What Is Wrong With America ?

[protectionist]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

shit-for-brains poor folks blaming rich folks on their problems seems to be a major problem...

Nah! It's just the rich politicians who those rich folks hire to keep their taxes low, and their scam businesses intact.

 

[protectionist]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

mebbe you should get off your lazy ass, quitchur bitchin', and get training for something that employers are looking for...

eta: myself, I might hire you as a diamond-in-the-rough raw electrician's trainee at $10-$12/hour... with higher wages and full benefits to follow...

but your attitude leaves a lot to be desired...

Are you blind ? Getting off a lazy ass has nothing to do with it. The post you quoted says it all >> "a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc" AND >> "employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years" AND "long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense"

As for me, I'm retired. At long last (after 50 years in the workforce) And you shut your mouth about my attitude. You're not smart enough to know what my attitude is, you dumbass. You're also OFF TOPIC!!

 

[protectionist]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

mebbe you should get off your lazy ass, quitchur bitchin', and get training for something that employers are looking for...

eta: myself, I might hire you as a diamond-in-the-rough raw electrician's trainee at $10-$12/hour... with higher wages and full benefits to follow...

but your attitude leaves a lot to be desired...

I doubt he could remember where the white and black wires go.

You're not smart enough to "doubt"

 

[protectionist]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

What's wrong with America...?

too many folks like you who ***** and moan about what's wrong with America...

FALSE! What's wrong with America is too many folks like YOU who ***** and moan about folks like me, who are exercising the civic responsibility of trying to correct what's wrong, and improve the country, while glunks like you sit around picking your nose all day.

 

[protectionist]

No poutine.

No ketchup chips.

No A&W Teenburgers.

No Big Rock Traditional Ale.

Not enough hockey.

Too much rap non-music.

Too much dog crap.

Too few animal shelters.

Not enough classic rock.

Not enough Bluegrass.

Too many uncaring landlords.

 

[protectionist]

Dr. Strangelove's british brother: "The problem with Americans is that there just too bloody many of them. Nuke half the country, and all with be right."

Wow. Now it's Pakistan, Iran, and the UK we have to worry about.

 

[protectionist]

Liberals

And Reaganists whose anti-tax, low spending policies wind up giving us all the things liberals support (ex. millions of illegal aliens)

 

[protectionist]

shit-for-brains poor folks blaming rich folks on their problems seems to be a major problem...

Like I said near the beginning of this thread. Blaming others for our problems is a huge problem in the country. It happens on both sides:

It's the fault of the rich!
It's the fault of the poor!
It's the fault of blacks!
It's the fault of whites!
It's the fault of gays!
It's the fault of homophobes!
It's the NRA's fault!
It's the fault of the gun grabbers!
It's Bush's fault!
It's Obama's fault!

Yes, we can look around and point fingers at other people. And you know what, maybe some of the problem is someone elses fault. but pointing the finger at them and blamming them will not solve the problem. The solutions to our nations problems will come when we look inside ourselves and fix ourselves.

Well said. But that takes some statesmen in DC who are willing to drop the party BS and do the work of the nation.

Who in DC today qualifies as a statesman? Where are the new versions of Reagan and O'Neill who could find an easy solution over a couple of drinks?

Practically every Republican nowadays is a new version of Reagan - UNFORTUNATELY.

 

[protectionist]

It was a simpler time, ti was actually possible to walk to a foreign country, do your shopping, and walk back, all without getting hassled about having the proper papers.

When I was younger, you could take the trolly from San Diego to San Yisidro, walk across the border, take a Taxi to TJ and return later, walk across the border with no papers.

Last time I went to Mexico, Mexican border guards stopped me on the way IN - that had never happened in the past.

Mexico is much tougher on border crossing then the US is.

 

[protectionist]

I'm paying my legislator to keep those loopholes open!

And as a protector of the American people, I'm doing all I can to close them, and see that guys like you don't succeed in screwing up the country, for your own personal GREED.

