I'll also add, if I were to practice and work at it as much as Tiger Woods, I'd probably be a damn good golfer, just not necessarily as good as he is.

Free, Free, Free. Hey dude, nothings free. You guy's want free education, free health insurance, free houses. Get in the ball game.. Or is that too much to ask?

No we want other people to pay for it . Seriously, though, I am willing to pay taxes to give other people freedom to educate themselves, so they can take up various positions in our society. I am fine with taking money even if people resent tax, I do not believe all that capitalism-saves-the-day stuff.

The 'American dream' might not be a guarantee, but it really just is a dream if people have no real chance.

Wow, BNS, you're a real downer. The American dream is available to everyone who wants to pursue it. Wallow if you must, but I won't.

The problem is not the idea of the dream, the problem is people don't want to work for anything.

Complaining about inheritance ... sounds like you have nothing to inherit.

Wrong. The American dream is available to everyone who wants to pursue it AND who also have the ability and/or the luck to pull it off. That's a select few.

I'm not wallowing. I have the ability and knowledge to get mine. But just because I'm OK doesn't mean the idea is a good one.

According to you, the only reason I would care about poor people is if I was one? I think you may need to rethink some things. Some people really do care about the people around them.

Wow ... you must like to play leap frog because you just made a whole bunch of leaps ... when did I say I didn't care about others? Yikes!

Look around you ... there are government and private charitable organizations ALL around that are ready and willing to help someone get on their feet and BETTER them from their current circumstances. Isn't that part of the American dream? To do a little or a lot better than your parents?

My disagreement is NOT that I don't want to see people doing better. My disagreement is with your opening statement. The "American dream" is not a lie that we're telling our youth that doesn't exist. I don't believe that. Nor do I think we would be best served to eliminate the whole idea of it and focus our efforts on just getting along ... what you're prescribing sounds socialistic ... and we ALL know how well that works. We want our children to be competitive ... to be educated ... and to be the best. Unfortunately, that means that if there's a first, there will be always be someone who's last. It's part of life.

@tadpole: Then why is vertical mobility in the US low? Apparently it is still not practical reality. (vs in principle as in my first post in thread.) I am still pretty sure it requires a genius in the lower classes to do what a lazy bastard can do in the higher classes. I dont think those charitable organisations are doing as good a job you think they do.

I think if you look at the lives of people you'd say didn't realize the American Dream, you'll find bad decisions as the cause more than anything else.

Of course. But if you look at ANYONE'S life you'll find bad decisions. Including those who have "made it". There is not a one-to-one correspondence with good decisions and success. There is a finite amount of success to be had. In this country it all gets piled onto a few people. That's what I think is bad.

Let's look at history: in every civilization, there has been some sort of grouping among people into societal classes. You can even find it in the Bible. Even the poorest in America have it FAR better than the poorest in other countries. At least in the US, we're fortunate enough to be able to marry, work, and move out of our born station in life. Many countries don't have that luxury. The Constitution doesn't promise us a life of luxury. It guarantees everyone the PURSUIT of happiness. We all have different starting points and we all have different finish lines. It's okay. The dream is still alive.

Isn't that called a "zero sum economy?" I disagree, I don't think there is a finite amount of success.

It's not quite the same as "zero sum economy". Merely saying that the rate of growth of the economy is bounded. Sure, the economy can grow. Maybe there are more places for people to succeed today than 10 or 20 years ago. But that still doesn't mean that everyone can "succeed".

There will never be any time or system when everyone succeeds. What we can have, if the government would stay out of the way, is a time where no one is held back from succeeding.

These two sentences contradict one another.

They don't contradict at all. Just because someone doesn't trip you doesn't mean you will win the race.

I don't think the two statements contradict each other at all.

Perhaps I've misunderstood ... although I'm hearing these claims:

(1) It's impossible for everyone to succeed.
(2) If you remove the government interference, it's possible for anyone to succeed.

If government is removed (which is possible) then (2) implies:

(3) It's possible for everyone to succeed.

-><-

No, I didn't get that from his statement ... I understood him to say that "not everyone will succeed" but things would be better and everyone could attempt to succeed if the government didn't stand in their way ... i.e. high taxation, regulations, bureaucracy, etc.

This is what yaaaaarrrrrggggggg and his ilk does when he can't argue with what I AM saying.

One more time:

It's about opportunity, not outcome. The American Dream doesn't not guarantee any sort of outcome, it is supposed to guarantee opportunity. So long as obstacles like government are kept out of the way, everyone has an opportunity.

I have ilk? Where is it? You seem to have a deeply ingrained us-vs-them mentality, where you compartmentalize people into groups. Perhaps I was just tired and read it incorrectly.

Otherwise, I'm still not entirely convinced that "opportunity" means anything if it's not possible for someone to win.