Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

What Should Be The Country's Goal?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> What Should Be The Country's Goal? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/8/2012 1:17:13 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
I was reading an op-ed piece in the NYT today that posited that today's children in the U.S. will live less well than their parents.

This gave me pause, as I thought to myself, what does it mean, exactly, to say that a generation will live "less well" than the prior generarion and secondly, why exactly is it desirable that "living better" should always be the case.

If by "less well", one means that

- we will not continue to drive around vehicles like Hummers that consume high quantities of a non-renewable resource

- we will not expect to sit down to portions of food for one, that could legitimately feed a family of four

- we will not expect to live in single family dwellings in excess of 5000 square feet

- we will not overspend on luxury branded goods just to advertise that we can spend (even when we can't really)

- we will stop living in a throw away society that does not pay heed to the environmental impact of such waste

etc.

then, I don't know. Sounds like progress to me.

Are we entitled to live so high off the hog in perpetuity? Even if only a certain percentage live that way?

If every successive generation is supposed to do better - where does this lead? In my mind, it leads to excesses of the worst sort.

Leaving aside the massive restructuring that needs to take place in the labor market, is there anyone else out there who feels that maybe living "less well" could have some long term positive effects for us as a nation?

Sometimes less is more.



_____________________________

~ ftp
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/8/2012 1:38:06 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/8/2012 2:48:49 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I was reading an op-ed piece in the NYT today that posited that today's children in the U.S. will live less well than their parents.
This gave me pause, as I thought to myself, what does it mean, exactly, to say that a generation will live "less well" than the prior generarion and secondly, why exactly is it desirable that "living better" should always be the case.
If by "less well", one means that
- we will not continue to drive around vehicles like Hummers that consume high quantities of a non-renewable resource
- we will not expect to sit down to portions of food for one, that could legitimately feed a family of four
- we will not expect to live in single family dwellings in excess of 5000 square feet
- we will not overspend on luxury branded goods just to advertise that we can spend (even when we can't really)
- we will stop living in a throw away society that does not pay heed to the environmental impact of such waste
etc.
then, I don't know. Sounds like progress to me.
Are we entitled to live so high off the hog in perpetuity? Even if only a certain percentage live that way?
If every successive generation is supposed to do better - where does this lead? In my mind, it leads to excesses of the worst sort.
Leaving aside the massive restructuring that needs to take place in the labor market, is there anyone else out there who feels that maybe living "less well" could have some long term positive effects for us as a nation?
Sometimes less is more.


While farglebargle's response is dead on accurate, it's applications are sometimes lost in the less lofty "sub-goals" that normally help us attain our ultimate goals.

I'm a big proponent of buying better to conserve both money and resources. But, that's my goal. That's my "pursuit of happiness." I hope my sons pick this up from me and apply it to their lives. Simple living, IMO, should be the goal. Sure, there are technologies that can make life more complicated, but that's a trade-off determined by the consumer. I will have a large TV. I have a very powerful desktop and a good laptop. I have a Smartphone. I will have broadband access and some form of content provider for my TV (leaves open whether I go cable, dish, some internet streaming service, or something to come later). I'll be investing in solar and wind upgrades to my house when I can afford them. But, that won't be until I've renovated it to fairly comfortable habitation. I will also start and maintain a garden and grow fruiting plants of various sorts to can/preserve to get me away from reliance on others to provide for me as much as I can. It's even possible that I will keep bees and raise chickens at some point in the future. Once I get these things going, I'm also going to experiment on an old lawn tractor regarding self-supplying hydrogen gas power (electrolysis of water being the source of the hydrogen gas; sustainable energy to recharge the battery necessary to run the electrolysis).

But, the Declaration of Independence was written as a Founding Document, meaning that is one of the Defining Constructs of the USA. It's what the USA stands for. And, to that end, I don't care what other countries stand for, because we aren't other countries. The USA stands for what the USA stands for. We aren't the European States of America, or the Asian/African/Arctic/Australian/etc. States of America. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do things that work simply because other countries are already doing them. But, we shouldn't model ourselves after any other countries simply because other countries are doing those things.

