Who is responsible for YOU?

[Gunny]

My father put over 20 years in the USAF and retired when he was 39 years old from it, then for the rest of his life since he was 39 he has drawn his retirement for his 22 years in the USAF....he is now in his late 70's, almost 40 years and counting...another 20 if his health keeps.....that is 69 years of his life drawing his Millitary retirement because he gave 22 years to them....

In addition to this, he and my mother have had paid for health care their entire lives as a military benefit as well....all the 49 years so far of retirement from the USAF....

And there is NO WAY IN HEAVEN could my father had been better off in the private sector making more than he did with serving his time in the Air Force....certainly he was paid crapola when he first enlisted and alot more as Chief master sargent when he left....but he got cheap base housing during that period and all health care costs for our entire family that whole time, and pretty good schools on base for my sister and I to go to....and he got his high school and college degrees....both while serving.

Then when he got out, he went to work for the FAA for another 20 years....

A lifetime government employee, active duty and civil service....

My parents are millionaires or close, if you count their property....all their quality healthcare is paid for, there is no medicare gap for them and there never will be...

This is what a lifetime of working for our government brings....and a great deal of being frugal which no doubt, my parents pinched pennies their whole life, so that they could have this great retirement period....but the government benefits were much more than ANYTHING he could have gotten from the private sector....imo, so I disagree that most people serving would have been better off in the private sector....my father is in the same good boat as those that he served with...

Not that I wish my parents had not gotten all that they have gotten for my father's 22 years in the air force, but one does have to question paying retirement for 50 years or 60 years for those 22 years and wonder why are government did not go broke even sooner....?

care

And I disagree with you. One, for some reasons I won't post except to say there is a price for that you have absolutely NO clue what is to pay.

Second, the healthcare is not free.

Third, I would have done as well if not better in the private sector because I would have done what it took to do as well or better. That's an assumption you are not qualified to make.

i accept that, with you.... every person's case is different.

I don't accept, that most that enlist in the military and serve their 20 years would have been better off in the private sector with only their high school diploma....not in the LONG run...and this is what was being indicated, and this is what i was responding....

this certainly is coming from my perspective of what i have witnessed and seen....there is no doubt that you may have witnessed it differently than me, and i wholeheartedly accept your version as truth as well gunny....and accept that there are probably many that could have been better off if they had never enlisted....

i really have not had any experience with that....have always felt, that those that chose to enlist,(and i ain't talking officers u know...) usually had no where to go, once out of high school, and/or they loved their country....enlisting was a way out of poverty with learning a trade as well...at least for my dad, my father in law, my husband and my uncle joe and my husband's best friend mike....some became lifers, some served 4 years active duty only....but in my opinion, all of these people that i know, were better people from serving and better off as well....

care

I really did not address whether or not the military made people a "better person." Some it does, some it does not.

I had somewhere to go that paid a Hell of a lot more than E-1 in 1980. I had a full scholarship in journalism to a brand-name university. I chose to enlist instead because I thought we were going to war with Iran and I felt it was my obligation to do so.

Some of us actually enlisted for the right reasons.

 

[Gunny]

Here's an interesting thing I've just noticed...
While those of us who are leaning more towards the left keep mentioning the things that taxes can pay for, the conservatives have yet to mention exactly what they'd be giving up if they had to pay more taxes.
Is that just because it sounds terrible to say "Oh, I'd rather have a beautiful home instead of helping another person out with their medical bills,"?
Guess what? I'd LOVE to have a beautiful home. I'd love to have a hundred pairs of shoes. I'd love to wear designer clothing. I'd love to carry a Gucci bag and drive a Jaguar. But... if it meant that someone else is living in poverty... let's just say that I'm with Care.
I have to much of a concience to enjoy the fruits of my labor if I don't share my enjoyment with others.
Just admit it. Those who don't think it's right to share what they have with others are selfish.
Or do we call it fairness now days?

