What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic trash talk has been trashed. The topic is in the title. Let's stick to it.

 

[waitforufo]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well aren't you the lucky one, you had enough advantages from your social standing, family, access to a good enough education etc...

Congratulations you won the lottery, but instead of being grateful and helping someone else, to be as lucky (or even a tiny bit lucky), you choose to be selfish, instead of humility you choose pride and sneer at those whose only advantage is to be born in your country and you choose to degrade even that advantage.

You're just afraid that karma catches you up; the irony is, it's that very fear that ensures it will.

I think that's Americas biggest problem...

I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but over here in the United States we don't have a Department of Luck.  The US constitution does not guarantee a equal or fair distribution of luck.  I don't believe that any government entity in the US as passed a law regarding the common sharing of luck.  Instead the right to pursue happiness is guaranteed.  It is however up the the individual to catch it.  

You mention the lottery.  Here in my state of Washington they advertise the lottery with the slogan "You can't win if you don't play."   Well I don't play the lottery because it is a suckers bet, but I do actively pursue happiness and I have caught enough to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle.  Any luck that I have received is because I put myself in luck's way.  

One piece of family luck I did have was getting to know my grandfather.  In 1915 at the age of 15 he left his Indian reservation in Oklahoma to make his own way in the world.  In doing so he improved his own own life, got a college education, got married, had five kids, and acquired a modest middle class lifestyle for himself and his family.  When he was 70 he took my two older brothers and I to visit our great uncles and aunts and their offspring on the reservation.  When we finished the visit, by grandfather told my brothers and I "That's what happens to you when you depend on the government and that is why I left the reservation."  So I took that sound wisdom to heart.  That was a decision, not luck.

Quit waiting for the government to give you your fair share of luck.  Life isn't fair.  Hard work is the path to success.  When you see others having good fortune, practice having an immediate response of "Good for them."  Then perhaps all that envy will leave your life. 

[swansont]

On 9/22/2017 at 1:08 PM, waitforufo said:

Why make it so complicated.  I pay for health care for me and my family.  

You don't have insurance?

 

On 9/22/2017 at 1:33 PM, waitforufo said:

If my taxes are paying the subsidy for the insurance premiums of others, I'm paying for their health care of others.  If my taxes are paying the cost sharing reduction payments directly to insurance companies, I'm paying for the health care of others.  

If you have health insurance, you are paying for the health care of others. If you have homeowner's insurance, you are paying for home care of others. etc. etc.

On 9/22/2017 at 3:42 PM, waitforufo said:

Not misleading at all.  Democrats believe that people, who provide me no goods or services, are entitled to my earnings.  How could I possibly deserve my earnings if there are others who provide me nothing in exchange but are still entitled to to my earnings?

Republican believe* the same thing. They just tend to want to spend more of it on the military.

*insofar as this is an accurate assessment of taxes, which it is not, IMO.

35 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but over here in the United States we don't have a Department of Luck.  The US constitution does not guarantee a equal or fair distribution of luck.  I don't believe that any government entity in the US as passed a law regarding the common sharing of luck.  Instead the right to pursue happiness is guaranteed.  It is however up the the individual to catch it.  

What article of or amendment to the Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness?

 

38 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 One piece of family luck I did have was getting to know my grandfather.  In 1915 at the age of 15 he left his Indian reservation in Oklahoma to make his own way in the world.  In doing so he improved his own own life, got a college education, got married, had five kids, and acquired a modest middle class lifestyle for himself and his family. 

Where and how did he acquire a college education? It wasn't in any way facilitated by the government and other peoples' tax money, was it?

[waitforufo]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You don't have insurance?

If you have health insurance, you are paying for the health care of others. If you have homeowner's insurance, you are paying for home care of others. etc. etc.

I have already corrected myself on this one.  I'm paying not only my insurance premiums, I'm paying the insurance premiums of others through my taxes.  Those others should be paying their own insurance premiums.  

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Republican believe* the same thing. They just tend to want to spend more of it on the military.

I receive a service from the military.  The military defends my nation and it's interests.  What good or service am I receiving from those who's insurance premiums I am paying for with my taxes?  

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What article of or amendment to the Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness?

 It is not in the constitution.  The constitution guarantees my right to property which is essentially the same thing. So my property is mine and not the accumulation of luck to be distributed by government.  The pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right of all people recognized in the Declaration of Independence.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where and how did he acquire a college education? It wasn't in any way facilitated by the government and other peoples' tax money, was it?

