What Is Americas Biggest Problem?

[iNow]

So you don't want government to fix all the things you mention below?

It's probably simplest to assume that my position is not as simple as you're suggesting.

[John Cuthber]

Has everyone seen this?

[waitforufo]

It's probably simplest to assume that my position is not as simple as you're suggesting.

You get upset when I assume what your position is.

[Phi for All]

You get upset when I assume misrepresent what your position is.

 

FTFY.

[iNow]

Has everyone seen this?

It's funny. I was thinking that the "star-spankled awesome" line well encapsulated waitforufo's replies before you even posted that.

[DevilSolution]

Self preservation is primary. Of the language, the ideologies and the family. Americas biggest problem is the capitalist system it has spread to the world. Don't get me wrong I don't hate on capitalism but quantatively easing the stock markets while having economic proxy wars with countries that they then turn round too, print more dollars and pretend like they hadn't caused it. Gain hugely from it. Feed from it. Then you have fucked up internal affairs from the NSA to racial unrest, gun crime and religious bureacuracy running the whole show.

 

I'll stick with self preservation.

[MonDie]

Self preservation is primary. Of the language, the ideologies and the family. Americas biggest problem is the capitalist system it has spread to the world. Don't get me wrong I don't hate on capitalism but quantatively easing the stock markets while having economic proxy wars with countries that they then turn round too, print more dollars and pretend like they hadn't caused it. Gain hugely from it. Feed from it. Then you have fucked up internal affairs from the NSA to racial unrest, gun crime and religious bureacuracy running the whole show.

I'll stick with self preservation.

The funny thing is I was just reading about how The Bible is anti-capitalism since capitalism is predicated on and embraces the desire for riches and material wealth, which Jesus decries as wicked.

[DevilSolution]

The funny thing is I was just reading about how The Bible is anti-capitalism since capitalism is predicated on and embraces the desire for riches and material wealth, which Jesus decries as wicked.

Ahh but it's all for face value other than the people who vote.

 

And yes that's how Jews gained a lot of monetary control. Maybe rumour maybe myth but isn't it like 2% of the population are Jewish and near 20% of senate.

[MigL]

OMG !!!

DevilSolution is actually Mel Gibson !

[Phi for All]

And yes that's how Jews gained a lot of monetary control. Maybe rumour maybe myth but isn't it like 2% of the population are Jewish and near 20% of senate.

You gotta love stereotypes. If the numbers don't make them look bad enough, double them.

[MonDie]

You gotta love stereotypes. If the numbers don't make them look bad enough, double them.

Only 9%, but the ratio is still the highest.

The only affiliation that comes close is Latter Day Saints. Who knew mormons were such a privileged group.

Edited September 1, 2015 by MonDie

[overtone]

 

 

Only 9%, but the ratio is still the highest.

The only affiliation that comes close is Latter Day Saints. Who knew mormons were such a privileged group.

And the Presbyterians.

 

The Mormons and Jews are gerrymandered in, to a degree - lots of tiny States with many Jews, lots of tiny western State populations with many Mormons. The Presbyterians share with the Jews a stronger than average cultural emphasis on formal education, and a long tradition in local government across the entire country (that was the religion of the initial pioneers west of the Atlantic seaboard and Appalachians.).

[tar]

Thread,

 

Well, assuming that we are in agreement that the U.S. used to be the greatest country in the world, and is no longer, and we, for the most part are still the same people, or are the children of the same people, or are the grandchilden, or great grandchildren, or great great grandchildren of the people who made this country the greatest country in the world, I would say that the biggest problem in America is that we no longer trust each other to be the reasons that the U.S. is great.

 

We have crossed out men for being chauvanist, whites for being racist, police for being cruel, business people for being greedy, sports fanatics for being pointless, gays for being immoral, children for being spoiled and self-centered, hunters for being inhumane, drug addicts for being theives and killers, gun owners for killing children, valley girls for being mindless, religious people for believing in angels, women for having no balls, smart people for manipulating stupid people and stupid people for being manipulated by smart people. We do not trust anybody to be as well rounded, morally sound, and as good an American as we ourselves are. We perhaps have forgotten that we are a great country when we trust that everybody else is trying to make the place great. We all need to do our parts, and help others do theirs.

