Is being poor something to be proud of?

the constitution is simply a document that outlined the limitations on the government. Given all governments' natural tendancies to expand, it will never become useless.

 

Wonder how good and simple their lives will be if either of them gets a bad injury. Or if their house gets destroyed by a fire. Or if the sister loses her job and cant find another one.

e: also your brother-in-law sounds like an arrogant "super serious" asshat that no one wants to be around because he is an arrogant asshat. There is no point at which you become so intelligent you cannot interact socially with people in a positive way.

 

Here's another one that surely has never read the Constitution. If you ever do, you will see a highly detailed blueprint for the Government, with descriptions of what each major Branch consists of, and, what it is empowered to do specifically, with everything else (as in "EVERYTHING ELSE") left to the individual States of the United States. I know that you on the Left, much like your President Wonderful, have no respect or regard for the Constitution, but exercise your dissicated minds and see if there isn't anything in this wonderful document that appeals to you: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html/ .

If you still think it's just some ass-wipe piece of paper, fine! Start an initiative to re-write the entire thing! Start an initiative to abolish the United States of America and create a new nation, and call it something like "The Supreme Socialist Soviet States of America" or whatever you would-be "founding fathers" think it should be called in these tortured, miserable 21st Century days. But, before you "lose yourself in the part", remember that the percentage of Americans who declare themselves to be "liberal" is almost exactly 21%, a number that has scarcely changed since 2006. Now, if North Korea and Cuba are starting to look good to you -- please -- GO!

 

I beleive that the entire point of a society and a government is to benefit everyone living in it. If the constitution doesn't benefit the people then the constitution needs to be replaced. I don't understand why I should respect the constitution. Its a piece of paper originally written centuries ago. Things change, and smart people change along with it.

 

Then how did Obama win in 2008?

 

The people who wrote the constitution were a lot smarter than you think. Name me another country that has been the worlds undeniable and absolute economic and military superpower for such an extended period of time other than the USSR, which practiced 100% oppression and killed more of its own innocent people in 70 years than probably ever died in all human history. Obviously, the system of the constitution works, because it creates a government that DOES benefit society, but refuses to allow it to benefit certain groups of society at the burden of others. In this case, taxing the rich and giving it to the poor.

The constitution and founding fathers wanted to be clear with the fact that government does not owe anybody anything and is not meant to work for you. All the government has to do is to provide safety and opportunity. It is up to the individual to then decide, strive, work, and achieve to be successful.

You FAIL to understand that for government to work for people, then somebody has to pay, that being the rich and successful which defeats the point of being successful. Nothing works for free...but why do you care anybody, its not your money.

 

Well, theres the British Empire and the Roman empire. Also, we have only been a world power for around seventy years. A blink in the eye of history. Infact, the only way world powers as we know it can exist is because the great advances in transportation and communication technology we enjoy today. So its impossible to find a WORLD power dating further back than around the time of the British empire. Lets not forget that China is becomind a world power. We shall not share the throne for long.

The problem is your argument is based on the assumption that a large portion of people are innately lazy and this somehow invalidates them and their children's right to life. Your argument is also based on the assumption that the free market is moving towards a direction that promotes opportunity and social mobility. Both of those are wrong. Humans brains are very similar. There is nothing stopping someone not mentally ill from being as productive as anyone else. If someone's lazyness is because of upbringing, then better education and therapy is required. Also, if a person with children starves, those children also starve. The children don't have a say in being borne. Capitalism before now has only worked because of labor shortages. With outsourcing, immigration, and women entering the labor force the labor shortage was solved. A higher supply of workers mean workers are less valuable. Which means they get treated like (*)(*)(*)(*) by companies. Besides, it is in the best interests of the companies to have a large, starving, working class that is easy to exploit for cheap labor.

 

Americans voted for Obama out of exhaustion and disgust with the Idiot Bush administration's Vietnam-like handling of the war in Iraq, and, the decaying economy. People were mad as hell at a government that continued to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at winless wars while it looked passively at rescues for investment bankers and stock markets. And 53% of American voters were gulled into thinking that some hyperlib freshman senator from the ghettos of Chicago would miraculousy change all that....