IMO, Government exists to create a level platform for its Citizens. Layers of Government are necessary, as there are different needs. Currently, we have Local (City/Township/Etc.), County, State, and Federal levels. Each should be concerned with similar, but different goals. Local goals have nothing to do with foreign countries, for instance, but protection of its citizens is very important. Counties have a broader sphere to be concerned with. It's almost as if a County is to be concerned with maintaining order between it's constituent localities, and taking care of the citizens only in ways that the Local Government can not. States, too have a much broader range of concerns. It should be, IMO, concerned with only doing the things for Citizens that County and Local levels can not, and be more concerned with governing between the County governments, and Local Governments. Since the responsibilities increase as you go up levels, the focus of each level has to change, and gets further from individual governance. The Federal Government should be in charge of making sure the States are getting along, resolving issues between/among them, and all things that impact the Nation as one unit.

The further up you go, the further away from the needs of the constituents government gets, and rightly so. I'll have more later.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/8/2012 3:11:52 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
It may be that generational progress is a delusion that arose after World War 2, or if real as some will evidence, maybe expansionist Capitalism has run up against the limits of finite resources, and the game is up.
The benefits of downsizing that I infer from the OP may be the necessary sobering realization that comes after five decades of binging. But, I doubt that any members of the Power Class will ever be able to admit to that. They retain power after all by holding out the carrot of progress to us. Obviously, no politician will ever say we should settle for what we have. It will always be "onward and upward" won't it?

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/8/2012 3:44:43 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.




Ron Paul: Election shows U.S. 'far gone'

"We're so far gone. We're over the cliff," the Texas Republican told Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" program. "We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5-10 years who will do wise things."

"People do not want anything cut," he said. "They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing the money. And they don't believe that we've gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with some magic solution. But you can't have a budgetary solution if you don't change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we are going to argue about is who will get the loot."



_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/8/2012 4:25:55 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
Farglebargle - I get what you are saying....I mean, obviously. But I am really more interested in a discussion of the notion of "children living less well than their parents" and whether that is inherently a bad thing. I don't personally feel the Constitution or other founding documents truly speak to the issue of "how much is enough".

DesideriScuri - I applaud your personal efforts towards "simple living". And again, what I am driving at is a feeling sometimes that we are too greedy as a society in terms of our personal needs. However I feel our political system is more than flexible enough for government to take a variety of approaches to this matter of "how one lives" and "how much is enough". But this requires us as individuals to answer that question for ourselves. For example, is a television in every room of the house a necessity? Is someone who lacks a television in every room of their house living "less well" than others? If happiness is so tied to material possessions, at what point do we say, enough already?

vincent - thank you for addressing the issue that is at the core of my comment. I feel with the world's population where it is, with what has become a true global economy, and with the limited natural resources of the earth, that it is quite inevitable that the binging must stop. I would applaud any politician who was brave enough to call it as it truly is, instead of as what people want to believe. Is continued optimism about generational progress necessary for us to survive as a population, or does it actually hamper our ability to adapt to a changing world, and almost ensure our destruction?

Yachtie - my point is not just about government spending. To the extent that government is spending to help those who have little, that doesn't really run afoul of what I'm talking about. I am talking about what responsibility we each have to recognize that things may not always improve perpetually - especially for the wealthy. I feel the entitlement attitude of the wealthy relative to the poor is partly what has gotten us into the mess we are in. That, and the fact that the middle class chooses to emulate the wealthy, even when it cannot afford to do so. Just to be clear, food stamps for a poor family to put food on the table is not what I am referring to. But I have seen wealthy people poor drinkable wine away simply because they felt it didn't taste "good enough". That bit of theatrics was as much to simply show how much money they have to burn. Is that the class the rest of us should be emulating? And is that the class we should listen to when they say they pay too much in tax?





