We talked about this the other day. Are professional athletes lazy? Actors? Politicians? They must all be "fat cats" because they earn too damn much money. That's not the picture they want painted. They want people to believe that the wealthiest of America were handed their fortune and have never lifted a finger in their life. They want you to envision a CEO in his penthouse office treating people like slaves. For many wealthy this simply isn't the case. Who are the Philanthropists in this country? The poor?...no The middle class?...keep going The wealthiest 1%...ding ding ding Should we refer to Warren Buffet as a lazy fat cat? Bill Gates? I guess the guy who works a blue-collar job for 50 years and then wins the lottery is now a fat cat. I guess a baseball player who plays 162 games per season (+spring training, exhibition, and playoffs) is a fat cat. I guess McCain, Obama, and the Clintons have never worked a day in their life also because their fat cats. Why do some people without wealth have such envy for those that do? They are so jealous that they want to take the money and use it as their own. Greed and Gluttony may be two of the seven deadly sins but so are Lust and Envy. :wink: Giving to those in true need is Charity but those who wait and expect a handout are considered Sloth.
you dont get around much. through the years ive known many. they fall into two groups---one works multiple part time jobs because employers dont want to give them benefits. so they work 30hr a week for two employers at $6/hr, the other group works unsteady construction gopher jobs. im pretty sure theyre paid under the table so no taxes but week to week they dont know if theyll have work. sure they are all either dense as bricks and/or released prisoners or illegals, but still, hard work doesnt equal money. and the govt is giving squat to these people. i still dont get it. this is about unemployment benefits? thats very temporary. and welfare is temporary and nearly impossible to get without kids. anyway noone has replied as to why this matters so much. its a drop in the bucket of the US budget. thats the main reason why it reeks of ideological hatred.
Do you know what you call a "hard working" "poor" person who stays "poor"? A. A myth. B. A drug or alcohol addict. C. A liar. D. A statistically insignificant anomoly and the unluckiest person you'll ever meet. Hard work doesn't mean 8 hours with a shovel. Hard work means 24/365 trying to better yourself and your family. That's where most of this discussion breaks down. Anyone can stay clean and sober for 8 hours to get a paycheck. But hard working folks stay clean and sober long enough to attend night schools, slowly build wealth and stay debt free, live within their means, and make life better for their kids. I grew up poor. Trailer park, broken car in the front yard, chickens in the back yard, sewage in the ditch, homeless old hermit uncle in a shanty int he backfield, poor. I'm not poor now. It didn't "just happen". It required "hard work" for a long, long time. First by my Dad, then by me.
We have entirely free education in this country through 12 grades. Not one child in this country stands to be denied a basic education. The main reason why there are so many problems in our educational system nation wide is primarily because it is FREE and it is taken for granted because people have so little of their own effort and treasure invested in the schools.
Wow, I agree with you that it is taken for granted, but not because its free, that has zero to do with it. Its a mentality instilled through generations. My dad always told me my education was more important, than any ball I would run, shoot, or pass. Those things are extra-curricular.
Mastermind, I agree with you, but Chip also has a point. Our nation is constantly (negatively) compared to other countries, as far as our education system is concerned. We don't stack up very well in many cases, but I feel that is because we are committed to educating (free) every child in our nation. That isn't a concern in many other places. Because of this, we have children in our schools who come to us woefully unprepared to receive an education, as well as children who will be high achievers. It's a catch 22, but I'm very happy that we have public education in our country. Because sometimes, a child comes to us unprepared for his/her education, yet walks away from our schools a high achiever. The past two years, I taught a young Hispanic girl, who had everything stacked against her, but she was tenacious. After battling through a rough 7th grade year, she made straight A's in 8th grade and should, ultimately, be the first person in her family to graduate from high school and go to college. The cycle will be broken for her then. That's why we educate all of our children, and the communities with strong public schools are the best places to live. It's why I live in Plano, Texas--the public schools.
It's MY EFFING MONEY, too. You miss the point entirely. Why should they pay a smaller percentage of their income than you or I? You stopped reasoning long ago. If you had any logical arguments you wouldn't have to resort to insults. Your surprising inability to distinguish between communism and progressive taxation is not my problem.
I dont get the catch 22 part of your statement Stacey, you are a testimony to why public schools are so important and why they work from a majority standpoint, (if that makes sense). Your hard work as a student and now a teacher, I imagine you could be teaching at any private school, making more money, but you decided to give back. Its like free will or a free market, you have to work hard to make it. There are exceptions on both sides, we see the best of them and the worst of them. Dropouts to silver spoons, who both end up not making a difference in society.
I think both extremes are threats right now. The party that can nudge itself to the middle has a better chance of succeeding. The Republicans are very fragmented and conflicted right now. They are going to have to rebuild and reconsider an awful lot before 2012. The answer for them is to move to the center, not to the extremes, but I don't think they can without a split among the right-wing radicals, the economic conservatives, and the social conservatives. Third parties seem to come up on the left of the democrats (Nader) or to the right of the Republicans (Perot). Until a third party emerges in the middle and actually robs moderate democrats and republicans away from the traditional parties, they are doomed to be marginal. The "winner takes all" electoral college system is set up to preserve the two-party system. It keeps small parties from getting a few electors here and there to make an impact and grow. I'm not sure. I think that most of the best and the brightest leaders in this country are not drawn to the limelight of national politics. They can find more fulfilling, more rewarding, and less stressful careers in business, academia, media, or professional fields. Making the campaigns shorter, cheaper, and putting all of the primaries on the same day would help. A shorter campaign would focus more on the issues and less on the mudslinging, I think. It would prevent candidates from having to do so much fundraising with all of its possible negative side effects.