Four years later, we still have a force of over 20,000 "attached" to the gigantic American Embassy fortress we built for ourselves in Baghdad, with covert operations going on every day. Four years later, we are up to our earlobes in Afghanistan, with commitments to the criminal Karzai regime until the year 2024 ( https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/02-6 ). Four years later, Gitmo remains open and the hyperlib media never, ever mention it at all. Four years later, the Federal Reserve is "printing" one batch of stimulus "rescue" for banks and the stock markets after another -- just like before Obama was elected. President Golfball never had an economic plan other than to just let Ben "Bailout" Bernanke and two-time tax cheater (and Obama's pick for Treasury Sec.), Tim Geithner, run the economy -- with a little help from big biz Obama butt-kissers like Jeffrey Immelt. Immelt, who runs GE, is Obama's "job czar", and GE has sent many thousands of American jobs into foreign countries. Four years later, we've still got unemployment in the US over 8% in spite of President Wonderful's promise to "stimulate" the economy, while the only thing he "stimulated" was the National Debt, which has increased 51% since President Golfball took over. HA!

Anyway, that's how Obama got elected in 2008. The only ghost of a chance that he and that other idiot, Biden, have of getting re-elected is that all the slugs on welfare get off their numb asses and remember to vote for him in November. Why would anyone else in his right mind WANT to...?

 

As anyone who has ever read the New Testament knows, the likelihood of anyone NOT poor getting into Heaven is minimal. I look forward (imaginatively alas) to looking down on the burning republican weirdoes as they curse God and don't die.

 

Well, you have to look at the alternatives I guess, and Romney isn't exactly up there with the giants of politics. I'd have to ask why you'd want to vote for him as a credible alternative.

 

I know that, but there are hundreds of countries so your shortened history doesn't work. Out of hundreds of countries a few are able to stand out.

Its not assumption, its fact. You'd have to be stupid to WANT to work if everything you need/want is being provided for you. I'm not assuming anything, its statistics. People on welfare overwhelmingly vote democrat so they get more benefits, if they actually wanted a job they would vote Republican for more job opportunities and less tax.

Labor laws and unions exist for this purpose. They keep conditions and exploitation at a minimum. Outsourcing occurs at the fault of Americans, not companies. Americans are too expensive, they want to work less, make more and get a bunch of benefits where as workers in Asia work harder and earn less. You cannot possibly blame the companies. They do what they need to make more profit and get share prices up.

 

I know that, but there are hundreds of countries so your shortened history doesn't work. Out of hundreds of countries a few are able to stand out.

Its not assumption, its fact. You'd have to be stupid to WANT to work if everything you need/want is being provided for you. I'm not assuming anything, its statistics. People on welfare overwhelmingly vote democrat so they get more benefits, if they actually wanted a job they would vote Republican for more job opportunities and less tax.

This is the very reason why I NEVER EVER blame people receiving government benefits for economic or political issues, because the problem are the people in government allowing the theft to occur. If something is provided, you will take it, agree or not, because it benefits you at the time, thats human nature.

Labor laws and unions exist for this purpose. They keep conditions and exploitation at a minimum. Outsourcing occurs at the fault of Americans, not companies. Americans are too expensive, they want to work less, make more and get a bunch of benefits where as workers in Asia work harder and earn less. You cannot possibly blame the companies. They do what they need to make more profit and get share prices up.

 

Pain tends to create rationalizations. When people don't get the life that they originally wanted, they begin rationalizing reasons why they didn't want it anyway and why everybody who has that life must be bad and wrong. This spares them from having to take an honest look in the mirror, identifying their faults, and committing to fix them. Most people simply will not do this. Because it is easier to point the finger at someone else than it is to humble yourself.