What you do in giving to the needy is admirable. You can stand tall in doing such. I give too.The problem I have, now our government is going to say you have to be more charitable??? I don't like the government telling me what to do in matters such as this. It's not the governments place to mandate it. Our society is the most giving society in the world as it stands right now. I wonder if it will be when our government works us over?

Well said.

 

[Gunny]

I find it amusing that so many free marketers object to government intervention in the economy so strongly, considering that the state has traditionally acted as the major stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy. Moreover, state intervention often has the effect of promoting more expansive market competition, as we can gather from the infant industries argument, for instance.

Are you trying to say something?

The state has traditionally acted as a major stbilizing agent with such things as artificial gas prices, bailing out private industries and/or putting a bandaid on the every-increasing wound each time it comes due?

Shear brilliance that. It's just as easy to argue that the government interference is the cause, not any cure.

 

[Gunny]

Another day, another misuse of the term "socialist."

Try again, junior. What tiger-whatever is talking about IS socialism.

 

[Avatar4321]

All we can do now that this recent stimulus passed is- pray that it works to bring us around the bend in a way that won't hurt us as much....as a country.

Care

I believe in the power of prayer. But God works through natural law. and natural law says this stimulus is going to fail big time.

And you know what, I think we as a people may need to learn how to fail. The proud need to be humbled or they are going to destroy themselves.

Of course, the question is can society be successfully humble and repent? Or are we at the point where when we are cast down, we start killing each other like rabid dogs?

 

[Avatar4321]

Your point being...? Because last time I checked, the government's job was to protect the people. As such, the government should be protecting its own citizens, tax base, constituents, whatever-you-wish-to-call-them, etc. from "theiving Wall Street Bankers." If it is not the government's job to protect and help the people, then what do we pay taxes for?
People are, yes, responsible for their own money, but the Government is responsible for preventing bad people do bad things so that good people can do good things. Yes or no?

We pay taxes because politicians want more power and control in our lives and they have the major weapons to do it.

Government cant prevent anything. They can only punish. The only thing Government is good at is breaking things and killing people.

 

[Wolfmoon]

Yourself, or government?

I consider myself to be a part of "We The People" and if we give our tax dollars to the government, we expect something in return. OR, why else would we give the government our money? It's not like they have done a good job, just look at our state of affairs. The government has told us they're the smartest people to run the country and they have run the country into the ground, and bankrupted us to boot.

The government told the public, give me your money and I will save it for you untill your 62 and then I will give it back to you for old age. Now, the government is saying, we want to do away with Social Security and forget about all those tax dollars you paid in, your whole life time.

Anyone depending on the government is screwed. The government can change the rules or laws overnight, and often do. So, I have always made sure I am responsible for me. I do feel Americans have to demand accountability and responsiblity from the government, ASAP. We need to put the government under a microscope and we need to stop fighting with each other.

 

[Avatar4321]

What you do in giving to the needy is admirable. You can stand tall in doing such. I give too.The problem I have, now our government is going to say you have to be more charitable??? I don't like the government telling me what to do in matters such as this. It's not the governments place to mandate it. Our society is the most giving society in the world as it stands right now. I wonder if it will be when our government works us over?

Which is exactly what they dont understand. Its not charity when its forced. And its not appreciated when its expected as an entitlement. Thats the problem with our government. It prevents true righteousness and true charity from happening.

 

[Care4all]

Your point being...? Because last time I checked, the government's job was to protect the people. As such, the government should be protecting its own citizens, tax base, constituents, whatever-you-wish-to-call-them, etc. from "theiving Wall Street Bankers." If it is not the government's job to protect and help the people, then what do we pay taxes for?
People are, yes, responsible for their own money, but the Government is responsible for preventing bad people do bad things so that good people can do good things. Yes or no?

We pay taxes because politicians want more power and control in our lives and they have the major weapons to do it.

