I know you were being sarcastic but I'm not.

I didn't say home ownership, I said roof over head.

First and foremost, the vast majority of jobs in America are  within small businesses, so you're not "whoring yourself out to corporate America".

Second, you don't slave, nobody is forcing you to work anywhere. Taxing people, and giving that money away is slavery and theft.

Third, "expectations". You shouldn't expect anything from anyone. Expectations is oh-so-close to entitlements. Nobody is entitled to a roof over their head, or gas in their car - because those things cannot be provided without stealing from someone else.

Many people say I'm a radical right winger... I don't see how having to work for a living can be considered radical.

Not from any source i've seen.  I've seen reports that say upword mobility is stagnant.  Which is actually good when you consider the fact that factory jobs are being replaced by service jobs.  You'd expect ford jobs being replaced with Mcdonalds jobs would make upward mobility harder.

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/PEW_EMP_1984_TO_2004.pdf

I mean, if your talking about only during the recession.  Well yeah, cause we're in a recession. 

The Brookings insitute says that if you Graduate Highschool, find a job, and don't have a child before 21, you have a 75% chance of becoming middle class.

So there's 15% unemploment for those without a college degree.... but only around ~9 for those with a highschool degree.

So if all you do is graduate highschool, there is a 90% chance you'll get a job.  So avoiding a kid, which is a pretty easy thing to do if you try... you end up with a 67.5% chance of moving up to the middle class.  Which is pretty awesome when you consider that upper, middle and lower classes are done by percentiles, so that 67.5% of people moving up, are replaced by 67.5% of people falling out of the middle class.

When you combine that with the above report  that the 50% of the people in the bottom quintile move upwords... it paints a picture.

No economists have become very divided over stimulus and many now think further spending will send the US into a debt trap.

Why do you people not realize, that if we keep spending and increase spending to create more programs and such that in the future we will end up with less when we will be force to deal with the debt problem.

The US is very irresponsible, to suggest taxing 1% of people will solve the problem, or not increasing taxes at all is plain stupid.

Also I am very much against the idea that govt should be taking care of people for everything.

Frankly imo people should not wake up everyday and think "what will govt do for me today, will it get me a roof over my head or a job?"

People should waking up everyday thinking "what can I DO to make my life better"

That is classical liberal thinking, but we can all agree self-responsibility is something my generation lacks.

In that case your arguement is just patently false.

Longterm homelessness is EXTREMLY rare and honestly almost exclusivly linked to those who faced trauma of some kind often as a child, and who often outright refuse organzied help (espiecally governmental) due to a fear of authority.

In fact i'm pretty sure most longterm homeless were actually abused as children.

Unemployment benefits will only cover your rent if you live in the middle of nowhere or if you have utilized the roomate strategy to divide the rent.

You really have to work just to support yourself. Plus you don't get unemployment unless you were working and then were laid off.

Since when does having roomates mean you don't have a roof over your head?

Outside that, unemployment is FAR from the only government program that helps the poor.

Look at actual long term homeless rates and you'll see why your arguement falls flat... the Chronic homeless is around 150,000 people.

Even moreso when you consider most longterm homeless are people discharged from medical hospitals or jail.

80% of people who end up homeless, find a home within 3 weeks.  While 90% do so by 2 months.

Everyone else is considered chronically homeless.  For around 1.5 million homeless.  Out of 307 million.

So that's  00.5% of the population that doesn't have a roof over thier head?  Largely because they are by themselves and have mental problems.

Which is really quite sad ...

There are groups of people within the United States that have a legitimate reason to stand up and protest an unfair system; after all, with the "war on poverty" having destroyed the family unit and a public school system that can't get their highschool students to be proficient at an elementary school level, poor inner city youth are set up to fail.

With that said, the Occupy Wall Street crowd have (for the most part) been given every opportunity to be successful and their "failures" are the result of their own foolish decisions ... There is no philosophy factory, there isn't a massive demand for master puppeteers, and no one is interested in reading your interpretation of what an author meant when he wrote his book so why would you spend over $100,000 to get a degree that focused on these skills?