Thank you for your service for being a "protector."

That must be a very difficult job.

You're welcome.

 

[protectionist]

And as a protector of the American people, I'm doing all I can to close them, and see that guys like you don't succeed in screwing up the country, for your own personal GREED.

So, for one to be a "protector of America," one needs to live in moms basement, smoke dope, and post on the internet?

Nope. Sorry. You won't make it that way.

 

[protectionist]

FALSE! The only taxpayers Obama has talked about raising taxes on is the very rich,

Who make $250K a year.

What you OWS morons don't grasp, is that is middle class.

Obama doesn't target the rich - he's owned by George Soros after all. Obama is at war to destroy the middle, particularly the usurpers of the upper-middle class, who threaten the exclusivity of the rich with their upward mobility.

Most people would consider $250,000/year to be wealthy. Most people in America make only 1/5 that much or less. Nah. $250,000/year is NOT middle class. It may not be near the super rich, but it's in the lower rich category.

 

[protectionist]

So just because he only talks about taxing the rich, we should ignore him taxing everyone else? are you seriously this naive? how have you survived this long?

19 years under his mothers roof - it isn't that hard.

Advice should only be given by the successful. Not when you've lived 19 years under your mother's roof (after you turned 30) Now clean up that basement.

 

[protectionist]

What gives you the idea that I can't discern that difference? And why are you talking to me about paying people to not work ? Did I ever say I liked that idea ? Fact is, I hate it, and it's one of the reasons why I'm so adamant against illegal immigration (have you been reading this thread ?)

As for paying people based on need, I don't see that as an issue of conservative vs liberal, as long as the needy people getting the $$ really need it, can't help themselves, and are AMERICANS. If you have a gripe with that, then just wait until YOU become one of them someday, and then you can talk. See Post # 890 (first paragraph).

As for me lying about being a conservative, HA HA. That's a good one. The liberals in this forum whom I've been fighting tooth and nail in my other OPS, must be gagging right about now, having heard you say that. LOL.

Clearly, you can't make up your mind. First you say you are against welfare based on need (FYI: based on need is not based on work), then you say you are for welfare based on need if they really need it. Uhm... hello! Anyone in there? Adding the adjective "really" for emphasis does not change the fact that you are caving in to welfare based on need, in translation, you are paying people to not work if they really need it.

The definition of "really needing help in this country" is you don't have a job. So quit your job and we'll pay you to stay out of work. As far as extra bonus checks such as for disability, most of the people on disability are scamming the system. Note: I don't count people who are collecting insurance for injuries encountered on the job the same as people who are collecting disability from our government for social and behavioral problems they are not insured for. I don't care how much people need help, our government should not be used as a charity organization. Leave charity to charities. Charity should be voluntary not done at the point of a gun through government re-distributions.

You have habit of making accusations without showing a quote to back it up. If, as you say, I said I was against welfare based on need, where (what Post) did I say that ? I don't recall it. Note: when you say "welfare based on need" (and leave it at that), you're talking about welfare based on need for EVERYONE. I don't think I ever said that.

Yes, Paying people if they really need it (which means they COULDN'T find a way to work when they tried to) Get it ? In the future, I will do my own thinking, not have you do it.

As for you not caring how much people need help (that's what you said), will you not care how much YOU need help, if you get into a car accident and become paralyzed from the neck down, and can't support yourself ? If you need personal & medical care 24/7, you'll just rely on voluntary charities ? (IF any are available, which they may not be)

Note: Lots of things could happen. You could get shot. You could fall and break your neck. You could come down with multiple sclerosis or Lou Gehrig's disease. One never knows about the future. My guess is if anything like this were to happen to you, when your savings run out, you'll be applying for Social Security Disability in a heartbeat.

 

[protectionist]

No, I'm explaining why the demagoguery you employ is logically false and ethically corrupt. You seek to attack people who played by the rules because corrupt bureaucrats forced a system, over their objections on them.

