What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[tar]

two republicans and a democrat cheering on VT in the rain at Lane stadium, on the visitor side of the field, in amongst about a 60 40 split of VT and Pitt fans

Please identify which of the crowd are the problems with America, according to the 29 percent Overtone rule.

DrP,

 

Screw the poor over?

 

Elitist views?

 

 

So what is this? The French Revolution in slow motion?

 

Regards, TAR

Are we picking sides? The rich against the poor? Black against White? Catholic against Protestant? Jew against KKK?
What?

 

What are you talking about? Are you arguing the rich are the problem with America???

 

Are the 29% that are "the problem" with America the same 29% upon whose backs we are going climb to solve our problems????

 

Who is talking foolishness around here?

[DrP]

It is an elitist view that people should have to pay for their own education - yes. How do you expect the poor to pay for it? And don't say loans - the lower classes and the poor will not take out large loans (yea - they will seem large to them, even if they seem small to you) as they do not want the HEAVY oppression of the debt overhanging them for years to come - most might not have a daddy with enough cash (or any for that matter) to pay their way for them through uni.

 

So your suggestion that the poor should not have their education paid for them by the tax payer IS an elitist view that screws over the poor.

 

Stop twisting things? Who said anything about picking sides? What are YOU on about!? I never said the rich were the problem.

[tar]

remember please when you call me elitist, that I do not have a job at the moment and am living off savings and my wife's salary

 

my first debts to help pay off in regards, to college are the loans my daughters took to go

 

They are both currently working and going to school. I am not an elitist.

 

Just operating under the principle that a person's money is their money, and how they spend it, is their decision.

 

You can sell your house and give all your money to charity and live a pure life in the street if you wish.

 

However, you can not force me to do it. My money is not yours to spend. For the public good, sure. For public schools and roads and national defense and hospitals and assistance to colleges and research facilities, sure. But there is a point where Robin Hood is stealing from his own people. And there is a point where we just can not promise a chicken in every pot. Not if it means eating the breeding stock. Then there are no chickens tomorrow.

 

Regards, TAR

DrP,

 

Lets say for instance I have a job making X and Joe has a job making X. I have decided to only have 2 kids, whereas Joe decides to have 5. I can afford to help my one daughter go to university and my other to vocational school, although they both have loans which I have cosigned. Joe cannot afford to send all his kids to University. Am I screwing over the poor, in an elitist fashion, or has Joe made a slightly irresponsible decision to have so many kids.

 

You say perhaps the poor do not have a daddy, and therefore I should be that daddy. Fine, I do some of that, but I am not responsible for all of that, and you do not have any right what so ever, under any principle of law or religion or common sense to extract from me more than a tithe to help the poor.

 

The poor are people too. They are not your wards. They are citizens, who should be doing their fair share to make the place work.

 

Why I wonder, are the poor automatically democrats and the rich automatically republicans in your eyes.

 

Why I wonder am I an elitist making the poor suffer in your eyes? What did I ever do or say, to bring you to that conclusion.

 

Regards, TAR

You guys are proving my point here, you do understand. The biggest problem in America is our partisan behavior. Our lack of recognition of the value inherent in the other person's humanness, judgement, responsibility and efforts.

[DrP]

I have never called you elitist - I said that the viewpoint was elitist.. oh, tell you what - don't bother - if you can't get your head around that then I can predict the conversation will be confused and will go round in circles and you will feel like I am attacking you personally, which I am not. READ what I said! I said the view point was elitist NOT that you were... but as I said (repeating myself) - if you can't even grasp that then I am out. Bye.

 

In your example with you and Joe, I agree, Joe made a mistake... Do you think that 3 of his kids should pay for that mistake then?

What about Alfonse? Alfonse has only 1 child, but he lives in a really crappy area and his parents were idiots and ass holes - they blew all their money on drugs. Alfonse can't afford to send the 1 child he has to any college. What happens here? Does Alfonses child go without because his grandparents were fools?

 

 

The argument is basic...

