Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[DiamondDave]

That "power" is granted by the Constitution.



That's the mission statement.

These are those powers:



And just to clearly define things as it pertains to taxes...



It's in English..and in black and white.

Wrong...

Firstly.. the preamble does not grant power.. it is an invocation, and introduction....

Secondly... there is no listing of power to create a social pact to have the government act as a provider of a good or service, especially at the hands of others... the powers STRICTLY laid out are quite limited in scope.. taxation or the raising of money to run government and government empowered charges is strictly stated, the government acting as a charity is not

You should learn a little reading comprehension...

And before you start citing 'case law', I will ask you to show in the constitution where case law is allowed to grant power that is not strictly laid out currently... the amendment process can be invoked to change the powers of government, the courts cannot do any such thing

Marbury vs Madison

Show where case law is able to grant power?? And please show where in Article 3 where the SC could grant any such power??

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong...

Firstly.. the preamble does not grant power.. it is an invocation, and introduction....

Secondly... there is no listing of power to create a social pact to have the government act as a provider of a good or service, especially at the hands of others... the powers STRICTLY laid out are quite limited in scope.. taxation or the raising of money to run government and government empowered charges is strictly stated, the government acting as a charity is not

You should learn a little reading comprehension...

And before you start citing 'case law', I will ask you to show in the constitution where case law is allowed to grant power that is not strictly laid out currently... the amendment process can be invoked to change the powers of government, the courts cannot do any such thing

Marbury vs Madison

Show where case law is able to grant power?? And please show where in Article 3 where the SC could grant any such power??

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Marbury vs Madison and 200 years of case law following it

If you don't like it you are welcome to challenge to get it overturned. That is the system our Constitution set up

 

[rightwinger]

I think there are known pathways to success. If you stay in school, then get a job, and wait until you are married to have children, and don't quit your job at the drop of a hat, you have a pretty good chance of making it in life.

Since the formula for success is known to everyone, I think if a person decides to not follow that formula, they do not deserve any help if they fail. They do not have a right to a damn thing.

I believe the same for any business. I think if a business takes a big risk, they do not deserve any help if their risk causes them to fail. They should go out of business and start over.

I think an implicit guarantee by the government that it will rescue you if you decide to not follow the established pathways to success incentivizes people to not work as hard to succeed and it incentivizes businesses to take giant risks they would never otherwise take.

You will learn the right way how to walk a tightrope if there is no net under you. You will start with the tightrope closer to the ground. You will start out with reasonable expecations and with an understanding of your personal limitations. You will take your own precautions when you cannot rely on anyone else to provide them for you. And you will become a better tightrope walker as a result.

How many of us know a teenager or slacker who thinks he should be given a loan to start a business when he has never worked a day in his life? A bank knows better than to loan such people any money, because it is the bank's money. But it seems our government encourages reckless behavior because it is someone else's money they are putting at risk. Our money.

You are not entitled to a house. You are entitled to the pathway to earn a house.

You are not entitled to food. You are entitled to the pathway to earn food.

The government's job is to keep the pathways open.

I have become very concerned of late that the government is committing a far greater wrong than providing "free stuff". I have become concerned the government is choking off the pathway to success.

Are there people who have fallen through no fault of their own? Certainly. I created and ran a local charity in my area to help such people.

What is the percentage of "needy" people who are in their situation through no fault of their own? I don't think anyone has any idea.

But I do have a very strong feeling that the percentage has been rising for some time. I think the system has been legislatively rigged to give some people an unfair leg up, at the expense of others.

.The government's job is to keep the pathways open.

Best post in quite a while

 

[Foxfyre]

I think there are known pathways to success. If you stay in school, then get a job, and wait until you are married to have children, and don't quit your job at the drop of a hat, you have a pretty good chance of making it in life.

Since the formula for success is known to everyone, I think if a person decides to not follow that formula, they do not deserve any help if they fail. They do not have a right to a damn thing.

I believe the same for any business. I think if a business takes a big risk, they do not deserve any help if their risk causes them to fail. They should go out of business and start over.

I think an implicit guarantee by the government that it will rescue you if you decide to not follow the established pathways to success incentivizes people to not work as hard to succeed and it incentivizes businesses to take giant risks they would never otherwise take.

You will learn the right way how to walk a tightrope if there is no net under you. You will start with the tightrope closer to the ground. You will start out with reasonable expecations and with an understanding of your personal limitations. You will take your own precautions when you cannot rely on anyone else to provide them for you. And you will become a better tightrope walker as a result.

