Real Estate Consultant · Brighton, MI · Member since 2013 · 607 posts · 251 votes
I'm reading a book by Robert Kyosaki entitled, "Why A Students Work For C Students and B Students Work For the Government". I agree with most of his views of our public school system, the dangers of an entitlement society and financial ignorance.
He also touches on the subject of greed and it made me ponder. Popular opinion is that the rich are greedy and should be taxed to the hilt. With help from politicians, this idea has been methodically promoted as a reason behind higher taxes. But who ultimately gets the brunt for higher taxes? Anyway, that another forum topic...
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, there's little doubt that our current government is harvesting a large healthy crop of young adults with a solid "entitlement" mentality. The view that the "government should take care of me" is a growing movement. There is a growing number of "unemployed" who choose not to work and sit back and collect government handouts. They believe in getting something for nothing and that rich somehow "owe them". Their view is often that the rich are greedy crooks.
As investors, otherwise known as capitalists, we know the value of giving housing & commercial space for small business owners and retailer. We are giving first. Is it wrong for us to benefit from this? I would venture that many would accuse us of taking advantage of others. But aren't those who simply "choose not to work" and instead live off the government taking advantage of every single employee in the shrinking workforce and business owner who is forced to fund into that entitlement program? Are they providing anything to society or just taking from society?
Capitalists choose to make opportunities, finding a demand and the meeting it. They meet the needs of others in the form of housing and employment which ultimately benefits them financially. Is that greed? Through innovation, new products, supermarkets, transportation systems, housing, medical breakthroughs, hospitals, etc., they enrich our lives, give us jobs and food and many services we take for granted. Is that greed?
DON'T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU!
Simply stated, a capitalist knows he must give to society first in order to benefit. How is that greedy? Many family members I talk to regarding this issue don't stop to consider what would happen if the rich just packed up and left, which they are doing in growing numbers. With them go the companies, hotels, etc. which employ many. So who is hurting who?
I'd be interested in your thoughts. I totally respect everyone's opinion and do not want this to turn into a political discussion, please.
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
13y
Not too much mentioned about corporate welfare, more money is lost there than food stamps and housing subsidies.
Education is a huge problem.
Most people want to work, I don't believe there are really that many real takers. I've worked with over a thousand of Sec 8 and public housing types, they want to work or do. There are reasons they don't or can't, often has to do with mental issues, personality disorders that also leads to unacceptable attitudes to those who do carry the water.
Saying someone is able bodied is misleading as you can't see personality disorders that can be hidden easily during short meetings with someone. Resentment is on both sides.
The game has turned into a war and the middle class is losing according to Warren Buffett....the political propaganda is all about "those people" as a means to save money keeping your eye off corporate welfare.....look at the farm bill!
Now, I can solve many of our problems, but no one is willing to make me King! That's about what it would take, a complete overhaul of our system. :)
Austin, TX · Member since 2013 · 123 posts · 27 votes
13y
Annette, i believe that Jesus said that "the poor will be with you all ways but I will be here for just a little while". There will all ways be a few that have the vision, ability, and drive to make more money than the masses. It is not wrong to have money if you make it legally. I think that it wrong to lie, cheat, and steal, to get it. In real estate if we see value where others don't and then are able to provide value to others for a profit then I think it is a respectable way to make money.
Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 655 votes
13y
Originally posted by Annette Hibbler:
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, there's little doubt that our current government is harvesting a large healthy crop of young adults with a solid "entitlement" mentality. The view that the "government should take care of me" is a growing movement. There is a growing number of "unemployed" who choose not to work and sit back and collect government handouts. They believe in getting something for nothing and that rich somehow "owe them". Their view is often that the rich are greedy crooks.
I'm just curious where you get this information from. Do you have any actual numbers or are you just stating this as your opinion?? I only ask cause I constantly hear people make similar statements to this but very very rarely meet a person who validates those claims of "they believe" and "their view is often".
Residential Real Estate Broker · Plano, TX · Member since 2013 · 10 posts · 9 votes
13y
This is a topic riddled with complexities and fun to explore with others. Since there always has been and likely always will be "have's" & "have not's" then this discussion can go on forever. We are each like a math equation: Our genetics + our parenting + our schooling + our environment + our experiences + our stereotype + you name it = <>. So many influencers combine and we evolve daily. And because we have politicians promoting ideas not for the betterment of the folks but simply saying what they want to hear in order to obtain their votes- the followers drinking the kool-aid will believe what they want to believe. In the end it all boils down to "what's in it for me". So greed or a sense of entitlement and of course strong opinions are present in all socioeconomic classes. Somehow however, it does seem to be the case that only the rich are publicly labeled as such in the media.
