Make it optional. I am smart enough to save for my retirement, so let me do it myself. I've already realized that there won't be any social security for anyone my age so I'm already saving with that in mind. Lets go ahead and take the next step and let me opt out of paying the social security tax completely. Obviously this won't happen since SS was never a 'savings' program anyways. SS was always designed as a wealth transfer program. A way to take care of the old by taking money from the young. The problem is that this plan only works when you have enough young people to take care of the old people.
Good point. I play my best golf after about 2 beers. It helps you relax and just swing w/o thinking about it too much. The problem is that it's a fine line between a free swing and physical impairment. 3 beers and my game falls apart.
You're giving most people way too much credit. They just look at what shows up in their bank account. Now, if you give them the money and then tell them to write the check who do you think they are going to think can spend the money more efficiently? Them or the government?
The best part of it is that gasoline is already taxed pretty heavily. You have the taxes that each company in the chain pays and thus passes along to you. The you have the actual taxes at the the pump. These used to be a decent % of the total price, but not so much anymore.
People have cut back on their driving some because of the high gas prices, but there is a current minimum limit for most people. This means that an increasing gas tax is something that is hard for the average consumer to avoid (as opposed to something like a tobacco tax). Thus guaranteed revenue for the good old federal government.
Hmm, I would think that it is good thing if people quit smoking? Maybe they didn't want to collect more money with this tax, what if they tried to decrease smoking?
The problem isn't taxing smoking per se. The problem is that when you add a tax on something like smoking the state now spends that new revenue. What happens when people stop smoking because the tax is so high? What do you do when you lose that revenue that you've become accustomed to spending (and we all know that the goal of government is to spend every penny it receives)?
The governor of my state has rejected a large tax increase on tobacco for as long as I can remember. The lawmakers say it will provide money for x, y, z projects, but the governor correctly sees that it won't for very long.
If consumers, for that matter income earners, had a true understanding of their tax load they would be up in arms.
I completely agree. Think for a moment if employers were not required to take taxes (federal, state, SS, etc...) out of your pay and instead you had to write a check each month to the government. There would be riots in the streets about how much money is taken, spent, and what it's spent on.
No, but if I use my corporate Windows XP install disk to install Windows on my company's 200 computers when I only have 5 licenses, I bet the BSA would be happy to get me into some trouble. I can't say, "Well I bought that copy of Windows, so the licensing terms shouldn't apply to me."
Apples and oranges. If you want to use an analogy it's akin to a company buying 200 copies of Windows and installing them on 200 PCs, which just happens to be perfectly legal and the way things are supposed to work. Pystar is not in copyright violation. They are purchasing every copy of OSX that they use.
So you're saying Apple should grant cloners the right to inject code into the Mac OS X kernel and then pass it off as being a low cost Mac OS X?
Do you think pissed off customers would sue Paystar, or Apple? Here's a hint: Apple has money.
Well since you think anything that Apple puts in a EULA is legal then why not just add that by using OSX you give up your right to sue Apple from any problem arising from your use of OSX. If I bothered to go read the OSX EULA I'm guessing there is already some legalese that says just that in the current EULA.
Incidentally, does Microsoft allow OEMs to willy nilly modify the Vista kernel and represent a derivative product as being Vista?
Drivers generally hook directly into the kernel. Anyone is free to write any hardware driver they would like to write. MS doesn't limit or care. You only need to go through some cert if you want to put the "Made for Windows" sticker on your box.
Except that Sony's junkware doesn't remove copy protection from and recompile the kernel of Windows in order to bypass not being granted an OEM license.
Pystar isn't copying OSX! They are making a legally purchased copy work on hardware. This is no different than providing a driver.
However, Apple has no moral obligation to enrich Paystar, nor any moral obligation that forces it to license its technology to third parties.
It's not a moral question, it's a legal one. Can Pystar buy OSX and resell it?
And you're right. Apple has no moral obligation to enrich Pystar. Pystar is earning their money by buying OSX legally and doing the leg work of making it work on different hardware. Pystar ends up being just another value add computer integrator. Remember, Pystar didn't go after Apple until Apple went after them.
Apple does have a software copyright that protects it from having third parties represent that Apple's software is running as intended on their PCs, particularly when Paystar's PCs make Mac OS X look slow, problematic, unstable, and expose users to data loss or other problems that could easily expose Apple to liability.