In the end, we all get the lives we want whether we realize it or not. If someone holds up poverty as a virtue, then they have chosen that life for themselves. Because they have decided that moving out of that rut is somehow wrong. And so they will spend their entire lives needlessly rationalizing why they need to stay where they are. It's very sad. But it's how the human mind works.

 

Poor people are in that position for bad decisions they've made.

With the exception of a debilitating disease or horrific accident, every single case can be attributed to this. Sure children are born into poverty but America provides enough opportunity for everyone to break out of it if they are motivated and work hard.

They are there because they choose to be so deserve no help.

 

I don't know if you've seen this, but I thought I'd share it anyway. It's kind of long, but it does an excellent job of explaining the mindset you're talking about. The basic crux is that leftism believes that because no system that man has created to date has ever been perfect, then the cause of all suffering must stem from the idea of being right. Because if no one ever thought they were right, then what would we fight about? So in order to destroy the idea of right and wrong, leftism consistently aims to elevate wrong while suppressing right and elevate failure while suppressing success in an attempt to make them the same. Thus, if everything is the same, then success can only be a product of exploitation and failure can only be a product of victimization just by their very existence.

It's a very twisted thought process. But quite fascinating to understand.

[video=youtube;ODXgGS50AVY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXgGS50AVY[/video]

 

The problem is that to a Progressive, anything less than a wage that purchases a single family home with 2 car garage and all the toys and technology of the middle class is slavery. To a progressive, a middle class standard of living is a human right and anyone who doesn't achieve it must be lifted there at the expense over everyone who has achieved it alone, regardless of the struggles those people had to endure to achieve it.

 

Has anyone heard of the middle class trap? According to progressive liberals, this is the standard for socialism, where everyone has a human right to belong. That is the basis for socialism, everyone in the same class, and its the middle class for Americans. The poor should get generous social welfare until they get to this level.

The middle income trap is a situation where a country which attains a certain income (due to given advantages) will get stuck at that level. As wages rise manufacturers often find themselves unable to compete in export markets with lower-cost producers elsewhere; yet they still find themselves behind the advanced economies in higher-value products. This is the middle-income trap which saw, for example, South Africa and Brazil languish for decades in what the World Bank call the “middle income” range (about $1,000 to $12,000 gross national income per person measured in 2010 money).[1]

 

Cool story. We don't buy it, no matter how many times you bastards repeat it.

 

You don't have to buy it. Becuase one way or another, we'll shove it down your god (*)(*)(*)(*) throat commie.

 

Take a look at the figures and explain how voting Republican created more jobs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Unemployment

 

I've tried to find a more ignorant and uninformed post than this, but so far have failed. Congratulations.

 

And life goes on. Even if you got us all to believe your ideology it's still self destructive. You produce your own gravediggers - more of us will pop up.

 

There are rich people who got to their position through hard work, some through trust funds. There are some poor who are lazy, and some who are incapable of caring for themselves. As I explained in another thread, there was a kid in my neighborhood whose heart stopped 12 times as a baby. He has all sorts of coordination and focus related problems that made many people think he had a palsy. He is a janitor and, yes, is poor. Had he been born in Romney's family he would be a rich guy with coordination and focus related problems.

Do the poor have something to be proud of? It depends on the "why" of being poor. I have a friend, Catholic, who follows the Church's doctrines on birth control and has 5 kids. She also wants to be a mom to her kids (and daycare is hugely expensive) so she is a stay at home mom. Her husband works an office job, but he only makes $80k a year. A seven person family is "poor" on $80k a year.

Do they have a lot to be proud of? I think so. They didn't pawn their children off on others to be raised, they didn't shove them in institutional daycare, they are a loving, decent family. They budget, but sometimes must rely on the church if their minivan breaks...

I think their kids will grow up better adjusted than the Upper East Side kids who were raised by nannys their whole lives.

Being a family with values is something to be proud of.

 

People went to America to escape Christianity and get rich at the expense of Native Americans and Black People. According to their Book they will all go to Hell unless they are very athletic camels. What have any of them to be proud of except an incredible hypocricy?