USA hides trillions in debt

[Wild Luck]

ah yes, i just hate it when people degrade them by calling them 3rd world..

yes, i really hated when i heard that in my history classes, but it was how they called them. I didnt know how they called it in english, but thx now i know, its developing

Edited November 29, 2007 by Wild Luck

[LearJett+]

Who cares if the debt is increasing as long as our economy is growing faster? (which it has been and is predicted to do so)

[ESCANDAL0SA]

Who cares if the debt is increasing as long as our economy is growing faster? (which it has been and is predicted to do so)

 

 

not necessarily. american economy has actually been doing worse, hence the fall in the value of the dollar relative to canada and euros as well.

 

first, second and third world still exists, and it's still useful because they have distinguishable characteristics in each one. using just "developing nations" doesn't really say anything.

[AstroProdigy]

The past 7 years have seen a stagnant middle to lower class while prices have skyrocketed. That just doesn't fit into our economic system so it's bound to fail eventually. What's going on now is nothing compared to what's going to happen at this rate. Essentially what's going to happen is when the disastrous economy catches up to us the lower and middle classes will pay for it while the upper classes remain aloof with all their money.

 

There also is no second world since communism fell and that's what necessitated the "developed" and "developing" nations definitions.

[LearJett+]

Who cares if the debt is increasing as long as our economy is growing faster? (which it has been and is predicted to do so)

 

 

not necessarily. american economy has actually been doing worse, hence the fall in the value of the dollar relative to canada and euros as well.

 

first, second and third world still exists, and it's still useful because they have distinguishable characteristics in each one. using just "developing nations" doesn't really say anything.

 

it's been doing worse, yes, but the numbers still indicate that growth of productivity > growth of the debt. as long as that continues, we're golden. also, trying to alleviate the debt (which is, for the most part, impossible) would probably come at a cost of that growth of productivity.

[AstroProdigy]

In case you haven't noticed Americans already work very long hours on average so while we've been able to bark up that tree for a while to make up for irresponsible policies it isn't going to last forever. We also don't need to get rid of the debt persay. We just need to make sure it doesn't spiral out of control the way it's been going. We have 2 ways to fix the problem. We can end the costly and pointless imperialist venture in Iraq and we can also remove the pointless tax cuts for the rich. We could also fix the loophole where investors pay only half the taxes so the super rich like Warren Buffet actually pay at the very least their share. People like to talk about how this will hurt investment, but as Scandinavian countries show us while low taxes provide a way for those who can exploit the system to make a lot of money it's stability of the market that's the better long term strategy. We also have the huge dominance as the United States and giant market to make our country look VERY appealing. We can double our GDP, but all that won't mean !@#$%^&* if only the people on top see any of the extra money and they drive up the prices of products in the process.

[Bak]

at some point productivity is gonna cap out and the interest on our debt will continue to grow exponentially

[LearJett+]

at some point productivity is gonna cap out and the interest on our debt will continue to grow exponentially

 

that's not true. people have always predicted that producitivity will cap out, but it hasn't and won't.

 

 

Astro, it's not a 'loophole' for investors to not pay entire taxes on the money that they invest (it's not on all their taxes), it's a policy to ensure and cultivate economic growth. there doesn't need to be any increase in taxes (there probably should be a cut, or move to a Fair Tax), I agree that it should be a cut in spending. you cite the war in iraq, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to our failing welfare spending.

[AstroProdigy]

Productivity will never cap out? Is there going to be more hours in the day or are we going to invent a way to skip sleep then? People can't just work longer and longer to make up for debt. That's just not a sustainable policy. It also isn't a morally sound one. Why continue to force lower end people to work more and more just to make ends meet because we want to spend like mad without any concept of balance.

 

There are lots of people, including all the rich billionaires who make their money off of investments. That is their income. I'll bring you back again to Warren Buffet the third richest man in the world. He pays about 18% in taxes on what he makes while average Joes pay 33%. How is that fair?

