Why America Is Becoming More Divided

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Robert, Nov 23, 2019.

  1. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    cancelled
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  2. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    You are entitled to hate my beliefs. That is not my problem- it's yours, but becomes a national problem when enough people start to subscribe to the concept they are owed a living.
    Everything I support IS possible- and it fixes problems permanently. What you support will not fix anything long-term, but will insure that the problems persist indefinitely. Nothing I support steals money from others. Everything you support depends on doing that. And you aren't discussing- you are trying to win imaginary argumentative points... ego issue. Your demands that I argue your "points" on terms you understand are nothing more than efforts to legitimize empty arguments that don't deserve any serious consideration, and only serve to muddy the water. Find yourself another pond.
    So tell yourself that's the high ground and that you are smart.
     
  3. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, never. Why?

    At Helsinki I didn't reject American intelligence and side with Putin because he sounded sincere. Trump did.

    I didn't remove the U.S. from the Iranian nuclear agreement, freeing up Russia's ally to resume nuclear research. Trump did.

    I didn't unilaterally declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel and move the American embassy there, causing the U.S. to be removed as a broker in Middle East talks to be replaced by Russia. Trump did.

    I didn't declare climate change to be a Chinese hoax and remove the U.S. from the Paris Accord where 197 nations are fighting global warming. Trump did. Russia is a major emitter.

    I didn't order a retreat in Syria, causing the deaths of hundreds and causing thousands to abandon their homes, while allowing Russian troops to occupy American bases and increasing Russia's influence in the Middle East and reducing ours. Trump did. Fortunately, the Pentagon is overruling Trump and undoing much of the damage he caused, but the Pentagon can't bring people back from the grave or rebuild people's homes.

    I am not creating havoc within the federal government, Articles of Impeachment, Senate trial, while our congressmen and Senators are at each other's throats. Trump is.

    I could go on, but I am sure readers get my point.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  4. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Will you continue to go "on" after the Senate finishes the vote?
     
  5. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where in the world did you get that? You just made it up, right?
     
  6. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same place you get the notion that Trump will be removed from office?
     
  7. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As a Trump fan, after reading my post, that is all you can say?

    Amazing, truly amazing, but quite typical of Trump's fans.
     
  8. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You being a Kremlin fan, don't understand hypocrisy.
     
  9. Zxereus

    Zxereus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,810
    Likes Received:
    379
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's it in a nutshell.
     
  10. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't "hate your beliefs", I do want to expose their falseness, as part of the process of understanding "why America is becoming more divided".

    People have a right to above poverty participation in the economy (if the resources exist, which they do),,,,do you spot the difference between that right, cf. "owed a living"?
    A more significant national problem is the increasing numbers of people being squeezed by rising costs and stagnant mean wages, as the middle class is hollowed out.

    But too many cannot access what you believe; there are not enough spiritgide's for the necessary one-on- one relationship; ands meanwhile the middle class is disappearing, and infrastructure is deteriorating.

    That's like saying the Keynesian policies followed by most western governments post WW2, up until the 70's, were not related to successful post war reconstruction in Europe. You appear to have no conception of macroeconomics at all.

    Maybe, but then you don't think the $billions raked in by John Paulson and others, via clever derivative trades in the financial industry casino, was theft, though it left millions of people around the world homeless and with pension funds destroyed.

    No....you have not read (or understood) anything I have said about MMT: "it's available real resources, not money, stupid".

    Remember your statement (many posts back) : "money is not finite, but it does have value"?

    You were partly on the right track - indeed money is not finite - but you get stuck in the "value" concept of money, because you believe the "invisible hand" market is the only possible manner of determining the value of money. It is not.

    So direct creation of deposits by government, in the central bank, to fund social programs without raising taxes (or selling interest bearing bonds), is possible so long as the resources are available.

    No theft involved.

    Interestingly, on a global scale, if climate change/CO2 is real (we should know without doubt in a few years) then the IMF will need to facilitate the transition from filthy fossil to clean green by simply creating the funds 'ex nihilo' required to develop/fund the resources needed for the new green infrastructure.