Government cant prevent anything. They can only punish. The only thing Government is good at is breaking things and killing people.

So you don't see punishment for a crime as a deterrent? And if you do see the possibility of punishment being a deterrent...isn't a deterrent the same thing as preventive?

care

 

[Tigerlils13]

Your point being...? Because last time I checked, the government's job was to protect the people. As such, the government should be protecting its own citizens, tax base, constituents, whatever-you-wish-to-call-them, etc. from "theiving Wall Street Bankers." If it is not the government's job to protect and help the people, then what do we pay taxes for?
People are, yes, responsible for their own money, but the Government is responsible for preventing bad people do bad things so that good people can do good things. Yes or no?

We pay taxes because politicians want more power and control in our lives and they have the major weapons to do it.

Government cant prevent anything. They can only punish. The only thing Government is good at is breaking things and killing people.

So you don't see punishment for a crime as a deterrent? And if you do see the possibility of punishment being a deterrent...isn't a deterrent the same thing as preventive?

care

Care is completely right.
Please Avatar...if you wish for us to take you seriously, do come up with an argument with fewer loop holes.

 

[Tigerlils13]

To American Horse:

Your first website didn’t provide enough evidence to prove your point. The testing conditions between the two towns wasn’t provided, except that both of the boxes were set up in busy sectors. It didn’t say whether there was advertising or what not. As a girl living in a small town, I can already tell you that word gets around very quickly when bottle drives and whatnot are being sponsored. Unless they wish to be given a stigma, everyone participates in these things. In a big city, particularly the busy sector where all of these big business people are probably working, it’s not as big a deal to not participate in giving to charity.
This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
Another thing- your first website didn’t exactly discriminate between religious sects. We all know that a majority of Catholics lean towards liberalism while more fundamentalist sects are generally more Conservative. Your website didn’t discriminate.
Your website was also, quite frankly, not neutral. It’s generally recommended that if you wish to prove a point, you shouldn’t used biased material.
However, please do understand that I am not, under any circumstances, saying that your website was wrong. What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

To Meister:

The most hackneyed argument used by conservatives is that they don’t want to give up their money to the government.
You say that our society is the most giving one in the world and yet... there is so much more we can give that we don't. Can we truly be the most giving society in the world? Somehow, I would think a place like Britain or Canada more helpfull towards the people who need help.
There’s only one substantiated argument I can come up with as for why Conservatives are unwilling to give up more money in taxes, and that’s that the Government is not efficient with how they spend taxpayers money. If that’s the case (and this case can really be the only unselfish argument) then it’s our job as American citizens to make Government spend our money more effectively.
On another note, I cannot allow you to think that I've actually contributed to charity. As of yet, I do not make my own money to do so. Until that time, however, I shall continue to participate in other ways that help the needy.

I stand corrected about your giving. Aparently, you just want other people to give their money to the needy. I find it quite offensive that you mistake the generosity of our country with the socialism of Canada, and Britain. Make no mistake, that is a big leap that you made. It really does lead me to believe that you are a socialist. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Conservatives, and liberals both pay enough taxes to our government. Our government was set up to protect us from invasion, to build the infrastructure of this Great Nation, and to protect the constitution. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. This is what the foundation of our country stood for. Not all of this mandated redistribution of wealth, that was never part of the constitution.

1) I can't give to charity if I don't have a job because I don't have a car because my mother won't let me take my driving test, right? As such, until I do have a job, I'll continue to contribute in the ways that I can.However, I'll tell you right now that I am extremely discouraged to discover that you, without having ever met me, believe that I am such a hypocritical person as to not practice what I preach and firmly believe in.
2)I find it offensive that your so arrogant as to not think about countries such as Britain and Canada. And, uh, btw... Canada and Britain arn't socialist. They just have extremely liberal ideas. However, if you want to discuss France then... yeah. The French are socialist... And uh, no... I'm not a socialist, because then I'd be an idiot for not paying attention to my history teachers.
3) Note that you included "life" in your posting there. We have the right to life as American citizens. Now go and read the Internation Declaration of Human Rights, which has been signed by the United States of America, meaning that our great and moral country has signed a document agreeing to uphold the principles set forth by it. Take a really close look at Article 25 for me. Unless you're going and try to redefine what it means to have a basic human right to something, then you're going to be forced to come back and tell me that the United States, as of right now, is not following the Declaration. Of course, I'm always willing to listen to a good argument.