 

The "tax cuts cultivate economic growth" !@#$%^&* just doesn't sell anymore. We have enough money in the US to take care of everyone quite well at this point. The problem is this obsession with tax cuts with this mythical claim of cultivating economic growth that has lead to spiraling debt. People invest in the US economy because of it's stability and because of high productivity.

 

If they wanted to invest where it's cheap they'd go to China (and they do). Tax cuts aren't going to change that unless you're willing to scrap virtually all social services and remove the minimum wage requirement, but all that would lead to is extreme poverty. I know that's an extreme example, but that's essentially what the "tax cut" policy does to a first world country. It impoverishes the lower classes so that the elite can reap mammoth profits.

 

As countries like the Scandinavian countries show, higher taxes don't mean poverty and high unemployment. Low taxes is a great way to build up an economy, but in case you haven't noticed we already have the biggest economy in the world and one of the highest per capita GDPs. Once you realize this you can start to question the true motives of these wealthy oriented tax cuts.

 

While I agree that welfare spending should be reformed to serve more useful purposes and that will probably end up causing a cut I hardly think that is the first place to look when we have a completely pointless and incredibly expensive war in front of us. Considering the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on Iraq every year with no end in sight I hardly see it as a drop in the bucket.

[LearJett+]

Productivity will never cap out? Is there going to be more hours in the day or are we going to invent a way to skip sleep then? People can't just work longer and longer to make up for debt. That's just not a sustainable policy. It also isn't a morally sound one. Why continue to force lower end people to work more and more just to make ends meet because we want to spend like mad without any concept of balance.

 

Have you ever taken an economics class? It's not about working more, it's about working more efficiently... which we have and will continue to do as technology is developed.

 

There are lots of people, including all the rich billionaires who make their money off of investments. That is their income. I'll bring you back again to Warren Buffet the third richest man in the world. He pays about 18% in taxes on what he makes while average Joes pay 33%. How is that fair?

 

Do you even realize how much more Buffett's 18% is than your 33%? The top 1% income earners in this country already pay 90% of tax dollars, and you want more? It is the rich who invest, and it is the investment that drives our economy. Stop investment and stop our growth -- then the debt will REALLY matter.

 

The "tax cuts cultivate economic growth" !@#$%^&* just doesn't sell anymore. We have enough money in the US to take care of everyone quite well at this point. The problem is this obsession with tax cuts with this mythical claim of cultivating economic growth that has lead to spiraling debt. People invest in the US economy because of it's stability and because of high productivity.

 

Do you even know what you're talking about? When people have more money because the government hasn't taken it, they spend and invest it. The tax on this increase in spending alone is higher than just the straight taxes that would have been collected sans tax decrease. It's not mythical -- it's proven. The US economy won't be stable, produce as highly, or grow if you stop investment and spending.

 

If they wanted to invest where it's cheap they'd go to China (and they do). Tax cuts aren't going to change that unless you're willing to scrap virtually all social services and remove the minimum wage requirement, but all that would lead to is extreme poverty. I know that's an extreme example, but that's essentially what the "tax cut" policy does to a first world country. It impoverishes the lower classes so that the elite can reap mammoth profits.

 

Not every market is present in China. In fact, most aren't. The "tax cut" policy (as you label it) does create a greater gap between the wealthy and poor in the same country. What you are missing is the fact that our poor are more wealthy then the poor in other countries.

 

As countries like the Scandinavian countries show, higher taxes don't mean poverty and high unemployment. Low taxes is a great way to build up an economy, but in case you haven't noticed we already have the biggest economy in the world and one of the highest per capita GDPs. Once you realize this you can start to question the true motives of these wealthy oriented tax cuts.

 

What are you talking about? What Scandinavian countries have higher anything than the US? You admit low taxes build an economy... what would cause that growth to stop? It doesn't. Stop falling back on your "wealthy this" and "wealthy that." It's PROVEN that tax cuts cultivate growth. If you took any form of macroeconomics, you would know this.