Copyright protects Apple from Pystar buying a single copy of OSX and printing new copies and selling them. Pystar is buying a copy of every OSX they resell. There is no clear copyright violation here.
What I keep hearing from Apple supporters is that it's Apple's business model and that's why Pystar is wrong. Well if Apple's business model isn't supported legally because of fair use rights, etc... then they need to change their model. It is not up to the law to change to fit and support whatever business model some company is pushing that day.
Even if that is your argument, how could it possibly be that Paystar has no copyright issue involved with taking Mac OS X, making changes, and reselling it as a derivation? Even if you don't believe in EULA restrictions, Paystar is volating Apple's copyright by selling Apple's software as its own.
I don't think Pystar is selling the software as a derivation or claiming it to be their own. They are selling PCs with OS X on them. Since they legally purchased the copies of OSX I think they are going to have an interesting case.
If I were to start selling PCs running Windows using OEM licenses I acquired, made changes to how Windows works, and began selling them as Mojave PCs, Microsoft would have both an IP licensing case and a copyright infringement case against me.
It's been awhile since I've bought a brand PC, but I seem to remember each one coming with lots of software installed by the OEM that added and removed functionality from windows. I guess we could argue on what we consider functionality. Do virus scanners, system restores and drivers count as modifying the OS? You could look at what Pystar does as simply adding a driver to make OSX work on its hardware. The exact same thing that every other PC manufacturer does with windows.
Hahaha...I think these Olympics have shown that China has no problems lying about anything. You think that just because they signed some genocide or torture treaty that they are suddenly going to stop? China is going to do pretty much whatever they want to, well because they can.
Why does everything have to lead back to the Bush Administration. Is your (and the GP's) hatred for Bush so great that there is no room left for true tyrants?
Well doh! Because obviously Bush is the root of all Evil and Obama is our saviour. Bush is the problem and Obama is the answer to...everything.
Get a papercut? Bush's fault and Obama would have either prevented or fixed it. Stub your toe? Bush's fault and Obama would have either prevented or fixed it. Slip and fall in the shower? I think everyone gets the point...
A man at a poker table who finds himself with less money than when he began, might decide to continue playing and try at least to get his money back, though the rational decision would be to leave the table.
Not quite. Sunk cost means that you can't base your current and future decisions on money already spent or 'sunk.' I may have less money now than when I started, but if I look at this moment right now (and ignore the previous money made or lost) and still say I would sit down and play then I play.
So, you're right the costs (and time, etc...) are sunk. The problem is that Obama and the dems are still pissed that we went to war in the first place. They are the ones that need to forget that sunk cost and look at the situation as it stands today. We are already in Iraq and they have a barely functioning government. So the question remains. If we were to bring everyone home right now what would happen? What is the best decision for the US and Iraq using the facts from today and ignoring how we got here? I'm not arguing either way, but I don't think the answer is as simple as packing up and coming home. If geopolitics were that simple I don't think we'd be in this situation in the first place.
It's also easy to say you're going to do X when you're running for President. Once you become President and see all the stuff going on behind the scenes it's not always quite that easy. Regardless about why we are in Iraq, we have accept that we are there and just bringing all the troops home may leave Iraq in a worse situation than it was when we started. That's what bugs me about Obama. He says he's going to bring all the troops home, but doesn't describe how. Now he's talking about giving money to NASA, but again lacks any details. This is pretty much classic Obama from what I've seen so far. All flash and no substance.
No, I don't think so. You would've had health care and food stamps, but you would've been worse off overall (since you still have to pay rent, utilities, transportation, etc., not to mention the money you'd like to spend on entertainment and other luxuries).
Actually no. Section 8 will cover rent and utilities and I think you can get free bus passes. I always enjoy driving by the section 8 housing and seeing all the satellite dishes outside and the Escalades with the 24" inch rims (and 24" written on the side of course!). Whoops, more anecdotes which don't reflect reality...
Taking care of the disabled is one thing. Taking care of the people who just don't feel like doing anything is another. If you continue down that path long enough society will collapse because no one will actually be producing anything. By your logic we should all be able to stop work today and just live off government checks.
Again, it's great that your folks were fortunate enough to have those opportunities. Unfortunately, not everyone has them.
The problem with anecdotes like that is that they're only applicable to the people who were involved. Yes, congratulations, you found an opportunity, but that doesn't mean a thing to someone who's in a similar situation but doesn't have a similar opportunity.