How many of us know a teenager or slacker who thinks he should be given a loan to start a business when he has never worked a day in his life? A bank knows better than to loan such people any money, because it is the bank's money. But it seems our government encourages reckless behavior because it is someone else's money they are putting at risk. Our money.

You are not entitled to a house. You are entitled to the pathway to earn a house.

You are not entitled to food. You are entitled to the pathway to earn food.

The government's job is to keep the pathways open.

I have become very concerned of late that the government is committing a far greater wrong than providing "free stuff". I have become concerned the government is choking off the pathway to success.

Are there people who have fallen through no fault of their own? Certainly. I created and ran a local charity in my area to help such people.

What is the percentage of "needy" people who are in their situation through no fault of their own? I don't think anyone has any idea.

But I do have a very strong feeling that the percentage has been rising for some time. I think the system has been legislatively rigged to give some people an unfair leg up, at the expense of others.

.The government's job is to keep the pathways open.

Best post in quite a while

i.e. secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means that the government can put rules and regulations in place to ensure that nobody, not an individual, not a corporation, and not the government can block your options, opportunities, and choices or violate any other unalienable rights. It does not, follow, however, that government will provide you with options, opportunities, or choices. The government with power to provide has equal power to take away. And when government has such power, nobody is free or safe.

Yes some of us will have a leg up or a head start because our parents worked hard to provide us with every possible advantage. It is not our fault that our parents did that and nobody should be punished for it. And it goes without saying that some will make good advantage of their more blessed state and some won't. Those who do will no doubt continue the tradition with their own children. Those who don't will join the bitter, angry, the-world-owes-me group.

Those of us who had parents who didn't give a damn or didn't care about us enough to instill positive and helpful values and disciplines will have a tougher go of it because we have to start from scratch. So it may require more effort on our part, but in the world the Founder's envisioned, nothing is stopping us other than our own ambition, common sense, and willingness to get it done. Some won't and those will join the angry, resentful, the-world-owes-me group. Some will do what it takes to get ahead and those who do are far less likely to pass on bad traits to their own children.

It is not the government's job to make those choices for us.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think there are known pathways to success. If you stay in school, then get a job, and wait until you are married to have children, and don't quit your job at the drop of a hat, you have a pretty good chance of making it in life.

Since the formula for success is known to everyone, I think if a person decides to not follow that formula, they do not deserve any help if they fail. They do not have a right to a damn thing.

I believe the same for any business. I think if a business takes a big risk, they do not deserve any help if their risk causes them to fail. They should go out of business and start over.

I think an implicit guarantee by the government that it will rescue you if you decide to not follow the established pathways to success incentivizes people to not work as hard to succeed and it incentivizes businesses to take giant risks they would never otherwise take.

You will learn the right way how to walk a tightrope if there is no net under you. You will start with the tightrope closer to the ground. You will start out with reasonable expecations and with an understanding of your personal limitations. You will take your own precautions when you cannot rely on anyone else to provide them for you. And you will become a better tightrope walker as a result.

How many of us know a teenager or slacker who thinks he should be given a loan to start a business when he has never worked a day in his life? A bank knows better than to loan such people any money, because it is the bank's money. But it seems our government encourages reckless behavior because it is someone else's money they are putting at risk. Our money.

You are not entitled to a house. You are entitled to the pathway to earn a house.

You are not entitled to food. You are entitled to the pathway to earn food.

The government's job is to keep the pathways open.

I have become very concerned of late that the government is committing a far greater wrong than providing "free stuff". I have become concerned the government is choking off the pathway to success.

Are there people who have fallen through no fault of their own? Certainly. I created and ran a local charity in my area to help such people.

What is the percentage of "needy" people who are in their situation through no fault of their own? I don't think anyone has any idea.

But I do have a very strong feeling that the percentage has been rising for some time. I think the system has been legislatively rigged to give some people an unfair leg up, at the expense of others.

.The government's job is to keep the pathways open.

Best post in quite a while

And to create or enhance as many pathways as possible. Which neither party is doing a good enough job at IMHO.

There's a difference between those who can't and those who won't. Most Americans are okay with supporting those who can't, might be some question about how you define "can't". There is also some question about what form that support takes, and at what level of gov't. As for those who could but won't, I don't think the rest of us owe 'em a damn thing.

 

[JDzBrain]

...and THE MAJORITY of people support a safety net for our poorest citizens.

NO...they DON'T! For the most disadvantaged, least capable...whatever else label you care to stick on someone, but being POOR is NOT a qualification to a safety net. THAT is the language of CLASS WARFARE and EXACTLY what this poll was about!

