So what ARE Americans entitled to?

[Deja Q]

FOX news pundits seem to say, and bring in guests who also say, "Americans have an entitlement complex. We're entitled to health acre, cheap gas, blah blah blah. We're entitled to nothing."

Possibly.

What should Americans do in response to these folks, who seem to have a complex or two of their own?

I know what Americans are entitled to:

* Life
* Liberty
* The Pursuit of happiness

Take anything else as you will.

[GeorgeGist]

1. I'm quite sure the pundits ...

believe that all good Americans are entitled to their greed.

[Deja Q]

4. Possibly.

I just don't understand FOX's viewpoint after a certain point.

And their point would be more believable if governments and corporate entities made it more possible for people to bike to work. As most well paying jobs are located in larger cities, long commutes (10+ miles one way) are inevitable. This isn't a luxury as they claim it to be. Given the time-based nature of our society, it's far closer to requirement than luxury.

But with eminent domain, if they could merge residential and corporate zones, people WOULD live closer to work and thus not use the car as often.

I don't entirely disagree with FOX's claim. But they present everything with simple-minded certainties that don't take everything into consideration. That isn't fair nor balanced. Especially when they didn't give the token "Consider these points" speaker even half a second once he points out the darker side of our society as it stands.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Gee, I thought their viewers were supposed to be the True Americans

Reflecting views of the majority, right? Are they calling their viewers a bunch of entitlement-minded weenies?

[Deja Q]

5. Seems to be.

They're not doing a good job at times...

Keep in mind, a certain TV sci-fi writer used topical events to call his audience "mindless sheep" as well. You wouldn't be surprised how few people found his message. Ironic...

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deja Q]

6. Excellent points. Here's one more you'd forgotten to mention:

You forgot 'government subsidy', aka 'corporate welfare'.

I don't disagree with your POV, but it's funny how our taxes go to people who already own millions when not billions. That seems just as wrong as the points you'd mention.

We've give corporations big tax incentives and welfare subsidies out of the taxes our government collects. When will they return the favor?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveJ]

9. What about when robber barons steal those rights?

They already have. We are entitled to the fruits of our labor. That is a component of liberty I think. And a component of happiness would by applying human achievement to reducing stress caused by lack of health care. It's only a matter of time before they get around to life.

The current administration believe liberty and happiness are rights only the rich deserve.

[alarimer]

10. A just society takes care of its weakest members

It does NOT leave them to sink or swim on their own, or "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". That is a myth. It is not "entitlement" to expect a social safety net, to expect health care for ALL, regardless of the personal wealth of the individual. Civilized nations provide a safety net: universal health care, unemployment compensation (or for disabilities making a person unable to work), FREE or low cost higher education for those who want it, etc. We are not a civilized nation; we are a nation of selfish assholes who say "I've got mine so fuck you."

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deja Q]

17. Would you demand the weak die for you?

Seems ironic as our military needs the strong... and sometimes the strong can be far more stupid than the weak. Irony is so cool... :D

[Richard Steele]

18. You clearly know remarkably little about the subject, and thus appear foolish.

You're just regurgitating some of the most common buzzwords
and talking points popular amongst those who don't actually
understand the complex concepts involved.

Enjoy your stay.

[EstimatedProphet]

24. Are you still here?

[TahitiNut]

29. "weakness is not meant to survive"???

Of course ... that's the lesson of Dachau and Auschwitz, isn't it?? Nay ... it's the philosophy.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[DaveJ]

15. It's not only the weakest who need help

Often the strong are beaten down by armies of weaklings led by some rich asshole who fears the competition.

[TahitiNut]

28. "wealth redistribution via taxation, welfare, price controls, regulations, etc."????

I find it FASCINATING that corporatists always segregate those elements of public policy that offset the predations of entitlements and call them "wealth redistribution" when, in fact, there's no greater "wealth redistribution" than the entitlements (legal fictions) of "ownership". Corporatists perpetually fail to identify the "corporation" itself as a legal fiction wherein the wealth created by labor is "redistributed" (about 2/3rds) to the ownership. The system of entitlements, which includes a stock market in which vast amounts of PROPERTY are sold and exchanged WITHOUT TAXATION, is itself a creature of public law and supported by public taxes. The abominable FICTION that the working class is somehow not due more than about 1/3rd of the value of their labor is part and parcel of a despicable corruption that should gag a maggot.

