Let's Hear it for American Rugged Self Reliance

[sparky]

Any of you self made rugged Americans care to opine on this>

~S~

 

[sparky]

or is it too 'can't connect the lefty dots' for you?

~S~

 

[editec]

1 in 7?

So about 15% of the US population needs help to buy food.

Why does that surprise us?

The lower quintile of American families have been losing ground economically since the 1970s.

Few of you complaining about FOOD STAMPS complained about that trend in our economy.


Now 3/4s of that segement of the popilation are so poor they're eligible for food assistance.

Reap what you sow, American.

 

[sparky]

1 outta 7 's a whimp ?

~S~

 

[Bern80]

1 in 7?

So about 15% of the US population needs help to buy food.

Why does that surprise us?

The lower quintile of American families have been losing ground economically since the 1970s.

Few of you complaining about FOOD STAMPS complained about that trend in our economy.


Now 3/4s of that segement of the popilation are so poor they're eligible for food assistance.

Reap what you sow, American.

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where every American is entitled to have things be affordable without actually having to do anything yourself.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Any of you self made rugged Americans care to opine on this>

~S~

Most of those places a 3rd world hell holes with tyrants running them.

Only a fool would think that's an honest comparison.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Any of you self made rugged Americans care to opine on this>

~S~

Equality?

A nation can either equality or prosperity ....but not both.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

However, we will see the present trend of the rich robbing the working people of the fruit of their labor end.

 

[Big Fitz]

I've had that terminal idiot on ignore for months now.

I just put him on it.

Became to much of a chore to figure out what he was saying, and then wondering if he was having the same conversation as I was.

That's the lefty way.

Not really. The wise ignore the imbecilic chattering of fools.

 

[Big Fitz]

Any of you self made rugged Americans care to opine on this>

~S~

Let me flip off my irrelevancy alarm here a moment.

What's the rate of people on government assistance in those same nations? Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said (and I paraphrase here) that poverty SHOULD be uncomfortable as to help drive people to achieve and get themselves out of it. We've taken the social safety net and made it a safety hammock, when we can ill afford to do so.

Secondly, we've been wealthy and successful as a nation for so long, we forgot what real suffering is about. There's this insane meme running around saying that we are owed by the government and our neighbors (and some cretins even think God owes us this) a comfortable life equal to that of our upper middle class brethren.

This is NOT how reality works. This is an artificial state similar to a post scarcity economy. It's not that the impact of these policies and behaviors don't exist anymore, it's that the consequences of them have been pushed so far away from those who benefit from them, that there is no connection anymore.

Example. As a kid where hamburger comes from. Under a certain age (and I pray it's under 8 at most) they should say 'the store'. Not a cow. To them, hamburger grows in little plastic packages in a supermarket refrigerated case, or in the back room. Or like eggs, they're laid in plastic covered tubes by the cows. They've no concept of the process from calf to hamburger. It's why visiting a slaughter house is probably a very important experience for everyone to go through. Hell, I remember when I had to experience, 'where does the toilet go'?

But you want to bitch about how you don't get the same as a fortune 500 CEO or even a lawyer, doctor or certified public accountant does? What is it of value that you do to DESERVE or MERIT such a life? Ever live around people on Uncle Sugar's dole? I have and do. It amazes me how lazy most of these people are. If they've been on it for more than a few years or never held a long term job, they've given up their 'productive member of society' card.

Seriously. They just turn it back in and wait for their allowance from the government to show up, live in scuzzy gubmint housing or get assistance to live in a nice facility and trash the shit out of it. They then look for ways to maximize their subsidies from the government. It becomes their "job" to be the best moocher and deadbeat possible. They're healthy, but they'll make up maladies to get SSI and not have to work. They figure out ways to expand their food budget, and the suppliment it by going to food shelters as well. They have no pride in earning for themselves. Their job is to take the charity of others, and they start believing it is the duty of society to keep them in that comfortable scuzzy level of life... and God help anyone who wishes to try and end the gravy train.

Of course those who DO try to end what is obviously sanitized begging and rent seeking get the full brunt of their wrath and pandering. They'll get indignant at how you want to hurt 'poor people who life has chosen to pass over in the lottery of riches'. (of course they keep playing the lottery too. Always gotta have money to do that.) Then they'll appeal for help from the uninvolved and blub away begging for sympathy against the 'cruel and hard hearted bastards' trying to stop their comfy life. God forbid they actually get one of the "J words"!