 

While I agree that welfare spending should be reformed to serve more useful purposes and that will probably end up causing a cut I hardly think that is the first place to look when we have a completely pointless and incredibly expensive war in front of us. Considering the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on Iraq every year with no end in sight I hardly see it as a drop in the bucket.

 

The cost of the war in Iraq so far: $474,271,400,000 over the last four and a half years, rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. Do you know the cost of Social Security over just the last four years? $2,200,000,000,000. Medicare over the last four years? A little over $1,000,000,000,000. You call the war pointless, but some see it as a benefit in the future. (I'm not about to debate the war with you, by the way.) Social security and medicare can be criticized for their low returns when compared to private savings.

 

Take a macro or micro class and then come talk about economics.

[AstroProdigy]

Have you ever taken an economics class? It's not about working more' date=' it's about working more efficiently... which we have and will continue to do as technology is developed.[/quote']

What happens when machines are so efficient they totally replace people? In case you haven't noticed Americans' IQ's have been slipping for years so they won't exactly be ready to do the hardest jobs that machines won't replace. You also have a class of poor people who start out far behind who are going to increasingly fall behind in our system.

Do you even realize how much more Buffett's 18% is than your 33%? The top 1% income earners in this country already pay 90% of tax dollars' date=' and you want more? It is the rich who invest, and it is the investment that drives our economy. Stop investment and stop our growth -- then the debt will REALLY matter.[/quote']

Buffet's 18% is 18%. Whatever happened to your flat tax? Flat tax except for the richest? People invest in economies for multiple reasons. Stability and the dominance of both our market and our global power make us very attractive. Allow the debt to spiral for the sake of low taxes and American dominance and that stability starts going away. The reason why countries with high taxes do quite well is they're very stable both economically and politically. Do we really want to go the other track?

Do you even know what you're talking about? When people have more money because the government hasn't taken it' date=' they spend and invest it. The tax on this increase in spending alone is higher than just the straight taxes that would have been collected sans tax decrease. It's not mythical -- it's proven. The US economy won't be stable, produce as highly, or grow if you stop investment and spending.[/quote']

When rich people spend more money rather than it being taxed they drive prices up. It's simple logic really

Not every market is present in China. In fact' date=' most aren't. The "tax cut" policy (as you label it) does create a greater gap between the wealthy and poor in the same country. What you are missing is the fact that our poor are more wealthy then the poor in other countries.[/quote']

Wow that's wonderful. You've made the classic conservative fallacy. So the fact that our poor are better off than the poor in poverty stricken countries then it's all ok? The problem certain first world countries have is the availability of jobs to the poor is low. In the US we have plenty of jobs for them, but no matter how hard they work they're likely to be trapped because they don't get decent wages.

What are you talking about? What Scandinavian countries have higher anything than the US? You admit low taxes build an economy... what would cause that growth to stop? It doesn't. Stop falling back on your "wealthy this" and "wealthy that." It's PROVEN that tax cuts cultivate growth. If you took any form of macroeconomics' date=' you would know this.[/quote']

Scandinavian countries have MUCH better living standards than us. What happens with the low taxes is as your economy grows poorer countries become more and more compe!@#$%^&*ive against you. Eventually you hit a wall where unless you're willing to create a class of poor people it doesn't matter what you do because any jobs that can be done in another country for much cheaper will be done there. It is an inescapable fact in our global system. What makes a first world country compe!@#$%^&*ive is high levels of technology and a well educated population to harness that advantage. Last time I checked low taxes don't do !@#$%^&* to help that. Instead of focusing on the real solution people have been distracting us with an outdated one that survives largely on masses of illegal immigrants.

The cost of the war in Iraq so far: $474' date='271,400,000 over the last four and a half years, rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. Do you know the cost of Social Security over just the last four years? $2,200,000,000,000. Medicare over the last four years? A little over $1,000,000,000,000. You call the war pointless, but some see it as a benefit in the future. (I'm not about to debate the war with you, by the way.) Social security and medicare can be criticized for their low returns when compared to private savings.[/quote']

So Social Security and Medicare are pointless while the Iraq war is a benefit in the future? There are real problems with Social Security and Medicare that need to be addressed, but they have been an essential part of our economy for years. They are the reason why the elderly don't end up as a class of homeless people. Private savings can be a great alternative for educated people, but the people who will end up losing out in the end are the very same people Social Security benefits the most.

