How do people survive on minimum wage?

[The T]

Nice ad hominem attack: because a liberal might have an iphone (as if no conservatives do), their arguments are invalid. That is a logical fallacy. Who cares if a liberal has an iphone. That means he or she can't have an opinion, according to you? It's so funny how conservatives admire the rich so much, yet in this instance, it is the opposite. If a liberal shows a sigh of wealth, it is considered a point against them. It's so ridiculous!

Actually, many conservatives do, but they are not the one screaming about wealth redistribution, are they? How can you people sit there wallowing in wealth while crying about wealth? Conservatives say straight up - I should get to keep what I earn and do with it as I see fit, whether that is giving to charity or buying myself toys from Apple.

I do admire the rich - I don't admire the greedy liberal asshole who hoards their own wealth while screaming about the "wealth disparity" and the "evil rich" people. You people don't even see how sick, twisted, and despicable your hypocrisy is. Barack Obama goes around the nation talking about Socialism, "being your brother's keeper", and making a "shared sacrifice". Yet he is a multi-multi-millionaire with an aunt who is not only in this country illegaly, but is also living off of welfare completley (housing, food, etc.). How does this sick fuck talk about each of us helping strangers, when this sick fuck has millions and won't help his own aunt! Why doesn't he take her off government to save the tax payers and pay for her way with his millions? Because he is a hypocrite liberal!

Bottom line, you know damn well I'm right, you know I nailed it, which is why you have no defense other than to say "ad hominem" and then point out that conservatives have iPhones, as if that were relevant to the glaring example I made about liberal hypocrisy, when it is conservatives that promote and support being able to keep what you earn.

Well stated.

 

[Samson]

Raising the minimum wage is a waste of money because prices of goods just rise with the rise in wages.

Companies pass on their increased employee costs to their goods, so the worker in the end just pays for their own pay raise through buying those goods.

Idiot liberals don't get this fact, they just feel it's "unfair" someone that is not smart, unlucky or is lazy should make the same wage as someone else making more.

Well, I got 3 college degrees and worked minimum wage up through undergrad college, so I don't feel sorry for someone in their 30s-50s that can't make what I make when they didn't sacrifice at an early age.

Depends on what and whose stats you look at. But I do think the stress on the Middle Class is in part due to the minimum wage and almost all of it is due to government meddling. The minimum wage is yet another mandated entitlement unrelated to any form of productivity or initiative or value to society as a whole. It perhaps is a small part of the whole, but it still adds to that entitlement mentality that is the Number One reason that no matter how many trillions of dollars we throw at all our problems, there is a core group of 'poor' and underachievers that are encouraged to stay there by the policies government imposes.

Stress on the Middle Class is due to:

1. The slow rate of growth in their investments; E.g 401(K) accounts.
2. The depreciation of their property.
3. The cost of health insurance.

The govenment that we have today is essentially the same government that we had 20 years ago. During this period, it has been under the control of both parties, and their policies.

I am convinced that unless ANOTHER party controls the government, there will be no lessening of Stress in the Middle Class through government policy.

I am further convinced that there is little chance for a third party to form.

Therefore, future individuals within the middle class will:

1. Rely less on 401 (k) investments (if you got it, spend it)
2. Not invest in property (rent, or live with relatives)
3. Spend as little as possible on health insurance, e.g. adopt low risk activities and maintain their own health and simply succumb to illnesses without medical care, e.g. euthanasia.

 

[Katzndogz]

Wages have nothing to do with your "needs". It's what you contribute. If you want to make more money become worth more money.

 

[Foxfyre]

Raising the minimum wage is a waste of money because prices of goods just rise with the rise in wages.

Companies pass on their increased employee costs to their goods, so the worker in the end just pays for their own pay raise through buying those goods.

Idiot liberals don't get this fact, they just feel it's "unfair" someone that is not smart, unlucky or is lazy should make the same wage as someone else making more.