Opportunities? WTF are you talking about. They had very little opportunity and worked their asses off to make their own opportunity. Show me one person who isn't handicap who can't work to better themselves?
Well, they'd like you to think there's a lot of advancement opportunity (because they want you to work there), but there really isn't. At best, it's the luck of the draw: some people will get the customers that lead to a bonus, and others won't. You can show up every day, work as many hours as they're willing to give you (which might not be full time), and at the end of it still find yourself earning minimum wage.
Actually no. Performance is generally so bad that if you just do what's minimally expected you'll bonus. See, I've been on poor side and have worked with many people who would be considered part of the lower class. I see the poor choices they make nearly every day.
Don't be so sure of that. The way to fix it is to give people the skills and opportunities to climb up the ladder. Money can play a big part in that: for example, think of all the people who could go to college if they didn't already have to spend all their time working to support their families. (This is the part where someone chimes in with a story about how HIS daddy worked a 12 hour shift at the mill every day and then walked ten miles uphill in the snow to the university, listening to lectures through the open window because he couldn't afford tuition, and anyone who can't pull off the same feat is just a lazy bum.)
I didn't exaggerate because I didn't need to. I've been through hard times and pulled through on my own. There is no reason others can't take some personal responsibility and do the same. By the way, that same call center mentioned above offered FULL tuition reinmbursement. There were roughly 600 call reps there and I think 3-4 actually took advantage of it. What does that tell you? You want want more anecdotes? How about watching people have their RIMS repoed because they bought them on a rent-to-own basis. I don't know about you, but if I was struggling and trying to pull myself up, buying $2k-$3k rims on credit would be at the bottom of my list of priorities. I have endless similar anecdotes, but you're right I don't know what it's like to be poor. I don't know anyone who is poor. I also don't know know what's going on with the lower class. I'm sure all my anecdotes are unique and everyone just needs more money given to them to help them out of their situation. No sir, you're the one who is out of touch.
Actually anytime I say people should get up and do it themselves I need to always qualify that excludes the mentally and physically handicap. There really are some people who can't do it themselves and they should be helped.
You seem to have fallen into the libertarian fallacy of assuming that if something bad happens to you, it's because you made the wrong choices; therefore, if you're clever enough, you'll never be the victim of misfortune. (The unspoken subtext is "if you're not clever enough to make all the right choices, who cares if you starve anyway?")
That's a nice fantasy, but it's not how the world works. Often, disaster strikes -- whether it's a natural disaster, an injury/illness, massive layoffs because of some change in the market, or anything else -- and there's nothing you could've reasonably done to avoid it. What then? (Hope you have rich friends who can support you, I guess.)
Bad things happen to good people. People pick themselves up with the resources they have and get moving again. At this point I have enough friends that I could find a job if needed and could help them if needed. None of us are 'rich.' I'm not sure why I should expect the government to help me if something bad happens to me, even if it was out of my control.
Again, you're blaming people for circumstances which are often beyond their control. If you've never been poor and don't know anyone who is, it can be hard to understand the difficulty of getting out of that situation, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
I've been there. Growing up we qualified for food stamps and the like, but my parents refused to take them. Instead my dad worked his full time job and then had endless side jobs selling anything he could (firewood in the winter, oysters in season, shrimp, etc...). I often had to help in order to get all the work done. We didn't have central heat or air. It sucks big time waking up and filling a kerosene heater in the freezing cold, but I've done that too. All all this was before I was 14. My parents taught me 3 things growing up. Work hard, get an education, and don't get a girl pregnant (my mom was pretty creative at this lol). So don't tell me I don't know poor or know how to get out of it.
When you kick them out on the street, you're not teaching them to get a job either; you're just punishing them for not having one already (or not having a good enough one), and possibly ruining their chances of getting one in the future. You aren't increasing the number or quality of available jobs, nor are you giving them the skills, experience, or connections they'll need to get a better job than they already have.
At some point you have to get off your ass and do it yourself. I've written software for call centers. Basically entry level places for people who only went to HS. What's funny is that there is a lot of advancement opportunity and the ability to make good money, but that requires people to actually show up. Once there they can't start fights with one another over 'my babys daddy is her babys daddy.' As a society how do we fix that? It's definitely not a money issue.