[tar]

It is not Overtone's 29% that are the problem.

DrP,

 

 

The argument is basic, but there are a number of ways to look at it. There is the religious view that we are our brother's keepers. There is the pragmatic view that we should make the weakest of us strong, so that every link is strong and the chain will hold great weight. There is the authoritarian view that we should whip the weak into shape so that they can fight our wars and work in our factories and solve our technical problems and wipe our butts when we demand it. There is the tiger by the tail view, that we should placate the poor with drugs and keep them in ghetto prison on welfare and give them free stuff so that we don't have Helter Skelter, and a revolution that upsets the status quo.

 

Then there is my view, that even the poorest among us is an American, and has an obligation to live up to the contract. To rise to the level of their own competence, to follow the laws, to believe in their own god, and to pursue happiness, with me as their neighbor. Ready to help, if they should need intervention.

 

Regards, TAR

And me, expecting help, should I stumble.

Edited October 15, 2015 by tar

[DrP]

and someone who has a level of competence higher than most, but cannot afford college due his family background goes without then? Is that what you are saying? Shame on all that think that way.

 

I listened to a preacher from the south of the USA the other year and he preached that Jesus would not support welfare and the lazy should get off their backsides and work. BS - he is SO far detached from reality in his lucky, privillaged, 'blessed' life that he just judges everyone who has a hard life as lazy.. that stinks, Jesus would slap him round the face.

Edited October 15, 2015 by DrP

[tar]

MrP,

 

If I had a factory, I might offer Alfonse a job, so that he could help his child through public school. Maybe give his kid a scholarship if he studied advanced manufacturing, was good at it and promised to come work in my factory, after graduation.

 

I don't have a factory.

 

If those that do, already give Alfonse a job, and already offer scholarships to his brilliant child, I am all for it. I don't call those factory owners elitists, or the 29% that are the nation's biggest problem.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Hilary is running on the principle that we should have free education on the backs of the wealthy.

That's how many well governed places do it, sure.

 

If you don't like that idea for some reason (you think the wealthy don't disproportionately benefit from the education of others, say) you could always just attach a percentage to the recipients's income tax for life - the higher earnings of the average college grad then pay for the colleges, and every college grad pays a share, not just the wealthy.

 

The stupidest way is to have the student themselves pay as they go as well as do the work as they go, either by borrowing or shelling out as they go - you screen out the exact people whose education brings the most net gain to their society, and burden with huge debt the very people who have put in the most work and stand to make the greatest contribution from freedom of action.

 

 

 

 

Please identify which of the crowd are the problems with America, according to the 29 percent Overtone rule

The ones who have been reliably and immovably voting for the current Republican Party.

 

 

 

On the other hand, how come I am helping pay off my daughter's college, AND am expected to pay more taxes so somebody else's daughter can go to the same school and compete with my daughter for a job?

Why? Because thirty or so years ago, and every so often since, when the GI Bill and the like came up for reconsideration, and financing of education for Americans was on the table, the Republican Party wrecked it - with your support.

 

You could have had a setup where you were paying an extra point or two on your income taxes to finance education for everybody's children - including the irresponsible poor - instead of paying off college debt for your daughter. And if you had, you might be looking at one of those children of the irresponsible poor as your dentist or anesthesiologist, instead of the more fortunate Pakistani or Indian immigrant who filled one of those jobs that go begging in US society. And if you had arranged that, you wouldn't be paying the extra point or two on your taxes you are currently paying to keep the adult that grew up from that child you abandoned in a ghetto school for their parent's character flaws, in prison. Which costs a lot more than the university education you could have bought him. Because he was ambitious and hard working, y'know, and wanted something better than dishwashing or cab driving - but what were his options, realistically, at age 17, in your society?

 

So there you sit, paying through the nose for your daughter's education and your fellow American's jail cell both, while the Pakistani anesthesiologist - and I have nothing against him, he's doing his job well - charges you what the market will bear in a field without much competition in the richest society on the planet. Which is figured into your health insurance, which is the same basic story in another field.