 

Click here

Expenditures on the military have also risen steadily from 350 billion dollars a year to 650 billion dollars a year by 2008. If you factor in this pointless increase in spending you g. In case you haven't noticed, the massive spending required for a conventional war with the Soviet Union is no longer meaningful. That's why Clinton gradually lowered spending. Asymmetrical warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan shows us very clearly that money will never win. Why is it, therefore, that we continue to increase spending every year? These figures EXCLUDE the money dumped into Iraq and Afghanistan war spending. If you combine the money spent in those 2 countries with the rise in total spending you will get a figure well into the trillions for the past 4 years. If you estimate the projected increases in both military spending and continued rises in Iraq and Afghanistan War funding you will get a number in multiple trillions for the next 4 years.

 

Take a class in modern warfare and then come talk about military spending.

[LearJett+]

Your "logic" is no subs!@#$%^&*ute for real economics. This isn't a debate about modern warfare, so !@#$%^&* your class. This is an economic debate and you're arguing in pitch black.

 

That's why I'm done with this thread.

[NBVegita]

I don't see where modern warfare fit into your post astro, you simply googled "US military spending".

 

No matter how you cut the pie, military spending, including additional expenditures is a pure economical/political issue, and really, except for the fact that the spending is done on behalf of the war, has nothing to do with the warfare itself. When it comes to war in this country is relatively simple. Generals ask for money, we give them money.

 

Simply put, there are no generals or military strategists sitting back trying to work on the military budget.

 

Scandinavian countries have MUCH better living standards than us.

 

Can you source that for me?

 

In the US we have plenty of jobs for them, but no matter how hard they work they're likely to be trapped because they don't get decent wages.

 

Even working those jobs, if you work hard you can work your way into middle class. You may never be rich, but you can work above your initial class. But if you get into the self pity trip that the U.S. s!@#$%^&* feeds everyone, they no, you will be a loser.

[Bak]

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/w...f-life-map.html

 

I wouldn't say it's MUCH higher... marginally at best... don't they pay like 60% taxes too?

[AstroProdigy]

Generals ask for money? So? We ended the expensive Cold War and until Bush we were cutting military spending. Since Bush we have (on top of massive spending in war supplementals) been forced to double the military budget over time and the increases in spending are only rising. The use of all of that military equipment in the "War on Terror" is a large part of the increase. Bush's special relationship with the big business that runs the military-industrial complex is another. If you want to talk about a deficit that plus the tax cuts account for most of the rise in the deficit. Otherwise it'd be a manageable debt increase as we've been doing for years.

 

It also doesn't take a genius to know that when you have massive military superiority already there's little you can do with more money. Only a political solution or a massive military campaign would win a guerrilla war. It's either that or go back to the colonial policies of the Europe to trick the enemy, but that's much harder today than it used to be.

 

Can you source that for me?

Well I didn't realize I'd need to prove that people in Scandinavian countries have a higher quality of life since it's common knowledge' date=' but heres some rankings.

For Human Development we are number 12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index

 

This is despite the fact that our per capita GDP (PPP) is 4th in the world ahead of almost all Scandinavian countries except for oil rich Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...PPP)_per_capita

 

Even working those jobs' date=' if you work hard you can work your way into middle class. You may never be rich, but you can work above your initial class. But if you get into the self pity trip that the U.S. s!@#$%^&* feeds everyone, they no, you will be a loser.[/quote']

With kids at the same time? Really now? Ever tried it?

Edited December 20, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

With kids at the same time?

 

If you're too poor to support kids, don't open your !@#$%^&*ing legs. I don't feel bad for the immature and irresponsible.

 

This does not relate to the marginal few that ended up with a bad break.

 

Also all of scandanavia does not even consist of 25 million people. Not one of thei countries even has 10 million people in it. !@#$%^&* Iceland who is number one only has 300,000 people.