And just like in interpersonal relationships, there are givers and there are takers - no matter whether one is rich or not. There will forever be a ball where the two shall dance...clumsily stepping all over each others toes.
I suspect that many of the poor and criminally poor may consider themselves somewhat insignificant in the big picture as they do not realize that each decision they make is like a pebble thrown in the water, causing ripple effects that take a while to reach the shore. For example, a shoplifter is usually thinking only about the moment, the need or want they have for the item they are taking. They are not thinking about how that stolen item forces the shop owner to raise prices to cover the loss (which are paid by you) or to file an insurance claim to cover the loss- which leads to higher insurance rates for every shop in the area when insurance companies label it a crime area. Which then means prices go up on all the shops and with repeats of the cycle leads to an inability to provide inventory at prices the area can afford and an empty shopping center. Loss of economic ground for the area and so on.
It all comes down to real estate. Under all is the land. And with for every minute of the day, with every step you take, bite you eat, place you sit, stand, work, play, shop or sleep you are paying for your real estate or someone else's. And every price out there is a direct result of the cost of real estate under it. You are a have or a have not as defined by your real estate holdings. If you have none, your family before had nothing to leave. At some point in every family someone starts laying the groundwork for a family legacy by building a portfolio to leave to the kids. Then they continue to build on it and their kids and so on. And that is how the wealthiest families get to the top and stay there. Rarely is it done overnight or by a single generation...acquiring and keeping extreme wealth is a long building process.
One of my favorite cartoon drawings is a short series: it shows a large wagon holding a few meek individuals and a lot of folks pulling the wagon. Gradually one by one the folks pulling the wagon moved to ride the wagon. Of course the wagon slowed to a stop when there was only one man left to pull the wagon and the crowd riding in the back---it could no longer move forward because the weight of the crowd in the wagon was to heavy a burden for a single man to bear.
Rental Property Investor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2013 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
13y
This is an interesting discussion. Normally one I wouldn't want to touch, but here goes.
I'm not sure what the answers are, but it is clear that the gap between the rich and poor is widening.
I invest in low income real estate partially as an investment and partially to give back, providing ethical affordable housing. Some, normally those who don't see the connection between actions and consequences, still view me as greedy and unreasonable.
My husband has a theory that we as a nation tolerate career welfare because the alternative is rioting and break ins. Helps with perspective.
Seems like people and churches need to do more so that the government can do less, and they can instill more relationship and consequences, but it is a hard sell.
I think the upper class can and should use their resources to generate more resources.
Real Estate Consultant · Brighton, MI · Member since 2013 · 607 posts · 251 votes
13y
Chris K. please refer to the book I mentioned at beginning of post. He gives amble evidence to support his theory.
Rebecca Chapa Well said. Your analogy of the dwindling wagon pullers vs. those hopping on the wagon was used to demonstrate the dwindling number of young workforce trying to support the growing number of elderly on social security. Basically saying that it's just a matter of time before Social Security goes bust.
Michele Fischer I am of the opinion that this country is at cross roads both spiritually and economically. Instead of looking at the rich upper class to give more than they already do, can we step back and ask ourselves, "am I giving at least as much as they are". I am the type of person who often self reflects and hesitates to point the finger first, ask questions later.
Thank you all for your wonderful and insightful replies.
San Antonio, TX · Member since 2013 · 8 posts · 0 votes
13y
This topic is perfect for a discussion of economics. I read this book called naked Economics. I forget by who, anyways it explained many of the variables of Economics in a very easy to read analogies. What I took from the authors opinion is that in order for a decent growth rate such as 3% there is a number of things that need to go correctly. This includes a system that allows such growth to happen. America is a perfect place for this. Here you can build an empire from nothing, compared to other countries that have an overall higher tax rate and living expenses is higher is more difficult. Not impossible but very hard to do so. Those countries however have a lower poverty level but grow at a slower rate.
Other arguments that can be made why the rich are greedy is because they are depicted by national media. Certain corporations have gave "being wealthy" a bad rap. Although their actions were certainly criminal that does mean all corporations are out to harm the community.
When looking at the government it is certainly set in for the wealthiest people and or corporations have the biggest say into what becomes law and what doesn't. Again not the doing of your average investor. The process of congress and the executive branch is being controlled not by the people that voted them in, but the lobbying of some those companies.