But yes, it's all about income equality, and not personal responsibility, merit and pride. But keep thinking that jealousy and class warfare is a valid argument.

 

[editec]

1 in 7?

So about 15% of the US population needs help to buy food.

Why does that surprise us?

The lower quintile of American families have been losing ground economically since the 1970s.

Few of you complaining about FOOD STAMPS complained about that trend in our economy.


Now 3/4s of that segement of the popilation are so poor they're eligible for food assistance.

Reap what you sow, American.

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where every American is entitled to have things be affordable without actually having to do anything yourself.

You probably missed the fact that the majority of American families getting food stamps are also WORKING Families, too, didn't you?

Why don't you just admit it, Bern?

You hate the working poor and hope they die.

Really. Bern, grow set and declare what you and I both know is in your heart

 

[Two Thumbs]

Really? We were doing pretty good in the '50s and 60s.

However, we will see the present trend of the rich robbing the working people of the fruit of their labor end.

I will never grasp this delusion.

You hate the rich b/c they take everyones money.
But you love the government that takes everyones money.

The rich lose money when they don't perform up to standards
The government takes more when they don't perfom up to standards b/c they say they need to expand.

The rich can't send us to die for oil.
The government is doing that in Lybia now

Please explain, in some good detail, why the government is better than rich people.

 

[Big Fitz]

1 in 7?

So about 15% of the US population needs help to buy food.

Why does that surprise us?

The lower quintile of American families have been losing ground economically since the 1970s.

Few of you complaining about FOOD STAMPS complained about that trend in our economy.


Now 3/4s of that segement of the popilation are so poor they're eligible for food assistance.

Reap what you sow, American.

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where every American is entitled to have things be affordable without actually having to do anything yourself.

You probably missed the fact that the majority of American families getting food stamps are also WORKING Families, too, didn't you?

Why don't you just admit it, Bern?

You hate the working poor and hope they die.

Really. Bern, grow set and declare what you and I both know is in your heart

I am working poor and I never have, and pray I never WILL have to get foodstamps. It's not my government's job to pay for my food. If I get so desperate, I'll go to my family or a church or Salvation Army (or if really desperate the United Way) before I go to the government.

Why? Because that's charity, given freely by my neighbors, not taken by force from the IRS.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where every American is entitled to have things be affordable without actually having to do anything yourself.

You probably missed the fact that the majority of American families getting food stamps are also WORKING Families, too, didn't you?

Why don't you just admit it, Bern?

You hate the working poor and hope they die.

Really. Bern, grow set and declare what you and I both know is in your heart

I am working poor and I never have, and pray I never WILL have to get foodstamps. It's not my government's job to pay for my food. If I get so desperate, I'll go to my family or a church or Salvation Army (or if really desperate the United Way) before I go to the government.

Why? Because that's charity, given freely by my neighbors, not taken by force from the IRS.

Same here.

My wife and I have taken turns working 2nd jobs, so there's always a parent home or soon will be.

I get a lot of my kids school supplies from the SA, so when I have a little extra, that's who I give it to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep. But I'm a firm believer in what I call the 'pendulum of history'. Political movements ebb and flow from conservative to liberal and last in about 2-4 generation cycles (between 25 and 125 years) The Progressive influence on America (and the world) was born in the French Revolution when the concept of collective rights, over individual rights were chosen. Due to the nature of the Napoleonic wars, American Civil War and the burgeoning industrial age, Progressivism did not burst again onto the scene till about 1890. This was a very strong conservative period after having a peak during the American/French Revolution ended the previous liberal epoch.

But coming with the beginning of the labor movement and anarchists of the 1890's, fed up with abuse created by uncontrolled industrialists turning nations into civic cesspools, it was a long overdue reaction and ultimately a positive for restoring liberty to society. Now that government tyranny had been removed, the tyranny of wealth was addressed. So the oppression of the 'plutocrat' was rolled back with the trusts and monopolies, trading rules and guardrails were erected to protect society from the abuse of the corporation.