Well, I got 3 college degrees and worked minimum wage up through undergrad college, so I don't feel sorry for someone in their 30s-50s that can't make what I make when they didn't sacrifice at an early age.

Depends on what and whose stats you look at. But I do think the stress on the Middle Class is in part due to the minimum wage and almost all of it is due to government meddling. The minimum wage is yet another mandated entitlement unrelated to any form of productivity or initiative or value to society as a whole. It perhaps is a small part of the whole, but it still adds to that entitlement mentality that is the Number One reason that no matter how many trillions of dollars we throw at all our problems, there is a core group of 'poor' and underachievers that are encouraged to stay there by the policies government imposes.

Stress on the Middle Class is due to:

1. The slow rate of growth in their investments; E.g 401(K) accounts.
2. The depreciation of their property.
3. The cost of health insurance.

The govenment that we have today is essentially the same government that we had 20 years ago. During this period, it has been under the control of both parties, and their policies.

I am convinced that unless ANOTHER party controls the government, there will be no lessening of Stress in the Middle Class through government policy.

I am further convinced that there is little chance for a third party to form.

Therefore, future individuals within the middle class will:

1. Rely less on 401 (k) investments (if you got it, spend it)
2. Not invest in property (rent, or live with relatives)
3. Spend as little as possible on health insurance, e.g. adopt low risk activities and maintain their own health and simply succumb to illnesses without medical care, e.g. euthanasia.

A lack luster market due to government policy (meddling).
A depressed real estate market due to government policy (meddling).
Terribly inflated healthcare costs due largely to government policy (meddling.)

Repeat: the stresses on the American middle class are due largely to government policy (meddling) into things that should have been left to the free market system. And that includes the minimum wage.

 

[The T]

Depends on what and whose stats you look at. But I do think the stress on the Middle Class is in part due to the minimum wage and almost all of it is due to government meddling. The minimum wage is yet another mandated entitlement unrelated to any form of productivity or initiative or value to society as a whole. It perhaps is a small part of the whole, but it still adds to that entitlement mentality that is the Number One reason that no matter how many trillions of dollars we throw at all our problems, there is a core group of 'poor' and underachievers that are encouraged to stay there by the policies government imposes.

Stress on the Middle Class is due to:

1. The slow rate of growth in their investments; E.g 401(K) accounts.
2. The depreciation of their property.
3. The cost of health insurance.

The govenment that we have today is essentially the same government that we had 20 years ago. During this period, it has been under the control of both parties, and their policies.

I am convinced that unless ANOTHER party controls the government, there will be no lessening of Stress in the Middle Class through government policy.

I am further convinced that there is little chance for a third party to form.

Therefore, future individuals within the middle class will:

1. Rely less on 401 (k) investments (if you got it, spend it)
2. Not invest in property (rent, or live with relatives)
3. Spend as little as possible on health insurance, e.g. adopt low risk activities and maintain their own health and simply succumb to illnesses without medical care, e.g. euthanasia.

A lack luster market due to government policy (meddling).
A depressed real estate market due to government policy (meddling).
Terribly inflated healthcare costs due largely to government policy (meddling.)

Repeat: the stresses on the American middle class are due largely to government policy (meddling) into things that should have been left to the free market system. And that includes the minimum wage.

Precisely! Meddling in this case is choosing winners and losers, and NOT allowing the natural course of Liberty and individual choice rule the day.

 

[Samson]

Depends on what and whose stats you look at. But I do think the stress on the Middle Class is in part due to the minimum wage and almost all of it is due to government meddling. The minimum wage is yet another mandated entitlement unrelated to any form of productivity or initiative or value to society as a whole. It perhaps is a small part of the whole, but it still adds to that entitlement mentality that is the Number One reason that no matter how many trillions of dollars we throw at all our problems, there is a core group of 'poor' and underachievers that are encouraged to stay there by the policies government imposes.