_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/8/2012 5:21:42 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Yachtie - my point is not just about government spending. To the extent that government is spending to help those who have little, that doesn't really run afoul of what I'm talking about. I am talking about what responsibility we each have to recognize that things may not always improve perpetually - especially for the wealthy. I feel the entitlement attitude of the wealthy relative to the poor is partly what has gotten us into the mess we are in. That, and the fact that the middle class chooses to emulate the wealthy, even when it cannot afford to do so. Just to be clear, food stamps for a poor family to put food on the table is not what I am referring to. But I have seen wealthy people poor drinkable wine away simply because they felt it didn't taste "good enough". That bit of theatrics was as much to simply show how much money they have to burn. Is that the class the rest of us should be emulating? And is that the class we should listen to when they say they pay too much in tax?


There's us here on the boards and then there is ~Paris Hilton.

I despise extreme opulence. It's wasteful in the extreme. Now I find myself asking if a Ferrari is within that meaning? A middle class guy taking out a 2nd on the home to get one versus a guy who earns 500K a year. It's amazing what makes people tick. (I'd love to just once have one.) Then one could also ask what is really the difference between Motel-6 and Holiday Inn Express? They both serve the same function.

I don't begrudge the wealthy but I do wonder if Vanderbilt really needed a mansion that big. I do not see the wealthy via any entitlement attitude, but I do believe that for some money / opulence is its own end. I think it has characteristics similar to drugs. I think many are addicted.

I don't begrudge food stamps to one who actually needs but I do those who have made it a way of life.

I believe in emulating some of the wealthy. Not in how they spend but in how they achieved.

Now I want to draw attention to these parts of what Fargle posted -

For protecting them[selves]... from punishment
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.


Those are just some of what is applicable to our own government.

Protection from punishment - That happens all the time. Justice for thee and justice for me.

Altering our form of government - Like Congress shall make all laws, not the courts or some beurocracy

Waging war against us - Drug War, TSA, sobriety check points, on children, zero tolerance, etc... (some are debatable)


King George was nothing compared to what we endure at the hands of our own countrymen.

This one -
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.

SCOTUS once said that laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Hardly seems the case these days.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 4:14:03 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I was reading an op-ed piece in the NYT today that posited that today's children in the U.S. will live less well than their parents.

This gave me pause, as I thought to myself, what does it mean, exactly, to say that a generation will live "less well" than the prior generarion and secondly, why exactly is it desirable that "living better" should always be the case.

If by "less well", one means that

- we will not continue to drive around vehicles like Hummers that consume high quantities of a non-renewable resource

- we will not expect to sit down to portions of food for one, that could legitimately feed a family of four

- we will not expect to live in single family dwellings in excess of 5000 square feet

- we will not overspend on luxury branded goods just to advertise that we can spend (even when we can't really)

- we will stop living in a throw away society that does not pay heed to the environmental impact of such waste

etc.


It should be mentioned that a lot of Americans don't even live this well. I'm not going to shed any tears for the super-rich who might be taken down a few notches (which probably won't happen anyway), but for those who are just barely squeaking by as it is, "living less well" can be a rather frightening prospect.

The bigger problem at hand is the shrinking of the middle class, which has previously been a source of economic and political stability in this country.

A lot of this we've brought upon ourselves, with a gullible, short-sighted, fickle electorate which has a short attention-span. The short attention-span was an interesting point I once read in a book entitled "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire." The author cited Arnold Schwarzenegger and how age has taken its toll on him.

Once strong, virile, and powerful, now America is turning into a nation in need of Rogaine and Viagara.

quote:


then, I don't know. Sounds like progress to me.

Are we entitled to live so high off the hog in perpetuity? Even if only a certain percentage live that way?


The small percentage of those who live high on the hog might become even smaller, although they will probably still continue to do so at the expense of an even larger percentage of middle class folks.