 

When we pick each other up and have each other's back, whether the fallen or the picker upper is American Indian, Chinese, European, African, Middle Eastern, Indian, Russian or of whatever background, when we expect the best from young and old, rich and poor, talented and challenged, regardless of religion, sex, sexual orientation, or political affiliation, then we get the best...and the country is great.

 

Expect the worst and you are liable to get what you ask for.

 

So, I think the biggest problem we have is ourselves. We have somewhere lost the ability to police ourselves. It is not, for instance anybody's job to throw any individual or group, OUT of the club, (USA). It is everybody's job to make sure they themselves are a contributing member, and to pledge their honor and their wealth to the continued survival of the nation.

 

Regards. TAR

[Ten oz]

@ Tar, good post +1. I do not believe the U.S. is or has ever been the "greatest country in the world". I think the U.S. is currently and has been for the last 80yrs the most infuential and most powerful country in the world. That infuence & power necessitates a need for the U.S. to also be "the greatest". Plus there are many in the world that would define greatness as power & influence.

 

Where the idea gets ugly for me in when it becomes position of authority. When people who never accomplished anything beyond randomly being born into the country and raised stomp their feet and demand others wait in ine, learn the language, fix their own neighborhoods, fix their own countries, pray the gay away, and etc. Being a citizen of the United States is not a personal achievement or characteristic that set anyone above another. Greatest should be sought and those who seek it should believe/understand it comes with responsibilty. Rather we see a general apathy throughout the country where greatness is assumed and treated like a privalge that is passed down as a birth right.

 

To be a leader(s) we must lead. Building walls, dropping bombs, filling prisons, and pointing fingers is not leadership.

[overtone]

 

 

When we pick each other up and have each other's back, whether the fallen or the picker upper is American Indian, Chinese, European, African, Middle Eastern, Indian, Russian or of whatever background, when we expect the best from young and old, rich and poor, talented and challenged, regardless of religion, sex, sexual orientation, or political affiliation, then we get the best...and the country is great.

Or to summarize: the biggest problem with America is that not enough Americans are liberals.

 

Ok - how did that come to be?

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Not enough liberals, according to the Democrats and not enough conservatives, according to the Republicans.

 

That is the problem. Liberals want to throw conservatives out of the country and conservatives want to throw liberals out of the country. Fact is, I think, that most of us reside somewhere inbetween and as soon as we have a thought or make an action that corresponds to a liberal or conservative talking point, or stereotype, there is this instant division and we become the "problem" to the people who identify with the other contingent.

 

In a unified country, one seeks to hold a viewpoint that everybody is important and deserves respect, even if they are living in a manner not like the way the other would do it.

 

There is an interesting workshop coming up at the end of the month on Oct. 1st, hosted by Fairleigh Dickinson and their Institute for Sustainable Enterprise

 

SEMINAR OVERVIEW:

• Findings from team research, and key actions for team improvement
• How to excel as a team member and traps to avoid
• Challenges and promise of building diverse teams
• Homogenous teams often think they deliver superior results... and don't
• Heterogenous teams often think they don't deliver superior results... but do
• How diverse teams are chartered can make all the difference in their performance

 

There are reasons why heterogenous teams provide more creative solutions and reasons why homogenous teams communicate better. It is not automatically bad to work with people of your age, race, religious background, schooling, intelligence and viewpoint. It is not a liberal thought to work with heterogenous teams and a conservative thought to work with homgenous teams for instance. There are, within the conception, things that work better in one type of team and things that work better in the other. And it matters whether you are talking about race, religion, age, sex, wealth, education, political affilliation, experience, talent, or tenure, when you talk about heterogenous teams or homogenous teams.

 

You say the inclusion I offered as a standard of a strong, unified U.S. sounds like I am saying there are not enough liberals. It could also be that I am saying there is not enough Christian Charity, as I remember singing in Sunday School " Be they yellow, black or white, all are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world."

 

What I am saying though, is we absolutely cannot do it without the rich or without the poor, or without the liberal cities or without the conservative bible belt, or without the young and the old, the dark and the light skinned, the male and the female.

