Let's say that you make $50,000 a year. There's a bill that cuts taxes by 5% for anyone making under $1,000,000 and 50% for anyone making over that. Do you vote yes on this because "I'm going to be a millionaire soon anyway" or do you vote no, because while both people benefit, one tier benefits a disproportionate amount?

Nobody is telling children "don't have dreams". They are saying "Hey you middle-aged Americans who have lost their retirement savings to Enron, WorldCom, 2008, etc, maybe you are getting the short of end of the stick here."

"especially foreigners"

You realize most foreigners come here for the American dream, right? I don't know about you but look around. Many Americans, including myself, don't believe in that made up non-sense.

It was a period in world history where everything lined up. In the 50s to 70s, there was enough population but not too much, great economic expansion, and opportunity to be found.

As a generation that grew up with 9/11, two wars, an economic crash unseen in decades, unemployment, and now college debt, don't tell me that I'm not optimistic because that's the only thing I'm running on these days. The dream is dead (never probably existed), but doesn't mean we need to flush all our hopes into the toilet either.

"especially foreigners"

I should have been more specific, but I'm obviously not talking about foreigners who come to America for the American Dream. I'm talking about foreigners who criticize the American Dream despite having never came here to try to pursue it themselves.

And I happen to know a lot of foreigners who came here for the American Dream and actually attained it. They are its staunchest defenders, in fact.

Dream and try to become a cosmonaut, or a rock star, or a Princess of Wales all you want!

But this is counting your chickens before they hatch. Make $250,000 first... Then advocate for tax cuts to that bracket.

Doing otherwise just makes the advocate a Useful Idiot. [1] You're expending your money and energy to make someone far better off then the majority of the electorate even better off - at theirs, and your expense. I would understand if this is done for selfish reasons - but when you're a pauper, Rockefeller doesn't need your charity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

> But this is counting your chickens before they hatch. Make $250,000 first... Then advocate for tax cuts to that bracket.

So by that logic nobody living above the poverty line should ever advocate for policies that benefit those living below it.

No, the poster you are responding to didn't say that at all, or even imply it. Presumably the reason these cases are different, despite being symmetrical, is that if you're already pretty well off you can probably spare some benefits to yourself for benefits to others. In other words, maybe you don't need that tax break because you were already doing pretty well anyways, so help somebody else out.

It's much easier to slide into poverty, then to slide into wealth. For many Americans, six months of unemployment... Or getting sick will do it.

The point of that quote attributed to Steinbeck wasn't that it is bad to have personal dreams and goals. Nobody thinks that.

Whether you agree with it or not, the quote is saying that poor people aren't recognizing what is in their own interests and aren't sympathizing with poverty because they do not recognize their poverty as something real.

It is not making fun of the American Dream to point out that many people in the US are poor and will remain poor despite their hopes, dreams and efforts. Limitations on class mobility are real.