Yes, YET AGAIN

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   
   Do you believe in America because of the proliferation of social programs, the lives of poor people is much easier which makes many lose incentive to improve themselves educationally & socioeconomically?   In the past where there were little or no social programs,  poor people look to themselves to create better circumstances.  They looked to themselves for sustenance.  They knew the meaning of working & making sacrifices if they wanted a livable or better lifestyle.   Your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That philosophy was a necessity when this country was raw and fertile. If I guy could get a little acreage, he could earn a decent living and perhaps put away enough to buy more acreage. Or he could see a need and fill it with a business:  a general store, blacksmith, horse trading, jewelry making, you get the picture. But when we run out of raw materials, and the earth is starting to run low, sometimes there are no materials in which to spin the American dream. To make it worse, even if the factories return to this country and man (how about humanpower) is readily willing and available, robotics are taking a big plug out of opportunity. Factories that at one time employed hundreds of people can now be run by 15 or fewer humans who are there to keep the robots running.
      
      That's why more and more people are turning to service industries, and now "they" are finding ways to mechanize those industries. What's a body to do? Think about it.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, there is always a way.
         
         Thank you

         replyreport
         1. 87

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            There is? Please enlighten us.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               There is always a way based on my experience as an entrepreneur independent individual and other strong individuals . As far as the status quo American, i sense they are headed for ground zero  by more abuse. Before the pendulum swings the other way.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  You are right about one thing, CP. The pendulum does swing back and forth. I think that one of the goals of the New Age is go make it stop in the middle. The Christian Bible calls that "Heaven on Earth."

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     There got to be a better balance between extreme Christians and extreme atheists. At least that is my measure stick for the middle.

                     replyreport
   2. 80

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      If you do not believe in the governmental support for the poor through social programs. Then you should also not support the money given to big farms, the pharmaceutical industry, tech companies, the car industry, banks. etc. Thousands of companies get money from the state, is this wrong too?
      Many companies will go bust without governmental support. The price of your milk will triple if the government does not support the dairy industry.
      Your food will be far more expensive if farms weren't subsidized by the government. So why not subsidize social programs, healthcare, schooling and art?

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I think you answered your own question (although I am not in favor of subsidies) - if you subsidize the milk industry millions of people will have cheaper milk.  If you bail out banks, millions of people benefit - the entire country if it would have led to a depression by NOT doing it. 
         
         If you subsidize simple living costs for a single individual that individual lives cheaper.  Big difference.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I really don't see any difference, just the big shots getting breaks common people don't share.
            
            Yes, banks on welfare....

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Or little shots getting breaks common people don't share.
               
               Do you pay milk prices as if there was no subsidy?  Do you pay for a new car as if Uncle Sam were providing your food and housing?  The answers should indicate the difference.

               replyreport
         2. 80

            peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Since when is subsidizing schools subsidizing an individual. Or Subsidizing a hospital, or subsidizing a theater.
            So why can you get cheap milk and not cheap medicine or cheap schooling?
            
            Subsidizing individuals = Tax breaks

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Schools, no, at least as long as ALL schools are subsidized.  A hospital - do people all over the country use that hospital that they paid for?  Or just a local handful?  Same for the theatre?
               
               Give the cheap medicine to ALL, give the cheap milk to ALL and the schooling as well and you have...socialism.  Or perhaps communism.  You certainly don't have freedom as you must pay for what others want.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, what's wrong with subsidizing all schools?
                  
                  
                  Are you okay with the subsidized car industry but not with a subsidized education system? And you give the argument that you don't want to pay for something you don't use yourself. Well, perhaps you will never use a Ford that is subsidized by the government with tax money, your money.
                  So with your logic, you are against any form of subsidizing. As you see it as communism. Well the US is highly subsidizing farmers, the tech industry, the car industry, and millions of other things. It's probably more communistic than Rusia in that sense.
                  