What many people fail to realize today is that we've been warned for generations about the consequences for our actions. This has been the case throughout my life, as people have recognized that America has been dying for a long time. Even back in the 1960s (which somehow seems a more innocent, idyllic time compared to today), people were talking about America was in decline and predicting doom and gloom.

Another thing to consider is that much of our current situation happened by design. Over the past few decades, there has been a strong push towards globalism, outsourcing, free trade, unbridled world-wide capitalism - not just for the sake of profits (although it helps in selling the idea to conservatives), but also to promote geopolitical stability. In the time when I was born, one of our greatest fears was a possible war with China, but now, we're more concerned about them buying us out rather than attacking us. From a certain point of view, that may be "progress," so to speak.

Moreover, countries which were previously known as "third world" are up and coming nowadays, building industries and modernizing infrastructure to the point where they're no longer really "third world." This, too, was by design, since Western governments and corporations have invested billions in this process, which includes building their factories overseas while closing them in the West. The pressure on wages in America continues to grow, as American workers can't compete with those who are willing to take considerably less for the same work.

As a result, American workers will find that they have no other choice but to accept less money and a lower standard of living just in order to be able to compete in this global economy. As the world economy becomes more multiply-linked and integrated, there will be a natural tendency towards equilibrium, meaning that the economies of the West will necessarily decline as the economies of the developing world improve and become more developed. This is what we're seeing right now.

I'm not sure how this will affect the standard of living of the oft-mentioned "1%," but it will probably affect the lower classes far more than it will ever touch the wealthy.

quote:


If every successive generation is supposed to do better - where does this lead? In my mind, it leads to excesses of the worst sort.

Leaving aside the massive restructuring that needs to take place in the labor market, is there anyone else out there who feels that maybe living "less well" could have some long term positive effects for us as a nation?

Sometimes less is more.



Well, perhaps this might spell the end of consumerism, leaving us with just basic survival. That seems to be the main goal for America at present. I think we'll survive, even if we live less well.

But as to your original question about the country's goals, I think that the political leadership might have to seriously reconsider what this country's goals actually are and whether they're even coherent and consistent with our principles. For nearly a century, we seem to have embraced the goals of preserving freedom and making the world safe for democracy. Laudable goals, to be sure, but I wonder if preserving our own freedom and economic interests might somehow conflict with our desire to preserve other nations' freedom and economic interests as well.

In other words, we wanted too much. We wanted to have our cake and eat it, too. And now, we're sitting around wondering why there's no more cake left. It's not that difficult to figure out, if we backtrack and go over the chain of events which got us to this point.



(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 6:02:29 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Farglebargle - I get what you are saying....I mean, obviously. But I am really more interested in a discussion of the notion of "children living less well than their parents" and whether that is inherently a bad thing. I don't personally feel the Constitution or other founding documents truly speak to the issue of "how much is enough".
DesideriScuri - I applaud your personal efforts towards "simple living". And again, what I am driving at is a feeling sometimes that we are too greedy as a society in terms of our personal needs. However I feel our political system is more than flexible enough for government to take a variety of approaches to this matter of "how one lives" and "how much is enough". But this requires us as individuals to answer that question for ourselves. For example, is a television in every room of the house a necessity? Is someone who lacks a television in every room of their house living "less well" than others? If happiness is so tied to material possessions, at what point do we say, enough already?


But, that is the point of our Founding Documents. It's not up to government to say, "enough." If I were to think that having a couple Corvettes, a Hummer H6 (a mix between an APC and a limo) for the winter, and a couple of Jeeps for off-road fun, should I not be allowed to pursue that? As long as I'm not trampling the rights of someone else, why can I not pursue that?

