Is the “Middle Class” disappearing in America? (1 Viewer)

[MarkHastings]

but would you agree that the less fortunate you are, the MORE responsible you should be? If someone is really rich, they don't have to worry about being irresponsible because they have the funds to save them, but if you aren't wealthy, then you need to be more responsible because who's going to help pay for your mistakes?

 

[RobertR]

No one's telling you that, because it's not the point. The point is that you have ZERO chance of improving your situation if you don't take rational steps to change it. Saying "I don't have the same 'chance' as the guy with the $500,000 trust fund, therefore I'm not going to bother to improve my situation, and would rather bitch about the unfairness of life" doesn't cut it.

 

[Chu Gai]

This is true. Let's help those who need our help and let us also help all Americans regardless of whatever by pointing out the pragmatical realities and the consequences of bad decisions.

 

[JoeyR]

Thats not the point I was making Robert, someone stated in a post we all have the same chances

Also the deal about the piercings etc., that is personal choice for someone to look like that, and you have the right not to hire them because of it

 

[JoeyR]

See though their are other outside factors, some people just have bad luck, I know several people that all they touch is gold, me on the other hand I'm completely different, if I have an extra 400 at the end of the month one of the kids will get sick, car breaks, etc. and then its gone

 

[Justin Lane]

My point was there are many inefficiencies in our nation when it comes to tax dollars and focusing on one perceived ill (low income/welfare families) does not solve the total problem. Low income families are villified over and over again on boards like these and by friends and co-workers because it is easy to do. Tax dollars are spent all over this nation on services, programs, improvements, etc. which most of us never partake nor have any say in where our tax dollars go to work. I would rather see mother and children are first taken care of with medical services, shelter and food before my tax dollars go to politicians, government agencies which I never use, national parks (and I am a big national park fan, having visited close to 50 sites), government employee retirement plans and a host of other "services" I never use.

J

 

[Eric_L]

I disagree. The federal government was never intended to be in the charity business.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Grammar, Joey, Grammar!

If I were in your shoes, I'd sell back the XBOX 360 first.

 

[Chu Gai]

Don't mistake what I say as some kind of villification though Justin. I contribute time to help seniors fill out their tax returns at a local library, spend one day a year at a shelter in NYC where I help sort clothing that's given to homeless people and others in need, donate food and clothing, do charitable contributions, and spend one week during the winter months when I take a vacation to do Meals on Wheels. I just happen to think there might be better ways the government and leaders can help people and it's not so terrible to stress the positives of accountability and strong work ethics. It's never going to be an easy road to hoe and we shouldn't demonize or Uncle Tom those who have become successful.

 

[MarkHastings]

and how is that different than the villification of the wealthy on baords like these?

 

[Kevin Hewell]

This is from a few posts back:

It appears to me that many people here are advocating a laissez-faire approach to business. That, to me, is just as dangerous as total government control. Those practices, in the past, led to the rise of communism, the abject subjugation of the work force (which led to the rise of labor unions, which people seem to hate nowadays), raping of the environment, unsafe products being sold, monopolies, and economic crises such as the Great Depression. We just need to find the right balance between government and business.

To leave people without a safety net is socially irresponsible. Someone mentioned that the government was not meant to be a charity but to leave an entire segment of the population in the lurch is socially irresponsible and bad for society as a whole.

 

[JoeyR]

Woohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know grammar, I just like commas and runons

The deal with the xbox , am I the only one with bad luck here?

 

[JoeyR]

Ok, I'm confused now. I thought we are talking about the "middle class" disappearing. Are we discussing that or welfare reform or is there a crosspoint that I missed in here somewhere?

 

[Eric_L]

Just as it was never intended to be a charity, the federal government was also never intended to be considered the source of social responsiblity.

 

[Chu Gai]

Public good has been very widely interpreted.

 

[Eric_L]

and from there this could probably go further into politics than we should... Hey, what about them Cardinals and Tigers?

 

[Buzz Foster]

I've never been big on the government being in the business of improving the lives of the irresponsible. Those who are doing something to improve their lives deserve better than to work for businesses that exploit them, and use monitary influence in the government to hinder said employees from improving their own conditions via collective bargaining.

There are many who have come from poverty and decided to make choices that would lead to a better future for themselves, and/or their progeny. I read comments about how the government should not be a charity, yet there also seems to be little regard for government employee protections.

Situations described above, such as a serious illness causing someone's fall from the economically blessed, are more likely to be devastating to someone trying to climb thier way up out of poverty, and break the cycle.

Yes, I like to emphasize the differene between what I view as responsible companies that care about how they treat employees, and companies that do not. If someone is working for the latter type of company out of sheer necessity while attending night school, a bad illness with no health coverage could spell doom. Likewise, so could that employer by cutting hours, wages, etc.

 

[Chu Gai]

I take it most have seen the Dee Dee Dee song?

 

[MarkHastings]

LMAO! You're kids are dee dee dee! It's funny 'cause it's true!

 

[drobbins]

The main point I was trying to make: It is still possible to have a family with mainly one income and provide comfortably for that family with out being born with a silver spoon in your mouth. The typical "middle class American dream". I know everyone's is different. What could be done in the 50s & 60s can still be done today. Yes, don't enslave yourself with debt trying to keep up with the Jones.