 

How much has this refusal to recognize the nature of the modern Republican Party actually cost you, in your life, just in dollars? A quarter of a million? And what's the gain - your fellow Americans sitting in jail by the hundreds of thousands, half the population of the grad schools from foreign countries, and your country buried in debt with the roads falling apart.

 

Because "conservative" and "family values" and "freedom" and stuff. Republican Party ftw.

Edited October 15, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

<snip>

 

Just operating under the principle that a person's money is their money, and how they spend it, is their decision.

 

<snip>

 

The poor are people too. They are not your wards. They are citizens, who should be doing their fair share to make the place work.

 

Tar,

While I agree completely with the above, I'm not sure why your protagonists didn't point to the above two statements as the source of your elitism. When Thomas Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence he borrowed from John Locke and included as mankind's inalienable rights life, liberty, and property. Ben Franklin was astute enough to edit those rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After doing so he was quoted to say something like you have the right to pursue happiness, but it is up to you to catch it. Ben wanted to make sure that no one misconstrued the rights of man to include the need for government to provide property to the people.

 

Republicans and conservatives believe there are two kinds of money and property. Mine, and not mine. Democrats and liberals think there is just "the money and the property", and that the government should be in charge of the fair distribution of both. In their eyes, thinking otherwise makes you elitist. Thinking that someone has to do there fair share in pursuit of their own happiness is simply nonsense held by elitists and completely overridden by need. To them, it shouldn't be the more you do, the more you get. Instead it should be the more you need the more you get. Then they wonder why their policies always produce an abundance of needy people.

This is standard stuff. The US reaped huge benefits from their debt-free educated citizenry in the years after the GI Bill - the 50s and 60s and 70s. Why don't you know this?

Interesting that you mention the GI Bill. The GI Bill was not free. The country felt that GIs were owed a debt for there service, low pay during service, and time taken from their lives. Not free.

 

Second, from your Wiki link on the GI Bill.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill

The United States military moved to an all-volunteer force in 1973, and veterans continued to receive benefits, in part as an inducement to enlist, under the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) and the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB). From December 1976 through 1987, veterans received assistance under the VEAP. The VEAP departed from previous programs by requiring participants to make a contribution to their education benefits. The Veterans Administration then matched their contributions at a rate of 2 to 1. Enlisted personnel could contribute up to $100 a month up to a maximum of $2700. Benefits could be claimed for up to 36 months.

To be eligible for VEAP, a veteran had to serve for more than 180 days and receive an “other than dishonorable discharge.” Nearly 700,000 veterans used their benefits for education and training under this program.

In 1985, a bill sponsored by Democratic Congressman "Sonny" Gillespie V. Montgomery expanded the G.I. Bill. The MGIB replaced the VEAP for those who served after July 1, 1985. This was an entirely voluntary program in which participants could choose to forfeit $100 per month from their first year of pay. In return, eligible veterans received a tuition allowance and a monthly stipend for up to 36 months of eligible training or education.

 

I was a junior in high school when the GI bill was switch to VEAP. The VEAP program was a sorry substitute for what it replaced. In fact, the military allowed high school students to join the military at the end of there junior year, go to boot camp, return and complete high school, and then serve there voluntary enlistment and by so doing be eligible for the pre VEAP GI Bill. The college benefits were much better pre VEAP, but the pay during service was worse. The explanation we were given from the military recruiters that came to our high school for the change to VEAP was that some felt that the current system was unfair to racial minorities because they did not take advantage of the pre VEAP GI Bill. So by white people electing to receive the benefit and minorities electing not to, the program was deemed to be discriminatory. If I recall correctly, after the VEAP change overall there was poor participation in VEAP, but racial minorities had the lowest participation rate. Another great stride in reducing minority discrimination in the US. I'm not sure how much MGIB corrected VEAP.

Edited October 15, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

DrP,

 

On the other hand, how come I am helping pay off my daughter's college, AND am expected to pay more taxes so somebody else's daughter can go to the same school and compete with my daughter for a job?

