Do liberals deserve what they get?

[bushforever]

We will kill Social Security this administration though, and privitize it into accounts like it or not.  The current seniors will still see their benefits, but I will get my own account to invest in when I'm older...and the government can't touch it.  All thanks to my hero, G.W.  America is a free, ownership society, not a communist or dicatorial society.  I think our policies should reflect that.

[bushforever]

We will kill Social Security this administration though, and privitize it into accounts like it or not. 

Why is the president afraid to explicitly say it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to your assertion, most of European countries are Communist dictatorships.

Yep...I generally don't like much of Europe and the new way of doing business over there.  They'll figure it out eventually though.  It's also different as most of those countries are a heck of a lot smaller than America.  

In my opinion, people should not be forced to help other people.  If I invested more money in my retirement account and I took an economics class, and I thus have more money to retire on...so be it.  You failed in life...that's your fault...oh well.  If we weren't taxed up the wazoo with SS...middle class would be upper-middle class and working class would be middle class.  The working poor would still be the working poor though, but they would have a lot to strive for.

[bushforever]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Cons like the example of someone who was born poor and became rich. (And there are some examples)
In reality the vast majority of rich people are rich (guess why)…… because they were born rich.
The poor are poor because they were born poor. The Cons, however, are trying to indoctrinate the theory that the poor are poor because they are lazy or because they are “failing to initiate”.

It's true.  I'm sorry but you are nothing but a pessimist if you think a poor person can't get anywhere in life.  It all starts with education, and Bush took significant strides in creating "No Child Left Behind".  I also believe his goal to put a community center in every rural county is also encouraging.  The poor have the opportunity to speak out.  They have consistently chose Jesse Jacka$$ among other dems.  And they're still poor.  And middle class people are still being taxed with a social security that doesn't work.  The poor will continue to be poor until they trust the republicans, who in the end, have to fix all the problems the democrats created or neglected.

"I belive in rags to riches, your inheritance won't last, so take your gray poupon my friend, and shove it up your a$$"
-Steven Tyler of Aerosmith in the song "Eat the Rich"

[bushforever]

In my opinion, one whose family made $30,000 and who now makes $50,000 certainly qualifies.  Anyone who is the first in their family to go to college qualifies.  You don't have to be a millioniaire to advance up the ladder.

[bushforever]

I don't even I can come up with a list of 20 millionaires I know personally.  The few I do know earned their money, worked hard, and invested, saved, or spent wisely.  Disproving your theory that all Republicans are rich or that all rich people are heirs.

[bushforever]

Religion is very key to underpaid people in the heartland.  Dems have a long way to go on that issue.

[bushforever]

I don't even I can come up with a list of 20 millionaires I know personally. 

If you don't personally know, try to look into public figures ( Bush, Kerry, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Cheney etc.)

BTW: Bill Clinton does belong to the very small but famous group of "self made people". The people are famous because they are the rare exception but the group is tiny.

You can't really go into famous people.  Most famous people are rich one way or another, no doubt.  But it really says something if you actually personally know a millionaire and if those millionaires are self-made or heirs.  In addition, even those who are heirs and are famous (Kerry, Bush, etc.) have worked hard in their life doing something.  Sure, it's not drilling concrete, but I don't think the average joe could go out on a political campaign while at the same time making hard decisions regarding war and moral issues in America.  Prior to politics, Kerry worked hard in Vietnam and Bush was an avid businessman.  Life wasn't completely handed to them on silver platters.

[bushforever]

 Life wasn't completely handed to them on silver platters.

Wrong.

Life was completely handed to them on silver platters.

Not really.  Very few people have life handed to them on silver platters.  Sure, they may have been some extraordinary circumstances.  Being the son of a president.  Being married to the ketchup lady.  But they could have given up.  They could have not tried.  They could have failed miserably on the campaign trail.  Explain your reasoning.  Or at least your definition of life handed to someone on a silver platter. 

[bushforever]

Even if Bush and his dad were born into a semi-rich family doesn't mean that they had life handed to them on a silver platter.  I'm sure Bush and Kerry both worked hard in everything they did and were raised that way.  There are rich people who get anything they want and are very spoiled.  I don't think they were like that.  You don't become president by being a spoiled cry baby.  No one does.  Bush and Kerry both had to work hard to court voters and convince people in their policies.  Sure, they probably had a few advice from their parents in their lives and a little guidance, but not full-fledged silver platter.

By the way, I'm not rich.  But my parents worked hard.  They didn't get a college degree, but they work hard at their jobs and encourage their kids to work hard.  Me and my siblings have/will get a college degree and a job we enjoy, our parents giving us nothing but love and encouragement.  Isn't that the American dream...raising hardworking kids who achieve more than you did??  And hasn't W. Bush and Kerry accomplished more than their parent's did.  I'd say so.