 He worked and saved his own money.  Does that make him greedy in your mind?

[MigL]

One big problem with the US...

Some Republicans are looking to dismantle/reduce a half-assed Medicare system that doesn't even cover half the population.
There's a situation in Korea which could escalate to the point of using nuclear weapons.
Major trade agreements are being re-negotiated.
The country is more divided than ever along party lines.

Yet the president's main concern is whether some overpaid athletes stand or kneel during the national anthem

[CharonY]

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

One big problem with the US...

Some Republicans are looking to dismantle/reduce a half-assed Medicare system that doesn't even cover half the population.
There's a situation in Korea which could escalate to the point of using nuclear weapons.
Major trade agreements are being re-negotiated.
The country is more divided than ever along party lines.

Yet the president's main concern is whether some overpaid athletes stand or kneel during the national anthem

Well, not to mention major destruction in Texas,  Florida, Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The last part especially is uncomfortably telling  about the attitude to some  of his citizens though (esp. when taking into context of his other recent comments). 

[iNow]

The anthem protests were IMO a distraction from the reintroduction of his travel ban, itself no longer being rejected by courts due to the addition of Venezuela and North Korea to the list. 

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

I have already corrected myself on this one.  I'm paying not only my insurance premiums, I'm paying the insurance premiums of others through my taxes.  Those others should be paying their own insurance premiums.  

I receive a service from the military.  The military defends my nation and it's interests.  What good or service am I receiving from those who's insurance premiums I am paying for with my taxes?  

 It is not in the constitution.  The constitution guarantees my right to property which is essentially the same thing. So my property is mine and not the accumulation of luck to be distributed by government.  The pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right of all people recognized in the Declaration of Independence.

 He worked and saved his own money.  Does that make him greedy in your mind?

Bullshit, it's not your precious money to control after it's spent merely because you claimed to have worked for it, princess. It's the government's money.

Your receive services from police, fire etc from healthy people, able to work because of a health care system. Yet, police brutality and corruption remains and you say/do nothing about it.

The vacuum which is  your economic vision of the country is flawed. You drive on roads, camp in parks, visit libraries, churches and museums. I''m not religious, does that mean my money won't be subsidizing those career mooches and purveyors of nonsense any longer?  America is more socialist than you say, comrade. You don't want people to have health care, but you want roads paved to move yourself about the country at your whimsy. You want guns and laws to protect YOU from threats, yet "driving while black" (for example) remains a great threat to otherwise hard working, law abiding minorities.

I have no kids, but I pay school taxes levied to my property axes.

Edited September 26, 2017 by rangerx

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 

I receive a service from the military.  The military defends my nation and it's interests.  What good or service am I receiving from those who's insurance premiums I am paying for with my taxes?  

 

Paying taxes isn't ala carte. Everyone without exception has things they wish their tax dollars didn't go to. We don't get to just pick and choose. For those responsible for making the decisions regarding how to best spend our collective resources many factors must be considered. Less people with healthcare potentially means a less healthy workforce which would negatively impact GDP. Less people with healthcare potentially means disease can spread through communities faster as they may go unnoticed for longer periods. Such outbreaks could be catastrophic to various localities. Less people with healthcare potentially means more people in medical debt and financially unable to consumer other goods which could result is higher consumer costs. All those reasons and more is why even if the ACA were repealed the federal government would still be spending tax money on Medicare, Medicaid, the VA healthcare system, CDC, and etc. Neither Political party is proposing a totally free market approach.

[MigL]

"It's the government's money" ???

The Government is not a for profit organization, Rangerx; They don't have their own money.
They use our money, to get things we want done as a society, according to who we vote for.

You can disagree with which things you want done, princess, but that doesn't make it right, wrong, or bullshit.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

"It's the government's money" ???

The Government is not a for profit organization, Rangerx; They don't have their own money.
They use our money, to get things we want done as a society, according to who we vote for.

You can disagree with which things you want done, princess, but that doesn't make it right, wrong, or bullshit.

It always comes up as some sort of privilege when it's used to frame a discussion. As though their money is more precious,  they're more influential when paying taxes ( or no taxes ). Yet anyone who pays transportation and road taxes via sales tax or property tax on rentals etc. don't matter. It's a false narrative, that paying taxes directly and in a timely manner entitles privilege.

