What gives the government the right to take more from one person than another person?

I can assure you that we aren't sending the upper management positions out of the country.

 

The one thing about this that I fail to understand is that, there are plenty of good jobs in the US.

 

The key to getting those jobs is education. Everything starts with education. Someone mentioned that they were confused why Republicans are throwing all this money at education (it is a Democrat position or something), but it should be the number 1 concern. Even more than healthcare.

 

 

I would add "Location" as well. Let's fact it, many of the "new jobs" are in certain areas with a certain skills set. While other jobs lost are in certain areas with other skill sets.

 

In Virginia the Northern end (Beltway, etc) and the Tidewater (Military, etc) are booming but Southside where manufacturing jobs (Textiles and Furniture, etc) were the "only" source of job for decades are in double digit unemployment.

I would add "Location" as well. Let's fact it, many of the "new jobs" are in certain areas with a certain skills set. While other jobs lost are in certain areas with other skill sets.

 

In Virginia the Northern end (Beltway, etc) and the Tidewater (Military, etc) are booming but Southside where manufacturing jobs (Textiles and Furniture, etc) were the "only" source of job for decades are in double digit unemployment.

But if they are educated, there are jobs to be found. Maybe not in the area that they want, but that is part of the beauty of the United States--it is not like other countries where the flailing of one industry can cripple it.

What gives the government the right to take more from one person than another person?

 

Benefit of society

But if they are educated, there are jobs to be found. Maybe not in the area that they want, but that is part of the beauty of the United States--it is not like other countries where the flailing of one industry can cripple it.

 

No, it just cripples certain areas. Look, the premise of what you say is correct. The reality of how it translates to communities and individuals is another matter. Here in Southside we are fighting generations of tradition that enticed people to not value education and even fear it. They taught them the mill was good enough for grandpa, them and Junior. Now their children need to value education but Ma and Pa are both ill equipped to support their children's education nurturing and they are afraid of it.

 

Also your local economy was built on manufacturing that no longer exists. There is no local employee base for hi-tech and no infrastructure to support new kinds of industry. While it's being developed that process is 10 or 15 years before bearing substantial fruit. Meanwhile the community dries up as some young people leave and others give up.

 

Again, the premise is good. The reality is another matter.

No, it just cripples certain areas. Look, the premise of what you say is correct. The reality of how it translates to communities and individuals is another matter. Here in Southside we are fighting generations of tradition that enticed people to not value education and even fear it. They taught them the mill was good enough for grandpa, them and Junior. Now their children need to value education but Ma and Pa are both ill equipped to support their children's education nurturing and they are afraid of it.

 

Also your local economy was built on manufacturing that no longer exists. There is no local employee base for hi-tech and no infrastructure to support new kinds of industry. While it's being developed that process is 10 or 15 years before bearing substantial fruit. Meanwhile the community dries up as some young people leave and others give up.

 

Again, the premise is good. The reality is another matter.

You are correct, but I am not sure what you are implying. I doubt this is it but are you trying to say that they shouldn't have to adapt? Because the situation you are giving me sounds like they don't want to change, and that is there fault, and it is not the government's responsibility to save them from their own stubbornness.

You are correct, but I am not sure what you are implying. I doubt this is it but are you trying to say that they shouldn't have to adapt? Because the situation you are giving me sounds like they don't want to change, and that is there fault, and it is not the government's responsibility to save them from their own stubbornness.

 

Your first assumption is right, that's not my implication.

 

All I'm pointing out is the reality of obtaining jobs in any country, including the US is more complicated than "go get it and get the education."

 

1. For some of these people, the retraining involved is difficult on many levels. Their abilites. Their families. These are adults we are talking about and it is difficult for those adults with families to stop working 40 hours a week and provide for them and then go get the education they need. (BTW, my wife went back to school to get her BA as an educator but she still worked her Assistant job.)

 

2. I guess I don't think it's the government's job. I really posted to try and catch the misconception that it's as easy as "education and location." They may want to change but the human psyche is not easily changed after decades of being told "It is this way to a better life," and now that opportunity is gone.

 

3. As for the community. This area's main business discouraged new business for decades in order to keep salaries competitive and low enough to make a profit. Now that profit can be made in China or Central America and those jobs are gone. It has left a community in disarray and a whole population insecure and unsure about how they can change, even if they want to. Some of the stubborness can be blamed on local ownership influencing local leadership to keep the community one dimensional.

 

Sorry if it seemed like a rant on needing assistance. It was really intended to get some to see that not every locality is able to sustain economic growth and not every work force is easily retrainable.

Your first assumption is right, that's not my implication.

 

All I'm pointing out is the reality of obtaining jobs in any country, including the US is more complicated than "go get it and get the education."

 

1. For some of these people, the retraining involved is difficult on many levels. Their abilites. Their families. These are adults we are talking about and it is difficult for those adults with families to stop working 40 hours a week and provide for them and then go get the education they need. (BTW, my wife went back to school to get her BA as an educator but she still worked her Assistant job.)

 

2. I guess I don't think it's the government's job. I really posted to try and catch the misconception that it's as easy as "education and location." They may want to change but the human psyche is not easily changed after decades of being told "It is this way to a better life," and now that opportunity is gone.

 

3. As for the community. This area's main business discouraged new business for decades in order to keep salaries competitive and low enough to make a profit. Now that profit can be made in China or Central America and those jobs are gone. It has left a community in disarray and a whole population insecure and unsure about how they can change, even if they want to. Some of the stubborness can be blamed on local ownership influencing local leadership to keep the community one dimensional.

