What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Ten oz]

@ Willie 71, Reagan's administration invented the Welfare queen and regularly used inflammatory racial language to discuss safety net programs. Food Stamp became code for lazy minorty, welfare became lazy and or promiscous minorty, Mediciad became irresponsible minority parent, and etc. It was and has continued to be so aggressive and persistent that it is impossible to discussion such programs without discussing race.

[iNow]

Again, simply a perspective thing. I think your perspective is skewed by your desire for more governmental tax revenue.

Indeed, we both view the others perspective as skewed, but I also know that there is a ton we agree on.

 

Perhaps this text based medium makes it harder to see this than it should be, but were we sitting down over a beer and speaking verbally my guess is it would become obvious that we're really not as far apart as it seems. I also suspect the ability to talk openly and honestly would lead us each to consider perspectives we hadn't previously thought much about and potentially adjust our positions somewhat.

 

I just wish it didn't have to feel so hard to find that common ground I know to be relatively far reaching between us, but alas... I'll just have to suck it up and deal with it. Cheers.

[Willie71]

@ Willie 71, Reagan's administration invented the Welfare queen and regularly used inflammatory racial language to discuss safety net programs. Food Stamp became code for lazy minorty, welfare became lazy and or promiscous minorty, Mediciad became irresponsible minority parent, and etc. It was and has continued to be so aggressive and persistent that it is impossible to discussion such programs without discussing race.

The damage Reagan did to the world is overwhelming. Nixon actually took many of his strategies from watching Reagan's campaigns in California. Nixonland was a pretty fascinating read. Highly recommended,

Edited January 21, 2016 by Willie71

[tar]

Willie71,

 

Not quite sure what you are talking about. Nixon was before Reagan and Reagan opened dialogue with China, helped reunified Germany and left office with a high approval rating.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

Willie71,

 

Not quite sure what you are talking about. Nixon was before Reagan...

Reagan was also a governor, who campaigned in California, before and at the same time that Nixon was campaigning for the White House. Willie is saying that the Nixon team borrowed from the Reagan teams playbook. Jesus. This isn't quantum mechanics here. If you're confused, step away and think about it more before posting or ask a relevant question to help you clarify.

[Willie71]

Willie71,

 

Not quite sure what you are talking about. Nixon was before Reagan and Reagan opened dialogue with China, helped reunified Germany and left office with a high approval rating.

 

Regards, TAR

The Germany thing is revisionist history, commonly propagated in the US. iNow answered the Reagan/Nixon timeline and is correct. I have to review Reagan/China, as it's not fresh in my mind. Reagan's popularity grew post mortem. Immediately post office, his approval wasn't very remarkable. The assassination attempt did boost his approval, though.

Reagan in Historical Perspective

 

Americans' perceptions of Reagan's presidency have risen considerably in recent years. His average approval rating for 1988, his last full year as president, was 53% -- identical to the average for the entire eight years of his presidency. Yet, when Americans were asked in 2002 to state whether they approved or disapproved of the way Reagan handled his presidency, retrospectively, 73% approved.

 

This increase in retrospective approval didn't occur at once. Three Gallup ratings in 1990, 1992, and 1993 showed Reagan's job approval rating in the 50% to 54% range -- little different from the average while he was in office. Reagan publicly announced that he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease in 1994, and it's possible that the sympathy and concern his condition has elicited over the last decade are in part responsible for the elevated retrospective job approval ratings he has received since.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

 

A lot of charts in that article.

[tar]

Phi,

 

The state we are in is normal, in the sense that everything we have done together for the last 4000 years has brought us to this point. The rate of technology advances is moving along at exponential rates. We have to be doing something right to be able to have an internet to talk on, and a political system that allows the free exchange of ideas and an openness to criticize our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions. We might not be the best country in the world anymore, but we are up there in the top half dozen. Which is not bad in a world of 100s of countries. Republicans and Democrats brought us to this point. Rich people brought us to this point. We would not be where we are without Rockefellers and Gates. Big projects require capital. Banks loan people money to do stuff. Put roofs on schools, build infrastructure and parks and all the things that improve our quality of life.