[waitforufo]

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

Bullshit, it's not your precious money to control after it's spent merely because you claimed to have worked for it, princess. It's the government's money.

Claimed I worked for it? Well If I didn't work for it who did? If that is not my money merely because I worked for it then how can anyone claim that any money they make is theirs? I guess it must all be the governments money and the amount I take home is merely a subsidy from the government. If it's the government's money why bother with representative government? If  It's the government's money the government can spend it however it wants.  I'm sure the political class loves people like you.

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

Your receive services from police, fire etc from healthy people, able to work because of a health care system. Yet, police brutality and corruption remains and you say/do nothing about it.

And yet I did all those things before obamacare.  Those healthy people you talk about had health care before obamacare because they had jobs. Now they have less money because they are paying more for health care due to the fact that they are now also paying the insurance premiums of others.  

This topic is not about police brutality and corruption. If you would like to discuss that open another topic.

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

The vacuum which is  your economic vision of the country is flawed. You drive on roads, camp in parks, visit libraries, churches and museums.

And I pay taxes for all of those things and I'm not complaining about it.  I am receiving goods and services for those taxis I pay.  

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

I have no kids...

 Thank you for that.

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

And I pay taxes for all of those things and I'm not complaining about it.  I am receiving goods and services for those taxis I pay. 

Here you go with the privilege thing again. As though it trumps all other rate payers.

So lets put healthcare and roads in the same basket. Most roads are built by fuel taxes and surcharges. Does avoiding taxes by making their own ethanol for their car disqualify a person from using roads? Are passengers freeloading while truckers are paying the lion's share of gas taxes? Doesn't giving a segment of any user group free access while others pay create a culture of dependency in your neoconservative logic? You want (more like adamantly insist) your rights are upheld as assailable, yet exercise broad discretion to deny others who pay into the system.

In Canada, right to life ends at death. Family values means if you get sick, we as a country help to make you well so you can return to your family and job. In America, right to life ends at birth and family values means if you get sick, you lose your job, house or children's college fund or die. Good luck with that.

 

And your gratitude for me not having children, is childish if not spitefully ignorant. I gave an example of my procreation history in the context of paying school taxes and even though the mods warned against cheap shots on this very page, you made one anyway. Grow up.

Edited September 27, 2017 by rangerx

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

Here you go with the privilege thing again. As though it trumps all other rate payers.

So lets put healthcare and roads in the same basket. Most roads are built by fuel taxes and surcharges. Does avoiding taxes by making their own ethanol for their car disqualify a person from using roads? Are passengers freeloading while truckers are paying the lion's share of gas taxes? Doesn't giving a segment of any user group free access while others pay create a culture of dependency in your neoconservative logic? You want (more like adamantly insist) your rights are upheld as assailable, yet exercise broad discretion to deny others who pay into the system.

 

Fuel taxes paid at the pump pays for some road maintenance. Much more spending went/goes into building them. People like the simple pay as you go view towards fuel tax. It provides them a sense of ownership. It isn't reality through. Many localities simply don't have the population to support their roads, highways, bridges, and etc via the taxes paid on fuel. Additionally fuel itself is heavily subsidized. The federal govt provides lands, supports infastructure, secures trade routes, and etc. Just look at Harvey, Irma, and Maria; the federal and local govt is spending billions to get the infastructure (ports, pipelines, electricity to run pumps, etc) back online so people can "pay" for fuel. The taxes paid on fuel doesn't cover those costs. Doesn't cover the costs of having U.S. military guarding refineries in places like Iraq. There are layers upon layers of costs.

 

Many states receive more federal dollars than they pay. Unless waitforufo lives in a state where the population is actually paying more money than they are receiving they don't really have anything to complain about:

 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

I have already corrected myself on this one.  I'm paying not only my insurance premiums, I'm paying the insurance premiums of others through my taxes.  Those others should be paying their own insurance premiums.  

And what if they are unable to do so?

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

I receive a service from the military.  The military defends my nation and it's interests.  What good or service am I receiving from those who's insurance premiums I am paying for with my taxes?  

Other countries defend themselves with a much, much smaller military expenditure. Not much service for the expenditure.

Why do you have to be in direct receipt of goods or services? That's an artificial constraint on what the government is supposed to do.

