Debate Mark III

[Arch]

Nuclear power plants are far, FAR more efficient than coal or oil, produce minimal amounts of waste compared to fossil fuels (especially in atmospheric release), and nuclear accidents are very, very rare with modern technology and even more rarely have disastrous results.

Alright, but it's still a very real possibility and there's nuclear waste which is radioactive, difficult to store and unreprocessable.

[SSP]

Never, ever, ever look at a political figure to change your life. There have always been more people who struggle to get by in the world than those who are comfortable, and if that's going to change it's not going to come from a politician. Sorry to shoot you down, but no candidate is going to fix that. Look to yourself, your family, your friends, and if you think it'll work for you higher education.

I'm not looking for something life-changing, but aid to to the common American is something I like the sound of. Any aid would be nice. And like I've said nobody can deny that a huge, hard-working portion of our country is suffering. That's something that can't be ignored. Sure, the people of this town are looking out for each other, but we need action from whichever candidate wants to help. Small changes make a huge difference, especially what with the economy. I don't want to lose my home; a fear I share with the rest of the country (save those who are rich enough). And even the rich have no excuse for not acknowledging what's happening to their neighbors.

[YokaiKnight]

Alright, but it's still a very real possibility and there's nuclear waste which is radioactive, difficult to store and unreprocessable.

Nuclear waste is easily stored & secured, though reprocessing is admittedly not viable right now. Meanwhile, coal power plants output more dangerous radioactivity every year than all nuclear accidents have ever, combined...and it's into the atmosphere, which is much, much harder to contain.

I'm not looking for something life-changing, but aid to to the common American is something I like the sound of. Any aid would be nice. And like I've said nobody can deny that a huge, hard-working portion of our country is suffering. That's something that can't be ignored. Sure, the people of this town are looking out for each other, but we need action from whichever candidate wants to help. Small changes make a huge difference, especially what with the economy. I don't want to lose my home; a fear I share with the rest of the country (save those who are rich enough). And even the rich have no excuse for not acknowledging what's happening to their neighbors.

I hope I'm not coming across as saying that you're begging for someone to save you and doing nothing yourself. You made your situation obvious. I'm just saying that I think it's misplaced to look for help from a politician, at least a federal one. I think you'd have a better shot appealing to state & district representatives. Edited October 19, 2008 by YokaiKnight

[Arch]

Yep. Meanwhile, coal power plants output more dangerous radioactivity every year than all nuclear accidents have ever, combined. Never mind the air pollution differences, too.

Barack Obama wants to use Clean Coal technology (which already exists) and find a better renewable energy source for the future. He's also for using nuclear but not having it be the answer to everything.

Small changes make a huge difference, especially what with the economy. I don't want to lose my home; a fear I share with the rest of the country (save those who are rich enough)

Well, Barack Obama supports bringing back the regulation that Bush took away (which is the first step to repairing the economy).

Edited October 19, 2008 by Arch

[YokaiKnight]

Barack Obama wants to use Clean Coal technology (which already exists) and find a better renewable energy source for the future. He's also for using nuclear but not having it be the answer to everything.

Clean Coal technology just means less pollutants, you still get the same stuff and you're still using up fossil fuels very quickly.

Nuclear should be the primary energy source of the United States, with sources like wind, water, and solar used where it's efficient.

[Arch]

Nuclear isn't the answer to everything buddy,it may not produce much waste in one year but you need to look 50 years down the road, we'd be swimming in waste, their also really expensive which is something we need to look out for in this economic crisis. Plus, could you imagine nuclear powered cars? We'd have radioactive exposure every day which = extremely shortened life spans. Could you imagine using all that empty desert land in arizona/new mexico with a giant solar panel? That'd be a huge amount of energy generation (enough to power both states with a huge amount to spare).

Edited October 19, 2008 by Arch

[YokaiKnight]

Nuclear isn't the answer to everything buddy,it may not produce much waste in one year but you need to look 50 years down the road, we'd be swimming in waste, their also really expensive which is something we need to look out for in this economic crisis.

We wouldn't be swimming in waste. It's buried, and reactors are only getting more efficient. Not to mention breeder reactors could possible create nuclear fuel out of waste isotopes.

Plus, could you imagine nuclear powered cars? We'd have radioactive exposure every day which = extremely shortened life spans.

Nuclear power is used to generate electricity. Electric cars, man. ._.