I have an instructor that rides his bike 10-15 miles one-way to and from school (depends on where he's riding from). I don't know if he owns a car or not, but he is from the area and has chosen to ride. Don't know if he's doing it because he can't afford a car, or if he's doing it so he can afford a 100" Super 3-D LED Plasminogenic Holographic Smarter-than-a-5th-Grader HDTV 4000 (with 600W wake the dead surround sound upgrade). Whether or not a TV in every room is a necessity or want is immaterial (pun intended). You need food, water, clothing, shelter and possibly some manner to condition your indoor climate to allow you to live (which depends on what outdoor climate is).

If I choose to line one wall in every room of my house with some sort of TV, should I not be allowed? Are you asking if it should be Government's role to tell people what they can and can not have after some arbitrary level? If that is your question, then, no. No, it should not be Government's role. And, that is spelled out in the Declaration.

quote:

Yachtie - my point is not just about government spending. To the extent that government is spending to help those who have little, that doesn't really run afoul of what I'm talking about. I am talking about what responsibility we each have to recognize that things may not always improve perpetually - especially for the wealthy. I feel the entitlement attitude of the wealthy relative to the poor is partly what has gotten us into the mess we are in. That, and the fact that the middle class chooses to emulate the wealthy, even when it cannot afford to do so. Just to be clear, food stamps for a poor family to put food on the table is not what I am referring to. But I have seen wealthy people poor drinkable wine away simply because they felt it didn't taste "good enough". That bit of theatrics was as much to simply show how much money they have to burn. Is that the class the rest of us should be emulating? And is that the class we should listen to when they say they pay too much in tax?


The only people who should be emulating those who can, are others who can. Sure, little Jimmy might want the Green Machine 2012 with limited slip differential, but if you can only afford the Big Wheel base model (which comes with the standard hard plastic limited grip wheels, but killer red emergency back wheel brake), then you should not be getting the Green Machine. But, that is a choice that has to be made internally, not externally. And, when one makes those choices, one should have to live by the consequences. If buying that Green Machine 2012 means you don't eat for a month, well, there ya go.

It's our right to make choices for ourselves. It should be our responsibility to accept the consequences of our actions, be they good or bad.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 6:08:08 AM   
ElChupa


Posts: 117
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
There are more takers than producers. The leftists always have the easier job. "take money from the evil rich and give it to ME!" How do you compete against santa claus? Shame and pride are now dead. People don't care. They will take it from you... no shame in that. none.

A great quote from a recent article... read it: Contrary to myth, liberalism is not a political ideology but a pseudo-religion — or rather, it is a substitute for traditional religion. It is driven by emotion, symbolism, irrationality and blind, intense faith. Its holy trinity is race, class and gender. Its church is the Democratic Party. And its savior —its secular messiah —is Mr. Obama.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/8/obamas-america/ Read the whole article.

Liberalism is a religion. Emotion based... just watch The View... force yourself, people. Intelligent, thoughtful, sane people will throw up. Liberals will yell YEAH MORE MORE!

My whole goal to weather the next four years is asset protection, asset hiding, and tax reduction. Period.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 6:33:22 AM   
YN


Posts: 699
Status: offline
While the exact remedies are domestic political decisions, the general need appears to be those of thirty years and under, for those of your people in that age area are the ones who must see the new world, and pay the bills of yourselves and your government in the coming years. And every indication that is seen shows their world will be a tougher one to achieve similar living standards to their parents, or to afford the life for their offspring they desire.

It is not just the United States, Canada and Europe also appear to have many jobless young people who need training and work, at least if your news reports are correct.

If I were among you, this would be a primary concern regardless of politics.



< Message edited by YN -- 11/9/2012 6:35:06 AM >

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 6:40:45 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I was reading an op-ed piece in the NYT today that posited that today's children in the U.S. will live less well than their parents.



That's debatable. It's true that they will have less money and may live in less security in some ways. But

They have cell phones.
They have computers.
They don't have institutions that molest children laughed off.

etc.

It's a different world to be sure.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 6:59:49 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I was reading an op-ed piece in the NYT today that posited that today's children in the U.S. will live less well than their parents.