Stress on the Middle Class is due to:

1. The slow rate of growth in their investments; E.g 401(K) accounts.
2. The depreciation of their property.
3. The cost of health insurance.

The govenment that we have today is essentially the same government that we had 20 years ago. During this period, it has been under the control of both parties, and their policies.

I am convinced that unless ANOTHER party controls the government, there will be no lessening of Stress in the Middle Class through government policy.

I am further convinced that there is little chance for a third party to form.

Therefore, future individuals within the middle class will:

1. Rely less on 401 (k) investments (if you got it, spend it)
2. Not invest in property (rent, or live with relatives)
3. Spend as little as possible on health insurance, e.g. adopt low risk activities and maintain their own health and simply succumb to illnesses without medical care, e.g. euthanasia.

A lack luster market due to government policy (meddling).
A depressed real estate market due to government policy (meddling).
Terribly inflated healthcare costs due largely to government policy (meddling.)

Repeat: the stresses on the American middle class are due largely to government policy (meddling) into things that should have been left to the free market system. And that includes the minimum wage.

Yes.

Government meddling has bee going on for the past 20 years.

It will continue for the next 20.

Individuals within the middle class will need to adapt their behaviours: I have listed some of their alternatives.

Or, of course, they could continue to believe that government will stop meddling.

 

[Foxfyre]

Stress on the Middle Class is due to:

1. The slow rate of growth in their investments; E.g 401(K) accounts.
2. The depreciation of their property.
3. The cost of health insurance.

The govenment that we have today is essentially the same government that we had 20 years ago. During this period, it has been under the control of both parties, and their policies.

I am convinced that unless ANOTHER party controls the government, there will be no lessening of Stress in the Middle Class through government policy.

I am further convinced that there is little chance for a third party to form.

Therefore, future individuals within the middle class will:

1. Rely less on 401 (k) investments (if you got it, spend it)
2. Not invest in property (rent, or live with relatives)
3. Spend as little as possible on health insurance, e.g. adopt low risk activities and maintain their own health and simply succumb to illnesses without medical care, e.g. euthanasia.

A lack luster market due to government policy (meddling).
A depressed real estate market due to government policy (meddling).
Terribly inflated healthcare costs due largely to government policy (meddling.)

Repeat: the stresses on the American middle class are due largely to government policy (meddling) into things that should have been left to the free market system. And that includes the minimum wage.

Yes.

Government meddling has bee going on for the past 20 years.

It will continue for the next 20.

Individuals within the middle class will need to adapt their behaviours: I have listed some of their alternatives.

Or, of course, they could continue to believe that government will stop meddling.

Or perhaps it is time for that revolution that Thomas Jefferson knew would be necessary sooner or later. Hopefully a bloodless one, but one of a population that is sick to death of government meddling and rises up to protest it, stop it, replace it with representatives who represent us rather than exist only to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

That is what the Tea Party movement and similar groups are all about. If it catches on with enough people we won't be forced to dig in and smply endure an overreaching government but will change it instead.

 

[Samson]

Or perhaps it is time for that revolution that Thomas Jefferson knew would be necessary sooner or later. Hopefully a bloodless one, but one of a population that is sick to death of government meddling and rises up to protest it, stop it, replace it with representatives who represent us rather than exist only to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

That is what the Tea Party movement and similar groups are all about. If it catches on with enough people we won't be forced to dig in and smply endure an overreaching government but will change it instead.

Possible, but unlikely, IMHO.

But perhaps you have an example: When has government control anywhere, at anytime in human history, ever been reduced (without being completely destroyed)?

 

[The T]

Or perhaps it is time for that revolution that Thomas Jefferson knew would be necessary sooner or later. Hopefully a bloodless one, but one of a population that is sick to death of government meddling and rises up to protest it, stop it, replace it with representatives who represent us rather than exist only to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

That is what the Tea Party movement and similar groups are all about. If it catches on with enough people we won't be forced to dig in and smply endure an overreaching government but will change it instead.

Possible, but unlikely, IMHO.