We can have a country where everyone stays the same and grows slowly or a risker way of growth where some can be homeless and some can become billionaires.
Last note: I like to mention an example that stayed with me from naked economics. Think back one hundred years, what was life then. Now think about what life is now. The amenities that was we had then and now are better. Basically the number of hours it took for a meal, a car, a house has gone done. We work for time and pay each other with time. The paper bill is just a measurement of currency.
Hopefully my grammar is good, please don't be critical if it doesn't make sense.
Investor · Bethel, AK · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 852 votes
13y
Annette Hibbler What a great topic. As an older person, and having been both poor, and later in life successful, I find that possibly the level of greed is disspursed evenly among the classes. There are many greedy investors, corporations, and small buissnesses. There are many greedy poor people as well. This analogy lies in ones personal definition of greed. To ME a greedy person puts his/her interests before that of any body else. Self centered would be another description.
The difference between a "Wealthy greedy person", and a "Poor greedy person", would then be the skill set, intellect, ambition, and very important METHOD used, of the two people, not the amount of greed. A man once told me this: " Poor thinking= Poor ways= poor results. The opposite must then be true. Out of this poor thinking comes the idea that all rich people are greedy.
I live in a place (Alaska) that has 2 basic classes of people. They are very poor and by most standards very wealthy. (There are many millionaires in Alaska wearing carhearts, and driving beat up cars). Greedy people abound in both classes. Also there are many people in both classes who are simply happy with whatever they have,(or don't have) as the case may be.
Rebecca Chapa says it when she refers to the "giver's and the takers". un fortunatly a common behavor flaw is to blame rather than accept responsibility for our situation. Its easier for many of the takers to blame the givers for not giving enough than it is to accept that they are soley responsible for their individual situation. Hence the givers (providers) are "Greedy"
I don't normally quote my father, but he used to tell me..."You don't get big by being (behaveing) small." This applies to all things in life, money, family, work and play. When I look at where I am financially, who I am personally, what examples I set, I try to remember this. Often I find when I am doing poorly at something it is because I am "being small."
In my view 'Greed" is just one form of small behavior.
Residential Real Estate Broker · Plano, TX · Member since 2013 · 10 posts · 9 votes
13y
I quite agree about the idea that the "taking care of" those in need should be addressed by charitable organizations and the churches-theoretically.
However this is a problem in reality "nowadays" for many reasons. For example, the non-religious and non-believers. They don't seek assistance from churches-you all know why. And when you go to a church to seek assistance people are confronted with "humility" and "moral judgement" and such. Not so much from the church volunteers and staff, but these thoughts can be within ones own mind as one is aware they are dependent-but everyone wants to believe they are independent (even if it is an illusion). And to obtain assistance from the church again in another month one must go back again to apply-thereby facing the facts of their dependent situation once again--then monthly.Ugh-regularly reviewing their own situation and reflecting in the mirror? As you mentioned-relationship and consequences. But people who are of the line of thinking that they should be provided for by others seek to avoid consequences as they are the type of people who don't take responsibility for themselves. And knowing charitable assistance can't go on forever because charitable organizations and churches have assistance program's designed to "bridge the transition" or help folks get on their own feet.
It is much easier to go to a government office and just be a number in a crowd where you apply once and get mailbox money for years to come. No judgment..no looking in the mirror...no expectations to meet if no one expects you to get on your feet..no repeated reflection or assessment of one's situation...no need to figure out a way to pull oneself up...permission sanctioned by the official government to boot--promoting the idea that its not their fault...that society is responsible for them...and best of all, it facilitates the illusion of being independent--and worst of all...it perpetuates the idea that the successful or truly independent SHOULD be responsible for them.
And, as more and more of the masses seek help from the government rather than the churches...we perpetuate the population of non-christians...and our taxes rise to pay for this. This seems to me to be a gradual but massive shift in our society from donations of funds to churches and charities to funneling funds to the government entitlement programs. A very bad thing. As someone who has something to give...shouldn't you get to decide who you want to help? Homeless children, cancer victims, etc. Yes of course you should. Likewise, shouldn't you get to decide when and how much you wish to give for help-of course you should. Why then do we give away our freedom of choice to our government?