 

During the housing crisis bad loans caused an over leveraged financial system to fail. In the aftermath the Fed expanded its balance sheet, floating out 85 billion a month to keep the economy going. I didn't get any of that money. People with savings were hurt, because interest rates fell to near zero. People living off the interest of their savings were made poorer. Somebody made money, people outside the U.S. made money in a world economy. The world bank worked to keep liquidity up; Big powerful banks all over the EU and England and the U.S. worked together to rebuild confidence and trust. Confidence and trust is how an economy works. If you are to take the attitude that the rich and powerful are the enemy then you can not have riches and power to call on to get things done. Well you can have the state run everything, but then you have China, or the Soviet Union, and run the risk of waiting in line for toilet paper.

 

We are where we are because we built a rail across the nation with Chinese labor, and dug coal with immigrant workers and had strong unions and a hundred other situations where both worker and management were important to get the thing done. We are not just the worker and we are not just the boss. We are all those things, and we have made it work for over 200 years. We are a melting pot, and still a leader in technology and sports and entertainment and culture and industry and business and human rights and law and order. There are better countries than us in any one category, but when you look at any category we are in pretty good shape. We are doing it right. Me and you. Our families, our neighbors. We are doing it right.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

Reagan opened dialogue with China

https://history.state.gov/countries/issues/china-us-relations

1984: President Ronald Reagan became the third U.S. President to visit the PRC.

helped reunified Germany

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_down_this_wall!#Response_and_legacy

Despite Reagan urging Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, there are some such as Romesh Ratnesar of Time who commented that there is little evidence that the speech had any impact on the decision to tear down the wall, let alone an impact on the people he addressed.

 

Another critic is Liam Hoare in a 2012 article in The Atlantic, who points to the many reasons for the tendency for American media to focus on the significance of this particular speech, without weighing the complexity of the events as they unfolded in both East and West Germany and the Soviet Union.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/lets-please-stop-crediting-ronald-reagan-for-the-fall-of-the-berlin-wall/262647/

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1631828,00.html

 

and left office with a high approval rating.

Relative to what, exactly?

 

[tar]

iNow,

 

Sorry, I was watching presidential campaign politics all day and did not know what Willie71 was talking about saying the Reagan ruined the world and that Nixon copied his campaign strategies. It didn't dawn on me that Nixon might have copied his campaign for governor. I was thinking presidential campaigns.

 

Willie71,

 

I don't know either about this revisionist history thing. I was in West Germany for 2 years when there was an East Germany, and I remember hearing in real time "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall." And now there is one Germany. I think Reagan had something to do with it. I am not attempting to revise anything, just remembering a divided Germany and the speech, followed by a united Germany. The memory is not consistent with the thought that Reagan inflicted overwhelming damage on the world.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

During the housing crisis bad loans caused an over leveraged financial system to fail. In the aftermath the Fed expanded its balance sheet, floating out 85 billion a month to keep the economy going. I didn't get any of that money.

You've previously shared that you have a 401K account, which renders this comment trivially false.

 

We are doing it right. Me and you. Our families, our neighbors. We are doing it right.

[mp][/mp]

Tar's ramblings on the other hand, are a reason I don't participate ( but still read ) this ( and another ) thread.

I understand.

[Phi for All]

Reagan's popularity grew post mortem. Immediately post office, his approval wasn't very remarkable. The assassination attempt did boost his approval, though.

 

The GOP needed to elevate someone to sainthood. Nixon and Ford were poison, and Eisenhower was too intellectual and progressive to use as an icon.

 

Too bad, Ike was a pretty well-grounded package.