 

I don't know?

are you particularly wealthy?- It's rhetorical question- I don't actually think the answer matters.

 

But the simple answer to your question is that the "competition" you are talking about should be decided on whose daughter is better fitted to the job, rather than whose daddy had most money.

And yes, if your daughter isn't fitted for that sort of future, it makes sense for you to pay for the education of someone who actually is.

If, of course, both are good college candidates then that's great- send both of them to study- it benefits the society as a whole- the, in their turn will earn more, pay more taxes and thus provide the government with the cash it needs to provide you, in turn,with a better pension.

[overtone]

 

 

Then they wonder why their policies always produce an abundance of needy people.

Historically inaccurate, as always.

 

The greatest increases in the abundance of needy people produced in the US (aside from the Civil War, a special case) were the result of unregulated, free market banking.

 

The greatest reduction in the abundance of needy people in the US was produced by Social Security. In second place, the rise of the labor unions and the New Deal generally - including the veteran's benefits after WWII.

 

One would think the degree to which defenders of the current Republican Party have to rewrite history to make it look even marginally reasonable in its behavior would give them pause for thought.

[John Cuthber]

MrP,

 

If I had a factory, I might offer Alfonse a job, so that he could help his child through public school. Maybe give his kid a scholarship if he studied advanced manufacturing, was good at it and promised to come work in my factory, after graduation.

 

I don't have a factory.

 

If those that do, already give Alfonse a job, and already offer scholarships to his brilliant child, I am all for it. I don't call those factory owners elitists, or the 29% that are the nation's biggest problem.

 

Regards, TAR

I don't have a factory, but perhaps, in cash terms, I have 1% of a factory.

If I, and 99 others get together then the bright guy gets to go to college.

Why do you not see that as a good thing?

and, re " I don't call those factory owners elitists, "

What I call them is "rare", and I think I do so with the benefit of evidence.

https://philanthropy.com/article/The-Income-Inequality-Divide/152551.

[Phi for All]

I think we all naturally know we're more effective when we cooperate and help each other. I'm starting to see it on the roads here in Colorado, people embracing the zipper merge on the highway, instead of zooming to get the best personal position so everyone else has to step on the brakes. Traffic works so well when viewed as a cooperative effort instead of a race. Most things do.

 

When it comes to public funding, we start out pretty cooperative. Let's help everyone who needs it, no more hunger, get these folks some medicine. Then some people start feeling like that's too generous, or that some of those indigents may not deserve our help, may not be worthy. I think that's America's biggest problem, we let our fearful conservatives start putting stipulations on the help we give, the cooperation we show to each other as humans and fellow countrymen. These are the people who can't wrap their heads around what a courageous, hopeful investment free education through college really is.

 

These are the folks who later claim they never got any help when they were bootstrapping their way towards The Dream. The same folks who ignore history, and the fact that our country's greatest times of prosperity were when we fully funded public projects like the GI Bill, the interstate highway system, and NASA's race to the moon. For some reason, the general welfare is of little concern to these folks, or at least not enough to spend their tax dollars on. I think that's a big problem. To me, it's un-American.

[jeffellis]

We are encouraged to lie, cheat, steal. Our media (reality shows) encourage us to judge people. Our government encourages us to be unforgiving. Social media encourage us to hate. Bottom line-----we are being programmed to embrace corruption.

[overtone]

Interesting that you mention the GI Bill. The GI Bill was not free. The country felt that GIs were owed a debt for there service, low pay during service, and time taken from their lives. Not free.

The GI Bill not only paid for college - free ride, on the taxpayer's dime - but provided a stipend for living expenses.

 

The motives for providing that free ride are interesting, but do not affect the fact of the matter.

 

Ben wanted to make sure that no one misconstrued the rights of man to include the need for government to provide property to the people.

The argument is not that one's children and youths have a right to an education. The argument is that it's stupid and self-destructive to fail to provide one, if you possibly can. And we have people who can't even imagine how one could possibly do that, with examples in other countries all around and not forty years after we did, routinely. These people are Republican core voters.