 

Sorry if it seemed like a rant on needing assistance. It was really intended to get some to see that not every locality is able to sustain economic growth and not every work force is easily retrainable.

 

Agreed. I guess what it comes down to is that those families in your area that were responsible adults should save up money, but only so much can be done. Your initial comment about education being discouraged is the ridiculous part of the system. And I also believe that if the government has any major role in the economy, it should do with the retraining of jobs.

 

Also, it seems you would agree that if the federal government would be minimalized and more many went to the states, you would agree that they could better assess how to help that area.

 

IMO, if education and more acts such as the Trade Adjustment Act (I believe it was called) were expanded, the enormous need for welfare would be minimalism.

 

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

I do not have a problem with wealthy people spending their money the way they see fit. There is something not quite right about saying it is not fair for them to be so much better off than everyone else. If they obtained the money legally then who am I (or who is the government) to tell them how to spend it? I am against anything that resembles socialism . . . and creating an "even playing field" at the expense of those who happen to have more wreaks with socialism. However, I am not against helping the truly needy. We DO NOT need to enlist the government to do this. If church members would tithe then they could help the truly needy. I am against entitlement programs that enable the able in their laziness and create slaves to good 'ole Daddy Government. Socialism has never worked and never will. We need to help the truly needy and show tough love to those that want a free ride. No more handouts.

I do not have a problem with wealthy people spending their money the way they see fit. There is something not quite right about saying it is not fair for them to be so much better off than everyone else. If they obtained the money legally then who am I (or who is the government) to tell them how to spend it? I am against anything that resembles socialism . . . and creating an "even playing field" at the expense of those who happen to have more wreaks with socialism. However, I am not against helping the truly needy. We DO NOT need to enlist the government to do this. If church members would tithe then they could help the truly needy. I am against entitlement programs that enable the able in their laziness and create slaves to good 'ole Daddy Government. Socialism has never worked and never will. We need to help the truly needy and show tough love to those that want a free ride. No more handouts.

 

Well said. I wish more Americans would adapt this philosophy.

I do not have a problem with wealthy people spending their money the way they see fit. There is something not quite right about saying it is not fair for them to be so much better off than everyone else. If they obtained the money legally then who am I (or who is the government) to tell them how to spend it? I am against anything that resembles socialism . . . and creating an "even playing field" at the expense of those who happen to have more wreaks with socialism. However, I am not against helping the truly needy. We DO NOT need to enlist the government to do this. If church members would tithe then they could help the truly needy. I am against entitlement programs that enable the able in their laziness and create slaves to good 'ole Daddy Government. Socialism has never worked and never will. We need to help the truly needy and show tough love to those that want a free ride. No more handouts.

 

I agree and have been saying this throughout the thread.:thumb::banana:

I do not have a problem with wealthy people spending their money the way they see fit. There is something not quite right about saying it is not fair for them to be so much better off than everyone else. If they obtained the money legally then who am I (or who is the government) to tell them how to spend it? I am against anything that resembles socialism . . . and creating an "even playing field" at the expense of those who happen to have more wreaks with socialism. However, I am not against helping the truly needy. We DO NOT need to enlist the government to do this. If church members would tithe then they could help the truly needy. I am against entitlement programs that enable the able in their laziness and create slaves to good 'ole Daddy Government. Socialism has never worked and never will. We need to help the truly needy and show tough love to those that want a free ride. No more handouts.

 

The church examples throughout this thread & others is completely mute. Churches have no authority to take 5%, 10% or any amount. People give what they can, when they can. Let's use this same theory for taxes. People just give what you can in taxes. But again, it is a good theory but in practically most people will not give 10% (or any %) of their income to charity, church, etc. Do some? yes. Will all?? definitely not!

 

Those wealthy people that make a lot of money should be grateful that they live in a country that establishes the practices & laws that we have.

The church examples throughout this thread & others is completely mute. Churches have no authority to take 5%, 10% or any amount. People give what they can, when they can. Let's use this same theory for taxes. People just give what you can in taxes. But again, it is a good theory but in practically most people will not give 10% (or any %) of their income to charity, church, etc. Do some? yes. Will all?? definitely not!

 

Those wealthy people that make a lot of money should be grateful that they live in a country that establishes the practices & laws that we have.

 

I just can't understand the idea that some people feel that they have right to my money that I earn? Does that not bother anyone else? I do agree that at the current time taxes do pay for the military and roadways etc... and I have no problem with that. Just not a fan of handouts without accountability, which is basically what the government welfare program has become in many instances, enablers.

Benefit of society

 

The path to a socialist state is fast with this mindset. Governments for centuries have used this slogan to become looters of those who produce.

I just can't understand the idea that some people feel that they have right to my money that I earn? Does that not bother anyone else? I do agree that at the current time taxes do pay for the military and roadways etc... and I have no problem with that. Just not a fan of handouts without accountability, which is basically what the government welfare program has become in many instances, enablers.

 

And at the same time, I cannot understand that those who benefit greatly from what this country offers feels they have minimal to no responsibility to those that cannot.

 

Again, I think we are talking about the same people here and let's not argue over a misconception. I am talking about the truly needy people.

 

Not talking about the handouts without accountability and I don't think anyone on here is saying let's give money to someone that is capable and refuses to work. But to help those truly that need help.

 

I have no problem with health care and basic needs of children being provided to low income families.