The American Dream, but only for those on their way up

Published on October 16, 2008 By JillUser In Politics

If you follow the presidential race you've probably heard about "Joe the Plumber". His question, Obama's answer and debates I've seen here on JU and in other places have lead me to the conclusion that the class warfare that is going on today leaves people with the sentiment that if you are just starting out on the American Dream then we're behind you but once you've achieved it you become a greedy bastard (unless you are in entertainment). Work hard, save your money and you will succeed, right? Don't succeed too much though....huh? Is there now a ceiling to the American Dream?

The belief that our government needs to decide for us how much of our money we "need" angers and upsets me. "Joe the Plumber" is a good example. He pointed out to Obama that he'd get taxed more if he grew his company after working his ass off for 15yrs. Obama pointed to the past with a bunch of shoulda coulda woulda and ended up with a Lisa Simpsonesque (refund adjustment) type answer that tried to soften the fact that yes, he will tax him and give the money to who he thinks needs it more. Why the hell shouldn't Joe reap the benefits of all his years of work and sacrifice?

Are there any safegaurds that will prevent my hard earned money from going to people who have never worked a day in their life? If there are, I haven't heard about them. I hear all of these things about how we have to spread the wealth around. Why can't I decide who should benefit from my money?

My husband and I have always been responsible people. We started savings accounts as kids, started IRAs when we were in college and instead of living it up when our business first got going, we went without in order to reinvest in the business. Meanwhile, friends of ours were taking the higher paying jobs and driving nice new cars. They didn't take any risks or delay gratification in any way. The business grew, we were able to create a lot of jobs and now we are ready to reap the benefits.

Some of those friends who took the easy route aren't doing that well now. Should our money be given to them? Should we reward those who don't take risks and do the minimum and in turn punish those who take the risks, delay gratification and work their asses off in order to reach high goals they set? Do you really think that will benefit our society?

How has the American Dream gone from being given opportunity to being given handouts? Where's the personal responsibility? I'm glad my grandpa isn't alive to see the state of things today. He was from a generation that stood tall no matter how poor they were. He took responsibility for his mistakes and pride in his accomplishments. Now there is no responsibility, only excuses and blame.

Another blogger on one of my husband's articles eluded to the fact that maybe we shouldn't build our dream house right now because we currently have a very comfortable home and many others are facing such hard times. Why shouldn't we be able to build our dream house? We've worked, saved, budgeted, and we've helped out others in our lives all along the way. We've lived way beneath our means for a very long time. Life is short. Why shouldn't we be able to enjoy what we've built together and share it with our loved ones?

Comments (Page 4)

Draginol

on Oct 18, 2008

Then finally, we come to the redistribution side of things. This is much more about morals+ethics; is it ethical for the government to turn their backs on someone who has worked all their life, saving what they can, then has an accident, is unable to work anymore, and can't afford to survive on their own? If no, what if the same person had that accident when they'd only been working for a few years (and so hadn't paid much if any in taxes), should the government turn it's back on them? If you want government to be there to stop people dying, or trying to survive below the poverty line, then you need at least some form of income redistribution.

Governments aren't moral or immoral any more than a car is moral or immoral.

Human beings are moral and immoral.

No one argues that we don't need a government. But they will argue that it's theft to confiscate what one person makes to give to another by force which is what redistribution of wealth is.

The United States hasn't had redistribution of wealth for most of its history and in return we got the richest, most prosperous country on Earth despite only having 5% of the population.

Ceding personal responsibility to the government is a dangerous thing. The government that can do everything for you can take everything from you.

maudlin27

on Oct 19, 2008

Governments aren't moral or immoral any more than a car is moral or immoral.

Human beings are moral and immoral

A government is chosen by the people, and made up of people, hence you can apply concepts of morality and hold them up to certain ethical standards, unlike a car which is an object (unless we're talking about the driver of a car, of course).

it's theft to confiscate what one person makes to give to another by force which is what redistribution of wealth is.

Not necessarily, if you tax one person [poor] at 0% and another [rich] at 50%, you're not directly taking money from the rich to the poor, but rather are simply funding the government+necessary services via the rich only. So in effect you have some redistribution effects, since the benefits provided to the two are likely to be similar (and if anything could be higher for the poor person than the rich). Furthermore it's not theft anyway, since the government is imposing that tax as the price to pay for conducting your business within their jurisdiction. If you don't want to pay that price, then you can just go to a different country. So in effect you're paying for something, it's just the method of payment is a proportion of the profits you make, rather than a fixed up front fee. Certainly not theft.

Ceding personal responsibility to the government is a dangerous thing. The government that can do everything for you can take everything from you

As with most things you want everything in moderation! 'full' government control isn't good, just as no government control isn't good. However in cases where it's most efficient+practical for the government to take on additional responsibilities, it would make little sense to oppose that for a much less effective method based on fears that if the government was to have far far more responsibility then it would be a bad thing.

Dr Guy

on Oct 20, 2008

Leauki

reply 19

The Democrats have spent enough money to get Idi Amin elected if he were their nominee

It's about time that a black man becomes president!

Out of the mouth of babes! I do love your refreshing candor and insight into American politics.

Leauki

on Oct 20, 2008

I do love your refreshing candor and insight into American politics.

Now what's your problem with Idi Amin?

Idi stands for change and is well-liked in the Arab world. Of course his full name is "Adi Amin Dada" and right-wing detractors will just make fun of his name ("Dada") and Republicans won't vote for him because he is black.

Plus with him as president the Zionists would no longer dictate American foreign policy.

And he has experience. Look at the last country he was president of: no Zionist influence in his foreign policy whatsoever! Can you imagine what that would mean for America? It would be world peace, obviously. Everybody knows that the removal or death of the last Jew from the middle east would start the Messianic age of the moon bats.

(Of course America might have to take the odd Israeli intrustion when the IDF flies in to kill a few terrorists and get their hostages back, but that's a small price to pay for world peace.)

Leauki

on Oct 20, 2008

Hehe...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!