering to the rich and taking an almost totalitarian approach to "helping us make healthier choices." They'd outlaw stress before they outlaw tobacco or liquor.
This country offers the opportunity to gain wealth to everyone. I've gone from the poverty line to making two Americans' worth of money, and I'm 22.Quote:
Originally Posted by icepop
Yeah, there are a lot of people who aren't going to be able to be as wealthy as they'd like. I agree, it is kind of sad that something like half of the people in America make less than the average American salary.
Nonetheless, most of the people below that median still live good lives - they have heat, they've got water, a car, cable, libraries, free schooling, scholarships, and the ability to improve themselves.
One of the other things the Founding Fathers wanted was a union that could keep seperate from each other. Meaning wht MA does is its own business while FL can do as it will. Now, the federal government owns state government in terms of law-making, governing, etc. The government wants to outlaw fast food, tax cigarettes, tax driving, tell you what is an 'acceptable' age for children to learn about sex, teach political, social, and personal rhetoric in government-run 'public' schools, tell the poor that no, you can't have a voucher for private schools - we created this crap public education system and we're going to continue funneling you down it, like it or not. They use school as 'social conditioning' or social promotion rather than teaching. They tell you whether or not it's alright (welfare is good and you're an uncaring rapist if you don't agree) to believe in something before you're even given a chance to decide whether or not you actually do.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineAqua
It goes on and on...if Washington knew that a state would be taxing for owning a car, and then tripling the amount, he'd kill himself. Same for property tax, property regulation laws (did you know my grandfather had to construct a wall on top of his his backyard wall because it's illegal to have your water heater visible from the street? WTF?). How come a government can tell you what you can and can't do with a house you paid for, and then tax you on top of that? We use 'freedom of speech' as a reason to criticize everything and everyone for any and no reason whatsoever, some constructive, some not. Then on the same hand, we use seperation of church and state as a reason to persecute religions, rather than the intended purpose to prevent pursecution of those who want to practice whatever they believe in.
To me, the intentions were 'I'm okay, you're okay' or basically, let people be as long as they are self-sufficient. A person makes due on their own, and should have the liberty to do as they please with what they have. I know a lot of retorts to this idea (well, Washington never knew there would be monopolies, he only was thinking of 13 states, not 50, federal government MUST help us, because we can't possibly take care of ourselves, it takes a village to raise a child, et al.) and if you don't agree with me when I say the worse 'downfall' of America is overly socialization, standardization, one-size fits all mentality, then fine. But if I can accept the fact you won't agree with me, accept the fact that I won't with you.
I'm okay - you're okay.
See the Sedition Act of 1798.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineAqua
I don't recall any overt social conditioning in publicQuote:
They use school as 'social conditioning' or social promotion rather than teaching. They tell you whether or not it's alright (welfare is good and you're an uncaring rapist if you don't agree) to believe in something before you're even given a chance to decide whether or not you actually do.
school. Maybe you had passionate teachers or something? I had one that would go on about the constitution and how something great was started in America, and hell, I just figured he cared a lot about it instead of trying to corrupt me into his view as part of a plot by the government =\
The only school I went to that had rampant "conditioning" was the christian private school I was at for a few months(I was at a catholic private school for years before, mind you, so I mistakenly thought this one would be on par). . .well, here's my short comment on that school I made on this site over a year ago:
"I was in a christian school for those few months( I got out quickly).
they taught us to hate Darwin,Marx,Lenin,Freud, and Uncle Tom's Cabin.
I really wish I kept that textbook.
"
It wasn't teaching, there were chapters full of put downs. Making fun of Harriet Beecher Stowe's family and such.
What is this moderate socialization you're alright with?Quote:
overly socialization