But perhaps you have an example: When has government control anywhere, at anytime in human history, ever been reduced (without being completely destroyed)?

21st Amendment.

I can think of a couple others that could be repealed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Or perhaps it is time for that revolution that Thomas Jefferson knew would be necessary sooner or later. Hopefully a bloodless one, but one of a population that is sick to death of government meddling and rises up to protest it, stop it, replace it with representatives who represent us rather than exist only to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

That is what the Tea Party movement and similar groups are all about. If it catches on with enough people we won't be forced to dig in and smply endure an overreaching government but will change it instead.

Possible, but unlikely, IMHO.

But perhaps you have an example: When has government control anywhere, at anytime in human history, ever been reduced (without being completely destroyed)?

It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to demand an end to slavery.
It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to give women the vote.
It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to end prohibition.

And not one of those things destroyed the government.

I personally believe that if enough people are willing to let go of the government teat and be weaned off the nanny state, our initiative can restore government to its constitutionally intended purposes. Once we wrest control of society from the government and return it to the people who the Founders intended to have it, I think we won't have a problem with the market or fragile housing bubbles or unaffordable healthcare. And the minimum wage can return to what it was always intended to be--a measure to prevent slave labor but offer those entering the work force a stipend while they developed a work ethic, acquired marketable skills, and earned references that would allow them to support themselves and a family.

 

[Samson]

Or perhaps it is time for that revolution that Thomas Jefferson knew would be necessary sooner or later. Hopefully a bloodless one, but one of a population that is sick to death of government meddling and rises up to protest it, stop it, replace it with representatives who represent us rather than exist only to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

That is what the Tea Party movement and similar groups are all about. If it catches on with enough people we won't be forced to dig in and smply endure an overreaching government but will change it instead.

Possible, but unlikely, IMHO.

But perhaps you have an example: When has government control anywhere, at anytime in human history, ever been reduced (without being completely destroyed)?

It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to demand an end to slavery.
It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to give women the vote.
It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to end prohibition.

And not one of those things destroyed the government.

I personally believe that if enough people are willing to let go of the government teat and be weaned off the nanny state, our initiative can restore government to its constitutionally intended purposes. Once we wrest control of society from the government and return it to the people who the Founders intended to have it, I think we won't have a problem with the market or fragile housing bubbles or unaffordable healthcare. And the minimum wage can return to what it was always intended to be--a measure to prevent slave labor but offer those entering the work force a stipend while they developed a work ethic, acquired marketable skills, and earned references that would allow them to support themselves and a family.

How is ending slavery an example of reduced government?

Ditto: Allowing Women to vote? How did this reduce government?

Ditto: Prohibition? If anything, ending prohibition encouraged the growth of government agencies, e.g. ATF.

 

[Foxfyre]

Possible, but unlikely, IMHO.

But perhaps you have an example: When has government control anywhere, at anytime in human history, ever been reduced (without being completely destroyed)?

It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to demand an end to slavery.
It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to give women the vote.
It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to end prohibition.

And not one of those things destroyed the government.

I personally believe that if enough people are willing to let go of the government teat and be weaned off the nanny state, our initiative can restore government to its constitutionally intended purposes. Once we wrest control of society from the government and return it to the people who the Founders intended to have it, I think we won't have a problem with the market or fragile housing bubbles or unaffordable healthcare. And the minimum wage can return to what it was always intended to be--a measure to prevent slave labor but offer those entering the work force a stipend while they developed a work ethic, acquired marketable skills, and earned references that would allow them to support themselves and a family.

How is ending slavery an example of reduced government?

Ditto: Allowing Women to vote? How did this reduce government?

Ditto: Prohibition? If anything, ending prohibition encouraged the growth of government agencies, e.g. ATF.

You didn't ask for reduction of government. You asked for reduction of government control. There is a difference between those two things. Slavery, who was eligible to vote, and prohibition were all things given to the federal government to control.