Could you imagine using all that empty desert land in arizona/new mexico with a giant solar panel? That'd be a huge amount of energy generation (enough to power both states with a huge amount to spare).

With ONE solar panel? Beyond that little hiccup, no one is saying that using solar power in a desert is a bad idea.

[sandmanccl]

That's a horrible analogy for Socialism. There are so many flaws in it I can't point them all out. Do you understand the concept?

The whole point behind Socialism is that anyone, a farmer, a doctor, anyone, should have enough to live. They're important to society. In the society we have now, CEOs of companies, who do NOTHING make more money than the people that are essential for society. Do you know that a lot of farmers LOSE money? Teachers wages continuosly fall. Labor wages are getting increasingly small. We need these people to survive, yet these occupations are becoming more and more unsavory, and useless looking. We need everyone.

Labor wages diminish because skilled laborers aren't as common anymore. No one wants to pay money to people that do sub-standard work. I admit that labor unions were needed once upon a time but in the long run, have actually HURT the standards labor workers should have had.

Best example: My aunt used to be super pro-union, until she owned her own company. When she was forced to go with union contractors and the job took more money from her and more time than she had to spare because she wasn't able to hire people that'd actually do the job right, she's not so pro-union anymore.

Now, Capitalism isn't exactly godly. In pure Capitalism (there is no society that is pure Capitalism, even the US has a little Socialism mixed in), everything would VERY soon end up in a monopoly. Do you want a company responsible for everything, from your defense to your roads? Pure Capitalism is a scary thought. On the other hand, so is Pure Socialism, because in that, the Government controls everything. That's just as bad. But no-one in their right mind wants either really.

A mix is what you want. The pie analogy is also a little off. First, anything on Fox news is good for nothing but lulz (just kidding, please, don't sick the extreme Christian Right on me!). :P See, it misses the point. Why should some guy who really does nothing, or just inherited, or traded on the stock market, make SO MUCH more money than someone who is integral for our SURVIVAL. It's not that we can't make more pies, it's that the pies immediately go to the rich.

I hear a little bit of naivety in this comment. The biggest reason is that most of the people who are super rich now because they own Fortune 500 companies and what not, most of them didn't start with a whole lot. Bill Gates just had an idea and it grew into one of the single largest corporations in the United States if not the whole world.

If you think that the people who own these companies don't earn their money, that's just silly. I guarantee you that anyone worth a billion dollars or more doesn't have any free time in their day. A lot goes in to running a company and keeping it afloat.

Go take a basic economics course in college. If your professor is worth a lick of salt, things will make more sense to you. It's hard for me to explain because I haven't studied this stuff my whole life, but my father has and he's the single most knowledgeable person I know when it comes to money issues.

You're playing the class warfare game and when you do that, you end up making more homeless people, hurting those you said you were there to protect. I'm just saying, it's not so cut and dry.

[SSP]

I just want to thank the guys who responded to my worries. However, I've only got something about how Obama will help that so far. Will a person who supports John McCain be willing to respond to my concerns in the same sort of way? Thanks in advance.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Labor wages diminish because skilled laborers aren't as common anymore. No one wants to pay money to people that do sub-standard work. I admit that labor unions were needed once upon a time but in the long run, have actually HURT the standards labor workers should have had.

Best example: My aunt used to be super pro-union, until she owned her own company. When she was forced to go with union contractors and the job took more money from her and more time than she had to spare because she wasn't able to hire people that'd actually do the job right, she's not so pro-union anymore.

Now, Capitalism isn't exactly godly. In pure Capitalism (there is no society that is pure Capitalism, even the US has a little Socialism mixed in), everything would VERY soon end up in a monopoly. Do you want a company responsible for everything, from your defense to your roads? Pure Capitalism is a scary thought. On the other hand, so is Pure Socialism, because in that, the Government controls everything. That's just as bad. But no-one in their right mind wants either really.

I hear a little bit of naivety in this comment. The biggest reason is that most of the people who are super rich now because they own Fortune 500 companies and what not, most of them didn't start with a whole lot. Bill Gates just had an idea and it grew into one of the single largest corporations in the United States if not the whole world.

If you think that the people who own these companies don't earn their money, that's just silly. I guarantee you that anyone worth a billion dollars or more doesn't have any free time in their day. A lot goes in to running a company and keeping it afloat.

Go take a basic economics course in college. If your professor is worth a lick of salt, things will make more sense to you. It's hard for me to explain because I haven't studied this stuff my whole life, but my father has and he's the single most knowledgeable person I know when it comes to money issues.