 

The explanation we were given from the military recruiters that came to our high school for the change to VEAP was that some felt that the current system was unfair to racial minorities because they did not take advantage of the pre VEAP GI Bill. So by white people electing to receive the benefit and minorities electing not to, the program was deemed to be discriminatory.

So we're still looking for the first thing the core Republican voter can't find some way to blame on black people.

 

Not that they're racist, of course.

Edited October 15, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

The GI Bill not only paid for college - free ride, on the taxpayer's dime - but provided a stipend for living expenses.

 

The motives for providing that free ride are interesting, but do not affect the fact of the matter.

 

Serve in the military and you get the GI Bill. Quid pro quo. The GI Bill has never provided a free ride.

[overtone]

Serve in the military and you get the GI Bill. Quid pro quo. The GI Bill has never provided a free ride.

The GI Bill provided a free ride, and a stipend for living expenses.

 

The legislation was passed after the service, at the end of WWII. It was not an agreement going in. No soldier going into WWII had been promised free college in return for service.

 

It had paid for the education of about eight million soldiers by the late 1950s, which together with their families directly affected about a third of the population of the US.

 

And it wasn't charity. It was of enormous benefit to the entire country, one of the best things the US has ever done for itself, from a strictly self-interested point of view.

Edited October 15, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

The GI Bill provided a free ride, and a stipend for living expenses.

 

The legislation was passed after the service, at the end of WWII. It was not an agreement going in. No soldier going into WWII had been promised free college in return for service.

 

It had paid for the education of about eight million soldiers by the late 1950s, which together with their families directly affected about a third of the population of the US.

 

And it wasn't charity. It was of enormous benefit to the entire country, one of the best things the US has ever done for itself, from a strictly self-interested point of view.

Did it provide a benefit for those that did not serve?

[overtone]

 

 

Did it provide a benefit for those that did not serve?

Just husbands and wives and children and parents and neighbors and so forth.

 

It provided a free education, often with a stipend as well, to millions of people. The benefits to the society were huge.

 

So if somebody wants to know how that can be accomplished in the US, the model is there to examine.

[Phi for All]

Did it provide a benefit for those that did not serve?

 

The same types of benefits we all get when we deal with well-educated countrymen. Public education means better employees for companies we all deal with daily. It's not a handout, it's an investment in something we used to be proud of. You know, our people.

 

Better education under the GI Bill meant higher paying jobs, more money going through the economy, and more revenue collected. Of course it provided a benefit for those who didn't serve. You just have to look past the whole "giving my tax dollars away so someone else can be smarter than me" perspective. It's about cooperation that advances the society as a whole, not about who you think is worthy.

[Bill Angel]

The GI Bill provided a free ride, and a stipend for living expenses.

 

The legislation was passed after the service, at the end of WWII. It was not an agreement going in. No soldier going into WWII had been promised free college in return for service.

 

It had paid for the education of about eight million soldiers by the late 1950s, which together with their families directly affected about a third of the population of the US.

 

And it wasn't charity. It was of enormous benefit to the entire country, one of the best things the US has ever done for itself, from a strictly self-interested point of view.

I served in the military during the Vietnam era, and the GI Bill benefits Vietnam era veterans got were nowhere near as generous as those that were offered to the veterans of World War II.

[waitforufo]

Just husbands and wives and children and parents and neighbors and so forth.

 

It provided a free education, often with a stipend as well, to millions of people. The benefits to the society were huge.

 

So if somebody wants to know how that can be accomplished in the US, the model is there to examine.

 

 

 

 

The same types of benefits we all get when we deal with well-educated countrymen. Public education means better employees for companies we all deal with daily. It's not a handout, it's an investment in something we used to be proud of. You know, our people.

 

Better education under the GI Bill meant higher paying jobs, more money going through the economy, and more revenue collected. Of course it provided a benefit for those who didn't serve. You just have to look past the whole "giving my tax dollars away so someone else can be smarter than me" perspective. It's about cooperation that advances the society as a whole, not about who you think is worthy.