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 It is not in the constitution.  The constitution guarantees my right to property which is essentially the same thing. So my property is mine and not the accumulation of luck to be distributed by government.  The pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right of all people recognized in the Declaration of Independence.

 Property and happiness are the same thing?

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

 He worked and saved his own money.  Does that make him greedy in your mind?

How about answering my question, instead of deflecting it?

13 hours ago, MigL said:

"It's the government's money" ???

The Government is not a for profit organization, Rangerx; They don't have their own money.
They use our money, to get things we want done as a society, according to who we vote for.

You can disagree with which things you want done, princess, but that doesn't make it right, wrong, or bullshit.

It's the government's money after they have collected the tax, which they are empowered to do.

14 hours ago, rangerx said:

 I have no kids, but I pay school taxes levied to my property axes.

Which is a good example. Society benefits from having an educated populace, even if you don't directly get anything from it.  

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Which is a good example. Society benefits from having an educated populace, even if you don't directly get anything from it.  

Some people have a hunter gather complex of sorts. Those with that complex don't realize the value of a society. The pull yourself up by your own boot straps mentality doesn't recognize the increased potential of cooperation. Alone no one can build all the components and then assemble a house, car, plane, computer, and etc. Everyone relies on everyone in the modern age. Only one living in a stick house in the wilderness gathering all their own food can truly claim they are responsible for everything they have. Societies, large groups working together, build cities, event technology, transform the environment, and etc NOT individuals alone. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, waitforufo said:

I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but over here in the United States we don't have a Department of Luck.  The US constitution does not guarantee a equal or fair distribution of luck.  I don't believe that any government entity in the US as passed a law regarding the common sharing of luck.  Instead the right to pursue happiness is guaranteed.  It is however up the the individual to catch it.  

You mention the lottery.  Here in my state of Washington they advertise the lottery with the slogan "You can't win if you don't play."   Well I don't play the lottery because it is a suckers bet, but I do actively pursue happiness and I have caught enough to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle.  Any luck that I have received is because I put myself in luck's way.  

8

Indeed you did, because you were lucky enough to be born in America and with few barriers to the shipping lanes of luck (and America is so very close already); access to the highway of luck is limited for the majority of your countrymen, so they almost never see a truck of luck (let alone get close enough to get hit by it) on the dirt track of their life (their version of the lottery is to be hit by a donkey of luck).

You demand your luck is not lucky at all But solely due to your own endeavor; that's very disrespectful to your ancestors who worked harder than you, risked much more than you and even sacrificed themselves, just for you, and their fellow Americans, have some respect, for your forefathers and your fellows (as they did, on the whole). 

[waitforufo]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Some people have a hunter gather complex of sorts. Those with that complex don't realize the value of a society. The pull yourself up by your own boot straps mentality doesn't recognize the increased potential of cooperation. Alone no one can build all the components and then assemble a house, car, plane, computer, and etc. Everyone relies on everyone in the modern age. Only one living in a stick house in the wilderness gathering all their own food can truly claim they are responsible for everything they have. Societies, large groups working together, build cities, event technology, transform the environment, and etc NOT individuals alone. 

Cooperation.  You must have been the type of student that really enjoyed working on group projects in your course work.  My experience with such projects is that few on the team actually contribute but all take credit. 

As an engineering manager, I have managed multi-million dollar projects spanning hardware, firmware, and software.  The hardware development aspects included DC, RF, Microwave, and Digital design.  Some of these aspects I have little or no competence in.  So I think I appreciate the importance of cooperation.  If I didn't I wouldn't be where I am today.  In business cooperation however there is an intense focus on contribution.  Those that contribute most to the cooperation excel and are promoted.  Those that contribute little, are removed from the cooperation.  So yes cooperation is important, but contribution determines both team and individual success or failure.  

What determines individual success or failure in your concept of cooperation? Is it permitted or are non-contributors simply allowed to be compensated hangers on?    

Socialism fails for a reason.  

[MigL]

Socialism fails because there is no NEED to excel.

But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some aspects of socialism do make sense. The concept of insurance is a socialist one. And any endeavor that involves multiple users/interests, can be more effective if developed as a social construct ( roads, parks, municipalities, countries, etc. ).
Other things, like property/earnings are not really suited to the socialist model as it discourages competitiveness and the need to excel.