    See how fungible the concept of the "value" of non-finite money is? ie, would you actually claim we "don't have enough money" to save the planet, when the resources required to transit from filthy fossil to clean green do exist?

    [Jeremy Rivkin's recent book 'The Green New Deal" outlines the prospect of $100 trillion of fossil industry assets being stranded by c. 2028, when technological advance will actually make it cheaper to produce electricity by solar/pumped hydro and other green technologies. In theory, that would bankrupt the global financial system, but for the intervention described above. Rivkin actually calls for an emissions tax, with refunds to compensate consumers for higher energy prices during the transition, to maintain the "invisible hand" mechanism; I prefer direct creation of money to facilitate planned infrastructure development, as outlined].

    Is that how you characterise the discussion points above ?

    Actually I think this particular thread is one of the most important on 'Political Forum'.

    You can make those sorts of comments; I will remain committed to the substantive issues re "why America is becoming more divided".
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2019
  11. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK- lets sum it up on that basis. Open your mind a bit and actually consider what I say here instead of just collecting point to object to.
    I'm an old man. Give some thought to the idea that somewhere along the way, I might have seen things and learned things that you haven't go to yet.

    America is divided because our society's individual personal stability and capacity to do for themselves has been degraded, by a combination of the decay in culture which is both product and cause of things like single parent families, a lack of self-respect as well as respect for others, and a corresponding increase in gullibility- allowing ideas they like to outweigh ideas that are realistic and practical. The increasing preference for comfortable lies over uncomfortable truth. The willingness to blame others for the conditions of your life to avoid being responsible for yourself. These people tend to believe that success is luck; that they are only poor because somebody who is rich took all the money- thus it's unfair and they are owed, entitled. They are happy to give their freedom to government in return for promises to correct that- promises that can never be kept. We have allowed this to progress to the point where the number of people with that kind of mindset has become large enough for immoral politicians to see it as a power base, and court it. Sell their candidacy by telling them what they want to hear. They are the easiest votes to manipulate, and they don't ask hard questions.

    The division is between those who are buying that- and those who reject it. It is an illusion, and an extremely dangerous one. There can be no great, strong, generous society without great, strong and generous people. THEY are the builders of nations. These are the people who understand that this nation is a work in progress, not perfect today, but must continue to improve- and will, so long as we work for it. We should be thanking those people in our past- because we have become strong enough to be generous. The others- are the destroyers of nations. They are the people who see no reason to build, no reason to be strong, no reason to be responsible for themselves- because "we" (meaning others) have so much that we can afford to cook the golden goose and feast on it.

    While this is the broad view, and one could make a case for any small component of it IF the big picture, the long-term effects are ignored. That is your case for what you believe; the right-now fix to avoid the pain and postpone the growth.

    However- every day is the tomorrow we failed to plan for yesterday. We have an inherent obligation to make the future right, because that is where we are all going to be soon- including our future families, who deserve better from us than a legacy of debt, bad character and a weak society. That is a curse, not a legacy, and it is becoming more likely everyday.

    Real Solutions begin right now. The strong support that, the weak think it can wait because right now they have needs, and aren't ready. Politicians and idealists love that procrastination, which is very much a disease of our society. It is supported and promoted by the politicians who are willing to back anything that gets them votes, power, and longevity of power- and will probably be retired before the problems they plant today come to maturity in the future. Weak and dependent people are that politicians ideal citizen- and natural prey. Strong, independent people are his sworn enemy, and his nemesis.

    The division in America is not Trump, not the rich, not our economic opportunities or lack of them- it is the collision in our character values, between those who will work today so that the future can be better, and those who want to take the day off and sent the bills to the future because someone else can carry it. The personal crisis of virtually any person can be traced back to that kind of decision- and when the nation endorses and supports such decisions... The future is easily lost. Not just your future or that of your children, but of your grandchildren and great-grandchildren as well. Worse, the future of all those who have worked to make it the best possible.... sabotaged by those who don't care because, we don't have to do it right now.

    I know. You just don't get it.
     
  12. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are asking me to listen, and refrain from "just collecting point to object to."