 

[Tigerlils13]

This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

I don't think you are wrong on that but the "utility" that I see is a simple one. People give to charity because they understand being vulnerable, and hope that should they become vulnerable, there will will be charity for them. the same applies to compassion, forgiveness, generous offers of help, a welcoming smile.

But regardless of what you make of the two "communities" the people most likely to give at Sioux Falls made somewhat less than $35,000, which fits my thought above, and even though they are not at all "rich" they are more likely to be conservative than liberals. They don't resent people with wealth, because to some degree they hold out a hope that at some point in their lives they will be among those who are wealthy.

The operative rule that applies here, is one of the first those who attend church take to heart: The golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", while many follow the crude mantra "Do unto others before they can do it to you". Which of those two communities would you think had the greater number of "good Samaritans"? Being a good Samaritan requires one to be less stingy with their time, be more generous, and to willingly attend to the needs of others.

Tsk tsk. If you're going to use religion, then use it correctly. What you're going for is "love your neighbor as you love yourself," which is an attatchment to the Greatest Commandment.
This means doing whatever (even if it means forking over your money to the government) to help the poor.
So uh... why is it that Conservatives don't seem to understand this and yet they're the Party that seems to tote around the most bible beaters?
Trust me... I'm terribly confused on this point.
Also, it's in my own experience, that the poor, which includes such notoriously Democratic voters as African Americans and Hispanics, vote liberal... if they vote at all. That does seem to be a problem isn't it?

 

[Meister]

To American Horse:

Your first website didn’t provide enough evidence to prove your point. The testing conditions between the two towns wasn’t provided, except that both of the boxes were set up in busy sectors. It didn’t say whether there was advertising or what not. As a girl living in a small town, I can already tell you that word gets around very quickly when bottle drives and whatnot are being sponsored. Unless they wish to be given a stigma, everyone participates in these things. In a big city, particularly the busy sector where all of these big business people are probably working, it’s not as big a deal to not participate in giving to charity.
This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
Another thing- your first website didn’t exactly discriminate between religious sects. We all know that a majority of Catholics lean towards liberalism while more fundamentalist sects are generally more Conservative. Your website didn’t discriminate.
Your website was also, quite frankly, not neutral. It’s generally recommended that if you wish to prove a point, you shouldn’t used biased material.
However, please do understand that I am not, under any circumstances, saying that your website was wrong. What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

To Meister:

The most hackneyed argument used by conservatives is that they don’t want to give up their money to the government.
You say that our society is the most giving one in the world and yet... there is so much more we can give that we don't. Can we truly be the most giving society in the world? Somehow, I would think a place like Britain or Canada more helpfull towards the people who need help.
There’s only one substantiated argument I can come up with as for why Conservatives are unwilling to give up more money in taxes, and that’s that the Government is not efficient with how they spend taxpayers money. If that’s the case (and this case can really be the only unselfish argument) then it’s our job as American citizens to make Government spend our money more effectively.
On another note, I cannot allow you to think that I've actually contributed to charity. As of yet, I do not make my own money to do so. Until that time, however, I shall continue to participate in other ways that help the needy.

I stand corrected about your giving. Aparently, you just want other people to give their money to the needy. I find it quite offensive that you mistake the generosity of our country with the socialism of Canada, and Britain. Make no mistake, that is a big leap that you made. It really does lead me to believe that you are a socialist. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Conservatives, and liberals both pay enough taxes to our government. Our government was set up to protect us from invasion, to build the infrastructure of this Great Nation, and to protect the constitution. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. This is what the foundation of our country stood for. Not all of this mandated redistribution of wealth, that was never part of the constitution.