The best option, is to pick and choose capitalist and socialist ideals that result in the kind of society we want to live in. But as they say, the devil is in the details, and different people have differing ideas on the preferred mix. That's why, in a free society, everyone has a vote.

I don't agree with all your ideas, waitforufo, but neither do I see the need to talk down to you because of differences of opinion.
I gained a whole new level of respect for you after your grandfather story, as having come from an immigrant family, I know what my parents went through ( came to Canada in 1968 with two suitcases, and both worked two jobs to make ends meet and buy a home in 1970 ) to make sure their kids could live a comfortable middle class life.

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

The best option, is to pick and choose capitalist and socialist ideals that result in the kind of society we want to live in. But as they say, the devil is in the details, and different people have differing ideas on the preferred mix. That's why, in a free society, everyone has a vote.

That is pretty much the point. An ideology based approach where one or the other is not worthy of discussion is unlikely the best approach (and we are clearly not talking about the classic Marxist Socialism as it is a totally different ballgame). As you mentioned, it should not about "all socialism is bad" but rather, at which point do we see a diminishing return? What are the factors constraining a given system? Health, obviously, requires an at least somewhat socialized system as almost everyone is going to get sick at some point and at unless we die young, we are all ending up in the high-risk pool eventually. Of course, if someone discovers a free-market approach that demonstrably works, it should be worthy of discussion, but there is no evidence (not even theoretically) that one might exist given the overall structure of society and economy. As someone also coming from an immigrant background I am aware that individual accomplishments are important, but also that the difference between success and failure, especially for a working class family is just a razor-sharp line with many factors outside ones immediate control. 

Getting sick and not being able to afford the medical bill being one of them.

Edited September 27, 2017 by CharonY

[John Cuthber]

On 9/26/2017 at 5:20 PM, waitforufo said:

I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but over here in the United States we don't have a Department of Luck.

Yes you do; you have several.

You call one of them the Internal Revenue Service.

They make sure that people who are lucky enough to be born to rich families have access to tax havens, avoidance schemes and so on so they don't need to pay their share of the costs of the nation.

Then there's the military industrial complex who make sure that those lucky enough to be able to pull strings get huge government  investments to play with.

And don't forget the defence Dept who make sure that, if you are lucky enough to have influential family ties you can sit out wars - like Vietnam- in nice safe homeland jobs.

On the other hand there are departments like transpiration security- who penalise those who have the poor luck to be foreign,  non-white or just plain poor, don't get any luck.

Even the police and courts contribute to this- if you are unlucky enough to be anything but rich and white, you can expect to be punished more harshly for any crimes you might actually commit.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Cooperation.  You must have been the type of student that really enjoyed working on group projects in your course work.  My experience with such projects is that few on the team actually contribute but all take credit. 

As an engineering manager, I have managed multi-million dollar projects spanning hardware, firmware, and software.  The hardware development aspects included DC, RF, Microwave, and Digital design.  Some of these aspects I have little or no competence in.  So I think I appreciate the importance of cooperation.  If I didn't I wouldn't be where I am today.  In business cooperation however there is an intense focus on contribution.  Those that contribute most to the cooperation excel and are promoted.  Those that contribute little, are removed from the cooperation.  So yes cooperation is important, but contribution determines both team and individual success or failure.  

What determines individual success or failure in your concept of cooperation? Is it permitted or are non-contributors simply allowed to be compensated hangers on?    

Socialism fails for a reason.  

What defines a "non-contributor"; is that anyone who doesn't pass your individual character test?  Everyone you don't see a measurable value for? 

 

Individual success and cooperation in context of managing a government are complimentary ideas. Governments serve the many by design. There being no "I" in team doesn't prevent exceptional individual performance. Rather a stronger unified and empowered team produces more exceptional performances. I have yet to see a retired General or professional athletics manager complain their teams were too internally cooperative. 

[Ten oz]

57 minutes ago, MigL said:

Socialism fails because there is no NEED to excel.

But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some aspects of socialism do make sense. The concept of insurance is a socialist one. And any endeavor that involves multiple users/interests, can be more effective if developed as a social construct ( roads, parks, municipalities, countries, etc. ).
Other things, like property/earnings are not really suited to the socialist model as it discourages competitiveness and the need to excel.