    Well that pretty much excludes debate, doesn't it?

    I will comment on one sentence from all that (if I may.....)

    "We have an inherent obligation to make the future right, because that is where we are all going to be soon- including our future families, who deserve better from us than a legacy of debt, bad character and a weak society".

    What if the climate scientists are correct, and we must entirely transition from filthy fossil to clean green, before mid-century?

    Will your 'self-actualisation' doctrine save us then?

    A 'theory of truth', which you are in effect proposing (and the search for which I will support) , needs to be able to deal with all situations in which we find ourselves.
     
  13. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I watched the hearing today, and, again, the Republicans avoided the evidence against Trump. Some said the evidence didn't prove anything, but not one Republican could explain that premise using the evidence itself. They constantly brought up unrelated topics, quoting Presidents Washington, Andrew Johnson, Harrison, Jackson, Truman, and Obama. They brought up Russian interference in our elections, the Mueller Report, the FISA courts, Steele dossier, and Carter Page (who?).

    I could go on, but the reader gets my point.

    They tried to confuse matters by ignoring the unique nature of impeaching the President. They brought up routine examples of executive privilege throughout our history. They ignored what our Constitution says about impeachment. Article 1 Section 2 says:

    The House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments ...

    Sole power
    , not the President and not the courts. In other words, when it comes to impeachment, there is no executive privilege. Congress has the sole power to determine what witnesses and what documents it needs to protect our Constitution from the impeachable offenses of the President.

    By refusing to comply with court ordered subpoenas, Trump clearly committed obstruction, and quoting George Washington doesn't change that.

    I almost felt sorry for the Republicans on the committee. They were helpless. Almost, they were defending a President who broke our laws and is a threat to our Constitution and our national security.
     
  14. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not a "theory of truth", it's a basic set of the fundamental principles which allow a person to take control of their own lives and set strong values - including control of how they think. It has a great deal to do with compassion and supporting society instead of being a parasite of it. And it wasn't self-actualization either. That was your term. What I taught and advocate is accepting personal responsibility, and in relation to this discussion- not helping others procrastinate on that forever. Responsible people examine things without prejudice to the facts, so they can accept and do what is necessary. What do you think a society of people who rejects that concept would do? Do you really think that a population of people who will not take responsibility and will not contribute are going to get anything done about any problem??? Of course you do.

    Perhaps you have never heard that a Rhino can charge at 30 MPH- but his vision is so poor he can't tell the difference in a human and a tree at 15 ft, and can't stop in that distance. The Rhino doesn't know his own limitations, and makes a lot of painful mistakes out of belligerence. The moral is it that when you can't see what you are doing, things never turn out like you think they will- no matter how sure of yourself you are. It pays to be able to see the bigger picture, not just what you think is the need of the moment.
     
  15. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    .

    Fine, but you are still ignoring the effects of macroeconomic externalities that are beyond the control of individuals, but are managed - whether well or poorly - on behalf of those individuals, by governments.

    That's why you can't even consider my 'hypothetical' about a necessary transition to green before mid-century.

    No. I have never suggested that.

    Yes.....but macroeconomic realities - a bigger picture - (which can be influenced by - hopefully well-informed government policy) - have at least as much relevance in the lives of individuals as personal responsibility.
     
  16. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    No matter how you cut it, the state of the individual has the single greatest power over his life. As a society, you might say it's like a ball team, If you stock it with unmotivated players to make them feel better"making the team" or so you won't feel sorry for them- everybody loses. It takes winning players to win the game for society. Until a person WANTS to win- they aren't really playing even if you are subsidizing them. They are still losers- and they know it. Wearing a hat that says they are now winners is a fraud, and they know that too.

    I promote the strengths that makes people winners. You are promoting the idea that you can buy that for them by giving benefits they haven't earned. The fact that the game is sometimes harder or easier is true- but you can't lower the bar so that people score without effort and tell them their winners. Doesn't work; they not only know they are not, but they know it's fake- and they blame you for not making it real.

    My approach costs nothing. Yours requires people to subsidize the perpetuation of the situation you think it would solve- with other people's money. That is to subsidize the team of losers- lower the bar to where they don't have to stand up at all, and you can tell yourself you did something good.