 

We don't need a homogeneous liberal, young, intelligentsia to be a great nation. We need everybody to see the strength in each other.

 

Much of the power and authority that the U.S. has wielded since the Civil war has been to foster freedom and economic development, and the rule of law thoughout the world.

 

It might even be argued that the U.S. helped in large part to set the standards of proper National behavior that the world goes by. Even the standards, that we ourselves from time to time do not live up to.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 13, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

You say the inclusion I offered as a standard of a strong, unified U.S. sounds like I am saying there are not enough liberals.

Yep.

 

It could also be that I am saying there is not enough Christian Charity, as I remember singing in Sunday School " Be they yellow, black or white, all are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world."

Liberal sentiments. If you actually harbor them, of course - nobody's saying conservatives can't sing songs in Sunday School.

 

What I am saying though, is we absolutely cannot do it without the rich or without the poor, or without the liberal cities or without the conservative bible belt, or without the young and the old, the dark and the light skinned, the male and the female.

Liberal sentiment.

 

We don't need a homogeneous liberal, young, intelligentsia to be a great nation. We need everybody to see the strength in each other.

And the people who actually agree with that, and have for generations now, and have promoted that approach politically and defended it from threats to it, are known as liberals.

 

 

 

Much of the power and authority that the U.S. has wielded since the Civil war has been to foster freedom and economic development, and the rule of law thoughout the world.

We did some of that in WWII and aftermath - not so much since. We can only ride on that high point for so long.

 

 

 

That is the problem. Liberals want to throw conservatives out of the country and conservatives want to throw liberals out of the country.

Republican Party campaign talking point bs.

 

Fact is, I think, that most of us reside somewhere inbetween and as soon as we have a thought or make an action that corresponds to a liberal or conservative talking point, or stereotype, there is this instant division and we become the "problem" to the people who identify with the other contingent.

There are a whole lot of people who have identified the current Republican Party and its rightwing authoritarian corporate backing as a serious problem, without identifying with any "other contingent" in particular.

 

The current leadership of the Democratic Party is rightwing and authoritarian in its ideology, for example. Lefties don't identify with that contingent - especially the libertarian lefties often identified as "liberals".

Edited September 14, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

"There are a whole lot of people who have identified the current Republican Party and its rightwing authoritarian corporate backing as a serious problem, without identifying with any "other contingent" in particular."

 

Yet there is an authoritarian power structure in the U.S. that is not monolithic and whether "businesses" are a problem, in and of themselves is cetainly a topic that has many facets to it. That businesses would back Republican candidates rather than Democratic candidates has more to do with the purse strings and the unworkability of certain policies that mandate certain expenses be paid by businesses that the businesses do not find consistent with a black bottom line, that are promoted by liberals that are not promoted by conservatives, hence the desire to back a conservative rather than a liberal.

 

It is difficult to run a business, if there is no "boss" and it is difficult to be a boss, without being authoritarian.

 

Somebody in the country gets the power and control to say how money is spent and who gets taxed inorder to have the money to spend. Elections are held to send representatives who will decide upon things like the budget. Liberals would like everybody to be taken care of by the government. Conservatives would like everybody to be taken care of, but would like to see it done more directly by indivuals and the organisations they join. Safety nets are one thing. Entitlements are something different.

 

It is not workable to have everybody entitled to shelter and transportation and food and education and schooling and medical care. Somebody has to add value enough to pay for those things. Someone has to work, take risks and add value in some way or another.

 

Was listening to a fast food manager talk about the suggested upping of the minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour. If that were to happen, he said, then they could not afford to keep the employees that they currently have, and would have to look to ways to automate and reduce the number of people it took to serve the customers. Just "wanting" everybody to earn a living wage, does not make it happen.

 

Perhaps what I am saying, in terms of needing everyone, is that we need both the dreamer and the realist. We need the hope, and the striving to do better for everyone, but we also need the capable, trustworthy people, that actually get the job done, on a day to day basis. That provide the "means of production" and manage the projects and keep them on budget.