The best option, is to pick and choose capitalist and socialist ideals that result in the kind of society we want to live in. But as they say, the devil is in the details, and different people have differing ideas on the preferred mix. That's why, in a free society, everyone has a vote.

I don't agree with all your ideas, waitforufo, but neither do I see the need to talk down to you because of differences of opinion.
I gained a whole new level of respect for you after your grandfather story, as having come from an immigrant family, I know what my parents went through ( came to Canada in 1968 with two suitcases, and both worked two jobs to make ends meet and buy a home in 1970 ) to make sure their kids could live a comfortable middle class life.

No one is pushing for absolute socialism and even those who promote free market solutions support thinks like public schools and Medicare. A mix between Socialism and Capitalism is what the Western has. People merely attempt to confuse the definitions. 

 

I disagree that socialism fails because it doesn't produce need. Doesn't matter if a society is communist, socialist, capitalist, fascist, or whatever need can be generated many different ways. Many advancements throughout history, I dare say probably most, have come from fear of death. Needing better weapons to protect oneself with, needing medicine, needing light to see in the dark, needing fire for warm, and etc. Even a socialist wants to find a cure for cancer. Many factors determine the success of a society. History has seen Monarchies, Dictatorships, Theocracies, and all forms of societies succeed for periods of time. It isn't accurate to say all fail for X, Y, and Z reasons. All governments and economic system prior to now eventually failed. Many factors go into why. 

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

The best option, is to pick and choose capitalist and socialist ideals that result in the kind of society we want to live in. But as they say, the devil is in the details, and different people have differing ideas on the preferred mix. That's why, in a free society, everyone has a vote.

Actually, while it ends up looking like a "preferred mix", aiming at a blend of what different people want is also a flawed approach, imo. It shouldn't be a matter of opinion deciding what the most efficient method of ownership and management is. In most cases, it's pretty darn evident when we need a capitalist approach aimed at profit. Equally so for situations where we get a LOT more bang for our buck by pooling public funds to accomplish something. 

We should be looking at education and healthcare as something every American is worthy of. It would cost us so much less if we made the conservative choice in this instance and publicly funded them on a national basis. Since solar and wind are now too cheap to interest anyone privately without massive public subsidies (our worst investments, paid for at the highest rates), I think a public program that gives consumers an inexpensive choice is also an excellent use of socialist solutions.

I think the public needs much better information before voting on issues like this. I'm also dismayed at the number of Americans who distrust experts and their more informed opinions and prefer instead pundits who spit their worst ignorant fears back at them. We so badly untainted news.

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Actually, while it ends up looking like a "preferred mix", aiming at a blend of what different people want is also a flawed approach, imo. It shouldn't be a matter of opinion deciding what the most efficient method of ownership and management is. In most cases, it's pretty darn evident when we need a capitalist approach aimed at profit. Equally so for situations where we get a LOT more bang for our buck by pooling public funds to accomplish something. 

We should be looking at education and healthcare as something every American is worthy of. It would cost us so much less if we made the conservative choice in this instance and publicly funded them on a national basis. Since solar and wind are now too cheap to interest anyone privately without massive public subsidies (our worst investments, paid for at the highest rates), I think a public program that gives consumers an inexpensive choice is also an excellent use of socialist solutions.

I think the public needs much better information before voting on issues like this. I'm also dismayed at the number of Americans who distrust experts and their more informed opinions and prefer instead pundits who spit their worst ignorant fears back at them. We so badly untainted news.

In sports a team which is totally bought into a strategy and unified will almost always be victorious over a team where the opposite is true regardless of the talent levels involved. In politics we spend so much teams debating which stratedy is the best we totally ignore the other key components cooperation. Everyone needs to be on board. That means as a society we need to accept certian rights and entitlements. Education in the United States was once viewed as a public good and worthy of public funds. Something everyone in the country deserved and should have. So strong was the view we made a period of education compulsory by law. In recent dedaceds though our national view towards education has waned. Many parents now negotiating a mine field of competing philosophies towards education. In some communities public education is viewed as a pariah. Private schools are the preferred over public ones. Meanwhile homeschooling is increasingly growing as a common option. People boardly no long seem to agree in the value of education and or what education should even look like and that only further complicates any effort to resolve issues as more and more parents are abandoning ship.

"In the ten-year period from 2003 to 2012, the number of American children 5 through 17 years old who were being homeschooled by their parents climbed by 61.8 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education. "

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015011