    You seem to think people will have the perspective to realize they are being helped, and will somehow change character. Saw this story in yesterdays news that shows how it really works- to support the belief it's owed to them, and they are not getting all they are entitled too. Appreciation- Zero.

    Oregon beggar sentenced to jail after causing over $9,000 in damage because no one was giving her money, report says
    "Marlena Rochelle Neely, 30, told authorities she was homeless and had been asking people for $5. Neely said she would shatter a window every time they failed to give her money because she was tired of people not helping her out, the probable cause affidavit stated, according to The Oregonian."

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-b...amage-because-no-one-giving-money-report-says
     
  17. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    America is becoming more divided because more Americans think of themselves or others, first and foremost, as members of groups rather than as individuals. Hatred is relatively rare between individuals; however, it is the norm between groups.

    If Americans were to think of themselves and others, first and foremost, as individuals rather than as members of groups,
    almost all of what divides us would evaporate.

    Indeed, group think (thinking of oneself or others first and foremost as members of groups rather than as individuals)
    is so habitual that many people are unable to think, let alone express themselves, from any other perspective - not even after I spell it out in just so many words - not even for a single comment - not even to prove me wrong if for only for an instant. It's ingrained. It's habitual. It's official. It's our biggest problem.

    Group think accounts for the vast majority of what divides us.
     
  18. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will admit that, if indeed there are not enough resources in the US to eradicate poverty due to involuntary un+underemployment (measured as U6 in the US), then indeed "other people's money" would be needed to fix the situation.

    But it's blatantly ridiculous to suggest there aren't enough unused resources, including labour in the US that would prevent building sufficient (public) housing to end all homelessness, and all involuntary unemployment.

    That's where money creation in the public sector comes in (see MMT): no private sector money is required.

    https://themacrotourist.com/2019-01-23-mmt/
     
  19. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting post, but there are some problems with it.

    eg "groupthink" is equivalent to a particular ideology held by a group.

    Any ideology, almost by definition, is incomplete in relation to "truth".

    So a conscious search for "truth" is needed by individuals who would be "truth-seekers".

    So, is the Left-Right divide indicative of failure on the part of individuals to think for themselves?
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2019
  20. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No private sector money? So somebody else will pay, but you think we can label the money so it comes from the sky or something? All money is the product of public productivity. The government's money comes from the public. So does the money of every corporation, bank, investment or anything else. IF the public- you or I- chose to give our money to a cause, it is our money being given. When that money comes from some government program the public doesn't approve of, it is our money being stolen. If half the people don't approve but are forced to pay- that money is again stolen. The idea usually used to defend this is that we all benefit, but despite all the efforts we have already made in this fashion, there is no evidence of the problem being solved overall. Some individual anecdotes will show benefits, but overall- failure. 50 years into the "Great Society" program that is larger than FDR's New Deal- no success. Your concepts hinge totally on other people's money, with no real benefits to the people paying the bill- and more importantly, no real solutions to the problem, only perpetuation of it.

    IF it's a winning idea, people would support it. Show me how your idea will benefit society in the long run, actually returning the majority of these people to self sufficient, tax-paying citizens, so that we continue to reduce their number. Remember that we have already tried about every approach I've heard you speak to, and all have failed.

    BUT- you are not free to spend other peoples money because YOU think it's a good idea. The fact that money exists does not make it public domain. And "unused" labor is something I don't think you understand. An unemployed person who has no interest in working is not used labor. He is looking for an easy answer to have enough income or things to get along- but he is not interested in earning it. While you can give him money and a place to live by taking money from the rest of us, you cannot give him motivation- not by legislation, social programs or any other way. Motivation comes from the inside, and it takes a certain kind of mindset. So this person becomes like a kept animal, that doesn't work, and doesn't care. He's unemployable not because he lacks skill, but because he lacks the right attitude and motivation. If you give him a job, he will be unreliable in attendance, irresponsible in actions, wasteful of time and in the overall picture contribute no net positive value to the business he works for. It's not that he couldn't, but that he won't.