That's debatable. It's true that they will have less money and may live in less security in some ways. But

They have cell phones.
They have computers.
They don't have institutions that molest children laughed off.

etc.

It's a different world to be sure.

And some have $200 Michael Jordan Nike shoes constructed by Indonesians working for 17 cents the hour.

Even those who work in Burger King have cell phones and computers because those items are not luxuries but essentials. However, will they be able to marry and sustain a home and family as well as their parents or grandparents did?

How exactly do you measure living better or less well than their parents?


(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 7:04:20 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa

There are more takers than producers. The leftists always have the easier job. "take money from the evil rich and give it to ME!" How do you compete against santa claus? Shame and pride are now dead. People don't care. They will take it from you... no shame in that. none.

A great quote from a recent article... read it: Contrary to myth, liberalism is not a political ideology but a pseudo-religion — or rather, it is a substitute for traditional religion. It is driven by emotion, symbolism, irrationality and blind, intense faith. Its holy trinity is race, class and gender. Its church is the Democratic Party. And its savior —its secular messiah —is Mr. Obama.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/8/obamas-america/ Read the whole article.

Liberalism is a religion. Emotion based... just watch The View... force yourself, people. Intelligent, thoughtful, sane people will throw up. Liberals will yell YEAH MORE MORE!

My whole goal to weather the next four years is asset protection, asset hiding, and tax reduction. Period.




No one normal, bought that bullshit....


Mitt and his ilk pay less than 14% on their earnings....

When and until they pay the same rate as us average Americans.....it`s US paying/giving ..............and those crap assed 1%ers taking...

Do the math....

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to ElChupa)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 7:32:42 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
FR

Zonie, I agree that rampant consumerism is hurting us (and has been hurting us for a while).

And to those who think government doesn't have a role to play in this, I want you to consider that government policies affect our economy. And right wingers seem to feel that a certain portion of Americans are entitled to government policies to protect their current situation (low taxes, low wages, low benefits to the poor, trade restrictions, etc.) In other words if one side is invoking government policy to protect themselves, then I do feel that government has to step in and say "enough".

I also agree with everyone above who points out that there is a fundamental issue of how to define "living better". And I would also say that we as a nation should start to define what we consider things that government should enable, and what government shouldn't care about. Enabling technology might arguably be a good thing; but building McMansions? Who says government needs to do anything to enable people to build huge homes, or use gas guzzling vehicles?

As for the middle class, they shoot themselves in the foot every time. They emulate the wealthy, and have been shown in numerous studies to support right wing policies that do not actually help them currently, but will help them once they become rich, and they all think they will. This has contributed to the shrinking middle class. You can only support a strong middle class if you have the policies in place to support them. If you support only the rich and the poor, then guess what, you end up with a polarized society. And the middle class mistakenly think that their interests are actually aligned with the wealthy, and vote disproportionately for right wing policies. Guess what middle class. Your interests are actually your own, and are much more closely aligned with liberal policies than conservative one. It's laughable (and sad) when labor class supports policies designed only to help capitalists.

p.s. When I saw Michelle Obama come out in her dress on her election night, the first thought I had was that she had worn something similar before. Then it turns out it is an old dress that she has worn multiple times. Kudos to her and her advisors for making such a lovely statement about how one does not have to wear something new every single time, and how a certain sense of frugality should accompany each and every one of us throughout our lives wherever we find ourselves. I thought to myself, what a wonderful message to her daughters, and what a wonderful message to people everywhere. Showing a sense of frugality should not be looked down upon. And the First Lady has made it cool to continue to use clothing that is still serviceable. And to those who think this is pointless, our markets are flooded with cheaply made goods, primarily from China, that people treat as throwaway, because they are so inexpensive. Many people buy and use cheap clothing that they then discard after just one/two seasons, in order to buy new things that are trendier. So wasteful in an overall sense, even though the clothing is not very expensive. Many charitable organizations no longer collect clothing because there is simply just too much of it around. Same can be said for things like kids' toys. So much waste.