However, having said that. I also believe that if we have the will, the people can also force government to begin rewinding and backing down and reducing its size on all but its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. And it may take repealing an amendment or two or voting in a new one or two to accomplish that.

 

[Samson]

It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to demand an end to slavery.
It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to give women the vote.
It was the people, not the government, that took the initiative to end prohibition.

And not one of those things destroyed the government.

I personally believe that if enough people are willing to let go of the government teat and be weaned off the nanny state, our initiative can restore government to its constitutionally intended purposes. Once we wrest control of society from the government and return it to the people who the Founders intended to have it, I think we won't have a problem with the market or fragile housing bubbles or unaffordable healthcare. And the minimum wage can return to what it was always intended to be--a measure to prevent slave labor but offer those entering the work force a stipend while they developed a work ethic, acquired marketable skills, and earned references that would allow them to support themselves and a family.

How is ending slavery an example of reduced government?

Ditto: Allowing Women to vote? How did this reduce government?

Ditto: Prohibition? If anything, ending prohibition encouraged the growth of government agencies, e.g. ATF.

You didn't ask for reduction of government. You asked for reduction of government control. There is a difference between those two things. Slavery, who was eligible to vote, and prohibition were all things given to the federal government to control.

However, having said that. I also believe that if we have the will, the people can also force government to begin rewinding and backing down and reducing its size on all but its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. And it may take repealing an amendment or two or voting in a new one or two to accomplish that.

So, you're saying that by ending slavery, the government reduced its control? Over what?

If anything, ending slavery enhanced government control over millions of individuals whose lives were previously controlled by individual masters.

Ending prohibition is an example of government reducing its control over what? Again, the result was INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL, e.g. ATF, alcohol licenses, taxes, etc.

Finally, how did allowing women to vote decrease government control over anything? Did the price of tea in china have something to do with it?

Do you have a single, clear example of government EVER doing ANYTHING to reduce the control they have?

 

[Foxfyre]

How is ending slavery an example of reduced government?

Ditto: Allowing Women to vote? How did this reduce government?

Ditto: Prohibition? If anything, ending prohibition encouraged the growth of government agencies, e.g. ATF.

You didn't ask for reduction of government. You asked for reduction of government control. There is a difference between those two things. Slavery, who was eligible to vote, and prohibition were all things given to the federal government to control.

However, having said that. I also believe that if we have the will, the people can also force government to begin rewinding and backing down and reducing its size on all but its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. And it may take repealing an amendment or two or voting in a new one or two to accomplish that.

So, you're saying that by ending slavery, the government reduced its control? Over what?

If anything, ending slavery enhanced government control over millions of individuals whose lives were previously controlled by individual masters.

Ending prohibition is an example of government reducing its control over what? Again, the result was INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL, e.g. ATF, alcohol licenses, taxes, etc.

Finally, how did allowing women to vote decrease government control over anything? Did the price of tea in china have something to do with it?

Do you have a single, clear example of government EVER doing ANYTHING to reduce the control they have?

Sigh. Yes, by ending slavery the government reduced the ability of any part of government to enforce the ownership of any person by another person. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control over anybody. At least at that time.

Women's suffrage ended the power of the government to forbid women the vote. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control related to women.

Ending prohibition was the federal government giving up any say over who would and would not be allowed to drink. It did not replace that power with anything else at that time.

The fact that government continues to seize control and continues to be ever more reaching and ever more authoritarian in more and more of our lives does not negate that the will of the people prevailed in those three examples. And that should give us inspiration to assert our will more often and more forcibly to rein in a rogue, out-of-control government that definitely needs its wings and a lot of other parts clipped.

 

[The T]

You didn't ask for reduction of government. You asked for reduction of government control. There is a difference between those two things. Slavery, who was eligible to vote, and prohibition were all things given to the federal government to control.

However, having said that. I also believe that if we have the will, the people can also force government to begin rewinding and backing down and reducing its size on all but its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. And it may take repealing an amendment or two or voting in a new one or two to accomplish that.