    Employment is at an all-time high, and jobs are everywhere. A no-experience, no skills person can walk into the offices of Temp Help services for example, and get work the same day- and for as long as they want it, provided the people they work for give them passing report. I often have hired that way when I needed general labor for short periods. That's not a career- but it's a starting place. Such temp labor will wind up working at many places, so they get exposure to various skills and a lot of employers. Often when a temp person is a good worker, a good learner- the employer will ask them to be a full-time employee. In other words- anybody that wants to work can find work, and restart a new life. But you cannot make them do it, and you are fooling yourself by thinking that you can. There MUST be a suitable attitude and effort by the person. It makes no sense to just subsidize all those who don't want to work- because that encourages it, make an alternative to being productive.

    If my government is going to spend my money- I want my money's worth. I want it spent of things work and that benefit all of us, and not by the merry-go-round theory that the free-money crowd thinks benefits us all.

    This is not speaking to the issue of the genuinely handicapped or people physically unable to earn a living. That is a place for our charity, and I support that. The will of the people to subsidize the unwilling and unmotivated in poverty is expressed in what they wish to do- voluntarily, because it is their money.

    Nobody likes the look of a street filled with tents, trash and and homeless. But that is not our choice- it's the choice of the people who made it so. You could make that disappear, and let the public think that means it's fixed- but you have only moved it out of their view, not created any improvement in the future or capacity of the people who live that way. There just is no end to such subsidy; you are simply patching a problem cosmetically for people who will resent you for doing it, and it would never end.
     
  21. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're mistaking 'groupthink' with ' group think'. Group think is thinking of oneself or others, first and foremost, as members of groups rather than as individuals. Group think usually precedes groupthink.
     
  22. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now I'm rapidly losing interest in your contribution to this debate.

    So...'group think' (characterised by adherence to a particulate ideology) "usually" precedes 'groupthink'; and that's why America is becoming more divided?
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2019
  23. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I don't think that; and as for the general public gaining an understanding of MMT "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink".....until another unemployment disaster in the form of the next recession finally puts the nail in the coffin of neoliberal NAIRU mainstream macroeconomic nonsense, as the impotence of central bank monetary policy in a low inflation, low interest environment, is unambiguously revealed.

    [Luckily for the US, Trump has no qualms about increasing the national debt with tax cuts for the wealthy; which should delay or even avoid a recession in the US at least in the short term. Trump has said straight out: "The US will not default on it's debt, since the government issues US dollars (pure MMT!....) :most US debt is owed to US citizens].

    No: in our present neoliberal orthodox system, money is the 'product' of private sector productivity.

    Yes... In our neoliberal orthodox system, the government's money comes from taxing and selling interest bearing bonds to the private sector (ie "the public")….but from previous discussions I know you don't accept this characterisation of "the public" as "the private sector", so moving on...

    All this is premised on your previous assertions, which I have refuted. ie. money is NOT the "product of public productivity" but the product of private productivity, via our "invisible hand", competitive, free market system.

    I agree with this; my real task is to the get the Left to see it...the Right of course do quite well within present neoliberal orthodoxy, and therefore won't be interested in anything I have to say. {In Britain, working class voters simply didn't believe Labour could implement it's "socialist" policies without increasing the government debt or by raising taxes on the wealthy ALONE.....and of course they were right, GIVEN THE CURRENT NEOLIBERAL ORTODOXY.....but the Dems probably won't learn from this Johnson victory either, which will mean a continuing disaster for the disadvantaged in Britain and the US.

    But the Left ought to be interested in eradicating involuntary underemployment and associated ills such as child poverty.
    by drawing on the capacity of the currency issuing national government to fund social programs directly via funds creation in the public sector's bank, namely, the central bank - as long as productive capacity and the resources are available (ie not employed by the private sector), meaning demand inflation will not be an issue.
    This is of course not the current arrangement; at present the Fed cannot be considered to be part of the 'consolidated government sector', as central banks are considered, in MMT

    Unemployment is 3.7%. Underemployment is 4.0%. Those who are not even counted as being available, because they have given up looking for work (due to local conditions) is probably greater than both those figures. So we are talking 10% or more … which accords with a persistent poverty rate of c.10% in the US.
    And "all-time high employment" disregards the pay rates and security associated with that "full employment", which are both moving in the wrong direction since the GFC (and earlier, in fact).