1) I can't give to charity if I don't have a job because I don't have a car because my mother won't let me take my driving test, right? As such, until I do have a job, I'll continue to contribute in the ways that I can.However, I'll tell you right now that I am extremely discouraged to discover that you, without having ever met me, believe that I am such a hypocritical person as to not practice what I preach and firmly believe in.
2)I find it offensive that your so arrogant as to not think about countries such as Britain and Canada. And, uh, btw... Canada and Britain arn't socialist. They just have extremely liberal ideas. However, if you want to discuss France then... yeah. The French are socialist... And uh, no... I'm not a socialist, because then I'd be an idiot for not paying attention to my history teachers.
3) Note that you included "life" in your posting there. We have the right to life as American citizens. Now go and read the Internation Declaration of Human Rights, which has been signed by the United States of America, meaning that our great and moral country has signed a document agreeing to uphold the principles set forth by it. Take a really close look at Article 25 for me. Unless you're going and try to redefine what it means to have a basic human right to something, then you're going to be forced to come back and tell me that the United States, as of right now, is not following the Declaration. Of course, I'm always willing to listen to a good argument.

I see what they're teaching in school these days. Tiger, I'm not trying to hammer on you..OK? This is from Amnesty International... written by United Nations. Please look at the governments that are in the United nations. See if they pass your litmus test for what your asking us to do. There is so much socialism in that declaration. I can't remember how many times I saw the word "social." Isn't this a clue for you? Article 25, I read it, It has the word social written in it twice. It was written by Eleanor Roosevelt, a socialist. It also was a non-binding declaration. I'm not going to mix it up with you on this. I do commend on your knowledge of the subject. But, i don't agree with what your saying. Just like you don't agree with mine.

 

[Agnapostate]

Socialism?

The next thing we'll hear is that the New Deal was Keynesian.

 

[American Horse]

This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

I don't think you are wrong on that but the "utility" that I see is a simple one. People give to charity because they understand being vulnerable, and hope that should they become vulnerable, there will will be charity for them. the same applies to compassion, forgiveness, generous offers of help, a welcoming smile.

But regardless of what you make of the two "communities" the people most likely to give at Sioux Falls made somewhat less than $35,000, which fits my thought above, and even though they are not at all "rich" they are more likely to be conservative than liberals. They don't resent people with wealth, because to some degree they hold out a hope that at some point in their lives they will be among those who are wealthy.

The operative rule that applies here, is one of the first those who attend church take to heart: The golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", while many follow the crude mantra "Do unto others before they can do it to you". Which of those two communities would you think had the greater number of "good Samaritans"? Being a good Samaritan requires one to be less stingy with their time, be more generous, and to willingly attend to the needs of others.

Tsk tsk. If you're going to use religion, then use it correctly. What you're going for is "love your neighbor as you love yourself," which is an attatchment to the Greatest Commandment.

My words were clear, and don’t require correction to suit your interpretation. The Golden Rule is a very simple concept that is easily understood by most people, whether religious or not, and I clearly explained why I among them think it is a valuable philosophy.....And wanting to live by the Golden Rule, and forseeing it's usefulness, does not mean they necessarily are "preachy" about it. Most Christians I know simply try to do the right thing most of the time without making a fuss about it.

This means doing whatever (even if it means forking over your money to the government) to help the poor. So uh... why is it that Conservatives don't seem to understand this and yet they're the Party that seems to tote around the most bible beaters?

Sorry…if you can’t see the point I was making without bastardizing it to suit your purpose, I can’t see any real use in going further. To want to treat others as you would like to be treated is a far cry from bible beating, in my book.

Trust me... I'm terribly confused on this point.