Unnnnnfortunately.... the pendulum of history kept swinging from a potential nice balance into the New Deal. The driving forces of progressivism, kept on swinging, and as it grew in promenance from the 30's through the 70's, the sins of this new 'freedom' from the plutocrats devolved into dependence on those who formerly served to protect their rights. Now, instead of having the right to work, they were owed a living regardless of their own merits. This philosophy of entitlement, because we are/were a rich nation was able to get entrenched because we could out earn the costs of such a life.

Then 9/11 happened and we hit a 'hard stop' to this latest liberal era. Like the Titanic's sinking in a way signaled an end to the hegemony of the Industrialist Era of Robber Baron control, 9/11 has signaled the rapidly approaching end of the Liberal Entitlement Era. It will take a few years more of shaking and quivvering from the impact into that hard stop (potentially 10-15 years sooner than what it would have been if not for that event). This is where we sit now... the pendulum motionless for a moment at it's apogee, and now... with the collapse of the US economy in the next few weeks and months, it will begin to rapidly swing the other way.

The flower children, hippies, yippies, beatniks, organizers and radical leftists who have ushered us towards what they believed a utopia will have to see all the things they had achieved be rolled back as the rest of society says "we've gone too far, let us make some reasonable corrections." I am not saying you'll watch the reversal of civil rights, or the return of slavery like some hyperventilating moron may try to say. I'm not saying that all labor protections will go away and we'll have dirty water and air overnight.

On the contrary, we will be seeing a period of time where the cost of these reforms will be evaluated and then cut back or made appropriate so individual liberty and community responsibility can live together in more or less peaceful coexistence.

With a very tall and secure fence between them.

Excellent post, Fitzy.

Let me make two suggestions.

The pendulum thing...this is what miltates against the return to ...shall we call them more 'rational' times.

1. Envy. Far too many folks judge what they have not in terms of what they have, but in terms of what they see someone else have. And this envy has become more than individual, it has become systemic. It can be seen in the ascendency of the Democrat Party and the progressive income tax....increases even when it can be shown that high marginal rates bring in less revenue. I'm sure you've see the writing of Alexander Tytler.

a. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

2. Sadly, in society, as in economics, Gresham's Law applies.

a. Gresham's law is an economic principle "which states that when government compulsorily overvalues one money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation."[1] It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good", ...
Gresham's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. So it is with values, as well.

You raise some very interesting points. I'm not quite sure I agree 100% with your points, but you do give good reason why it's so damn hard to get rid of the problem.

Maybe Gresham's law is more of a 'reinforcing agent' to bad behavior. The reason I say this is that mankind has suffered worse behavior being entrenched for long periods of time as well, but good behavior always returns for a season. I do believe that it is because the children and grand children who are subjected to the worst of this behavior rebel against it. I guess an example would be addiction in the family. After suffering a lifetime of ills at it's hands, the child either will succumb or rebel against it, and become a crusader against that type of behavior. The crusader is often much more long lived and vocal about the ills they suffered through than those who just continue perpetrating it.

Our children (we Gen Xers, as well as grandchildren are going to suffer because of the excesses of their grand and great grandparents. Many of our generation is perpetuating the same behavior, but a growing number is pissed off at what they see as the wrong in the world. It's one trait that all youth has: the demand for ideological purity. Many will rebel against the values of their parents and do something that is different and irritating to their elders. Since so many have followed the moral morass of the boomers in our generation, but some had started rebelling against it, our children and grand children will continue rebelling against it. As the costs of the failures of that moral culture become more and more apparent, the transfer to a new moral civic status will increase.

1. Breitbart, it seems, agrees with you...
“I’m at war with the mainstream media because they portray themselves as objective observers of reality when they’re no such thing- they’re partisan “critical theory” hacks who think they can destroy everything America stands for by standing on the sidelines and sniping at patriotic Americans with all their favorite slurs. They have nothing but contempt for the American people. They use all the weapons they have at their disposal to intimidate every one of us and force us to shut up and not speak our minds. Their days of doing that are over. They are dying because they hate much of America and what it has historically stood for.”
Breitbart, “Righteous Indignation,” p. 58.

As the above fits with much of what we see on the USMB...perhaps there is a reaction brewing...

2. I'll believe it if and when the election of 2012 produces a Reagan-like landslide in opposition to the current President.