                  If you truly want honest capitalism you should be against bailing out banks, against giving farmers money to keep the prices of your tomatoes cheap, against keeping the price of gasoline low etc.
                  Imagine what would happen if the government didn't ask for tax and didn't subsidize anybody.
                  An interesting thought experiment.
                  It would be true capitalism. and with a lot of poverty, I guess. A 4th world country. But maybe I'm wrong.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Nothing is wrong with subsidizing all schools...up through the 12th grade (in the US).  There is no need to subsidize higher education (more than we already do) as we already have more college grads than we can use, and as too many use college as a play time rather than having to work.
                     
                     Yes, the US subsidizes far more than it should.  No argument there, for in general, if a company cannot make it without government providing their profit then they should not be in business.  There are exceptions, but that is a good general rule.  IMO.
                     
                     No taxes means no military and no police.  As protection is the primary reason for government, that cannot work.  But do note that every single citizen (except, perhaps, the criminal element wishing to harm others) benefits.  Not just a few, and not just specific people, but everyone.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        So everybody should benefit from the spending of the tax money.
                        I agree on that one. But society is not a two-way system. It's more complicated than that.
                        In most cases, you (or I) benefit indirectly from something. Like schooling, I don't know how to fix a car, but my garage knows, they learned it. So if he/she was subsidized for learning to fix my car I will benefit indirectly from the subsidy (Tax money).

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           If we needed more car mechanics, perhaps it would make sense to subsidize the training of car mechanics.
                           
                           But we don't, and it therefore is neither required nor wise to continue forcing people to pay for mechanic training.  For the most part, that's exactly where out higher education resides; we have plenty of graduates, no need to pay for more.
                           
                           Lower education, on the other hand, is required just to get along in this life and remain off the welfare rolls.  And is therefore quite reasonable to purchase that.  In addition, everyone in the country received that benefit; time to pass it along to others.  College, on the other hand, was paid for by the recipient in years past, and there is no reason to ask those people to now pay for it again, for someone that wants it but doesn't want to pay for it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              +10000000000000.   Not to digress(well I might as well digress), there are FAR TOO MANY people attending college- talking about C students who attend college.  C students AREN'T college material.  College should only be for the top ten percentile grade earners i.e. A to B students.  C students shouldn't attend college.

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 I would disagree with this, for grades in high school are not a conclusive guide to grades in college.  They can go either way for a wide variety of reasons, perhaps the biggest being maturing students.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 87

                                    MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                    I think you are correct, Wilderness, but I also agree to a certain extent with Grace. There are some students who really don't belong in college. They would do better in trade school. My boss and I had a discussion about this about 20 years ago when all the trade school were turning into junior colleges, and a person had to get an associates degree instead of a certificate in welding. A lot of students were dropping out of junior college because they were failing math and English but making As in such trades as HVAC, welding, plumbing, electrical, and even chef's school. Just before I retired, the powers-that-be were seeing the error of their ways and trying to reverse course. I think maybe a lot of student debt was going unpaid because these students as college dropouts couldn't find jobs in their trades.
                                    But it doesn't mean that all C students should be denied college.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                       Absolutely not all kids should go to college!  But the key word was "conclusive"; while high school grades do not give "conclusive" indication of success in college, there is a strong correlation between low grades and dropping out of college.
                                       
                                       But that correlation is insufficient, IMO, to deny the "C" grade student the opportunity for further schooling.  It may well be sufficient to deny scholarships, grants, or other financial aid, but not to simply deny them college.

                                       report
                     2. 87

                        MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Guys, I don't get your discussion on "what's wrong with subsidizing all schools." All schools means just what it says "all schools" not distinguishing between public and private schools. Public schools are just that paid for by the taxpayer dollar. Private schools should be paid for by their supporting organizations, for instances, churches, clubs, social organizations, etc. In my opinion those should never be subsidized by our tax dollars. If Mr. and Mrs. Gotrocks want to send their children to private schools, they should have to pay for it themselves, especially if it is a school owned by a religious organization. Taxpayers should never subsidize man's religion, but ultra conservatives are finding ways to legalize "vouchers" to leech their religion off onto the taxpayers. Is this what y'all are hinting at without actually saying it?

