Directly? very little. yes i get the argument; 'well how would you get to work without the tax dollars I paid for. To make the leap however that, that make me dependant on you for my livlihood is, well, quite the leap. I'm not anymore dependant on you for said road than I am myself seeing as how we both contributed to them.
This rests on a faulty premise as well and while it may seem simple it is major sociological reason people are way they are. It is entirely about behavior. The faulty premise is that if they teach it, you will learn it. Now we both went to school and probably grew up with the same types of people. The troublmakers, the stoners, the kids that just plain didn't care, the pregnanat teen. Just because a skill set is taught doesn't mean it will be learned. That comes down to the inidividual.
To an extent yes a level of dependance does exist. The issue I have is that our culture has crossed the point where we viewd that as a nice side benefit to an expectaton of it. As example the society benefits from business production and growth. Large businessess provide a standard of living for large numbers of people, so yes we can say we are dependant on the many people that keep that business running. But people like bobo have crossed a line where they feel they have the right to expect that business provide them a certain standard of living, garuntee x amount of jobs, and provide x benefits, rather than then allowing the business to conduct itself as an actual business.
I have pleaded with many on this board to change their perspective on this issue from white the right or left has done to people or what the haves have done to the have nots to arrive us at the point where we are now. It is so obvious to me that this has very little to do with the policies of one party or another or the economic system we live. I believe it is largerly a result of a cultural change in atitudes and behaviors. The main reason for this is, I was taught and it turns out to be true, that broadly there are two ways to actually achieve something you aspire to attain, be or do. A) you can become dependeant, that is wait for the system to adjust to what you want and hope it gives it to you or B) be proactive and clear the obstacles yourself. Which do you think is more productive and better for the growth of the individual.
Why are there so many have nots vs. haves? It isn't about policies or what someone is doing to someone else. It's about what people do to themselves and our change in atitude. If it continues through generations as it appears to be doing we are fucked. I know how lucky I am to have the parents I had vs. the way society seems to be going. Want an example, look no further than asanine shows like My Super Sweet Sixteen.
Culturally we have moved from survivor behavior to one in which with not an awfil lot of effort you will probably get by. And there's your answer right there as to why this divide is growing and becoming lopsided. Good enough is simply good enough for an awful lot of people and they dont' even realize that subconciously it's a choice they've made. Think about it. If you took a thousand people and laid two paths in front of them. On the left is one with difficult nearly impassable terrain with many pitfalls, but at the end is a mansion luxury car, etc. On the right is nice easy stroll through a meadow at the end of which is a quaint, servicable 3 bedroom rambler home with a Buick in the driveway. The majority of the people are going right. That's how becoming wealthy is and making the choices that insulate you from times like these is. It's just plain hard and the because of this shift away from simply survival to convience most people simply pick easy.