The fucking platantion economy advocates that would convert the world to an array of banana republics in a corporate colonialism encircling the globe are appalling.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. Life

Does that mean your life will be sustained, or simply that it won't be taken away without a jury and a judge saying so?

Liberty

Does that mean you can live how you want to live, or simply that you won't be imprisoned if you don't break the law?

Happiness

See Liberty above.

[Deja Q]

8. To answer

Life:
Sustained on the provision you give in return. People can only give in the form of skills based on their inherent, God-given talents. Those who commit vicious acts of violence (such as murder) should have such freedom curtailed.

A society is also judged on how it treats its invalids.

Liberty:
Seconded. Liberty within reason. But hurting one's fellow countryman is not a legal form of liberty. At least, in theory.

Happiness:
Ditto.

[treestar]

14. According to the mentality that rules Faux Noise

Americans are entitled to:

- a status of nobility, that is, to justice under law, while persons not born American can be locked up on suspicion only, and have no rights to a trial, etc.

- not to have to compete with non-Americans in the market, that is, non-Americans should just starve rather than offer to work for less

- to the resources of any other country

- to re-design the government of any other country

- to have WMD, while for others, it is a crime worthy of invasion

[area51]

16. Regarding healthcare,

it's actually in this country's best interest to have single-payer, universal healthcare. It doesn't make economic sense to have >18,000 people die each year due to lack of medical care, and it doesn't make sense to expose the general population to diseases that could be controlled and/or cured if everyone had access to healthcare. A healthy workforce is a more productive workforce, which Faux "news" is too stupid to see.

[DaveJ]

19. Absolutely true -- but the rich have their reasons...

Generally some people think that if everyone had access to all the basics (food, shelter, healthcare) that we'd get lazy. May be true in some cases. Massively untrue in other cases. There are many educated people forced to work at time wasting jobs when they could be so much more productive if they could do whatever they wanted. It's troubling that the U.S. has a population that is seriously indentured by debt or simple needing to pay the rent and their insurance premiums every month. The fact that we don't have those things, and other countries do, makes us much less free than them.

This idea of entitlement is total bullshit. Civilization has earned the right to enjoy the products of their advancements. Instead, it is all being stolen from us.

[Flatulo]

22. Bad idea...

djohnson says:

> There are many educated people forced to work at time wasting jobs when they could be so much more
> productive if they could do whatever they wanted.

With all due respect, this is a very bad idea. I would love to go fishing all day, or paint sunsets. Is it my right to demand that I receive the necessities of life without contributing anything to the people who have to work to provide those necessities? Isn't that forcing other people to perform slave labor for me?

You may think that you are offering value to society by doing 'whatever you want', but value is a two-way street. If you think what I offer (food, shelter) has value, but I do not believe that your productive output has any value, then I have the right to refuse to trade my output for yours.

[DaveJ]

30. That's exactly what I'm talking about

I thought about it more this afternoon. And I realized that 99% of people are worthless unless they are led by masters. I would not waste my time painting sunsets or going fishing with all my time, but as you Rightly indicated, most people wouldn't do crap with their lives. It confuses me, but it's true. I'm confused with everyone else who have nothing to offer. Most people have no desire to help others and are rightly get treated the same way, like slaves. What does it take to persuade people to want to accomplish things and help others? I'd really like to know. We make up a world of slaves, apparently, so there is no reason to complain. We have it too good already.

[Flatulo]

31. That's why RW talking points about the "welfare state" are so popular -

... because there is an element of truth to it.

What they won't tell you is that *every* class has its freeloaders - the CEOs, upper managers, professionals, office clerks, all the way down to the lowest laborer.

There will always be people looking for a free ride. I'm a big believer in statistics, and I believe that the full spectrum of human ability and self-motivation can be represented by a Gaussian (Normal) distribution. Some people will fail no matter how much help they are given, and others will prosper no matter how little help they are given.