 

[DiamondDave]

Actually, they were Liberals

Classical liberals yes, i.e. libertarian in its purest form. They were not the social liberals of modern times that neither recognize nor respect anybody's unalienable rights. The Founders did not believe anybody was entitled to anybody else's stuff.

The founders had an 18th century view of social programs....think pre Oliver Twist.

A newly established nation based on agriculture barely had the economy to support itself, let alone social programs. Modern industrialized nations have seen the horrors of not having a social safety net. That is why we look out for our less fortunate

No.. that is why you and those like you try to FORCE others to "look out" for the less fortunate, lazy, unwilling, etc..

YOU looking out for someone implies it is YOU doing it VOLUNTARILY... not you using the force of assumed governmental power to do your 'charity' work for you by taking from others

 

[rightwinger]

Classical liberals yes, i.e. libertarian in its purest form. They were not the social liberals of modern times that neither recognize nor respect anybody's unalienable rights. The Founders did not believe anybody was entitled to anybody else's stuff.

The founders had an 18th century view of social programs....think pre Oliver Twist.

A newly established nation based on agriculture barely had the economy to support itself, let alone social programs. Modern industrialized nations have seen the horrors of not having a social safety net. That is why we look out for our less fortunate

No.. that is why you and those like you try to FORCE others to "look out" for the less fortunate, lazy, unwilling, etc..

YOU looking out for someone implies it is YOU doing it VOLUNTARILY... not you using the force of assumed governmental power to do your 'charity' work for you by taking from others

No more than they use FORCE to make you pay for roads, schools, police or the War in Iraq

 

[Nosmo King]

Can it be safely assumed then that those who do not mind poverty, ignorance, hunger and fear among the citizens of the richest and most powerful nation on earth are Conservatives?

Can that make you proud of America?

 

[DiamondDave]

Marbury vs Madison

Show where case law is able to grant power?? And please show where in Article 3 where the SC could grant any such power??

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Marbury vs Madison and 200 years of case law following it

If you don't like it you are welcome to challenge to get it overturned. That is the system our Constitution set up

Again.. because a power hungry branch took it upon itself to grant itself power that was not laid out in the constitution does not make it correct

Again... simply point out those powers afforded to the judicial branch in the constitution.. you know.. that little document that empowers the government.. should be simple.. JUST FUCKING POINT IT OUT.. YOU said the constitution set it up, now put up or shut up

 

[Foxfyre]

...and THE MAJORITY of people support a safety net for our poorest citizens.

NO...they DON'T! For the most disadvantaged, least capable...whatever else label you care to stick on someone, but being POOR is NOT a qualification to a safety net. THAT is the language of CLASS WARFARE and EXACTLY what this poll was about!

Actually I'll gently argue with you on this one. I don't think anybody wants anybody to be deprived of shelter, food, potable water, clothing, necessary medical attention, etc. etc. etc. In fact I think those of us most opposed to people demanding that others provide them with these things are actually the most generous out of their own pockets to provide it.

Again I'll refer to that Forbes article that I posted earlier today. I'm guessing that nobody in the 'free stuff' group bothered to read it and can't be challenged to read it. But it describes what America was like before there was a 'free stuff' culture in America.

The question remains is do I have a right to demand that you provide me with these things if, for whatever reason, I do not provide them for myself? Am I part of that new cultural group who feels they are entitled to have society provide that safety net and remove all risk and any danger of want from their lives? And in the process they shove issues of national prosperity, deficits, debt, personal responsibility, personal accountablity into the back seat and instead vote for and support whoever will promise to keep the 'free stuff' coming. And they most often will accuse and demonize and blame any who oppose them in that. Those in the free stuff group don't think of it coming out of the pocket of somebody else. They see it as the government's money and it belongs to everybody. Especially them.

So the question is not whether those truly in need should be helped. I think we are all in agreement that they should get help. The issue is on how that help is accomplished. Through big central government? Through state government? Through the local communities? Through private charities? Or directly out of our own pockets?

 

[rightwinger]

Show where case law is able to grant power?? And please show where in Article 3 where the SC could grant any such power??

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Marbury vs Madison and 200 years of case law following it

If you don't like it you are welcome to challenge to get it overturned. That is the system our Constitution set up

Again.. because a power hungry branch took it upon itself to grant itself power that was not laid out in the constitution does not make it correct

Again... simply point out those powers afforded to the judicial branch in the constitution.. you know.. that little document that empowers the government.. should be simple.. JUST FUCKING POINT IT OUT.. YOU said the constitution set it up, now put up or shut up

I'm sorry...but where in the Constitution does it say that Political Message Board posters get to decide the scope of the Constitution?

It was decided a LONG time ago that our courts would have that role and it has worked out very well.