 

Lets see what kind of standard of living they have if you multiply their population by 1010%.

 

Per your own source our military spending growth was parallel at the end of the clinton administration as it was just after invading Iraq.

[AstroProdigy]

If you're a 15 year old girl who's taught abstinence only policies and then woops that fails you then what? If you have kids then you and they should suffer with no possibility for improvement?

 

Scandinavia not having large populations means their success is meaningless? The US has a per capita wealth higher than all of them except Norway so we actually DO have the resources to give Americans a better standard of living. The problem is we don't care to do so. The funny thing is we're now beat by France, with a GDP per capita (PPP) only 2/3 of ours and being #21 on the list of per capita GDP.

 

Clinton increased military spending significantly once after constant reductions and that discredits the massive increases Bush has been as imaginary? This is ON TOP of the huge supplementals he gets every year for his "war on terror". The cost of the increase in military spending over time plus the supplementals gets to a good trillion and a half. Don't think that can account for quite a large chunk of the estimated 3 trillion dollar deficit increase under Bush?

 

cost of tax cuts

 

or here

Through fiscal year 2006, tax legislation enacted since 2001 has had a direct cost of $1.0 trillion, according to Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO estimates. Another $1.0 trillion in direct costs will be incurred by 2017, even if the tax cuts expire as scheduled."

 

Add to that 2007 and suddenly you can get the picture that most of the deficit under Bush comes from 1)Military spending and the "War on Terror" and 2) Tax cuts. You can look more at the sources for tax cuts to see their comparison to spending on certain fields and what would be needed to finance them.

Edited December 20, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[2pac]

!@#$%^&* this im gonna go play same MegaMillions, $$

[NBVegita]

If you're a 15 year old girl who's taught abstinence only policies and then woops that fails you then what?

 

If you follow those policies it won't. !@#$%^&* I had sex for the first time at 14, and you know what, I knew the risks I was taking.

 

If you have kids then you and they should suffer with no possibility for improvement?

 

First off, we are not a socialistic society, just because you made mistakes doesn't mean I should pay for them.

 

Second, dedication can lead to improvement. If you work hard, no matter how poor you are, you can get into college, even if its only community college, and then you can get a decent, if not amazing, job. I'm sick and tired of this !@#$%^&* about how you can't be motivated if you work minimum wage. !@#$%^&* just having your parents working minimum wage should be motivation enough.

 

Scandinavia not having large populations means their success is meaningless? The US has a per capita wealth higher than all of them except Norway so we actually DO have the resources to give Americans a better standard of living. The problem is we don't care to do so.

 

I'm sorry I actually enjoy not living in a socialistic society, you must not. That is also where your GDP stats really don't mean much.

 

And yes having a lower population definately means their success is not as meaningful.

 

I dare you to make a country where 300,000 people have a wonderful standard of life. Now I dare you to add 302,700,000 people to your country and carry the same standard of life.

 

!@#$%^&* if you add up the population of every country on the list ahead of the U.S. they are still about 13,000,000 short of our population.

 

I don't think you can really ask for much more than our country does considering the cir!@#$%^&*stances.

[AstroProdigy]

If you follow those policies it won't. !@#$%^&* I had sex for the first time at 14' date=' and you know what, I knew the risks I was taking.[/quote']

Are you seriously supporting abstinence teaching? Wow is all I have to say. All the statistics and research in the world shows how much of a failure it is. It is also logically a failure to try to stop one of our most basic instincts. These are kids! They do stupid things and you're much better off giving them protection and teaching them how to use it since this is clearly more effective. Now instead of doing this imagine the kids who don't even know about contraception or are taught that it's wrong. What happens then? Lots of teen pregnancies with no hope of improving their lives.

 

First off' date=' we are not a socialistic society, just because you made mistakes doesn't mean I should pay for them.