That's why I favor a safety net that does not make people *too* comfortable. I don't want to push more people over into the non-productive column by magnetically drawing them there with 'free-everyting-for-life' programs.

[Deja Q]

34. No argument here.

The trouble is, it's kinda hard to contribute when your fellow countryman denies you for a job, often inciting the most bizarre of reasons excuses. Overqualified, underqualified, overpriced, underpriced ("Why do you want to work for this much less than the going rate?", and so on.)

But that's okay. The same corporations give training and other perks to H1Bs they bring here and send back. (that's also a generalization and not 100% true. Neither is it 100% false, proving corporate claims of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" is a load of horsepuckey.)

[DaveJ]

35. I believe in statistics too, but there should e exceptions

So it's even more complicated than that. If there are people controlling things, people who think they are so smart that they can effect the lives of others, they should be able to handle the complexities of exceptions.

For example, there are people who try and those who don't. Those who try may not always succeed, but along the way they can make progress upon which others could pick up on later. It's hard for statistics to pick up on these exceptions.

It makes it even more complicated when the administrative government is run by big oil robber barons.

It's a weird time right now. In the frontier era our effort was directly rewarded. Now we live in an artificial world where corporate procedures determine what individuals are able to earn. It's all artificial.

The bottom line is that healthcare, housing, and food should be a given. Society should stop fucking with our minds by making people think it may or may not be there. The issue is how to reward people for their work and efforts, differentiating between the lazy assholes who care about nothing but themselves, and those who really have goals and the desire to help others. I'm not sure exactly how that would be done, but the real problem is that nobody is making an effort to do this right now.

[Flatulo]

37. You are spot-on about one thing - Robber Barons walk the earth today.

I have been through 4 acquisitions in the past 13 years. With each buyout, lots of people lost their jobs, and the upper guys made not millions, but scores of millions. We were all told that 'we were all in this together' but only the top guys made out.

That's where we have really lost power - in the corporate boardroom. Board members are not making decisions based on what's right for the company, but what will most enrich themselves. I think the Feds need new regs on conflict-of-interest for board members; like you can draw a salary, but not own stocks.

We are pretty disconnected from the risk/reward system that used to encourage people to give a shit about their company. Why bother? Right now, someone is trying to figure out how to send your job to China.

[Flatulo]

20. Start with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

The Constitution states that the government is tasked with providing for the *general* welfare, not the welfare of each individual.

I take that to mean that the government (us) will collectively pitch in (via our taxes) to provide roads, sanitation, education, defense, clean air and water, access to a safe food supply, and respect individual rights established by law.

While I personally believe that a single-payer national health-care system is the way to go, based on cost and simplicity, there are some valid talking points against it.

I would oppose a level of entitlement that allows able individuals who *choose* not to work to live a more lavish lifestyle than those who do. At the same time, I support a level of entitlement that allows persons who are physically or mentally unable to work, and persons with family crises or suffering from economic havoc, to survive.

This needs to become part of the national dialogue of how we, as a society, choose to operate. People need to hear both sides and draw their own conclusions.

[rucky]

21. Define "Pursuit of Happiness"

I think it was left subjective on purpose.

[Posteritatis]

26. Wasn't it originally "pursuit of property?"

"Happiness," subjective though it may be, is certainly a step up from that wording, at least.

[Rosemary2205]

23. I'm entitled to eat all the pizza and ice cream I want and never get fat.

Under the pursuit of happiness provision -- why the creator who endowed me with that right don't honor it I got no idea! :P

[Beelzebud]

25. We're entitled to go to work, pay taxes, and SLEEP.

Now go back to sleep.

[Deja Q]

33. But according to Carly Fiorina, no American has a God-given right to a job.

[HughBeaumont]

39. Yet she's somehow has a God-given right to a $21 million dollar severance pay?

All for NOT lifting anyone but HP's management. Here's a post from one of her workers:

Having worked at HP during Carly's tenure and termination, I have to laugh at the 5 points she lists not because they aren't true, but because she presents them as if she was successful in implementing them.