 

Phi,

 

The state we are in is normal, in the sense that everything we have done together for the last 4000 years has brought us to this point. The rate of technology advances is moving along at exponential rates. We have to be doing something right to be able to have an internet to talk on, and a political system that allows the free exchange of ideas and an openness to criticize our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions. We might not be the best country in the world anymore, but we are up there in the top half dozen. Which is not bad in a world of 100s of countries. Republicans and Democrats brought us to this point. Rich people brought us to this point. We would not be where we are without Rockefellers and Gates. Big projects require capital. Banks loan people money to do stuff. Put roofs on schools, build infrastructure and parks and all the things that improve our quality of life.

 

During the housing crisis bad loans caused an over leveraged financial system to fail. In the aftermath the Fed expanded its balance sheet, floating out 85 billion a month to keep the economy going. I didn't get any of that money. People with savings were hurt, because interest rates fell to near zero. People living off the interest of their savings were made poorer. Somebody made money, people outside the U.S. made money in a world economy. The world bank worked to keep liquidity up; Big powerful banks all over the EU and England and the U.S. worked together to rebuild confidence and trust. Confidence and trust is how an economy works. If you are to take the attitude that the rich and powerful are the enemy then you can not have riches and power to call on to get things done. Well you can have the state run everything, but then you have China, or the Soviet Union, and run the risk of waiting in line for toilet paper.

 

We are where we are because we built a rail across the nation with Chinese labor, and dug coal with immigrant workers and had strong unions and a hundred other situations where both worker and management were important to get the thing done. We are not just the worker and we are not just the boss. We are all those things, and we have made it work for over 200 years. We are a melting pot, and still a leader in technology and sports and entertainment and culture and industry and business and human rights and law and order. There are better countries than us in any one category, but when you look at any category we are in pretty good shape. We are doing it right. Me and you. Our families, our neighbors. We are doing it right.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I ordinarily don't quote your entire posts because they are such a mixture of misinformation, misunderstanding, and irrelevant ramblings. But I wanted to point out to you the patterns you fall into in your weak rebuttals.

 

You claim were doing fine, doing it right. Then you throw your vague and irreconcilable fears into a sentence or two. Then you go back to claiming we're fine. Then you argue (again, irrelevantly) about generalities in response to very specific questions and concerns. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

It's more than aggravating. You spit out what you think is right, iNow and others show you how wrong you are, yet you still maintain you're right, we're all right, everything is goooooooood. It's more than aggravating, it literally makes me sick to my stomach that people with your mindset are running this once proud country into the ground.

 

Glad you're doing fine. I am too. Many, many, many more aren't. I'd like to fix that in the most effective, efficient, and profound way possible, by sharing my prosperity to help blend equality and justice again in the measures that made us great before.

 

I'm going to go with the preponderance of evidence at my disposal, and predict I'll just waste my time in further discussions with you. It's a fair bet, considering the good it's done neither of us.

[tar]

INow,

 

My 401K is small and is in near cash type investments. I put it in, and it did not grow or shrink much and when I take it out I will pay taxes that you will benefit from. I don't consider that quantitative easing gave me any money.

 

And how I will be affected financially as the Fed unwinds the balance sheet remains to be seen. I am not sure my statement is false.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

My 401K is small and is in near cash type investments. I put it in, and it did not grow or shrink much and when I take it out I will pay taxes that you will benefit from. I don't consider that quantitative easing gave me any money.

Then once again you're quite simply wrong / living in a bubble.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021015/how-does-quantitative-easing-us-affect-stock-market.asp

Empirical evidence suggests there is a positive correlation between QE and a rising stock market; some of the largest stock market gains in U.S. history occurred after the launch of LSAP.

[Willie71]

iNow,

 

Sorry, I was watching presidential campaign politics all day and did not know what Willie71 was talking about saying the Reagan ruined the world and that Nixon copied his campaign strategies. It didn't dawn on me that Nixon might have copied his campaign for governor. I was thinking presidential campaigns.

 

Willie71,

 

I don't know either about this revisionist history thing. I was in West Germany for 2 years when there was an East Germany, and I remember hearing in real time "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall." And now there is one Germany. I think Reagan had something to do with it. I am not attempting to revise anything, just remembering a divided Germany and the speech, followed by a united Germany. The memory is not consistent with the thought that Reagan inflicted overwhelming damage on the world.