People don't stay poor because they like being poor, or because welfare pays better than working (which, considering how meager welfare benefits are, would indicate a serious problem in the job market). Until you get past those mistaken assumptions, you'll never understand the problem or be able to come up with a solution.
I would argue if people don't like being poor they would be more proactive about getting out of it. The first thing they could do is stop popping out kids they can't afford.
With sufficiently predatory lending practices and things of that nature, it becomes far less than "voluntary" too.
ROFL...it's called greed on both sides of the equation. People took loans they couldn't afford because they wanted to be part of the bubble that went 20%/year. I've never understood 'predatory' lending laws. Every loan has to clearly state the terms and both people must sign the contract of their own free will.
I think that it basically boils down to, the Republicans don't care about you because you don't have enough money and the Democrats don't care about you because you don't have enough money. The Libertarians care about you, but they think its wrong to be forced to help you.
"Nobody should be forced to... give up their money to help others" implies that when no one wants to help you out of the kindness of their hearts (as is often the case), you're just screwed.
Why should they be forced to? Someone who makes the right choices in life (get an education, not get pregnant at 15, etc...) and becomes successful should now be forced to support those who made the poor choices? One of the reasons we're in this credit/housing mess right now is that we aren't letting people take the punishment for their poor choices. It's easy to take extreme risks when you think the government will always come to bail you out. Keep in mind I'm pointing at everyone from the greedy hedge fund guys on wall street to the hair dresser who buys an overpriced house 'because real estate goes up 20%/year.'
Libertarians would have us believe that when charity fails, it's better to let those unfortunate people starve than to require the richest among us to give up a tiny fraction of their wealth to help them. They believe that their "freedom of choice" (i.e. the freedom not to pay taxes) is more important than whether or not someone else can put food on the table or send his kids to school.
The richest among us give tons to charity and to taxes. The richest among us also spend A LOT of money (which actually provides...JOBS). As far as the sob story for the poor..save it. There are more opportunities for the poor than ever before yet many remain perpetually poor. People are simple creatures and will tend to gravitate towards what's the most beneficial to them. When you give more money for putting out more kids, give them subsidized housing, free food, and other freebies you're not teaching them to get a job.
That's one reason why they don't win elections: because most people just don't share those priorities.
It's sad that we've basically turned into a 'take care of me' society. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. It's always someone else's fault. If people took more responsibility for themselves and not worry so much about everyone else the entire country would be a better place.
Actually they don't care about anyone, which is fine. Libertarians believe in just enough government to keep law and order and strong contract law. Beyond that what you do with your life is your business. Both parties could stand to learn a bit from a Libertarian.
Slashdot Mirror
Make it optional. I am smart enough to save for my retirement, so let me do it myself. I've already realized that there won't be any social security for anyone my age so I'm already saving with that in mind. Lets go ahead and take the next step and let me opt out of paying the social security tax completely. Obviously this won't happen since SS was never a 'savings' program anyways. SS was always designed as a wealth transfer program. A way to take care of the old by taking money from the young. The problem is that this plan only works when you have enough young people to take care of the old people.
Good point. I play my best golf after about 2 beers. It helps you relax and just swing w/o thinking about it too much. The problem is that it's a fine line between a free swing and physical impairment. 3 beers and my game falls apart.
You're giving most people way too much credit. They just look at what shows up in their bank account. Now, if you give them the money and then tell them to write the check who do you think they are going to think can spend the money more efficiently? Them or the government?
The best part of it is that gasoline is already taxed pretty heavily. You have the taxes that each company in the chain pays and thus passes along to you. The you have the actual taxes at the the pump. These used to be a decent % of the total price, but not so much anymore.
People have cut back on their driving some because of the high gas prices, but there is a current minimum limit for most people. This means that an increasing gas tax is something that is hard for the average consumer to avoid (as opposed to something like a tobacco tax). Thus guaranteed revenue for the good old federal government.
The problem isn't taxing smoking per se. The problem is that when you add a tax on something like smoking the state now spends that new revenue. What happens when people stop smoking because the tax is so high? What do you do when you lose that revenue that you've become accustomed to spending (and we all know that the goal of government is to spend every penny it receives)?
The governor of my state has rejected a large tax increase on tobacco for as long as I can remember. The lawmakers say it will provide money for x, y, z projects, but the governor correctly sees that it won't for very long.