    So you will need to get your head around MMT before we can continue the conversation. The "street filled with tents, trash, and homeless" is a natural outcome of money creation confined to the private sector - a macroeconomic issue: it's not due primarily to any perceived shortcomings or failures by individuals to take personal responsibility.

    Like I said, show me a U6 number no greater than 2%, and I will look at the role of personal responsibility, in the plight of the disadvantaged.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2019
  24. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe you are using a very arbitrary view of reality for your conclusions. You seem to want to label money with sources that don't exist. When I said public money, I mean money coming from the public- and the public, and the public is the people as a group. They do the producing- government isn't in the business of producing anything that isn't paid for by the citizens who make up the public and the businesses those citizens own. You seem to be finding magic money which you chose to separate from it's origin in order to somehow say "someone else will pay". Old, old ploy.
    The absolute first need of anyone who wants to be their own master is to realize that they and they alone are responsible for themselves- everything they do, say, think or feel. If you get confused about that, you start believing that other people control you, and so the only way to control your life is to control them. And- that is precisely what you are endorsing. Yes, there are various fluctuations in economic conditions and positions. There always will be, and it's natural that we learn to handle the variables. That is life, and part of growing up should be learning to deal with variables, rather than demanding a someone else to it for you. I've been in hard times too. Dead broke, serious cancer, no insurance, no cash, no home. I pulled that situation together and paid my own way back without help. I'm not talking about things I have no experience with.

    You don't lower the bar to raise people up. You encourage them to try again, to realize what needs to change, and show them the path. But you don't steal what little pride they may have left.

    If you want a change in government data like the unemployment, who is going to do that? People who don't care? People who won't go to work? The things you ask for can only be accomplished with people who have their acts together and want to make good things happen. The personal motivation makes the production gains possible. It can't be done backwards, so the first need is- a lot more strong people.

    I started hiring in 1968, so I'm not exactly naive in the motivations of people towards work. One thing I learned long ago is that when the unemployment is around 3%, we have full employment. Why? Because there is a segment of people who are unemployable, due to their lack of motivation, their reliability, the lack of honesty and basic qualities every job requires. They do get hired- but shortly fired for non-performance. Like the proverbial bad coin put in a vending machine and being rejected over and over, these people hold jobs briefly, make a few bucks, get fired or quit and sit back until they run dry. That's not the fault of government. It's not the fault of employers, they have a duty to the good people they hire as well as customers, stockholders and others- and they ARE NOT social service agencies we should use to keep bums employed at a loss. Point is- you are never going to reach 2%, unless you are willing to have our government pay that class to stay home and hold the couch down, and call it "employment" to manipulate the numbers.

    If you think you are smarter than the government's economists, you should be telling them- not me. The government, or at least part of them, knows the limits of our support systems, and they know a lot of the money is pure waste. They also know that the public is generous when they think the money comes from other people, and endorsing social entitlements makes them "feel good" until they figure out the are the other people. Lots of people have nice-sounding objectives they want to sell, but no way to realistically reach them. I think that's were you are at.

    Don't get me wrong- what I endorse isn't going to solve all the problems either. It will only work for people who will live by the principles, not just lip service them. That will never be 100%, so there will always be some people in poverty or subsidized dependence, and there is nothing you or I can do to change that. I think they at least need the opportunity to change it themselves, and that starts with examples and by showing the the path. Paying them to not try is no answer at all- just an illusion that you are "helping". IF such things really worked, we wouldn't have the conditions we have right now- because of the vast efforts and money we have already invested. That has done some good of course- but it's done a lot more damage than good. Real solutions don't do that.
     
  25. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Politically yes, we are quite divided, but life is not entirely all about politics and at the end of the day our foreign neighbors will all call us as Americans not as Democrats or Republicans.
     

Share This Page