Being confused in the face of a simple truth is a rhetorical device. Just try taking that simple phrase in the "Golden Rule" without embellishing it, and you won't be confused.

Also, it's in my own experience, that the poor, which includes such notoriously Democratic voters as African Americans and Hispanics, vote liberal... if they vote at all. That does seem to be a problem isn't it?

I was not talking about the masses of poor, I was simply explaining why this specific group, and many people like them who know themselves to not be wealthy, and maybe they more than the wealthy, find utility in charitable giving. And they find their own value in deciding for themselves to do that, rather than having that option usurped by their goverment.

And I see no problem that those you mention vote Liberal. They are welcome to do that. But the opposite, that ordinary poor folks don't necessarily vote liberal; that's something the Liberal mind can't understand: "why would they, or anyone vote against what appears to be 'their own self interests'?". They do, and it's not because they are sheep. It's because they are convinced of their own potential.

 

[Dis]

I was not talking about the masses of poor, I was simply explaining why this specific group, and many people like them who know themselves to not be wealthy, and maybe they more than the wealthy, find utility in charitable giving. And they find their own value in deciding for themselves to do that, rather than having that option usurped by their goverment.

 

[auditor0007]

Yourself, or government?

And at what point does the country crumble? The top 20% or so of wage earners can only support so many people... At some point the top 20% are going to realize that it's not worth it to work... This means no new drugs, no new technology, etc... Is that really what the people of this country want?

The presuppositions of your rhetorical question is flawed, KMAN.

If the bottom 80% have no encentive to work, how rich will the top 20% be?

A functioning society is a symbiotic relationship between the classes, amigo.

When one class becomes too dominant, and the others find themselves unable to thrive, that society is going down and that means that the vast majority of that 20% are going to go down with it, too.

Our system has worked beautifully so far in dealing with both problems. When the rich become too powerful, the rest of society revolts by electing people who change laws and run government more in favor of the working class. When this happens, the rich pay more and earn less.

When the working class starts catching up and doing well themselves, then they become more conservative and like the idea of less taxes and less government involvement, so the people elected tend to reflect that and the wealthy benefit as laws and governance are geared more toward the wealthy.

This all ebbs and flows back and forth and is all based on which group is doing better at a given time.

 

[DiamondDave]

This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

I don't think you are wrong on that but the "utility" that I see is a simple one. People give to charity because they understand being vulnerable, and hope that should they become vulnerable, there will will be charity for them. the same applies to compassion, forgiveness, generous offers of help, a welcoming smile.

But regardless of what you make of the two "communities" the people most likely to give at Sioux Falls made somewhat less than $35,000, which fits my thought above, and even though they are not at all "rich" they are more likely to be conservative than liberals. They don't resent people with wealth, because to some degree they hold out a hope that at some point in their lives they will be among those who are wealthy.

The operative rule that applies here, is one of the first those who attend church take to heart: The golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", while many follow the crude mantra "Do unto others before they can do it to you". Which of those two communities would you think had the greater number of "good Samaritans"? Being a good Samaritan requires one to be less stingy with their time, be more generous, and to willingly attend to the needs of others.

My words were clear, and don’t require correction to suit your interpretation. The Golden Rule is a very simple concept that is easily understood by most people, whether religious or not, and I clearly explained why I among them think it is a valuable philosophy.....And wanting to live by the Golden Rule, and forseeing it's usefulness, does not mean they necessarily are "preachy" about it. Most Christians I know simply try to do the right thing most of the time without making a fuss about it.
Sorry…if you can’t see the point I was making without bastardizing it to suit your purpose, I can’t see any real use in going further. To want to treat others as you would like to be treated is a far cry from bible beating, in my book.

Trust me... I'm terribly confused on this point.

Being confused in the face of a simple truth is a rhetorical device. Just try taking that simple phrase in the "Golden Rule" without embellishing it, and you won't be confused.