So, you're saying that by ending slavery, the government reduced its control? Over what?

If anything, ending slavery enhanced government control over millions of individuals whose lives were previously controlled by individual masters.

Ending prohibition is an example of government reducing its control over what? Again, the result was INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL, e.g. ATF, alcohol licenses, taxes, etc.

Finally, how did allowing women to vote decrease government control over anything? Did the price of tea in china have something to do with it?

Do you have a single, clear example of government EVER doing ANYTHING to reduce the control they have?

Sigh. Yes, by ending slavery the government reduced the ability of any part of government to enforce the ownership of any person by another person. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control over anybody. At least at that time.

Women's suffrage ended the power of the government to forbid women the vote. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control related to women.

Ending prohibition was the federal government giving up any say over who would and would not be allowed to drink. It did not replace that power with anything else at that time.

The fact that government continues to seize control and continues to be ever more reaching and ever more authoritarian in more and more of our lives does not negate that the will of the people prevailed in those three examples. And that should give us inspiration to assert our will more often and more forcibly to rein in a rogue, out-of-control government that definitely needs its wings and a lot of other parts clipped.

*Welcome to the NEW SLAVERY*ALL of us are in debt to our eyeballs.. .even those YET to be born.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, you're saying that by ending slavery, the government reduced its control? Over what?

If anything, ending slavery enhanced government control over millions of individuals whose lives were previously controlled by individual masters.

Ending prohibition is an example of government reducing its control over what? Again, the result was INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL, e.g. ATF, alcohol licenses, taxes, etc.

Finally, how did allowing women to vote decrease government control over anything? Did the price of tea in china have something to do with it?

Do you have a single, clear example of government EVER doing ANYTHING to reduce the control they have?

Sigh. Yes, by ending slavery the government reduced the ability of any part of government to enforce the ownership of any person by another person. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control over anybody. At least at that time.

Women's suffrage ended the power of the government to forbid women the vote. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control related to women.

Ending prohibition was the federal government giving up any say over who would and would not be allowed to drink. It did not replace that power with anything else at that time.

The fact that government continues to seize control and continues to be ever more reaching and ever more authoritarian in more and more of our lives does not negate that the will of the people prevailed in those three examples. And that should give us inspiration to assert our will more often and more forcibly to rein in a rogue, out-of-control government that definitely needs its wings and a lot of other parts clipped.

*Welcome to the NEW SLAVERY*ALL of us are in debt to our eyeballs.. .even those YET to be born.

Yup, and its being accomplished by dangling that teat in front of people who, in hard times, find the temptation too much to resist. Little do they know how quickly addicting it becomes and how difficult it is to summon the courage to give up something you like once you have it.

We now have 50% of the American population addicted to some form of government subsidy, some a little, some a lot. And because of the addiction to the government nanny state, I suspect this is the last generation with a chance to start reversing that. But it requires the will to do so.

 

[dblack]

Sigh. Yes, by ending slavery the government reduced the ability of any part of government to enforce the ownership of any person by another person. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control over anybody. At least at that time.

Women's suffrage ended the power of the government to forbid women the vote. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control related to women.

Ending prohibition was the federal government giving up any say over who would and would not be allowed to drink. It did not replace that power with anything else at that time.

The fact that government continues to seize control and continues to be ever more reaching and ever more authoritarian in more and more of our lives does not negate that the will of the people prevailed in those three examples. And that should give us inspiration to assert our will more often and more forcibly to rein in a rogue, out-of-control government that definitely needs its wings and a lot of other parts clipped.

*Welcome to the NEW SLAVERY*ALL of us are in debt to our eyeballs.. .even those YET to be born.

Yup, and its being accomplished by dangling that teat in front of people who, in hard times, find the temptation too much to resist. Little do they know how quickly addicting it becomes and how difficult it is to summon the courage to give up something you like once you have it.

