Smart doesn't equate to being a success...not when the smart person refuses to be corrupted or use corruption to succeed. The elephant isn't Smart...it's Corrupt. Lie, Cheat, Steal, Kill, i.e...corruption to make a profit, to be a success, that's today's rule of thumb.
Did I say everyone shouldn't have a voice? No. There merely should be a limit to what our voices can and can't influence. Constitution, meet Messiah Decoy, Decoy, constitution.
Public work projects are a fail. There has to be a profit incentive to sustain an industry. Shovel ready projects don't turn a profit, so where does the funding come from.. it is wasteful and counterproductive. For example, the Post Office has no profit motive, therefore they are billions in the red & expect more taxpayer funds to keep their wasteful ship afloat. Our leaders would rather try to save the Titanic then say, break up the monopoly on delivery of letters and the mailbox access rule to UPS, Fedex, etc. Spending for spending's sake is counterproductive to a healthier economy and only enriches the very people you espouse so much antagonism towards.
we need to start boycotting companies that outsource jobs if we ever want this country to get back on it's feet.
So a hard working person with an average IQ could become the richest people in the world like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?
No, I can blame them for everything they do. They are responsible for the repercussions of their actions. No they don't. Cavemen did work together. Mostly they worked together against neanderthal. The modern way we work together is called a corporation. The bottom line still remains as it always had in society - you need a skill or trade if you don't have that you don't eat. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to be apologetic for that. No one owes you or me anything. Your survival is your responsibility. No one else's.
Not always, but more than true democracy. Rule of law > Rule of man. The founders set it up so that certain rights are inalienable, and to change the system requires 2/3rds legislative consent and 3/4th state ratification, rather than simple majority. Of course that's not how it works today, 51% of congress can grant new powers to the Federal government so we're a de facto democracy. Yes. "To invest successfully does not require a stratospheric IQ, unusual business insights, or inside information. What's needed is a sound intellectual framework for making decisions and the ability to keep emotions from corroding the framework." - Warren Buffet
There should be benefits to livng in a rich society. Like knowing you and your kids won't starve if you lose your job.
Well if a program is unconstitutional that should be debated and decided by people elected by democratic process. If the majority disagree with a certain aspect of the constituion then maybe an amendment is in order.
Well then break out the IQ test because if there is any average IQ person who amassed billions of dollars it is certainly a freak accident.
You skipped a process. First you amend, then you implement. You can't just decide if things are constitutional or not. The constitution isn't ambiguous. It isn't the book of revelations. It's clear cut. Democrats don't give a lick about the constitution and the way our system is constructed. Thanks for proving my point. Democrats: It is because we say so! This you by any chance? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc]Occupy Wall Street Protester Wants College Paid For Because That's What He Wants - YouTube[/ame]
Unfortunately not, but it's better than a true democracy. A republic is the best form of government, but it still relies on the population in general to stay educated or it will be corrupted. That's what we have now. The rule of law and the Constitution have been made to be only symbols, they no longer have any power and have little influence overall.
Circumstance is key here. If you are born into poverty then your gonna have a difficult time escaping it. OK you can blame people, governements, etc but at the end of the day there will always be poor people, there will always be rich people. Communism is a possible solution but does it work? Does it fuck, people who are in a position to scam will still scam weather they are the poloticians scamming expenses or the blue collar workers feigning illness but still receiving pay cheques. Both ends of the spectrum, neither are any worse than the other as they are both robbing from the population and both are down to human nature. No government can solve the problem of greed and laziness and just cos your a rich lazy greedy mother fucker it doesnt make you any worse than a poor greedy lazy mother fucker, you were just delt a better card at birth.
Blame the government all the regulations, taxes and incompetence hurt the private sector and kill jobs. In a free market there would be plenty of jobs for everyone and through hard work the poor would be able to ascend to the middle class and beyond. Poverty is created by the government.
This. In a free market jobs would be literally unlimited. Unemployment would generally only exist on a voluntary basis. The only people without jobs would be those who didn't want one.
You're probably right, but we were just talking about making a living for oneself, not becoming a billionaire.
I have actual reasons why the poor should get help from the rich and my thread title points out one of them. There will always be poor people, not because of laziness but because of a lack of practical opportunities. If something seems unconsitutional than it should be challenged. If the elected officials don't challenge it then the people need to elect new officials. And republicans ignore the constitution too. Look at republican support for NDAA. Through the fucking roof.