I completely agree. Think for a moment if employers were not required to take taxes (federal, state, SS, etc...) out of your pay and instead you had to write a check each month to the government. There would be riots in the streets about how much money is taken, spent, and what it's spent on.
Apples and oranges. If you want to use an analogy it's akin to a company buying 200 copies of Windows and installing them on 200 PCs, which just happens to be perfectly legal and the way things are supposed to work. Pystar is not in copyright violation. They are purchasing every copy of OSX that they use.
Well since you think anything that Apple puts in a EULA is legal then why not just add that by using OSX you give up your right to sue Apple from any problem arising from your use of OSX. If I bothered to go read the OSX EULA I'm guessing there is already some legalese that says just that in the current EULA.
Drivers generally hook directly into the kernel. Anyone is free to write any hardware driver they would like to write. MS doesn't limit or care. You only need to go through some cert if you want to put the "Made for Windows" sticker on your box.
Pystar isn't copying OSX! They are making a legally purchased copy work on hardware. This is no different than providing a driver.
It's not a moral question, it's a legal one. Can Pystar buy OSX and resell it?
And you're right. Apple has no moral obligation to enrich Pystar. Pystar is earning their money by buying OSX legally and doing the leg work of making it work on different hardware. Pystar ends up being just another value add computer integrator. Remember, Pystar didn't go after Apple until Apple went after them.
Copyright protects Apple from Pystar buying a single copy of OSX and printing new copies and selling them. Pystar is buying a copy of every OSX they resell. There is no clear copyright violation here.
What I keep hearing from Apple supporters is that it's Apple's business model and that's why Pystar is wrong. Well if Apple's business model isn't supported legally because of fair use rights, etc... then they need to change their model. It is not up to the law to change to fit and support whatever business model some company is pushing that day.
I don't think Pystar is selling the software as a derivation or claiming it to be their own. They are selling PCs with OS X on them. Since they legally purchased the copies of OSX I think they are going to have an interesting case.
It's been awhile since I've bought a brand PC, but I seem to remember each one coming with lots of software installed by the OEM that added and removed functionality from windows. I guess we could argue on what we consider functionality. Do virus scanners, system restores and drivers count as modifying the OS? You could look at what Pystar does as simply adding a driver to make OSX work on its hardware. The exact same thing that every other PC manufacturer does with windows.
Hahaha...I think these Olympics have shown that China has no problems lying about anything. You think that just because they signed some genocide or torture treaty that they are suddenly going to stop? China is going to do pretty much whatever they want to, well because they can.
Well doh! Because obviously Bush is the root of all Evil and Obama is our saviour. Bush is the problem and Obama is the answer to...everything.
Get a papercut? Bush's fault and Obama would have either prevented or fixed it.
Stub your toe? Bush's fault and Obama would have either prevented or fixed it.
Slip and fall in the shower? I think everyone gets the point...
Not quite. Sunk cost means that you can't base your current and future decisions on money already spent or 'sunk.' I may have less money now than when I started, but if I look at this moment right now (and ignore the previous money made or lost) and still say I would sit down and play then I play.
So, you're right the costs (and time, etc...) are sunk. The problem is that Obama and the dems are still pissed that we went to war in the first place. They are the ones that need to forget that sunk cost and look at the situation as it stands today. We are already in Iraq and they have a barely functioning government. So the question remains. If we were to bring everyone home right now what would happen? What is the best decision for the US and Iraq using the facts from today and ignoring how we got here? I'm not arguing either way, but I don't think the answer is as simple as packing up and coming home. If geopolitics were that simple I don't think we'd be in this situation in the first place.
It's also easy to say you're going to do X when you're running for President. Once you become President and see all the stuff going on behind the scenes it's not always quite that easy. Regardless about why we are in Iraq, we have accept that we are there and just bringing all the troops home may leave Iraq in a worse situation than it was when we started. That's what bugs me about Obama. He says he's going to bring all the troops home, but doesn't describe how. Now he's talking about giving money to NASA, but again lacks any details. This is pretty much classic Obama from what I've seen so far. All flash and no substance.
The term you're looking for is a Black Swan Event
Actually no. Section 8 will cover rent and utilities and I think you can get free bus passes. I always enjoy driving by the section 8 housing and seeing all the satellite dishes outside and the Escalades with the 24" inch rims (and 24" written on the side of course!). Whoops, more anecdotes which don't reflect reality...
