The New Unemployables - Workers over 50

[FunkyTown]

The government doesn't produce anything....it doesn't create anything....it mostly intrudes on the very freedoms that make America the land of opportunity. It takes from the producers and passes laws that create generations of entitlement mentality victims that have come to believe that they just can't make it without Uncle Sam subsidizing them for life.

The passion you bring to the table always makes me smile, Bytor. I say that without a hint of irony. I genuinely like the passion you bring to the table. And you're right - The government should(In theory) exist to serve the republic. Instead, it is a group of men in hock to the very men who have garnered wealth. The wealthy push commercials and control papers, which help decide elections. The wealthy give donations and have more meetings with the government, which gives them a greater representation.

When government strips money and power, it is rarely the wealthy who suffer, but the middle class. Most efforts at equalization seem not to make the poor wealthy, but the middle class poor. By taking away the wealth of the middle class, they take away the power of the middle class. The wealthy don't care if they earn $90 billion in a year or $100 billion. It will barely make a dent in the power they wield.

What it does do is remove the middle class power, the rise of which allowed Democracy in the first place when places like France and England had a rising middle class.

It's something to think on. What rules could be implemented to effectively control what is essentially the modern day Royal? If a man has free reign to bend the ear of the lawmakers because of their power, and their power decide what lawmakers get elected, then the power of the modern royal doesn't lie in writs of title. It lies in their ability to get those who help them in to power. And that power will continue to grow. How do you limit that?

[bytor2112]

The passion you bring to the table always makes me smile, Bytor. I say that without a hint of irony. I genuinely like the passion you bring to the table. And you're right - The government should(In theory) exist to serve the republic. Instead, it is a group of men in hock to the very men who have garnered wealth. The wealthy push commercials and control papers, which help decide elections. The wealthy give donations and have more meetings with the government, which gives them a greater representation.

When government strips money and power, it is rarely the wealthy who suffer, but the middle class. Most efforts at equalization seem not to make the poor wealthy, but the middle class poor. By taking away the wealth of the middle class, they take away the power of the middle class. The wealthy don't care if they earn $90 billion in a year or $100 billion. It will barely make a dent in the power they wield.

What it does do is remove the middle class power, the rise of which allowed Democracy in the first place when places like France and England had a rising middle class.

It's something to think on. What rules could be implemented to effectively control what is essentially the modern day Royal? If a man has free reign to bend the ear of the lawmakers because of their power, and their power decide what lawmakers get elected, then the power of the modern royal doesn't lie in writs of title. It lies in their ability to get those who help them in to power. And that power will continue to grow. How do you limit that?

Guillotine? Ala French style? :) I fear the monster may be to big to put back in the box. Yet, movements like the Tea Party inspire me that their are still Americans that are willing to put their collective feet down and say enough!

As for the wealthy wielding more power....when has that ever been different. The great thing about America is that a poor man can become a rich man.....a poor man can become a middle class man......not guaranteed, but it is very possible and probable. Electing people that only see government solutions will likely only get you a larger more intrusive government that diminishes the opportunity for those who need it most.

I find these words from the late John F Kennedy to be very inspiring:

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

[MarginOfError]

Bondage does not come from the U.S. Government. It comes from Wall Street.

I would like to refer you to this thread

[PrinceofLight2000]

A quote by our very own Thomas Jefferson:

(In reference to a national debt, which is owned privately, but still indicative of his knowledge of the power of Wall Street)

Incorrect. Notice the redirect. :)

Government debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Guest]

Sure, the wealthy can wield the power because they have the resources to do so and not have to get with a whole bunch of other guys for consensus.

But, I have personally witnessed the power of the people in 1986 when Filipinos flocked the streets of Edsa to oust Marcos. You got tanks and machine guns on one side, and you got an angry people on the other, and you got nuns in complete penguin habit passing rice bread and water between the two. It's probably in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most peaceful revolution or something.

The thing is, the government has to make it so that the majority cannot hold a consensus - that's why they always try to pit one group against another - haves versus have-nots, blacks versus whites, young versus old, citizens versus immigrants, etc. etc. The smaller the consensus, the weaker the people. Because, it doesn't matter how much money you got to buy Congress, when the people band together, they can get rid of any government - guns or no.

Therefore, it is to the benefit of the people to rise above the "pitting" and face the problem together to effect change. It's the only way you can put your government in check regardless of how many billions of dollars separate the rich from the poor.

[Mahone]

And history has shown America is a nation of enterprising achievers that will find a way to bring back our prosperity. With or without Obama.

History? What history?

[Just_A_Guy]

Bondage does not come from the U.S. Government.

No. It comes from the governments of countries who have managed to silence all who dared to advocate limited government.

Thankfully, that has not happened here. Yet.

Prisonchaplain's signature is dead-on right: power corrupts. Even here, and even if it's government power.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

Incorrect. Notice the redirect. :)

Government debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Prince.

I'm sorry, but I'm uncertain what you're arguing here. Are you saying that the public doesn't own the national debt, which your own link says is also known as 'Public debt or national debt'?

I would also like to point you to: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over 60% of the US debt is held by the public and only 32% held by other governments. This is related to bonds and such issued by the government.

Possibly I misunderstood what you were saying, since your argument consisted of a single word. Could you be a bit more specific as to what you're saying, since your own link seems to suggest what I was saying was correct?

[FunkyTown]

Therefore, it is to the benefit of the people to rise above the "pitting" and face the problem together to effect change. It's the only way you can put your government in check regardless of how many billions of dollars separate the rich from the poor.

This is amazing and 100% true.

And anatess wins the thread. Prize: One (1) Internet. You have won the internet.

[pam]

For some reason I am sensing this thread has gone far from the OP.

[FunkyTown]

For some reason I am sensing this thread has gone far from the OP.

You'll have to ask Anatess that, Pam. She won the Internet. She's responsible for anything that happens on it, now.

[pam]

She can have every other part of the internet. This part is mine. :)

[FunkyTown]

So you are the person responsible for what happens here!

Hey, everybody - Pam made this thread go off-topic.

[Guest]

Whatever it is, I didn't do it!

[Maya]

pst... I was in an interwiev today... I really REALLY want this job! Lets see ... I should learn to know the answer this week! Closing 60 what do you think my chanses are?

Well I told my HF that if he wants me somewher else then I surrender to His will.... but I REALLY want this!

[PrinceofLight2000]

Hi Prince.

I'm sorry, but I'm uncertain what you're arguing here. Are you saying that the public doesn't own the national debt, which your own link says is also known as 'Public debt or national debt'?

I would also like to point you to: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over 60% of the US debt is held by the public and only 32% held by other governments. This is related to bonds and such issued by the government.

Possibly I misunderstood what you were saying, since your argument consisted of a single word. Could you be a bit more specific as to what you're saying, since your own link seems to suggest what I was saying was correct?

If you're saying the government is indebted to us because of bonds and such and that it's part of the problem, then we agree. I thought you were saying that the personal debt held by the public was a greater menace than the debt held by the government. The terminology for this stuff is seemingly counter-intuitive.

[FunkyTown]

If you're saying the government is indebted to us because of bonds and such and that it's part of the problem, then we agree. I thought you were saying that the personal debt held by the public was a greater menace than the debt held by the government. The terminology for this stuff is seemingly counter-intuitive.

Ooooh! Then it was just confusion.