You're playing the class warfare game and when you do that, you end up making more homeless people, hurting those you said you were there to protect. I'm just saying, it's not so cut and dry.

But what I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who live off the poor. A lot of company owners don't have to do much.

Now, maybe I should clarify my statements. I personally, could live life very easily with not much income. As I am now, I can drift through life no problem. I an capable of making smart decisions with money. But not everyone can do that. The way the system works actually discourages that. If you're smart you'll have no trouble. But not everyone's smart. And you're not wrong just because you're not smart. I'm going to quote a line from a song here: "Just because you're better than me, doesn't mean I'm lazy". Some people have poorer situations at birth then they do now.

The problem with the argument of "The people at the top are at the top for a reason, they must have done something to bring them self up there. They must have worked harder or something." is that it's the EXACT argument that people used to justify things like serfdom. If you were a noble, you were obviously a noble for a reason, right? I mean, they could even prove it. The average noble was far more knowledgeable and trained then the average serf. Of course, this was BECAUSE they were nobles. Once you get rich, it's easy to just keep getting richer. And America has some of the worst division of wealth in the world.

Normally, people will do what they think is in their best interest. But in society today, people are trained to think that the things in the companies best interests are in their best interests as well, when they usually aren't. Should people really have to research every thing they do?

Of course, once someone starts making lots of money, they will be all for what makes them more. People don't want to pay money. Especially rich people. Rich people don't want to pay taxes. They don't NEED the benefits. They can already pay for almost everything. If your average CEO breaks his leg, it's not that big a thing. If a single parent breaks his or her leg, they're basically fucked. First of all, they might not even have been able to afford a real Health Insurance policy (or their insurance company is just like "lol we don't cover that"), and on top of that, they can't work.

[Cynthia]

Because a single parent who spends all their time working is definitely not working as hard as a CEO. Definitely.

Come the hell on man. There are tons of people in the world who are rich because they are RICH. Not because of hard work. Hell, most really rich people are rich for that kind of reason. There aren't too many that are rich because they really worked hard, etc. The fact that you can say that the poor need to work harder is kind of worrying. Sure, some people will live off the system, but a lot of people are doing it anyway. At least this way the hard working people will get their reward.

Bill Gates worked every day, and continues to work even after he is retired.

Steve Jobs worked hard for his money, and was actually kicked out of his OWN company back in the 90s, only to work his way back in and steer the company away from near bankruptcy, now Apple Computers is one of the most successful businesses in the world.

Don't even say that the rich rarely work for their money. Only the spoiled pretty girls that were born into wealth that you see on television are like that, very few people are actually just rich, just because. We don't just decide who's rich and who isn't.

A majority of the wealthy population WORK for their money, and even after they have it, they still work. The problem is that a lot of the rich aren't giving a damn about the poor.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Bill Gates worked every day, and continues to work even after he is retired.

Steve Jobs worked hard for his money, and was actually kicked out of his OWN company back in the 90s, only to work his way back in and steer the company away from near bankruptcy, now Apple Computers is one of the most successful businesses in the world.

Don't even say that the rich rarely work for their money. Only the spoiled pretty girls that were born into wealth that you see on television are like that, very few people are actually just rich, just because. We don't just decide who's rich and who isn't.

A majority of the wealthy population WORK for their money, and even after they have it, they still work. The problem is that a lot of the rich aren't giving a damn about the poor.

The rich people who are famous usually work hard. Maybe it's not so much a question of not working hard, but the fact that many of them work no harder than the average person.

[Cynthia]

The rich people who are famous usually work hard. Maybe it's not so much a question of not working hard, but the fact that many of them work no harder than the average person.

Also incorrect, most rich people work HARDER.

Politicians rarely have time to spend with their families because their jobs eat into their off time which is scarce to begin with. Not all politicians are famous either.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Also incorrect, most rich people work HARDER.

Politicians rarely have time to spend with their families because their jobs eat into their off time which is scarce to begin with. Not all politicians are famous either.

No, I'm going to have to disagree there. Very much. Rich people don't even really NEED to work. You can live your entire life fairly comfortably if you have 2 Million Dollars. Now, most really rich people have a lot more. Its not all in cash form, but they have way more money than they will ever reasonably spend. They don't need to work, and I honestly don't think their work is that hard. I really don't think they work harder. Could you explain why you think this?