 

Regards, TAR

The American media showed clips repeatedly with Reagan saying "Tear down this wall!" then clips of the wall coming down. The two events were not related in any way, really. The connection is burned into many american's minds, but it's fiction. Reagan did not topple the Soviet Union either, another revisionist history trope.

[tar]

Phi,

 

Sorry to make you sick, but I am not doing well enough to help anybody else out. I have been unemployed for a year, and my wife just got laid off. I do not have a clear plan for how I am going to keep my house and my way of life. I am not blaming anybody, nor looking for anybody else to solve my dilemma. I look to myself to do something of value for someone else, to where they will pay for the good or service and I can pay my property taxes and health insurance and such and keep my house in the suburbs. In the past I could give to charities and we still give old cloths and such to goodwill and that, and I volunteer in town to help people out, but I am not in a position to hire anyone or pay for anybody else's education. I still have my daughter's loans to pay off and my mortgage. In some ways I have less that a farmer in the Yucatan living in a mud hut. He is in the tropics where I spent vacation money to visit, and he does not have the debt I have. I still think we have a great country and we have done it right. And I still think I am not the problem with America.

 

Regards, TAR

iNow,

 

The article said exactly what I said. How does that prove me wrong again? I said my dad took a hit when the stock market went down, as he had gained when the stock market went up with quantitative easing, but I was in near money market investments, so I was actually hurt by quantitative easing, as savers were hurt due to the lowering of interest rates. Thereby putting me in a class of investors not assisted by quantitative easing.

 

Regards, TAR

 

​

[iNow]

Let me spell this out for you in small simple words:

 

You claimed you received no money from quantitative easing.

I reminded you that you have a 401K so actually did.

You replied that your 401K is small, as if that matters, then doubled down on your previous claim.

 

I corrected you and provided a link that confirms essentially all evidence confirms QE helped lead to the largest stock market returns in history.

 

All other points you're making are irrelevant. Focus. Stay on target. You can do it!

[overtone]

It actually makes me very hopeful. We might see a shift in the Republican party where they turn their based on the fringe right. That could lead to a hand full of years where moderates in both party's work together.

There aren't any moderates worth mentioning, in the Republican Party.

 

There isn't a single Republican Congressman, Governor, or Presidential candidate who can turn his back on the Trump/Cruz/Carson core of that Party and still win election. There is no moderate wing, or group, of any size. Trump's support is not fringe, neither is Cruz's, neither is Carson's. The fringe candidates on the stage in the Republican debates were the likes of Jeb Bush and John Kasich. The people "led" by this dork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reince_Priebusare the conservative equivalent of the ivory tower - not really in communication with the unwashed masses they've been tapping for votes via hired professionals.

 

 

I don't know either about this revisionist history thing.

Revisionist history is when somebody credits Reagan with great popularity, or credits Reagan with opening China, and the like. (Nixon opened Hong Kong, stashed a mistress there, and got fleeced by the Chinese government. Jimmy Carter opened mainland China, and cut a reasonably good deal that unfortunately depended on nobody screwing up the US tax system. Yes, that Jimmy Carter. Not Reagan, Carter. Jimmy Carter was a more accomplished and better governing president than Reagan, especially in foreign policy areas).

 

One problem with crediting Reagan for the fall of the Soviet Empire is that it blinds you to the actual events - which included Reagan's entire administration getting caught totally by surprise (apparently, they had been believing their own bs Star Wars defense industry trough-filling hype about the looming threat of Soviet world domination) and botching some really important foreign policy opportunities and threats (right there is where the US probably blew it with Iran and Iraq as well as Cuba and Yugoslavia, for example).

 

Here's the rule of thumb: fascists do not make the trains run on time. They are not, as they present themselves to be, competent at governing things as complex as States. Fascism is not a good governing ideology. The illusion of competence fostered by the confidence of these clowns is what you need a factually accurate account of events to dissipate, and falling for their pitch is a major hazard of revising one's history according to their bombast and deluded rants.