 

[Bern80]

1 in 7?

So about 15% of the US population needs help to buy food.

Why does that surprise us?

The lower quintile of American families have been losing ground economically since the 1970s.

Few of you complaining about FOOD STAMPS complained about that trend in our economy.


Now 3/4s of that segement of the popilation are so poor they're eligible for food assistance.

Reap what you sow, American.

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where every American is entitled to have things be affordable without actually having to do anything yourself.

You probably missed the fact that the majority of American families getting food stamps are also WORKING Families, too, didn't you?

Why don't you just admit it, Bern?

You hate the working poor and hope they die.

Really. Bern, grow set and declare what you and I both know is in your heart

What is in my heart is a loathing for people that have a warped perception about the outcomes certain actions should yield. You, for example, seem to be under the misguided perception that simply A job, any job, is supposed to be able to support a family. Well no, it isn't ed. If you believe flipping burgers at mcdonalds or working in a customer service call center, like I do, is going to be enough or should be enought to support a family, you're a fucking moron. Certain skills yield a certain income in the labor market. If what you're doing now isn't enough to support the lifestyle you want or have, YOU need to do something different. Society is under no obligation to bend for you just because you don't want to change or take the extra effort to achieve the lifestyle you want.

Whether you admit it to yourself or not you have a disagreement with employers over their purpose in hiring people. You are working under the premise that your employer's purpose in hiring you is to support you and your lifestyle. NEWSFLASH: Your employer probably doesn't agree with you on that one. His purpose in hiring you is to help him produce something. He pays you based on what the market says the skills you are providing him are worth. What you need to live on is irrelevant to him as it should be. You and a hell of a lot of other people need to stop looking at this problem as 'they' not paying you enough, when the problem really is YOU not DOING enough.

 

[editec]

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where every American is entitled to have things be affordable without actually having to do anything yourself.

You probably missed the fact that the majority of American families getting food stamps are also WORKING Families, too, didn't you?

Why don't you just admit it, Bern?

You hate the working poor and hope they die.

Really. Bern, grow set and declare what you and I both know is in your heart

What is in my heart is a loathing for people that have a warped perception about the outcomes certain actions should yield. You, for example, seem to be under the misguided perception that simply A job, any job, is supposed to be able to support a family. Well no, it isn't ed. If you believe flipping burgers at mcdonalds or working in a customer service call center, like I do, is going to be enough or should be enought to support a family, you're a fucking moron. Certain skills yield a certain income in the labor market. If what you're doing now isn't enough to support the lifestyle you want or have, YOU need to do something different. Society is under no obligation to bend for you just because you don't want to change or take the extra effort to achieve the lifestyle you want.

Whether you admit it to yourself or not you have a disagreement with employers over their purpose in hiring people. You are working under the premise that your employer's purpose in hiring you is to support you and your lifestyle. NEWSFLASH: Your employer probably doesn't agree with you on that one. His purpose in hiring you is to help him produce something. He pays you based on what the market says the skills you are providing him are worth. What you need to live on is irrelevant to him as it should be. You and a hell of a lot of other people need to stop looking at this problem as 'they' not paying you enough, when the problem really is YOU not DOING enough.

I don't know how old you are Bern but I can remember when the working class needed one income to support a family.

I can remember when a clerk working in department store could support him or herself and didn't have to accept food stamps to feed their families

Americans work longer hours for less purchasing power than ever in my lifetime.

The boomer generation is the most educated generation in history. Additionally they work on average more hours than the WWII generation did.

Yet they are, in relative terms, poorer than their fathter's generation.

With the noteable excpetion of the top tier of the scoio economic class, of course.

They are hands down wealthier than ever.

This trend is now going on over 40 years and it NOT sustainable much longer.

This nation's bandade solutionhas been social welfare programs.

You and I both understand that those solutions won't work in the long run.

But continuing the same policies that created that problem is no solution, either.

 

[Bern80]

You probably missed the fact that the majority of American families getting food stamps are also WORKING Families, too, didn't you?

Why don't you just admit it, Bern?

You hate the working poor and hope they die.