Also, most politicians aren't SUPER SUPER rich. They're pretty much set for life a lot of the time, but not Super rich.

[sandmanccl]

Actually, a lot of politicians fall in the Middle Class. Under Obama's tax plan, Sarah Palin and her family will be getting tax breaks.

At whomever just responded directly to my stuff (your name is too obscure for my brain to process it, sorry):

I know a lot of rich people. I plan to be rich some day. I don't want the American Dream being taken away from America.

The problem with the universalization of the Earth is that people don't realize they can move. You don't like the dog-eat-dog economics of the United States but you like the socialized practices of most countries in the European Union? Move out of here. Don't give me crap about how it's hard to move, too, because no shit. Tell that to our Ancestors, the ones that left everything behind to forge a new life in a country that allowed people to come from nothing into prosperity.

Yeah, there's a gap between the rich and the poor. But anyone can be rich. If you're poor and you're not making sound financial decisions, it really is your own damn fault and you're reaping the rewards of your laziness. I know I sure as hell am right now and I will fight anyone that tells me otherwise because they are delusional.

I think it's ironic that the candidate that most represents the American Dream is the one that's going to take a lot of that away if he's elected. Obama wouldn't have the opportunity to get in the White House under his OWN POLICIES.

[SSP]

Yeah, there's a gap between the rich and the poor. But anyone can be rich. If you're poor and you're not making sound financial decisions, it really is your own damn fault and you're reaping the rewards of your laziness.

Let me just get this straight. So despite that my mother works over 50 hours a day at the best job she can find, it's her fault that we're not rich and hardly have enough money to pay for the bills and the groceries?

I'm not trying to rat on conservatism by any means. I just want the conservative answer to the issue that plagues so many people in this country.

[Cynthia]

No, I'm going to have to disagree there. Very much. Rich people don't even really NEED to work. You can live your entire life fairly comfortably if you have 2 Million Dollars. Now, most really rich people have a lot more. Its not all in cash form, but they have way more money than they will ever reasonably spend. They don't need to work, and I honestly don't think their work is that hard. I really don't think they work harder. Could you explain why you think this?

Also, most politicians aren't SUPER SUPER rich. They're pretty much set for life a lot of the time, but not Super rich.

Wrong again, as you don't get "set for life," on day one of the job. Some people are from wealthy families to begin this much is true, but they work because they want to give BACK to the community, some people actually don't want to just tell everyone, "I'm rich, so stick it."

Also it's actually rather difficult to live your ENTIRE LIFE with 2 million dollars, unless you invest it, but 2 million alone can only go so far. (Not to mention people spend it quickly.)

Also, take note that some wealthy people donate money to charities and other organizations, and if they weren't working they wouldn't be able to do this on a regular basis. This once again falls under giving back to the community.

Lastly, I would like to point out, ONCE AGAIN, you're not from AMERICA, you don't live in America, you're not a U.S. Citizen, and have never WORKED IN AMERICA.

How do YOU know what American working conditions are?

How do YOU know what the cost of living in America is?

How do YOU know how hard Americans work?

Do you experience any of these? No.

Do you hear about them from your media? Yes.

Is the media always right? No.

Does the media experience these things either? No.

Does the CANADIAN media experience things in America? Rarely.

I think you should just forget American politics and American conditions until you decide you want to become American, because our country doesn't tell yours what you need, or who to elect, or how to run it, or how your people are living or should live.

If you think that you know what is best for America, come on over here and vote, I'll be waiting. If you love America so much, move to America when you get older and become a U.S. Citizen.

Leave American politics to Americans who live in America.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Cynthia

[sandmanccl]

Let me just get this straight. So despite that my mother works over 50 hours a day at the best job she can find, it's her fault that we're not rich and hardly have enough money to pay for the bills and the groceries?

I'm not trying to rat on conservatism by any means. I just want the conservative answer to the issue that plagues so many people in this country.

Well, yes, to be blunt. It's not that cut and dry, but it's still the truth.

If you're not financially stable when you have children and it forces you to take dreadfully mind-numbing work that consumes your soul so that you can take care of your family, you bring that on yourself. I've told the same to my brother Colin because he doesn't get it. One of the reasons my nuclear family has been rather well off is because my father had a pretty good paying job before he decided to have children. I realize the American dream is to have a family and be financially independent, and there's a lot more that goes into that than simply having a 40 hour work week and a roof over your head. If you're low income, don't have children unless you've decided that working very hard for a living with long hours is worth the benefit of having to pay for raising a child.