 

It is good to dream, but it is important to actually do the work, make the plans and make the thing happen. It is not done by unfunded mandate. It is done when people do it of their own accord. For their own enrichment and security, and for the enrichment and security of the teams they associate with, and their neighbors.

 

To the thread point, the problem with the U.S. is not that there are Republicans, the problem is that Democrats don't trust them to be using good judgement and don't trust them to be doing the right thing.

 

And vice-a-versa.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 14, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

That businesses would back Republican candidates rather than Democratic candidates has more to do with the purse strings and the unworkability of certain policies that mandate certain expenses be paid by businesses that the businesses do not find consistent with a black bottom line, that are promoted by liberals that are not promoted by conservatives, hence the desire to back a conservative rather than a liberal.

Then why don't they back the conservative Democrats, who are competent, rather than the wingnut Republicans, who are incompetent?

 

 

 

It is not workable to have everybody entitled to shelter and transportation and food and education and schooling and medical care

Other people do it. It's not only workable, but much cheaper than dealing with a modern society full of illiterate, sick, hungry, and homeless people.

 

Why does the wingnut faction - the Republicans - want to continue to spend twice as much money as anyone else on the planet on medical care that ranks 34th in outcome based evaluations, largely because a lot of people can't afford it? Why do they want to cripple America's industry and entrepreneurial efforts by having employers pay these ludicrously inflated insurance and medical care prices? Why do they want the majority of their community's children badly educated in dumps because their parents have no money?

 

 

Liberals would like everybody to be taken care of by the government.

Bullshit.

 

Conservatives would like everybody to be taken care of, but would like to see it done more directly by indivuals and the organisations they join.

Maybe. But all Republicans actually did the past thirty years is ensure tax cuts for rich people. And start two land wars in Asia.

 

Safety nets are one thing. Entitlements are something different.

No, they aren't. If the citizen is not entitled to a safety net, it isn't there.

 

 

 

Perhaps what I am saying, in terms of needing everyone, is that we need both the dreamer and the realist. We need the hope, and the striving to do better for everyone, but we also need the capable, trustworthy people, that actually get the job done, on a day to day basis. That provide the "means of production" and manage the projects and keep them on budget.

Straight out of the liberal playbook.

You do realize that these capable, trustworthy people you are talking about are Democrats and "liberals" and lefties, right? Because the Republicans are essentially W, Cheney, Trump, Palin, and this guy: https://lwtc247.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/get-a-brain-morans.jpg http://www.sbnation.com/2011/7/17/2279239/get-a-brain-morans

 

 

 

To the thread point, the problem with the U.S. is not that there are Republicans, the problem is that Democrats don't trust them to be using good judgement and don't trust them to be doing the right thing.

The problem is that nobody with any sense or a working memory of the past forty years can trust the Republicans to do even the minimally competent - far less the actually right - thing. They are not reasonable, competent, people. They are crazy - fruit loops, around the bend, bats in the belfry, toys in the attic, impeach the President for a blow job, expose the secret agent most expert and involved with Iran's nuclear weapons efforts, claim racism is not a problem in the US, Mission Accomplished, 50 full scale Congressional votes on Romneycare that was their idea in the first place, default on the Federal debt voluntarily, teach the controversy to tenth graders, embryos are people, Obama is a secret Muslim, Reagan was a great President, corporations are people, money is speech, fools on stilts.

Edited September 17, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Like I said, the biggest problem in America is you don't trust half of us to be sane, responsible, intelligent, well meaning, hard working, trustworthy capable people.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

Like I said, the biggest problem in America is you don't trust half of us to be sane, responsible, intelligent, well meaning, hard working, trustworthy capable people.

It'a about a third, not a half.

 

And that's not a problem. The problem is not the guy who points to the problem.

Edited September 19, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

So 1/3 of us are a problem to the other 2/3 ? Is that not a problem?

 

Regards, TAR

 

It would be easy to argue that old people are a drain on society and don't provide the value, strength, energy, reproductive potential, and capabilities that a younger person would. Would it however, be proper, with these realities in mind, to, as the younger 2/3 of society, say that the old 1/3 was a problem that should be eliminated so the other 2/3 can move along easier?