#1. Leaders create something new. Carly talks a lot about innovation (she did add that "Invent" to the HP logo) but the facts are that when Hewlett and Packard ran the company, R&D spending was 10-12% of REVENUE, where under Carly that had dropped to between 2-3%. Innovation was NOT her top priority. I worked in the labs. I know. I felt the effects of the budget cuts to R&D. I could go on and on.

#2. Don't fall in love with your product. Let's talk about the TWO NEW private jets just for her use, the merger with Compaq, the huge bonuses, etc. Carly's product was herself.

#3. Risks. The Compaq merger was panned before and after. An internal HP poll found that 75% of HP employees were against the merger. Also, read Fortune Magazine's article citing Walter Hewlett. Spot on.

#4. Ethics. See #2. And that while laying off more people than in HP's history. I could tell you personal experiences from those affected.

#5. The 21st century is about brainpower. She fired thousands of workers and shifted some of that "brainpower" overseas.

[Hubert Flottz]

27. I wish the government wouldn't Micromanage the people.

I wish the preachers wouldn't either!

[Deja Q]

32. Or peoples' purported peers.

But at what point does 'society' become 'anarchy', if we say "Have no involvement or concern for other people's doings" and then gripe because people let violent crimes, sexual assaults in public, and other nasty things occur.

But I digressed somewhat; the 'purported peers' is about the people who taunt, beat up, or kill others because they are perceived as different.

Maybe Margaret Thatcher was right. Except while damning the concept of society, she didn't have any wars to tell people to go fight for the benefit of their society.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Whatever they vote for.

[Flatulo]

38. That's not quite true - a Constitutional Republic has protections.

In a direct democracy, the majority could easily vote to violate the rights of a minority group, or vote for benefits that cannot possibly be (ie, everyone has the right to be rich).

When Alexis de Toqueville wrote about 'Democracy in American' he wondered out loud what would happen when we discovered we could vote ourselves benefits that we could not pay for.

Although I must say (before someone else does) that even with the protections against mass stupidity that a Republic provides, we certainly have gone a long way towards voting ourselves into bankruptcy.

In order for it to work, though, the Legislature and Courts have to do their part to keep the Executive branch in check. So far, not so good...

[BlooInBloo]

40. And the Contitution may be changed by voting. Sheesh.

[Flatulo]

42. The Constitution can only be amended. The body can't be changed.

SO all the articles are in place for perpetuity.

The framers wanted it to be *very* difficult to change to suit the whims of the populace.

[BlooInBloo]

43. Have fun splitting the hairs of the angels on your pinhead.

[Flatulo]

45. Sorry, but it is an important distinction.

I'm sorry if I annoyed you. I wasn't sure where your point was going.

[mitchum]

41. A Congress that serves we the people rather than dirtbag lobbyists

[Flatulo]

44. Here's a good place to start...

Government officials cannot become lobbyists for 10 years after their discharge from government service.

Lobbyists cannot hold elective office, nor be considered for appointment to government positions, for 10 years after the discharge of their lobbyist duties.

Or some such...

[mitchum]

46. That is a good start, but I would like to see NO corporate lobbyists...ever

Why can't they just petition their government as ordinary citizens? Oh, wait a minute...

[jbm]

47. we hire people to design a society..

that allows reasonable quality of life for all americans. We pay them to do that job..we certainly have every right to expect that they actually DO it. To me, reasonable quality of life means that we have healthcare and food and shelter and heat, access to education, and some of the finer things in life like art and music and maybe some travel thrown in for good measure. That means we're going to need a reliable and accessible method of transportation to help us acheive these goals. The current system where people work and produce the goods and services they later benefit from seems workable as long as we don't allow the system to be exploited by the greedy and powerful.

We live in a land filled with abundant resources and we pay our money to create an environment that allows us to fully benefit from our good fortune.

It's not entitlement, it's whether we choose to take full advantage of our circumstances. If the guys we hired can't deliver-they need to be fired.

[Flatulo]

48. You can't create the means of survival without effort...

That's why I say the correct level of entitlement is one that does *not* allow those able hands who choose not to work to have a more comfortable existance than those who do choose to work.

Any level of entitlement greater than that creates an unstable system where productive people look at the unproductive people and say "Hey, why should I bust my ass? They're not doing so bad."