But those that did not serve did not receive the GI Bill correct?

[overtone]

But those that did not serve did not receive the GI Bill correct?

I don't know what the eligibility requirements were.

 

Neither do I care. It was posted as an example of the US doing, routinely, what the core Republican voter seems to find impossible - handing millions of its citizens college educations at no direct cost to themselves.

 

The income taxes levied to support this rose as high as 90% on the very rich. The economy prospered - lots of innovation, lots of business growth. This wave of prosperity lasted until about 1980. Any idea what happened then, that would send the US economy on its long and ongoing slide?

Edited October 15, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

I don't know what the eligibility requirements were.

 

Neither do I care. It was posted as an example of the US doing, routinely, what the core Republican voter seems to find impossible - handing millions of its citizens college educations at no direct cost to themselves.

 

The income taxes levied to support this rose as high as 90% on the very rich. The economy prospered - lots of innovation, lots of business growth. This wave of prosperity lasted until about 1980. Any idea what happened then, that would send the US economy on its long and ongoing slide?

You are claiming it was a free gift, but it was not. It was a benefit provided for military service. Quid pro quo. Even a bonus is something for something.

 

You are associating prosperity following the WWII with the GI Bill and suggesting that prosperity ended as the benefit diminished. Perhaps prosperity occurred in the US because the rest of the industrial world was bombed to rubble. Perhaps that prosperity ended when rest of the industrial world rebuilt their manufacturing capacity. You know, Korea, Japan, Germany, China, etc. It's easy to have prosperity when you have no competition and a bombed out world begging for products. Also during the war years there was almost no domestic consumer production. After the war, automobile plants went back to making cars instead of tanks. Sewing machine manufacturers stopped making machine guns and started making sewing machines again. Manufacturers had years worth of pent up demand to satisfy. So what happened? Competition happened driving down profits, and moving jobs to low cost labor areas. Is this so hard to understand?

Edited October 16, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Underlying these positions expressed by Tar and waitforufo and others is the idea that some people deserve or have earned these things (education, healthcare, food, even dignity) like soldiers or people who worked hard or who won the lottery of birth and were smart enough to be born into a wealthy family in the correct region of the planet, while other people just don't deserve those things or have not earned them. Those "lesser" people help them feel better about themselves by comparison, but the core point underlying nearly every social safety net conversation is that "they" don't "deserve" it, but "we/me/I" do.

 

It's just that it doesn't line up with reality, and that's one of Americas biggest problems: too many people who couldn't care less whether or not their worldview is evince/fact-based (see also > http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89809-what-is-americas-biggest-problem/?p=874523 ).

 

These positions assume equal opportunity which simply isn't there. The people espousing them assume meritocracy while ignoring that we are clearly today more of a plutocracy where money and access to power matter far more than ability or work ethic or competence. It assumes that the poor are lazy or unwilling to work hard and relies entirely on these and other similar myopic myths and falsehoods to stand up under its own crushing unsustainable weight.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that another one of Americas biggest problems is that too many people have their heads inseparably lodged in their asses.

 

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12264-lies-of-plutocracy-exploding-five-myths-that-dehumanize-the-poor

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2014/09/the_self_made_man_history_of_a_myth_from_ben_franklin_to_andrew_carnegie.html

The self-made mythology has evolved in its 200 years: from an exuberant celebration of opportunity in the young republic to a stern admonition against excess in the antebellum years; from a naive story of pluck rewarded in the post-Civil War-era, to a brazen defense of money-getting in the Gilded Age; from a beacon to the great waves huddled masses, to a pep talk for the young women of the digital age. The one constant, however, has been the idea that character trumps circumstance. <snip> Though an unapologetic believer in the power of hard work to lift men above their means, he allowed that even the hardest worker cant impose his will on the world; he acknowledged that other men, and other forces, played a role in his rise.

Edited October 16, 2015 by iNow