Edited January 21, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

Tar, I don't mean this sarcastically, or in an insulting way. What people are saying is that believing something that is not supportable with evidence is a minor problem. We have all been uninformed or misinformed many times. However, when evidence clearly showing that belief to be false is presented, it is rational to revise one's beliefs. Failure, or outright refusal to do so is a oroblem, and there is a large minority of people in the US who are detached from reality, and refuse to accept sound evidence. You appear to be one of those people. What prevents you from looking at the evidence and acknowledging there is a mountain of evidence contradicting the notion that things are fine in America?

 

You have:

Obscenely high incarceration rates.

Obscenely high income inequality.

Runaway influence of money in politics.

Militarized police state with the highest civillian death toll at the hands of the police I. The developed world.

The highest gun violence rates in the developed world.

Hard working families bankrupted by a medical emergency.

High rates of bigotry and racism.

One if the most expensive health care systems in the developed world.

An obesity epidemic.

A failing education system with high rates of illiteracy.

A very high homeless population.

A nearly non-existent medical system.

Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman et,al.

Corporate media, rather than investigative journalism.

 

 

I could go on, but I would never stop. This is your definition of doing well? It's obscene to other developed countries.

[MigL]

Nixon visited China in 1972, and opened diplomatic relations, Overtone.

Yes, I'm old enough to actually remember that.

( Actually even older, as Tuesday was my birthday; I'm not liking this old age at all ! )

[overtone]

Nixon visited China in 1972, and opened diplomatic relations, Overtone.

Yes, I'm old enough to actually remember that

He opened Hong Kong. At most. And gave away the store to do it. They had him pegged from the gitgo - he needed prestige, status, could not afford (personally or professionally) to walk away. He'd already brought the TV cameras into it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Nixon_visit_to_China

 

(Notice, for example, that the major US effort of the visit - obtaining Chinese pressure on Vietnam to agree to US terms for ending the Vietnam War - went nowhere).

Carter cut the deals that opened mainland China to US commercial relationships. He was hampered somewhat by Nixon's opening bid, but still made a reasonably good bargain of it over all.

And the main point: Reagan was handed a China in "normal" diplomatic relations with the US, separated from the Soviet Union, open for profitable business relationships with his California associates and Wall Street backers, and so forth. He did not accomplish that, Carter did.

Edited January 21, 2016 by overtone

[MigL]

I just checked the Wiki page to make sure.

He met with Mao during his visit in Beijing and discussed policy for about an hour during his one week stay.

 

Edit

Nixon actually took advantage of the strained relations between China and the USSR at the time.

First he normalized relations with the Chinese, and then used that leverage to negotiate arms/missile treaties with the USSR.

Edited January 21, 2016 by MigL

[overtone]

First he normalized relations with the Chinese, and then used that leverage to negotiate arms/missile treaties with the USSR

If you checked, you read that he did not normalize relations with the Chinese. That took seven more years, and the bulk of the work was done by Carter.

 

The SALT treaty Nixon had been negotiating since '69 and got signed a couple months later in that election year was of course in the interest of China as well - the Chinese wanted Soviet nuclear capability curbed, for obvious reasons. So if Nixon's visit helped close the deal that was an ancillary benefit for Beijing, to add to the important negotiated benefits along those lines Beijing obtained - win/win. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communiqué

 

In any event: not Reagan. All this good stuff - diplomatic relations with China, SALT treaty, etc - was handed to Reagan.

Edited January 21, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Phi,

 

Sorry to make you sick, but I am not doing well enough to help anybody else out. I have been unemployed for a year, and my wife just got laid off. I do not have a clear plan for how I am going to keep my house and my way of life. I am not blaming anybody, nor looking for anybody else to solve my dilemma. I look to myself to do something of value for someone else, to where they will pay for the good or service and I can pay my property taxes and health insurance and such and keep my house in the suburbs. In the past I could give to charities and we still give old cloths and such to goodwill and that, and I volunteer in town to help people out, but I am not in a position to hire anyone or pay for anybody else's education. I still have my daughter's loans to pay off and my mortgage. In some ways I have less that a farmer in the Yucatan living in a mud hut. He is in the tropics where I spent vacation money to visit, and he does not have the debt I have. I still think we have a great country and we have done it right. And I still think I am not the problem with America.