Really. Bern, grow set and declare what you and I both know is in your heart

What is in my heart is a loathing for people that have a warped perception about the outcomes certain actions should yield. You, for example, seem to be under the misguided perception that simply A job, any job, is supposed to be able to support a family. Well no, it isn't ed. If you believe flipping burgers at mcdonalds or working in a customer service call center, like I do, is going to be enough or should be enought to support a family, you're a fucking moron. Certain skills yield a certain income in the labor market. If what you're doing now isn't enough to support the lifestyle you want or have, YOU need to do something different. Society is under no obligation to bend for you just because you don't want to change or take the extra effort to achieve the lifestyle you want.

Whether you admit it to yourself or not you have a disagreement with employers over their purpose in hiring people. You are working under the premise that your employer's purpose in hiring you is to support you and your lifestyle. NEWSFLASH: Your employer probably doesn't agree with you on that one. His purpose in hiring you is to help him produce something. He pays you based on what the market says the skills you are providing him are worth. What you need to live on is irrelevant to him as it should be. You and a hell of a lot of other people need to stop looking at this problem as 'they' not paying you enough, when the problem really is YOU not DOING enough.

I don't know how old you are Bern but I can remember when the working class needed one income to support a family.

I can remember when a clerk working in department store could support him or herself and didn't have to accept food stamps to feed their families

Americans work longer hours for less purchasing power than ever in my lifetime.

The boomer generation is the most educated generation in history. Additionally they work on average more hours than the WWII generation did.

Yet they are, in relative terms, poorer than their fathter's generation.

With the noteable excpetion of the top tier of the scoio economic class, of course.

They are hands down wealthier than ever.

This trend is now going on over 40 years and it NOT sustainable much longer.

This nation's bandade solutionhas been social welfare programs.

You and I both understand that those solutions won't work in the long run.

But continuing the same policies that created that problem is no solution, either.

There is no policy that did this to people. That's the biggest problem I have with you lefties. You simply refuse to consider that people are the source of their own problems. It's not a policy issue. It's a failure to adapt issue. You talk about these good 'ol days and the way things were. Who promised you things would/should stay that way? Who promised you the skills back in the good 'ol days that provided a certain standard of living would/should have the same value and provide the same standard of living today? That is stupid to believe ed. Yeah people could make a living off of shoeing horses at one time, too.

 

[sparky]

Any of you self made rugged Americans care to opine on this>

~S~

Equality?

A nation can either equality or prosperity ....but not both.[/






An honest answer , and i can respect an honest answer , even if the stance isn't something i like

Those of you that failed to look up the Gini Coefficent > Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

missed a huge easter egg>
File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's right, the CIA pays a lot of attention to top heavy countries

why?

well, because they have to go in on the heels of the IMF, and do the dirty work, failing that our troops get sent to mitigate the discontent (to term in mildly)

feel free, however, to continue disregarding information your own government considers valid, if not crucial here

That said, PC's statement brings us to what is really the fundamental divide here

Equality OR Prosperity folks.

NOT both

Let's investigate what that sentiment costs then , first off let's consider the term meritocracy>
Meritocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations.

Although meritocracy as a term is a relatively recent invention, the concept originates from the works Plato and Aristotle in Greece, and independently in the works of Han Feizi and Confucius, along with other Legalist and Confucian philosophers. The first Chinese meritocracy was implemented in the 2nd century BC, by the Han Dynasty, which introduced civil service exams evaluating the "merit" of officials.[2]

Meritocracy itself is not a form of government, but rather an ideology. Meritocracy itself is frequently confused as being a type of government, rather than correctly as a methodology or factor used in or for, the appointment of individuals to government. Individuals appointed to a meritocracy are judged based upon certain merits which could range from intelligence to morality to general aptitude to specific knowledge. A criticism of this methodology is that [3] "merit" itself is a highly subjective term, potentially lacking in clarity and therefore open to misuse

obviously the ideology has extended itself to the market, to Congress, to our justice system, as well as our social gesalt if we are to place prosperity over equality right?

simply put, this means the richest, loudest, and usually most self serving rule , win, and prosper, not YOU

sound like a plan for a country's future to you?

something about what's written on a certain collosus (i'll give you this one)
Statue of Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or that pledge that ends in 'liberty of justice for all' seems to fly in the face of that......

~S~

 

[Douger]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tYAA285gY0]YouTube - Mad TV Gay Gangster Fight[/ame]