It's a harsh answer, I realize, but it's still the truth. Even if you work hard and barely get by, if you save up your extra wealth and invest in the right places, you can make your net worth grow exponentially. That really is fact because I've seen it time and time again. That's what my dad does for a living, is help people realize this.

Anyway, I'm going to have to agree with Cynthia on a point. I realize there's some people from the UK and Canada here. It's kind of none of your business what our political make up is, just as it's not our business what your political make up is.

[Cynthia]

Anyway, I'm going to have to agree with Cynthia on a point. I realize there's some people from the UK and Canada here. It's kind of none of your business what our political make up is, just as it's not our business what your political make up is.

I will say that you are a sensible person when it comes to these things, as you state facts, and not always opinions, (even if one or two slip in there now and then.)

I see too many people with their "GOD BLESS AMERICA THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! ALL OTHER COUNTRIES SUCK!" Attitude that are obviously blinded by their patriotism.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Judgment's blinded by many things... you can't listen to just any1.

[sandmanccl]

I will say that you are a sensible person when it comes to these things, as you state facts, and not always opinions, (even if one or two slip in there now and then.)

Well, I try to preface things that are clearly my own opinion as my own opinions. My political science teacher does that and it made me realize arguments pro-something are more palatable when people know it's just your own opinion so if they want to disagree, they have the option out of it.

[SSP]

Well, yes, to be blunt. It's not that cut and dry, but it's still the truth.

If you're not financially stable when you have children and it forces you to take dreadfully mind-numbing work that consumes your soul so that you can take care of your family, you bring that on yourself. I've told the same to my brother Colin because he doesn't get it. One of the reasons my nuclear family has been rather well off is because my father had a pretty good paying job before he decided to have children. I realize the American dream is to have a family and be financially independent, and there's a lot more that goes into that than simply having a 40 hour work week and a roof over your head. If you're low income, don't have children unless you've decided that working very hard for a living with long hours is worth the benefit of having to pay for raising a child.

It's a harsh answer, I realize, but it's still the truth. Even if you work hard and barely get by, if you save up your extra wealth and invest in the right places, you can make your net worth grow exponentially. That really is fact because I've seen it time and time again. That's what my dad does for a living, is help people realize this.

Thanks. What you say about financial stability from my birth is pretty much true; my mom was bookkeeping and my dad was a post office worker (>_>). And then of course, when I was four years old, my parents divorced and...yeah. So child support is helping and stuff, though it's minimal since my dad's a post office worker (though he has more than a decent amount of money). And he probably doesn't want to be paying it considering he doesn't bother to see me anymore and...yeah. Bleh. But that's totally not on topic. However, job stuff never was great, so yeah. I just worry about that burden carrying on to me, and I might not be able to pay for college and a car and a home and things like that...but then again, I could either pass on that stuff (which I don't want to do by any means) or do something smart. So now I'm trying to think a little more about what exactly I can do to alleviate that a bit. It's a scary thought, though I don't want financial problems to pass on to my kids...though that's probably something most parents think about.

But yeah, you answered exactly what I was asking. It WAS harsh, but it was the truth. Thanks a bunch!

[Defeatist Elitist]

Lastly, I would like to point out, ONCE AGAIN, you're not from AMERICA, you don't live in America, you're not a U.S. Citizen, and have never WORKED IN AMERICA.

How do YOU know what American working conditions are?

How do YOU know what the cost of living in America is?

How do YOU know how hard Americans work?

Do you experience any of these? No.

Do you hear about them from your media? Yes.

Is the media always right? No.

Does the media experience these things either? No.

Does the CANADIAN media experience things in America? Rarely.

I think you should just forget American politics and American conditions until you decide you want to become American, because our country doesn't tell yours what you need, or who to elect, or how to run it, or how your people are living or should live.

If you think that you know what is best for America, come on over here and vote, I'll be waiting. If you love America so much, move to America when you get older and become a U.S. Citizen.

Leave American politics to Americans who live in America.

Ya know what? I'm tired of this stuff. You have confessed yourself that you don't care about the politics or leader of your country. You have said that you don't believe the country can be changed and you will be leaving as soon as possible.

Yet you come into this topic to tell me that I can't care about somewhere I don't live? You think I don't know this? You don't know me, and you've never met me. For all you know I could have a lot of family in the US. I could work there, many Canadians do. I could have lived their most of my life. I could study American Economics. I could do tons of things. You DON'T KNOW.