Taking care of the disabled is one thing. Taking care of the people who just don't feel like doing anything is another. If you continue down that path long enough society will collapse because no one will actually be producing anything. By your logic we should all be able to stop work today and just live off government checks.
Opportunities? WTF are you talking about. They had very little opportunity and worked their asses off to make their own opportunity. Show me one person who isn't handicap who can't work to better themselves?
Actually no. Performance is generally so bad that if you just do what's minimally expected you'll bonus. See, I've been on poor side and have worked with many people who would be considered part of the lower class. I see the poor choices they make nearly every day.
I didn't exaggerate because I didn't need to. I've been through hard times and pulled through on my own. There is no reason others can't take some personal responsibility and do the same. By the way, that same call center mentioned above offered FULL tuition reinmbursement. There were roughly 600 call reps there and I think 3-4 actually took advantage of it. What does that tell you? You want want more anecdotes? How about watching people have their RIMS repoed because they bought them on a rent-to-own basis. I don't know about you, but if I was struggling and trying to pull myself up, buying $2k-$3k rims on credit would be at the bottom of my list of priorities. I have endless similar anecdotes, but you're right I don't know what it's like to be poor. I don't know anyone who is poor. I also don't know know what's going on with the lower class. I'm sure all my anecdotes are unique and everyone just needs more money given to them to help them out of their situation. No sir, you're the one who is out of touch.
Actually anytime I say people should get up and do it themselves I need to always qualify that excludes the mentally and physically handicap. There really are some people who can't do it themselves and they should be helped.
Bad things happen to good people. People pick themselves up with the resources they have and get moving again. At this point I have enough friends that I could find a job if needed and could help them if needed. None of us are 'rich.' I'm not sure why I should expect the government to help me if something bad happens to me, even if it was out of my control.
I've been there. Growing up we qualified for food stamps and the like, but my parents refused to take them. Instead my dad worked his full time job and then had endless side jobs selling anything he could (firewood in the winter, oysters in season, shrimp, etc...). I often had to help in order to get all the work done. We didn't have central heat or air. It sucks big time waking up and filling a kerosene heater in the freezing cold, but I've done that too. All all this was before I was 14. My parents taught me 3 things growing up. Work hard, get an education, and don't get a girl pregnant (my mom was pretty creative at this lol). So don't tell me I don't know poor or know how to get out of it.
At some point you have to get off your ass and do it yourself. I've written software for call centers. Basically entry level places for people who only went to HS. What's funny is that there is a lot of advancement opportunity and the ability to make good money, but that requires people to actually show up. Once there they can't start fights with one another over 'my babys daddy is her babys daddy.' As a society how do we fix that? It's definitely not a money issue.
I would argue if people don't like being poor they would be more proactive about getting out of it. The first thing they could do is stop popping out kids they can't afford.
ROFL...it's called greed on both sides of the equation. People took loans they couldn't afford because they wanted to be part of the bubble that went 20%/year. I've never understood 'predatory' lending laws. Every loan has to clearly state the terms and both people must sign the contract of their own free will.
Fixed that for you.
I think a small state militia and guerilla forces would stand up well. In a civil war type scenario people generally don't want to fight each other.
Why should they be forced to? Someone who makes the right choices in life (get an education, not get pregnant at 15, etc...) and becomes successful should now be forced to support those who made the poor choices? One of the reasons we're in this credit/housing mess right now is that we aren't letting people take the punishment for their poor choices. It's easy to take extreme risks when you think the government will always come to bail you out. Keep in mind I'm pointing at everyone from the greedy hedge fund guys on wall street to the hair dresser who buys an overpriced house 'because real estate goes up 20%/year.'
The richest among us give tons to charity and to taxes. The richest among us also spend A LOT of money (which actually provides...JOBS). As far as the sob story for the poor..save it. There are more opportunities for the poor than ever before yet many remain perpetually poor. People are simple creatures and will tend to gravitate towards what's the most beneficial to them. When you give more money for putting out more kids, give them subsidized housing, free food, and other freebies you're not teaching them to get a job.
It's sad that we've basically turned into a 'take care of me' society. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. It's always someone else's fault. If people took more responsibility for themselves and not worry so much about everyone else the entire country would be a better place.
The Libertarians care about you
Actually they don't care about anyone, which is fine. Libertarians believe in just enough government to keep law and order and strong contract law. Beyond that what you do with your life is your business. Both parties could stand to learn a bit from a Libertarian.