If you think it violates our Constitution, you, as a citizen have a right to challenge it in a court of law. Challenging on a message board does not carry much weight

 

[g5000]

America Before The Entitlement State - Forbes

I don't buy unsupported Libertarian tripe such as that opinion piece.

America of the 19th century was rife with poverty, child labor, roving bands of street urchins and orphans, and repeated financial depressions and panics throwing millions out of work and into the streets time and time again. It was not the comman man's paradise these two would have you believe.

 

[rightwinger]

America Before The Entitlement State - Forbes

I don't buy unsupported Libertarian tripe such as that opinion piece.

America of the 19th century was rife with poverty, child labor, roving bands of street urchins and orphans, and repeated financial depressions and panics throwing millions out of work and into the streets time and time again. It was not the comman man's paradise these two would have you believe.

America before people started getting "free stuff"

Notice how people are suffering like poor people are supposed to

 

[Foxfyre]

America Before The Entitlement State - Forbes

I don't buy unsupported Libertarian tripe such as that opinion piece.

America of the 19th century was rife with poverty, child labor, roving bands of street urchins and orphans, and repeated financial depressions and panics throwing millions out of work and into the streets time and time again. It was not the comman man's paradise these two would have you believe.

Perhaps you can show some reliable evidence that the writer is wrong?

You see, I am old enough to remember life in pre-entitlement America and I remember it just as he describes it.

 

[g5000]

America Before The Entitlement State - Forbes

I don't buy unsupported Libertarian tripe such as that opinion piece.

America of the 19th century was rife with poverty, child labor, roving bands of street urchins and orphans, and repeated financial depressions and panics throwing millions out of work and into the streets time and time again. It was not the comman man's paradise these two would have you believe.

Perhaps you can show some reliable evidence that the writer is wrong?

You see, I am old enough to remember life in pre-entitlement America and I remember it just as he describes it.

The writers (there are two people's names on that piece) showed no evidence whatsoever to support their claims.

And your personal anecdote is worthless as evidence.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't buy unsupported Libertarian tripe such as that opinion piece.

America of the 19th century was rife with poverty, child labor, roving bands of street urchins and orphans, and repeated financial depressions and panics throwing millions out of work and into the streets time and time again. It was not the comman man's paradise these two would have you believe.

Perhaps you can show some reliable evidence that the writer is wrong?

You see, I am old enough to remember life in pre-entitlement America and I remember it just as he describes it.

The writers (there are two people's names on that piece) showed no evidence whatsoever to support their claims.

And your personal anecdote is worthless as evidence.

Well in the realm of worthless opinions then, it is two against one isn't it?

 

[g5000]

Historical Statistics and Analysis

Percent of population below poverty level in 1900: 40.

Percent of population below poverty level in 1937: 40-45.

Percent of population below poverty level in 1950: 30.2

Percent of population below poverty level in 1960: 22.2

Percent of population below poverty level in 1970: 12.6

Percent of population below poverty level in 1980: 13

Percent of population below poverty level in 1990: 13.5

 

[GuyPinestra]

America Before The Entitlement State - Forbes

I don't buy unsupported Libertarian tripe such as that opinion piece.

America of the 19th century was rife with poverty, child labor, roving bands of street urchins and orphans, and repeated financial depressions and panics throwing millions out of work and into the streets time and time again. It was not the comman man's paradise these two would have you believe.

America before people started getting "free stuff"

Notice how people are suffering like poor people are supposed to

Who says they are suffering, other than you? Google 'sod house' and look how people lived on the Plains, happy to have a place of their own and the OPPORTUNITY to better themselves. They didn't consider that suffering.

There was a time in my life that I lived in a tent and worked day labor to feed myself, but I wasn't 'suffering'. I was doing what I had to do to survive the vicissitudes of life, and working for the GOAL of self-improvement. I certainly wasn't running to the government to give me money, food stamps and a Section 8 voucher.

I think the problem with a lot of you libs these days is you have NO IDEA what REAL suffering is, and the ideas of hard work and self-sacrifice are simply foreign to you. It's sad, really....

 

[g5000]

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor

National statistics on child labor are first available in 1880. They show that the labor force participation rate of children aged 10 to 19 was considerably higher among black males (65.5 percent) and females (43.7 percent) than among white males (43.1 percent) and females (13.1 percent). Likewise, the rate among foreign-born children exceeded that of their counterparts born in the U.S. – by about 9 percentage points among males and 16 percentage points among females. These differences may be largely attributable to the higher earnings levels of white and native-born families. In addition, labor force participation among rural children exceeded urban rates by about 8 percentage points.