And this is why the government has stepped in with entitlement programs isn't it. Because in our local communities we tend to help those we consider to be deserving. Yes, there are some undeserving folks out there who would go without help but by their own choosing (even if they can't see it that way). Wouldn't society be better off if folks had to go to the church and look a community in the eye to get help--and be required to give help in return (i.e. show up on saturdays to help hammer nails in the house being given to a needy soldier)? Each of us has only so much to give and as the government takes more we have less to donate. Growing gov't=shrinking charities. There seems to be a tug of war out there for our dollars between the church and the state. Ultimately this permits folks to force the givers to help those whom we otherwise would not help. After all, how long would you continue to financially support your neighbor if they are unwilling to support themselves or give back something in trade? Or how long would you donate funds to your neighbor just to prevent your neighbor from breaking into your home and taking what he pleases? And this is the most disheartening aspect of the whole movement. Takers have something to give but simply don't have any sense of philanthropy-trade-service-debt to others. And that givers continue to give only throws fuel on the fire-why shouldn't they develop a sense of entitlement? After all, did they actually threaten to break in or riot? Or is that just the fearful thinking? The reality is that there are pure takers out there and only fools perpetuate the the situation. Pathetic really. And if some folks contribute to the welfare dependency under the guise of preventive measures regarding crime, then aren't they voluntary participants in blackmail? After all, we have laws and a punitive system that is designed to pull these sorts of criminally oriented people out of society.
And I'm not so sure there is some widening gap out there between the economic classes. It may simply be that with the advances in technology, education, access to information on a global scale has made it possible for more folks to find a path to becoming millionaires and even billionaires. There are more millionaires now than there ever has been-yay-inspirational and speaks volumes about our country. Yes there seems to be more demand on the entitlement system (hey people need a raise to keep pace with inflation right? And the birth rate in the lower economic classes is booming). So on the surface it may appear to be a widening gap, but could it be that the population growing in the poorer groups is simply out pacing the population growth in the wealthier groups. And with the opportunity here in our country only those who don't find a place to apply themselves can't make a comfortable life here. One does not have to be a millionaire to be comfortable and happy.
And even the poorest of folks in our country don't have to walk for hours crossing a field where lions seek you for diner just to get to the nearest river of somewhat contaminated water and then back to a village carrying the heavy bucket just to have a drink. Who in our poor can even imagine risking their life for a contaminated cup of water? Yet, the mailbox money they do receive isn't enough? And stealing is their chosen method of survival? Give me a break.
It's not about economics, it's about principles, morals, ethics and values. It's about belief systems. Some people have good ones and some people don't. And as the tug of war continues between the government and our churches for our dollars (which facilitate the perpetuation of ideas)...the war over perpetuating one belief system over another will be at the center. Who would you like to see win?
And yes, thanks--the wagon example was used to demonstrate the social security dilema- and can be applicable in other examples. Its a personal favorite visual.
Originally posted by Michele Fischer:
This is an interesting discussion. Normally one I wouldn't want to touch, but here goes.
I'm not sure what the answers are, but it is clear that the gap between the rich and poor is widening.
I invest in low income real estate partially as an investment and partially to give back, providing ethical affordable housing. Some, normally those who don't see the connection between actions and consequences, still view me as greedy and unreasonable.
My husband has a theory that we as a nation tolerate career welfare because the alternative is rioting and break ins. Helps with perspective.
Seems like people and churches need to do more so that the government can do less, and they can instill more relationship and consequences, but it is a hard sell.
I think the upper class can and should use their resources to generate more resources.
Denver, CO · Member since 2009 · 131 posts · 22 votes
13y
I believe someone earlier alluded to "atlas shrugged" which is a take on wealth and inequality.
Wealth and greed are not synonymous, although in public opinion, they are. If you have a lot of money, you must be greedy, because you have more than you need, and you're not giving it all away. I am not wealthy, and I think that is crap. The capitalist system rewards hard work, so why should those who've likely worked the hardest feel guilty or responsible for taking care everyone else who decided it was easier to let those who do work harder take care of them? Now, I'm not saying there isn't an argument for philanthropy, but nor do I agree that it is society's responsibility to support the lazy or unwilling.
this story illustrates motivated self-interest and what happens when human behavior takes over:
Investor · Southeast, MI · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
13y
If you like Atlas Shrugged (not the horrible movie(s), but the excellent book), read The Fountainhead and Anthem. They are better, IMO.