 

Second, dedication can lead to improvement. If you work hard, no matter how poor you are, you can get into college, even if its only community college, and then you can get a decent, if not amazing, job. I'm sick and tired of this !@#$%^&* about how you can't be motivated if you work minimum wage. !@#$%^&* just having your parents working minimum wage should be motivation enough.[/quote']

 

First off, we don't live in a pure capitalistic society. We haven't had that for a very long time and I'm !@#$%^&* glad we don't live in it today.

 

Second, dedication doesn't always lead to improvement. As an adult, how much access do you have to education? An adult with kids that is. When will you find the time from raising kids and working multiple jobs to do so. You think living in a dysfunctional family makes you more likely to succeed? I think we both know it's the opposite and please don't ask me to provide a source saying people coming from dysfunctional families are less likely to succeed in life before being willing to accept it because I'm pretty sick and tired of having to provide even the most basic common knowledge facts to you. It's a waste of time and really annoys me.

 

Now try taking all the single mothers estimated at 10 million in the US. Here's a link. How many of them do you think could possibly get educated? They can barely even get by if that. We don't even have to provide them with more welfare. All we have to do is provide free job training and treat the job training like a job where they get paid so they could maybe drop 1 of their multiple jobs and get educated. Then maybe they can have a decent life. That's a real solution unlike your "everything that happens is your fault" model that is such an utter failure in today's society.

 

I'm sorry I actually enjoy not living in a socialistic society' date=' you must not. That is also where your GDP stats really don't mean much.

 

And yes having a lower population definately means their success is not as meaningful.

 

I dare you to make a country where 300,000 people have a wonderful standard of life. Now I dare you to add 302,700,000 people to your country and carry the same standard of life.

 

!@#$%^&* if you add up the population of every country on the list ahead of the U.S. they are still about 13,000,000 short of our population.

 

I don't think you can really ask for much more than our country does considering the cir!@#$%^&*stances.[/quote']

 

It's easier to raise GDP of a smaller country, but the fact is that our dominance on the world scene has allowed us to do just that. With the wealth in America we could pretty easily create a society on par with theirs. We could probably beat them if we really tried. You're just making excuses for America's failure to use it's wealth responsibly. France shouldn't be anywhere near us in standard of living considering how much wealthier we are than them.

[NBVegita]

It's easier to raise GDP of a smaller country, but the fact is that our dominance on the world scene has allowed us to do just that. With the wealth in America we could pretty easily create a society on par with theirs. We could probably beat them if we really tried. You're just making excuses for America's failure to use it's wealth responsibly. France shouldn't be anywhere near us in standard of living considering how much wealthier we are than them.

 

Sure we could, if we took all the money from the rich and gave it to the poor, sorry robin hood that sounds a bit communistic.

 

First off, we don't live in a pure capitalistic society. We haven't had that for a very long time and I'm !@#$%^&* glad we don't live in it today.

 

Second, dedication doesn't always lead to improvement. As an adult, how much access do you have to education? An adult with kids that is. When will you find the time from raising kids and working multiple jobs to do so. You think living in a dysfunctional family makes you more likely to succeed? I think we both know it's the opposite and please don't ask me to provide a source saying people coming from dysfunctional families are less likely to succeed in life before being willing to accept it because I'm pretty sick and tired of having to provide even the most basic common knowledge facts to you. It's a waste of time and really annoys me.

 

Now try taking all the single mothers estimated at 10 million in the US. Here's a link. How many of them do you think could possibly get educated? They can barely even get by if that. We don't even have to provide them with more welfare. All we have to do is provide free job training and treat the job training like a job where they get paid so they could maybe drop 1 of their multiple jobs and get educated. Then maybe they can have a decent life.

 

Sure we're not purely capitalistic, but the further we go the socialism, the further I consider working over seas.

 

Have I ever said that living in a dysfunctional family makes it easier to succede. I've stated that its not an excuse not to succede.

 

For those mothers, its always a choice to have a child, unless you are raped and one pops out. If you have sex, be prepared for the consequences. Plain and simple if they were smarter with their lives they would have education. !@#$%^&* all it takes is to be 20 to have a 2 year degree. You can't even wait that long to !@#$%^&* up your life?