We now have 50% of the American population addicted to some form of government subsidy, some a little, some a lot. And because of the addiction to the government nanny state, I suspect this is the last generation with a chance to start reversing that. But it requires the will to do so.

I suspect the analogy to slavery is considerably more than metaphor. The old-money interests in this country have been looking for a replacement for slavery since the civil war, and in controlling our money, keeping us in debt - and now controlling something as fundamental to our lives has health care - they are closing in on that goal.

How long before the move to control our diets as well?

 

[The T]

Sigh. Yes, by ending slavery the government reduced the ability of any part of government to enforce the ownership of any person by another person. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control over anybody. At least at that time.

Women's suffrage ended the power of the government to forbid women the vote. It did not replace that control with a different kind of control related to women.

Ending prohibition was the federal government giving up any say over who would and would not be allowed to drink. It did not replace that power with anything else at that time.

The fact that government continues to seize control and continues to be ever more reaching and ever more authoritarian in more and more of our lives does not negate that the will of the people prevailed in those three examples. And that should give us inspiration to assert our will more often and more forcibly to rein in a rogue, out-of-control government that definitely needs its wings and a lot of other parts clipped.

*Welcome to the NEW SLAVERY*ALL of us are in debt to our eyeballs.. .even those YET to be born.

Yup, and its being accomplished by dangling that teat in front of people who, in hard times, find the temptation too much to resist. Little do they know how quickly addicting it becomes and how difficult it is to summon the courage to give up something you like once you have it.

We now have 50% of the American population addicted to some form of government subsidy, some a little, some a lot. And because of the addiction to the government nanny state, I suspect this is the last generation with a chance to start reversing that. But it requires the will to do so.

The will of rugged individualism NOT taught so much any longer.

Agreed.

 

[The T]

*Welcome to the NEW SLAVERY*ALL of us are in debt to our eyeballs.. .even those YET to be born.

Yup, and its being accomplished by dangling that teat in front of people who, in hard times, find the temptation too much to resist. Little do they know how quickly addicting it becomes and how difficult it is to summon the courage to give up something you like once you have it.

We now have 50% of the American population addicted to some form of government subsidy, some a little, some a lot. And because of the addiction to the government nanny state, I suspect this is the last generation with a chance to start reversing that. But it requires the will to do so.

I suspect the analogy to slavery is considerably more than metaphor. The old-money interests in this country have been looking for a replacement for slavery since the civil war, and in controlling our money, keeping us in debt - and now controlling something as fundamental to our lives has health care - they are closing in on that goal.

How long before the move to control our diets as well?

Your suspicion is correct. Government buying votes by making slaves of the people with taxpayer's money.

 

[Foxfyre]

*Welcome to the NEW SLAVERY*ALL of us are in debt to our eyeballs.. .even those YET to be born.

Yup, and its being accomplished by dangling that teat in front of people who, in hard times, find the temptation too much to resist. Little do they know how quickly addicting it becomes and how difficult it is to summon the courage to give up something you like once you have it.

We now have 50% of the American population addicted to some form of government subsidy, some a little, some a lot. And because of the addiction to the government nanny state, I suspect this is the last generation with a chance to start reversing that. But it requires the will to do so.

I suspect the analogy to slavery is considerably more than metaphor. The old-money interests in this country have been looking for a replacement for slavery since the civil war, and in controlling our money, keeping us in debt - and now controlling something as fundamental to our lives has health care - they are closing in on that goal.

How long before the move to control our diets as well?

Well that's a given isn't it? A government who presumes to control our healthcare choices and what access we will have to healthcare is the same government we already see on local scales presuming us dictate what size soft drink we can buy or forbidding parents to pack a sack lunch for their kid so the state can control what the kid will eat to forbidding use of legal products on our own private property to banning a plastic toy in a Happy Meal and so on and so forth.

It is only a matter of time that a government that seizes control of the largest industry in the USA will start exploring other things to seize until it has it all.