As far as entitlements, I believe that the greedy are the freeloaders that mooch off of society and produce nothing. Whether they get food stamps, SSDI, Section 8, or an Obamaphone, they are the recipients of stolen property. Money is stolen from producers and given to slackers. I saw a friend the other day who I hadn't seen in a while. He hasn't worked in months. He doesn't have many marketable skills, but is able bodied. I suggested getting a job at Home Depot. He said he makes almost as much from unemployment, so why work? I giuess that's what happens when we pay people not to work.
Rental Property Investor · Milwaukee, WI · Member since 2013 · 6k+ posts · 4k+ votes
13y
I also agree that there are some people who abuse the system. They get paid not to work, so they don't work. They get paid to have more kids, so they have more kids. They don't need to better themselves because someone else will take care of them. In some sense, they never stopped being a child.
It really should be harder to get assistance, but what happens when there is no public assistance, no private assistance, and no jobs? All these people will be living on the street, trying to survive. There might develop sections of town where the homeless congregate. Then perhaps they will form groups/gangs and start to try to take from the "haves".
This is just speculation.
But what is the answer?
How do we, as a society, "deal with" the woman who has kid after kid because she gets more money for each kid she has?
How do we, as a society, "deal with" the man who gets money for disability even though he is really able-bodied enough to hold down a job?
What jobs could these people do when they have NO marketable skills?
Instead of spending trillions of dollars on the military, why can we not invest more money in education? Throwing money at the problem alone won't make it better. We need to start educating people at an early age with marketable skills. But will that alone be enough? Suppose everyone that graduates high school comes out with marketable skills -- will there be enough jobs to go around or will there be tons of people essentially at the same level as everyone else?
How do we, as a society, "deal with" the woman who has kid after kid because she gets more money for each kid she has?
Stop paying her. She will stop having kids.
How do we, as a society, "deal with" the man who gets money for disability even though he is really able-bodied enough to hold down a job?
Stop sending him a check. He will find a job.
What jobs could these people do when they have NO marketable skills?
Garbage man. Grave digger. Scarecrow. Guy who holds sign in front of business telling you to sell your gold or eat their food.
How do we, as a society, "deal with" the woman who has kid after kid because she gets more money for each kid she has?
Stop paying her. She will stop having kids
What about the kids she already has? And what if she doesn't stop having kids?
Regardless of how we may feel about letting able-bodied adults go hungry, do we as a society want let children (who can't fend for themselves) go hungry? And if we just take the kids away from the unfit parents, that doesn't solve the problem of housing and feeding them -- it still requires $$$.
So, for those that suggest getting rid of welfare, what about the kids?
Flipper/Rehabber · Greeley, CO · Member since 2013 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
13y
I agree with J Scott. Welfare and society is too complicated to just get rid of welfare. For one thing, most of the population is not wealthy and likes their government support in one form or another. Removing the support would mean not being reflected.
Most rich aren't greedy, they are successful. The more they make the more they can help others. There will always be those that sleepwalk through life and do what they were taught or programmed to do.
Investor · Southeast, MI · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
13y
I don't want to see any kids go hungry. I also don't want money to be stolen (taxed) from me and given (welfare) to others. This is where charities come in. There would not be starving kids in America ever. Look how much money Sally Struthers raises for hungry kids in the third world. In America, there are so many charities and churches that everyone would be ok. I'm for a voluntary system of helping others instead of the government force that we currently have.
As far as people having baby after baby that they can't afford, I see it all the time. In one neighborhood where I have a bunch of houses on Section 8, it's horrible. They will have a baby and then get more money each month and a bigger house. The people are so lazy that they depend on the government in every aspect of their lives - food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, etc. They sleep til noon and refuse to work. One of my tenants even got the state to put a new transmission in her car. Somehow, they always have their hair and nails "did", the heat is set at 80 in the winter, and there are DVD's and fast food wrappers everywhere. How is this fair?
If you want to voluntarily give your money to someone who either can't support themselves (or is too lazy to do so), that should be up to you. The problem I have is with the government taking from the producers and giving to the slackers.
I don't think the current welfare state could be stopped cold turkey. It would need to be phased out over time. As far as mobs of people looking for food, I wouldn't want to see that either. My neighborhood has more guns than people, so they wouldn't want to come here. My hope would be that this entitlement mindset changes no people would want to be self sufficient and successful. I see all kinds of people who take the easy way out and get a government check each month. Most seem to want better for their children.
This is where charities come in. There would not be starving kids in America ever.
Charities and Churches currently exist. And there are still millions of hungry kids in this country. Clearly welfare isn't working to keep our kids healthy and neither is charity.
