Or a kid just starting out with no resume of note yet and squarely in the lower-middle (i.e. low-net-tax-paying) class, such as yourself?
And on the secon note, yes, I am better than a person on food stamps. Better means "Of a more excellent or effective type or quality". Obviously, if I am not requiring public aid, I am more excellent and of a higher effective quality (employment wise) than the food stamp recipient. So are you. When did doing and being "better" become an unpardonable sin?
Yes, you're more productive than someone on food stamps - without taking anything but money into context. I would just say "better" is one of the words that connotates classism. Even if you don't mean it that way, even if you mean it as productive, using the phrase "I am better than a person on food stamps", and this is just advice to you, just comes off like you're assuming everyone on food stamps is a lazy POS that had the same opportunities and luck that you had but squandered it.
Well, you are observant as usual wf (even if the thought was somewhat a back handed one - LOL). No problem. I like your style.
I AM older (not that old still active) and rich. I have had a rich life experience, well rounded and have contributed to society, not just through taxes, but community involvement.
I have never taken anything from the government, except the excellent and valuable experience of serving in the military.
Those who are young and short in the resume area do not fully YET understand what it takes. Standing on your own is important. It's pride.
Some need to accept short term help because of economic situations. That's fine. Perpetual assistance is just wrong and enables the soft to become softer.
But I'm not one to talk tbh, I get carried away from time to time too, and need a reminding that the people here are often my e-friends and fellow Jets Fans, and should be treated with more respect.
It's not the policy, it's the number fo people on it, the abuse within it, the perpetual recipients, and the cost of it to the rest of us.But even more to the point, why belittle someone on food stamps when we know from this election, someone can go from food stamps to CEO of GM, Governor of Michigan and a Presidential candidate.
Compensation is what you get for work in this world. It's the only judge of the "worth" of your labor.Yes, you're more productive than someone on food stamps - without taking anything but money into context.
You're free to take it how you like. I am better than someone on state-provided benefits, because no matter my own hardships, I have never taken state-provided benefits.I would just say "better" is one of the words that connotates classism. Even if you don't mean it that way, even if you mean it as productive, using the phrase "I am better than a person on food stamps", and this is just advice to you, just comes off like you're assuming everyone on food stamps is a lazy POS that had the same opportunities and luck that you had but squandered it.
If that makes me a "classist" so be it. It is my view that being on benefits has lost alot of teh shame that SHOULD come with it, and those successful/hard working who don't use them are demonized more often than those who are on it. I'm not concerned if I hurt the feelings of a welfare recipient by saying I, a successful worker whose never taken a dime, is better than them in the realm of success and employment.
I'm guessing he will define Opportunity as equal economic and social circumstances. By definition, he would view your child and his (assuming either of you have kids) as inherantly unequal in their opportunity, because you're rich, and he's not. Freedom of action in that worldview is a irrelevancy compared to equallity of economic and social access.
Essentially you had 12 million men under arms coming home all around the same time. And guess what happens to all those horny guys and their wives.
Birth control? There was no real birth control at that time. No pills. And birth control was forbidden by the Catholic Church. Other churches may have had policies on this also.
It wasn't having the babies. It was the attitude of the new families, workers and the values they ultimately imparted to their children - the boomers.
Your assumption of my definition is correct. His? You are probably right.
I base my concepts on observation and occurance. I grew up fairly poor. Not dirt poor. I had the opportunity to achieve in the classoom and in sports. Much of that I attribute to parental direction (parental demand LOL).
It was an unceasing effort.
I had friends in identical opportunity circumstances (some with more talent) who fell by the wayside. Guys (and girls) who never made it to college. Guys who made it to college, squandered it and wound up as door gunners in Vietnam.
Everyone is not a CEO (or a senior exec). Everyone is not a champion. It's earned by effort.
They will be dumping our bonds unless they can quickly mechanize their society and become so efficient that a few can support the many.
There is something between reasonable population growth and negative population growth. Family planning is much better then government policy when the tools are available for families to properly plan.
Obama's "fundamental transformation" is more of the same insidious and destructive crap, in a new wrapper.
As for the idiots in the left wing suggesting reducing benefits owed to those who have paid in for decades after having ushered in the system and raiding it, I suggest we 1st kick the illegals who never paid a dime into it and milk it dry the f out...while simultaneously using the newfangled technology called the computer to eliminate the waste and fraud libs have already embedded into it
And what percentage of the budget is the entire care for the poor, social welfare state, about 10% of the budget?
Circumstances are a big factor in life. If my dad skipped town and my mom was an alcoholic, does that mean I'm just f***ed? - that's absolutely not the case, but I'm just saying, circumstances matter.