 

Regards, TAR

 

​

I think part of Phi for All's point is that we need to stop viewing people as a problem. Stop viewing people as disposal percentages the way many corperations do. Just because a person is between jobs, injuried, disabled, old, poor, etc doesn't mean they should combatively be viewed as burdens that threaten the American way of life.

 

Rather, I view you as an assest to the country TAR. Perhaps your usefulness to help a corperation turn a profit has been calculated by them to be diminished but you are still a parent, neighbor, spouse, friend, citizen, and etc. You still matter. You should have a govt that is still interested in you.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

'Track Palin, a 26-year-old Iraq veteran, was arraigned Tuesday on charges of domestic violence assault, interfering with a report of domestic violence crime and possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

Track was handcuffed and arrested Monday night following a dispute with his girlfriend at the Wasilla home he shares with his parents, according to police documents.'

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/sarah-palin-son-track-palin-charged-with-domestic-violence/79059664/

 

Seems fitting for a "What's wrong with America" thread. Sarah Palin supported the Iraq war. Yet here she is blaming the Iraq war for her son's domestic violence arrest. Ironically those of us who were against the Iraq war pointed to things like PTSD and the cost to our individual soldiers prior to the war. Their lives and their health are one of the many reasons why war must be a last resort and not merely a preferred option. Yet here Palin is, war supporter, claiming Obama and those who oppose war don't understand the costs of war as a means of excusing her son's behavior. It is unbelievable!!

Edited January 21, 2016 by Ten oz

[Phi for All]

I think part of Phi for All's point is that we need to stop viewing people as a problem. Stop viewing people as disposal percentages the way many corperations do. Just because a person is between jobs, injuried, disabled, old, poor, etc doesn't mean they should combatively be viewed as burdens that threaten the American way of life.

 

Rather, I view you as an assest to the country TAR. Perhaps your usefulness to help a corperation turn a profit has been calculated by them to be diminished but you are still a parent, neighbor, spouse, friend, citizen, and etc. You still matter. You should have a govt that is still interested in you.

 

This is a very good perspective on what I've been trying to get across. I appreciate that I'm not spitting into the wind with this, that somebody can recognize sound, valid arguments that don't ignore simple math because it's too scary.

 

And I've been aggressive about it, too, perhaps overly so. It's frustrating when you point out all these problems, present evidence, provide solutions based on reason and rational behavior, and all you get in return is empty heads looking around in all the wrong directions, denying anything is wrong with the way we're being led, and purposely feeding their own ignorance by hugging all their fears and liberal caricatures real close, and trotting them out often despite the silliness of the stance.

 

But you're right, this is about People. American People. We started this country to avoid this type of oppression, no matter what anyone claims about their own personal status. This isn't about individuals. This isn't about what you have now. This is about setting a standard for human development that paves the way for success for as many as we can possibly help. This is NOT about judging their worth as human beings, it's about acknowledging that they ARE human beings, and represent potentials we need to invest heavily in.

 

I know the tars and the MigLs and the waitforufos are really on about personal responsibility. They've judged that some humans don't have it in amounts that satisfy their arbitrary, subjective assessments. I had hoped to show that privilege skews those assessments, that the circumstances of your birth are such an important factor that we need, as a country, to remove obstacles that keep us from fostering the potential brilliance of fellow Americans.

 

We need to take our foot off the necks of these People the conservatives mock for their indolence. Educate them, fully fund social programs that have proven, smart histories, then see if your stereotypes and caricatures are valid. We really can't call ourselves civilized until we do at least that.

[Willie71]

Worth a watch. Looks at corruption, status quo, corporate influence in government.