                        replyreport
   3. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I will answer your question with several others to contemplate:
      
      Based on history's examples, which propels mankind and it's achievements forward?
      
      Is it Nationalism, Empire, Fascism ... or is it Socialism, Liberalism?
      
      Did America become the great and powerful nation it did because it was kind and generous to others?
      
      Or did America achieve its leading global position because it defeated all that opposed it, as it achieved its Manifest Destiny, and beyond?
      
      Which type of society throughout history has propelled advancements forward?
      
      The type of society that is fractured into hundreds of different beliefs, sexes, and tolerances?
      
      Or those societies that have more rigid cast systems and unite, as best as possible, under one shared belief system?
      
      When a Nation, Society, People, have been on the rise what does that look like?
      
      And when a Nation, Society, People have been on the decline what has that looked like?
      
      History is full of examples, general themes can be found throughout the ages.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         And which do you prefer? What is the price that you are prepared to pay for your caste system empire? In the face of whate a caste system is, why should I go along with that?
         
         Trump represented this aggressive American attitude for you, didn't he?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Trump was a delay to America's economic decline and the dollar's debasement and little more to me.
            
            I understood the bigger picture of the decline which began in earnest under Clinton and carried on un-interrupted throughout the changing Administrations until Trump.
            
            Trump reversed course or eliminated things like the TPP, Paris Accord Agreement, Compact on Migration, altered NAFTA, influenced decision making in various corporations which accounted for a temporary rise in jobs created (until the Pandemic was unleashed and used as a political weapon to shut down every state under Democratic control).
            
            I have always put economics first, international affairs second, and everything else a distant third. When it comes to the President, this is what the EO controls more than anything.  Other issues, other concerns are more the purview of Congress and the Courts, especially concerning those issues you put to the forefront.
            
            You have always put issues I don't even put as Secondary. as your primary issues of concern, and that is why we never agree on these matters.
            
            I see clearly that if the ship sinks, race doesn't matter, sex doesn't matter, when the country deteriorates all but the very well off will suffer.
            
            Perhaps the fall has already begun, seen in constant riots in the country today, and the homeless which are taking over the streets in the populated states.  The level of homelessness was unheard of in the 80s, 90s, 00s. And I can never recall a time when city blocks were taken over by rioters for weeks on end.
            
            But for certain, the devaluation of the dollar, and the transition from being the world's reserve, will cripple the economy and impact society in ways not seen in this country since before WWII.
            
            It is what it is... Trump was nothing more than a delay... his four years allowed me the breathing room I needed to set my family up in a much better situation, there are no guarantees, but my family is on much more solid ground economically than we would have been if Trump hadn't caused a four year delay in the Nation's economic decline.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               It is a matter of priorities.  Ken, times are changing. I just as soon see the whole boat sink as to remain forever a mere steward upon it.
               
               Obviously our priorities differ....
               
               Trump and the flinty Republicans did nothing but issue timeworn bromides about what he and they would do for the American worker.
               
               Your family is not my family. I am relieved to see Trump go, and will give Joe Biden all the support I can.

               replyreport
2. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   In America:
   Some kids learn in a way which is different than how teachers teach.
   Some kids want to follow their own interests.
   Some kids want to find their own motivations.
   Some kids resist the system and they can't help it.
   
   In America:
   Some people are not kind.
   Some people want to take advantage of others.
   Some people like to bully those who don't or won't fit in.
   Some people want to take advantage of those who do not know how to fight for themselves.
   
   In America:
   Some people are kind and want to help those who can't fight for themselves but deserve to be helped and fought for.
   
   It's not complicated. We all come into the world with open hearts.
   Each one of us can reach our own highest potential, if our hearts remain open.
   Kindness holds the key.
   
   In America
   Kindness is what we strive for, although sometimes our efforts are misdirected, overblown and inappropriate.
   
   In general, however, I believe America cares, and that's why I believe in America.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      We are all in the same boat, if we like it or not.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think that applies not only to America but to most countries.

      replyreport