Also, it's in my own experience, that the poor, which includes such notoriously Democratic voters as African Americans and Hispanics, vote liberal... if they vote at all. That does seem to be a problem isn't it?

I was not talking about the masses of poor, I was simply explaining why this specific group, and many people like them who know themselves to not be wealthy, and maybe they more than the wealthy, find utility in charitable giving. And they find their own value in deciding for themselves to do that, rather than having that option usurped by their goverment.

And I see no problem that those you mention vote Liberal. They are welcome to do that. But the opposite, that ordinary poor folks don't necessarily vote liberal; that's something the Liberal mind can't understand: "why would they, or anyone vote against what appears to be 'their own self interests'?". They do, and it's not because they are sheep. It's because they are convinced of their own potential.

Indeed... BRAVO

 

[editec]

Care for ALL asks the questions:

but what would your life or my life be like without the person that picked our vegetables, or the person who landscaped your yard, or the woman who waited on your table, or the person who gave you your fries at the fast food place, or the person who gave you your dry cleaning or the chambermaid who cleaned your hotel room or the front desk clerk who checked you in to the motel or the security guard who walked around the hotel or the clerk who rings your groceries in the grocery store or the guy who bagged them for you or the salesman in the shoe dept who waited on his knees for you or the janitor who mops those floors in the store and floors in the hospital you might need to go to....

Apparently some people are of the opinion that these jobs, while necessary to a functioning society, aren't quite necessary enough that they think that the people who are tasked to do these lowly tasks simple do not deserve to make enough to live.

And there is that CLASSIST BULLSHIT that we see in today's petty bourguiose libertarian class.

That attitude is expressed often here on this board, isn't it?

They really are so enamored with their particular skill sets, and since (for a while) the market is likewise enamored with their skills, that they now identify with the specious value system of the superwealthy.

I don't know if you people remember back when people like steel workers were unionized and making about twice as much as everyone else doing jobs requiring equal work and skills, but they had EXACTLY THE SAME ARROGANT ATTITUDES, as today's programmers and engineers and all those other upper middle class types have today.

They too, thought that their skill sets were so special that they deserved their fats salaries, and they too thought that everyone else was simply worthless and deserved to make far less than they did.

When people are deluded into thinking that they are of the manor born, or about to be offered a place at that banquet table of the very well off, they tend to identify themselves as so unique and so valuable that they no longer care about their neighbors.

This is another manifestation of the original sin that the Judeaic-Christian faith was talking about, FYI.

Pride goeth before the fall, folks.

The probablility that the well paid working class will understand our point is in direct proportion to how valued their skill sets are at any given moment.

Everybody who makes a decent living thinks that thy are irreplacable...UNTIL the system finds some way to replace them.

tick tock Libertarians

Your fall from capitalism's grace isn't quite so far off as as you think it is.

I imagine that there's a whole lot of highly skilled fuctionaries of the banking and financing communities RIGHT NOW, whose committment to Libertarianism is being put to the test, right now, too.

In fact, the whole nation's resolve toward supply-side values seems to be disintegrating as we discover that we did INDEED, need to keep enough people working at jobs that pqay a living salary if we hoped to keep our society functioning.

 

[DiamondDave]

edit.. what you derive as compensation is up to your choices...

If you choose to work a job that can be done by anyone with a pulse and takes no great skill, the demand and incentive to give you higher compensation will not be there, as you are easily replaceable... if, you choose to train at a higher skill, provide a rare service, etc, you will be able to earn more... it is a simple fact of life

And lest we not forget that minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a wage to raise a family of 4 off of with 40 hours a week.... it was intended to be a STARTER wage for those entering the work force... any retard can work at McD's and be promoted and get raises even above minimum wage... if at 20 something years old or at a time where you have a family of 4 at age 30 or whatever, you are reliant on a minimum wage job.. then something indeed is wrong with you, not the compensation you are getting for a crap job