 

Are you seriously supporting abstinence teaching?

 

No. I thought you would have caught the sarcasm in that when I mentioned in the very next sentence that I lost my virginity at such a young age.

 

That's a real solution unlike your "everything that happens is your fault" model that is such an utter failure in today's society.

 

I'm sorry could you explain to me why I should have to help an 19 year old girl with two kids whom I've never met before, simply because she !@#$%^&*ed up her own life? So wait now you want a country with even less accountability than we currently have, where we can say "It's ok that you !@#$%^&*ed up your life, we'll take care of you, you don't have to pay the consequences because its fairer to make millions of people who haven't !@#$%^&*ed up their lives pay the consequences for your mistakes."

 

I'm sorry but quite frankly that is not a place I want to live in.

[AstroProdigy]

There's no reason helping the poor along means taking all of the money the rich have. There are lots of examples where this isn't true and you're characterizing only the most extreme case.

 

You said:

I'm sick and tired of this !@#$%^&* about how you can't be motivated if you work minimum wage. !@#$%^&* just having your parents working minimum wage should be motivation enough.

I take that as meaning coming from a poor, dysfunctional family should be motivation to do well in life.

 

So let me get this straight. You want kids who have had a crappy upbringing to be smarter with their lives or otherwise it's their fault? It's also not a choice to all those religious mothers out there. Not sure how I came to defend the Christian right, but if they're going to get screwed by society for religious beliefs then I call foul.

 

What you fail to understand is the 19 year old girl is going to have a !@#$%^&* hard time for her choices as it is and we don't need to trap her in unending poverty while we're at it. It's not like 1 girl is going to cost millions of people a lot the way you made it out to be.

 

This seems to have derailed to a core ideological debate that has gone off topic from the thread.

[NBVegita]

I take that as meaning coming from a poor, dysfunctional family should be motivation to do well in life.

 

If living in a !@#$%^&*hole with no money, no food, and fighting to get by is not motivation enough to try to make something of your life, how the !@#$%^&* do you plan to motivate these people?

 

You want kids who have had a crappy upbringing to be smarter with their lives or otherwise it's their fault?

 

Yes.

 

What you fail to understand is the 19 year old girl is going to have a !@#$%^&* hard time for her choices as it is and we don't need to trap her in unending poverty while we're at it. It's not like 1 girl is going to cost millions of people a lot the way you made it out to be.

 

It's not the governments, or the publics job to take care of you simply because you've made bad choices. No matter how you cut the cake, you're telling these people that it is ok to make bad choices because those of us who make good choices will take care of you. And it would just be 1 girl, it would be hundreds of thousands of people.

[SeVeR]

Not everyone has your levels of motivation NBV. It just so happens that motivation doesn't matter when you're rich. Even if the rich and poor have the same levels of motivation, then there will still be way more poor in the gutters because they don't have anything to fall back on.

[NBVegita]

You're right, not everyone is as motivated as me. And you're right, motivation doesn't matter when you're rich. But to become rich someone in your family either got really lucky, or had a lot of motivation. Vice versa if you're poor someone in your family either was very unlucky, or made very bad decisions/was unmotivated.

 

Being born into a rich family is a very lucky break because life is much easier for you. !@#$%^&* you could drop out of school at 16 and still live a nice cushy life, unless your family drops you as a free loader. Unfortunately simply because you were born into a poor family is a poor excuse for staying poor the rest of your life.

 

Is it fair that someone with money, with the same motivation as someone without money can stay wealthy, and the other stays poor? No, but that is life.

 

You can always try to point fingers at everyone and anyone but yourself, but ultimately the only person who controls if you're going to stay poor or not is you.

 

And ironically these kids are motivated to do athletics, which also have considerably less money in "poor" schools. They'll dedicate themselves to sports regardless of how many times they're told they will never make it. More irony is that it is much harder to be a great athlete than it is to be a great student.

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/internati...the.oranges.cnn

 

!@#$%^&* take a page from her book.