Besides that point, what happens in America affects the rest of the world. To be honest, everyone should care about Politics, the world would be a much better place if they did, I'm sure that's something both me and Sandman actually agree on.

To put it bluntly, I don't appreciate being told that I am not entitled to talk about American politics by somebody who's given up hope in their own country and doesn't want to change it. I might disagree with Sandman, but I don't mind arguing with him. Because it's obvious he cares. He is saying what he thinks is best for America. I just disagree. But you seem to only come into these types of topics to say "I don't care about this topic, by the way, ZXValaRevan, you can't talk, you live in Canada, bai." If that's pretty much all you're going to say, then please don't post. If you do post, from now on, expect me to respond in a matter befitting it.

@sandman, I'll respond better later, but I think we just disagree on this. I don't believe that people bring things on themselves with poor financial decisions. Me and my family make good decisions, we've managed to do pretty damn well. But I know some people who make mistakes, and I don't think that we should just say "Haha, they made mistakes, they suck".

[Cynthia]

Ya know what? I'm tired of this stuff. You have confessed yourself that you don't care about the politics or leader of your country. You have said that you don't believe the country can be changed and you will be leaving as soon as possible.

Yet you come into this topic to tell me that I can't care about somewhere I don't live? You think I don't know this? You don't know me, and you've never met me. For all you know I could have a lot of family in the US. I could work there, many Canadians do. I could have lived their most of my life. I could study American Economics. I could do tons of things. You DON'T KNOW.

Besides that point, what happens in America affects the rest of the world. To be honest, everyone should care about Politics, the world would be a much better place if they did, I'm sure that's something both me and Sandman actually agree on.

To put it bluntly, I don't appreciate being told that I am not entitled to talk about American politics by somebody who's given up hope in their own country and doesn't want to change it. I might disagree with Sandman, but I don't mind arguing with him. Because it's obvious he cares. He is saying what he thinks is best for America. I just disagree. But you seem to only come into these types of topics to say "I don't care about this topic, by the way, ZXValaRevan, you can't talk, you live in Canada, bai." If that's pretty much all you're going to say, then please don't post. If you do post, from now on, expect me to respond in a matter befitting it.

@sandman, I'll respond better later, but I think we just disagree on this. I don't believe that people bring things on themselves with poor financial decisions. Me and my family make good decisions, we've managed to do pretty damn well. But I know some people who make mistakes, and I don't think that we should just say "Haha, they made mistakes, they suck".

I think not being a U.S. Citizen is 100% relevant to the topic.

Secondly, I think after 17 years of the United States government that I've earned the right to say I've given up on it.

To be 100% honest, you can't even vote in this country. You're not a U.S. Citizen, which means the government decided your not going to vote, therefore I am not alone when I say that you don't have a say in it, because well, the U.S. Government is saying you don't have a say in it.

I can understand other United States subjects, but politics is a no.

Also I didn't bring your character into question as you did mine, I just stated you are from a location that does not permit you to have a say in U.S. Politics. I never said you "gave up on your country," although it sure as Hell sounds like it, from how interested you are in ours.

Also, I can not state enough how pointless it is to post a "no reply," response.

[sandmanccl]

I think not being a U.S. Citizen is 100% relevant to the topic.

Secondly, I think after 17 years of the United States government that I've earned the right to say I've given up on it.

To be 100% honest, you can't even vote in this country. You're not a U.S. Citizen, which means the government decided your not going to vote, therefore I am not alone when I say that you don't have a say in it, because well, the U.S. Government is saying you don't have a say in it.

You can't vote in this country, either, Cynthia. I'd say you don't have a right to give up on something you haven't been actively a part of.

@ ValaReven: Dog-eat-dog economics, man.

I'm willing to concede it's difficult for poorer people to get out of the hole, but it's still possible. Should there be more helping hands? I'm not so sure there should be, at least in the form of bigger government. If I'm a rich person, I don't want the government taking my money to give to people who haven't put in the same effort I did to earn my money.

I think the first and foremost role of government is to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of property. If you think this sounds familiar, you must have read John Locke. For the record, his ideas were what my country was founded upon. They changed it to "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, but that's basically what it means. Poor people are still able to live (government doesn't have to protect QUALITY of life), they still have the same freedoms as anyone else, and they are still able to try and acquire wealth.