I guess that means the solution isn't simple...who'da thought...
Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2013 · 53 posts · 2 votes
13y
Robert Kyosaki talked about how he built a cash rich company. He made interesting points yet so true about the mentality of some. He told about a colleague or someone asked him why he had 7 cars. Why would a person need 7 cars is what the person said. He replied "I like my cars"
I work hard for my cars...in so many words.
Case in point, why would that bother someone to the point where it startles them or cause ill feelings or jealousy? Most of the greed comes from poor people and their perception of wealth. Some people want to get paid 10 bucks but want to do 1 dollar worth of work. That goes with big money as well.
It is not up to me or anyone else to past judgement on what people do with their money. It's a mindset. Occupy Wall Street is a prime example. Some people there had definite cause and reason to be there and there were some occupying space with loose anger that got them no where.
Greed I think depends on the person and the people that rally around them that agree with what they're doing.
Ultimately, we have to make new distinctions in our own lives and then it really doesn't matter what others are doing. We are a sum total of our past thoughts and upbringing on what a representation of success is. I feel it is important for us to become more aware of our thoughts, actions and how we effect the rest of the world.
Robert Kyosaki talked about how he built a cash rich company. He made interesting points yet so true about the mentality of some. He told about a colleague or someone asked him why he had 7 cars. Why would a person need 7 cars is what the person said. He replied "I like my cars" I work hard for my cars...in so many words.
Case in point, why would that bother someone to the point where it startles them or cause ill feelings or jealousy? Most of the greed comes from poor people and their perception of wealth. Some people want to get paid 10 bucks but want to do 1 dollar worth of work. That goes with big money as well.
Should we really be taking lesson in greed from Robert Kyosaki?
Last year, he lost a $24M lawsuit to the Learning Annex -- they helped him get famous and once he did, he decided he didn't want to pay them for their work. Instead of paying the $24M (he's worth an estimated $80M), he declared bankruptcy in the company that was sued, thereby protecting himself from having to give up any of his personal wealth.
While what he did was completely legal, it's not hard to argue that it was also completely unethical (not living up to your contracts with the company who helped make you wealthy). I'm pretty sure this would also qualify as extremely greedy.
So, when he talks about people who want to get paid $10 to do $1 work of work, remember that he's the guy who was happy to do $10 worth of work, but cheated others out of their share to keep the full $10...
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
13y
Not too much mentioned about corporate welfare, more money is lost there than food stamps and housing subsidies.
Education is a huge problem.
Most people want to work, I don't believe there are really that many real takers. I've worked with over a thousand of Sec 8 and public housing types, they want to work or do. There are reasons they don't or can't, often has to do with mental issues, personality disorders that also leads to unacceptable attitudes to those who do carry the water.
Saying someone is able bodied is misleading as you can't see personality disorders that can be hidden easily during short meetings with someone. Resentment is on both sides.
The game has turned into a war and the middle class is losing according to Warren Buffett....the political propaganda is all about "those people" as a means to save money keeping your eye off corporate welfare.....look at the farm bill!
Now, I can solve many of our problems, but no one is willing to make me King! That's about what it would take, a complete overhaul of our system. :)
As far as people having baby after baby that they can't afford, I see it all the time. In one neighborhood where I have a bunch of houses on Section 8, it's horrible. They will have a baby and then get more money each month and a bigger house. The people are so lazy that they depend on the government in every aspect of their lives - food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, etc. They sleep til noon and refuse to work. One of my tenants even got the state to put a new transmission in her car. Somehow, they always have their hair and nails "did", the heat is set at 80 in the winter, and there are DVD's and fast food wrappers everywhere. How is this fair?
These people have chosen to trap themselves in this life. You may see it as hair and nails, and some DVDs and fast food wrappers, but look at it this way -- this is all they will ever amount to.
You have the choice to take college classes, learn online, and possibly pursue another career besides real estate. These people will never have that ability unless they change.
You are correct that they are dependent. They are locked into only what the government will give them.
What if they want to go on vacation to Thailand, or eat out at a fancy restaurant? Or attend a play or dinner theater? Their lifestyle does not afford them the freedom to do so.
Effectively, just like being dependent on your employer for a paycheck limits you as to the hours you are able to devote to your own pursuits, the more you are dependent on other people (or the government), the less FREE you are.
You begrudge them for their hair and nails, I feel sorry for them that this is the only type of luxury they will ever experience and that they are happy being in the little box that they trapped themselves into.