I think people often want more than to just survive. Even those who contribute nothing feel entitled to more than that.

So... I have to either be for all or against all regulations? Geez, I didn't know it had to be so black and white.

The private sector is sitting on 2 trillion? Explain to me why this matters.

Would you prefer they give it to the government to piss away? I just don't know what I should care about that.

Yes, less entitlements equals slavery. Glad we made that clear.

the middle class is slowly being phased out. Jobs in the USA is being outsourced, and many middle class is becoming dependent on the government. This been going on before 2008. The "working poor" is the group that is rapidly growing.

WHERE ARE THE JOBS BRO!!!! Corporate profits highest they ever been. Tax's lowest it ever been and no jobs. There goes your thoery right out the window. Most entitlements go to vets and people in extream need. Now why don't we just regulate better so we are sure the right people get it, rather then letting our vets die in the street.

Also we are suppost to give it to a CEO of a company that has stolen over 1/4-1/2 of his pay from his own workers because there are no unions left to protect the workers in the private sector. Most Corporations hide there money in the cayman islands not even paying into the system. So you righty's start a war you don't pay for, you give tax breaks you couldn't pay for and deregulation that crashed us and now you come out and blame the poor. The poor didn't crash us, the rights policies did. FACT!!!

Yep and people like this seem to think it's ok his nieghbor is starving but ok the ceo of his company is laughing all the way to bank about how bad he's giving it to the rest of the company. Why not hope we all get better wages and level the playing field just a little. If we made what My parents made when I was growing up we would average 90.000 a year but we average about 46,000.  Who has that extra money? CEO fat cats and the 1%. So according to this guy we need slave labor to help the rich because they are not rich enough. I proved they are holding onto the most profits ever and he acts as if they are not getting enough to create jobs. PEOPLE CREATE JOBS BY THERE DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCT. BUSINESS DOES NOT CREATE JOBS UNTIL THE PRODUCT SELLS ENOUGH TO CREATE THE JOB.  So government spending on infrustracture is the best way forward. These jobs pay good and give extra spending money to people to buy your product. WOW!!!!!!!!! 

Go find a graph or article that actually proves what you say. You can't just tell me and expect me to believe it.

More people taking advantage of the government doesn't prove much to me. Most people take advantage of government benefits because pretty much anyone can get them. If you mislead the government about your financial situation you can easily get benefits and I see plenty of people doing it.

Hence, I think the quality of life for the poor is better than ever. This encourages people to become dependent or take advantage of government hand outs.

Hah, my neighbors are hardly starving and they aren't wealthy by any means. When almost anyone can get food stamps, even those making a decent pay check. Its pretty much impossible to starve in this country.

Perhaps you should elaborate on what your parents do for a living. Maybe the fat cats aren't solely to blame.

Where are the jobs? Isn't Obama being praised for saving/creating 4 milloin? That's a good start I guess.

Most entitlements go to vets and those in extreme need? Prove it.

Funny story about vets... "During this Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not."

http://vietnam-veterans.us/popup/facts.html

Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not a righty. Nor did I start a war. I believe terrorists should get a little credit for that. But I'm all for my tax money being used to support that war. Frankly, I wish a bigger percentage of my taxes supported that instead.

No unions left you say? Good. I'm glad to hear that. They've done enough damage.

I'm glad you know exactly who to point the finger at. You make government issues so simple. Always blame the right.

This is where you are totally wrong. My buddy is married has a kid and is barely getting by, always behind and always stressed. Why did he get denied for food stamps.  You have fun looking completely non informed to the lurkers. Just opinion. O yea there are plenty things I don't like about both sides and yes you are a righty. As far as the right and the dems allowing right leaning policies to continue. They are both to blame and I also brought up carter started it. Unions gave you your 40 hr work week, over time, health insurance, retirement and many things you don't want. So good, move to china and enjoy a place where you will be killed if you start a union. Look i have sat here and watched everyone disprove you. You are using anodotal information and opinion. I posted facts. I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

Anyone who would say that...

a) doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.

b) wants their nation to be totalitarian.

Unions are to thank for the 40 hour working week (working weeks upwards of 60 hours was not uncommon before unions fought it) and the 8 hour working day, they're to thank for ending child labour, they're to thank for company-supported health insurance, they're to thank for paid sick leave and vacation days, they're to thank for workplace health and safety regulations that prevent workplace deaths, they're to thank for overtime pay rates. They're to thank for WEEKENDS.

What I find hilarious about people like you is that you speak loudly about how people should have the ability to make decisions for themselves... and then try to remove unions and bemoan the fact that people actually want to work together. Why are you so against people working together to get better conditions for their work? You right-wingers are so in favour of the constitution, right? As I recall, the constitution guarantees freedom of association - so why do right-wingers try so hard to remove workers' rights to associate and to work together?

In fact, why are right-wingers seemingly so against workers, and so in favour of CEOs and other such people? Why should an united corporate structure get to steamroll over its workers, who you don't feel should be allowed to organise? Why do the corporate managers get to organise, but the workers don't?

To be entirely blunt, your attitude makes me sick. It makes me sick from half way across the world - I'm Australian. Your nation is extremely anti-worker already, it's rather regressive in its tax policies and its attitudes towards workers vs "investors", and you've got third-world-level poverty in a supposedly first-world country... and half the country is demanding less money spent on things like education and health, less money spent on everything except military, you're demanding tax cuts for millionaires even as poverty levels rise, and you're trying to eradicate unions during a recession even as CEO payouts are hitting ever greater record highs.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that an economy requires people to have money in order to spend money. Unions fight for better conditions and better pay, which then feeds back into the economy, which boosts company profits. CEOs fight for more money because they want more money - it's not like they're going to spend all of it on food, or things like that. No, the extra money doesn't get "invested", if that's what you think. The money instead gets used to buy influence in order to get even more money.

The rich are getting richer in America at a disproportionately high rate, and your problem with this is that unions still exist?

Here's a statistic to think about.

The top 1% in Australia earns less than 10% of the income. In America, it's over 17%. In Australia, trade union membership increased between 2008 to 2009 from 19% to 20%. In America (as per that graph), the rate is down around 12-13%, and is currently declining. In America, the tax rates start at 10% and go up to 35%. In Australia, it starts at 0%, and then makes its way up to 45% (which kicks in at $180,000 a year).

In Australia, the national debt is 28.8% of GDP (as of 2010). In the US, it's 62.9% of GDP (again, as of 2010). Meanwhile, Australia was the only developed nation to completely avoid going into recession during the Global Financial Crisis. Funny, that. Oh, and the Pièce de résistance? Australia's unemployment rate is just 5.1% (having actually gone *up* recently) vs 8.1% in the US.

So next time, maybe you will try actually looking into the facts rather than spouting nonsense that comes from Fox News?