 

Take any of the divisions in society. Rich and poor, old and young, male and female, straight and gay, atheist and believer, small business and big business, computer aged and traditional, white and black, native American and European settler, smart and dumb, pretty and ugly, skinny and fat, fast and slow...any division, any distinction, any characteristic of body, belief or position that puts one person on the "in" and another on the "out" of 1/3, 2/3 split, or a 50/50 split or a 90/10 split, and you will probably find somebody on the one side of the division that thinks somebody on the other side of the division, is a problem.

 

In a country though, I don't think you can reasonably call 66 million people "the problem". Seems one has to face reality and accept those 66 million as fellow Americans.

 

That is, if one is not to "have a problem" with such a substantial group of folk.

 

Regards, TAR

[Bill Angel]

It would be easy to argue that old people are a drain on society and don't provide the value, strength, energy, reproductive potential, and capabilities that a younger person would. Would it however, be proper, with these realities in mind, to, as the younger 2/3 of society, say that the old 1/3 was a problem that should be eliminated so the other 2/3 can move along easier?

 

...

 

In a country though, I don't think you can reasonably call 66 million people "the problem". Seems one has to face reality and accept those 66 million as fellow Americans.

 

That is, if one is not to "have a problem" with such a substantial group of folk.

 

Regards, TAR

While it's possible to argue that the very old, the incurably sick, the feeble minded, etc. are a drain on society's resources and should be eliminated, it's most likely that the mechanism of population selection, once granted to a society, would be extended to also eliminate the political dissidents and the social critics.

[tar]

Bill Angel,

 

Exactly. That is why it is inappropriate to throw anybody out of the good American club, based on a characteristic, belief, background or status in anybody else's eyes.

 

Here is where such sentiment as "one nation under god" comes into play. The equal in the eyes of god is a sentiment that can be held, without even believing in an anthropormorphic god, ultimate judge type character. You can have the sentiment that regardless of your beauty or your youth, or your strength or your smarts, or your expert judgement, or your wealth, or your power, or the amount of friends you have, or the size of your gang and the number of your weapons, you are "in the eyes of god" on equal footing with a poor, dumb tick infested country boy.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

So 1/3 of us are a problem to the other 2/3 ? Is that not a problem?

Yes, it is. And how the remaining reasonable and sane folks deal with that faction, politically, is going to make a big difference. Allowing it to set the terms of our politics and swing the elections of our powerful government officials, as we have, will get us what it has got us in the past - say, Dick Cheney's off the record confabs with his CEO buddies in Exxon and Chevron and BP over the deployment of the US Army, with a large private safe sitting against the wall in his official office.

 

 

You can have the sentiment that regardless of your beauty or your youth, or your strength or your smarts, or your expert judgement, or your wealth, or your power, or the amount of friends you have, or the size of your gang and the number of your weapons, you are "in the eyes of god" on equal footing with a poor, dumb tick infested country boy.

You could even view the idea of country boys being dumb and poor as an odd stereotype characteristic of certain groups - then you would be completely in the liberal camp.

 

 

 

In a country though, I don't think you can reasonably call 66 million people "the problem".

You can't reasonably deny it, on the evidence. It's simply a fact, for example, that a huge fraction of this country is taking one or the other of the current batch of Republican Party candidates for President seriously - treating them with respect, listening to them as if they had something to say, mulling over the prospect of voting for them. Hello?

 

 

 

Seems one has to face reality and accept those 66 million as fellow Americans.

Nobody has forgotten that. Trust me, everybody who's worried about what these people are going to do next is fully aware that they are sharing the US economy and the US military and the US way of life with them. They live right down the road, and they've gone right around the bend.

 

 

That is why it is inappropriate to throw anybody out of the good American club, based on a characteristic, belief, background or status in anybody else's eyes

How about based on their consistent behavior and influence over forty years of political discourse and negotiation?

 

As things are going, "good American", like "good German", is one of those terms that is going end up acquiring the attributes of the thing it is most often applied to. At that point - and we may be past it already - it will be one of those clubs that, if they'll have you, you don't want to be in.

Edited September 20, 2015 by overtone