The only "rip off" was by Franklin Roosevelt and the corrupt democrats who forced this Ponzi Scheme on the nation. Every retiree collecting Social Security earned every dime they get.

sigh, its not "demagoguery", it not logically false, its not ethically corrupt. I'm not attacking these people I'm pointing out to you, who are so SO against welfare, that Social Security and medicare is really a type of welfare.

And it IS illogical, especially in the same paragraph, to say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and then turn around and say every retiree earned every dime they get.

Social Security and Medicare are UNconstitutional socialist scams

And what will you call them when you need them someday ? When you get very old, lose your mind, and your "friends" and relatives steal all your money.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, I'm explaining why the demagoguery you employ is logically false and ethically corrupt. You seek to attack people who played by the rules because corrupt bureaucrats forced a system, over their objections on them.

The only "rip off" was by Franklin Roosevelt and the corrupt democrats who forced this Ponzi Scheme on the nation. Every retiree collecting Social Security earned every dime they get.

sigh, its not "demagoguery", it not logically false, its not ethically corrupt. I'm not attacking these people I'm pointing out to you, who are so SO against welfare, that Social Security and medicare is really a type of welfare.

And it IS illogical, especially in the same paragraph, to say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and then turn around and say every retiree earned every dime they get.

Social Security and Medicare are UNconstitutional socialist scams.

But guess what , Americans have been forced to "contribute" to the schemes. Are they wrong for trying to somehow retrieve their money??????

.

Bullshit.

 

[dcraelin]

good article on how the feds quantitiative easing is only helping the rich

The Federal Reserve Inflates Another Bubble, But Not for You » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[RKMBrown]

What gives you the idea that I can't discern that difference? And why are you talking to me about paying people to not work ? Did I ever say I liked that idea ? Fact is, I hate it, and it's one of the reasons why I'm so adamant against illegal immigration (have you been reading this thread ?)

As for paying people based on need, I don't see that as an issue of conservative vs liberal, as long as the needy people getting the $$ really need it, can't help themselves, and are AMERICANS. If you have a gripe with that, then just wait until YOU become one of them someday, and then you can talk. See Post # 890 (first paragraph).

As for me lying about being a conservative, HA HA. That's a good one. The liberals in this forum whom I've been fighting tooth and nail in my other OPS, must be gagging right about now, having heard you say that. LOL.

Clearly, you can't make up your mind. First you say you are against welfare based on need (FYI: based on need is not based on work), then you say you are for welfare based on need if they really need it. Uhm... hello! Anyone in there? Adding the adjective "really" for emphasis does not change the fact that you are caving in to welfare based on need, in translation, you are paying people to not work if they really need it.

The definition of "really needing help in this country" is you don't have a job. So quit your job and we'll pay you to stay out of work. As far as extra bonus checks such as for disability, most of the people on disability are scamming the system. Note: I don't count people who are collecting insurance for injuries encountered on the job the same as people who are collecting disability from our government for social and behavioral problems they are not insured for. I don't care how much people need help, our government should not be used as a charity organization. Leave charity to charities. Charity should be voluntary not done at the point of a gun through government re-distributions.

You have habit of making accusations without showing a quote to back it up. If, as you say, I said I was against welfare based on need, where (what Post) did I say that ? I don't recall it. Note: when you say "welfare based on need" (and leave it at that), you're talking about welfare based on need for EVERYONE. I don't think I ever said that.

I highlighted it in bold. You said you hate paying people to not work. It is in bold.

Your accusation that paraplegic people can't work therefore should go on the public dime is just plain stupid.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We should encourage more science, infrastructure, r@D and education instead of welfare. Oh you want the poor to be fucked.

 

[dblack]

We should encourage more science, infrastructure, r@D and education instead of welfare. Oh you want the poor to be fucked.

We should spend our money, as individuals, on the things we value. If you like science, infrastructure, R&D and education, you should definitely spend your money on those things. The problem is that we try to use government to force investment in the things we value on others who might not agree. Government shouldn't have the power to override our personal economic decisions.