issuevoter wrote on Jul 27
th, 2016 at 4:10pm:
aquascoot wrote on Jul 27
th, 2016 at 2:12pm:
America, or the idea that is America, has been SOOOO successful because it has always been wary of big government.
europe and the soviet union say that the right place for power and control of the flow of $$$ is with a central authroity. a central authority knows best what is good for the people.
America, at its core, has always believed that the people know best how to earn a buck and how to spend a buck (well at least until recent decades).
And the fall of the soviet union leaving the USA as the one remaining superpower showed that the american model was the correct model.
The american model of smaller government and capitalist competition had prevailed, It had won.
And then, at the very pinnacle of their success, they, for reasons unbeknown to common sense, started to copy the failed policies of the socialist democratic countries of europe with expanding welfare system and worrying more about minorities then the engine room of growth...the marvellous entrepreneurial spirit of Wall St and Silicon Valley had to play second fiddle to "affirmative action" and "medicaid" and a blossoming welfare state.
America is living proof that the mountain you have to climb , the mountian of success you climb, so that you can reach the pinnacle , is a muddy mountain. When you get to the top, if you just rest and admire the view, you immediately start slipping down those muddy slopes. You have to have a rational paranoia about failure and realise that success is difficult to obtain and fleeting in its nature.
America did not learn these lessons and successive poor leadership from carter, the bushes, clinton, obama and now probably clinton again have seen them sliding down that slope.
There is a very narrow road to success and Obama has been asleep at the wheel.
There are certain elements of what you believe, that I can go along with. But you nearly always conclude with a paragraph which is as much a flight of fancy as those of the leftist, do-gooder, fruit cakes of this forum.
. Your endorsement of US capitalism is so thorough that it almost sounds like you read on a Kellogg's packet.
That view of America was established more than a century ago, and it was time when American workers suffered greatly, but generally kept quiet, and as the saying goes, they worked so hard they died standing up. Take an honest look at Pittsburgh or West Virginia in 1900. That's not the Walt Disney version of America.
And to digress for a moment, the fall of Soviet Union was the fault of Soviet policy, not the success of US policy. When Reagan said, "Tear down this wall," he knew he would look good, because it was already falling inward.
But to return to your perspective of what people deserve,
you seem to think that everyone is born on a level playing field. We are not, and for many reasons. Every day I interact with people who, under any circumstances, would never have entrepreneurial skills, let alone take charge of a situation. But they are the ones who have borne the brunt of defending America in war after war. In the past, they could be abandoned to menial tasks and eventual penury, but those days are gone, and only a dinosaur would think those days are coming back.
The trouble with success is that it insulates the successful, and in a lot of cases, they subconsciously feel if they can achieve it, then anyone can, especially in the good old USA. The reality is that you must have the capacity and the opportunity. They are two things a lot of people will never have.
this is simply not true.
the child of a priveledged family is at very little advantage over a child of a poor family PROVIDED the parents of the poorer family have the right personal philosophy.
With free education, unlimited access to books and learning and , good nutrition, there is NOTHING a poor child cannot achieve that a rich child can.
Now if the parents have a poor work ethic, addiction to substance or alcohol, addiction to low quality food, addiction to Durrr state tv and internet, then the child will soak this up like a sponge.
But all of the above are failings of personal philosophy and have zippo, nought, nil and nothing to do with Washington.
In fact, a rich child could be seen to be at a disadvantage because he/she will not have to grow thru the 1000's of reference experiences that are available to the poor child who gets to grind it out and develop the strength of character that defines success.
the paradox is that what seems an advantage, if you allow it to let you take shortcuts and not develop core strengths...it is not an advantage at all.
as an example, a beautiful rich young girl may get lots of free dinners and guys giving her lots of attention and she may not need to do anything to be going out and having fun....til she hits 35
a plain asian girl who works in mum and dads takeaway and learns to smile and be pleasant, has good manners and a blue collar work ethic, who studies at night while the bratty girl parties...when she hits 35, she has all that muscle, all that deep foundational stuff, all those anchors and reference experiences, she is going to absolutley be stunting on the rich girl. the rich girl will be destroyed by her own personal weak philosophy
Forum
Pages: 