_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 7:47:54 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa
There are more takers than producers. The leftists always have the easier job. "take money from the evil rich and give it to ME!" How do you compete against santa claus? Shame and pride are now dead. People don't care. They will take it from you... no shame in that. none.
A great quote from a recent article... read it: Contrary to myth, liberalism is not a political ideology but a pseudo-religion — or rather, it is a substitute for traditional religion. It is driven by emotion, symbolism, irrationality and blind, intense faith. Its holy trinity is race, class and gender. Its church is the Democratic Party. And its savior —its secular messiah —is Mr. Obama.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/8/obamas-america/ Read the whole article.
Liberalism is a religion. Emotion based... just watch The View... force yourself, people. Intelligent, thoughtful, sane people will throw up. Liberals will yell YEAH MORE MORE!
My whole goal to weather the next four years is asset protection, asset hiding, and tax reduction. Period.

No one normal, bought that bullshit....


ElChupa was:

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 7:58:25 AM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

It may be that generational progress is a delusion that arose after World War 2...


I would posit that it arose most prominently after the Great Depression...

However, people have always sought to have a better way of life... a more comfortable environment, reliable food supplies, less work and danger, a greater chance for our progeny to survive. It has essentially been a part of the human makeup from the beginning of time.

Marketing products to aid in achieving those goals has always occurred, but began increasing during the industrial revolution as opportunities to actually achieve a significantly better life became more of a reality. Over time those marketing tactics have molded the values and thought processes of the people.

This past century, influence was greatly increased upon the invent of mass marketing (radio and television) and essentially raised the bar beyond what is truly necessary for comfortable survival and into the realm of excess.

I don't believe that "the country", "the world", or any "government" can directly change this mindset. Those entities can make appeals to the general population and individuals can personally come to the realization, but by these methods, I don't believe any significant change will occur within any time frame that we can witness.

I do believe change will occur by force... such as you've mentioned in the op. I think it is reasonable to assume it won't be pleasant for most people, many will rebel against the tide, and some will be casualties.

This is life.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 9:49:01 AM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.




Ron Paul: Election shows U.S. 'far gone'

"We're so far gone. We're over the cliff," the Texas Republican told Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop" program. "We cannot get enough people in Congress in the next 5-10 years who will do wise things."

"People do not want anything cut," he said. "They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing the money. And they don't believe that we've gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with some magic solution. But you can't have a budgetary solution if you don't change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we are going to argue about is who will get the loot."



And the Republican Party screwed him out of the opportunity to say this to his own party and consequently the American public via the convention. The man had LEGITIMATELY won a significant number of delegates and should have been heard from.
  In their typical openness and honesty, they ran Paul out of town on rail.
  Perhaps that should have concerned you more than going out googling pictures of empty chairs to commemorate Clint's famous "Harvey Speech".

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 10:16:29 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL
And the Republican Party screwed him out of the opportunity to say this to his own party and consequently the American public via the convention. The man had LEGITIMATELY won a significant number of delegates and should have been heard from.
  In their typical openness and honesty, they ran Paul out of town on rail.
  Perhaps that should have concerned you more than going out googling pictures of empty chairs to commemorate Clint's famous "Harvey Speech".


To what end? Most here deride Paul. I thought it best to communicate at the level this forum most often is and what most support. More fun to poke the pig.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: What Should Be The Country's Goal? - 11/9/2012 11:55:56 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I would posit that it arose most prominently after the Great Depression...

Treasure . . .just for fun let's look at how that happened.

Marketing products was never done with the goal of achieving a better life for consumers and their progeny. The goal of marketing was always to sell products to create a cash flow to achieve a better life for owners/producers.

During the Great Depression the majority of people were destitute, stood in long bread lines for food handouts, lived in shanty towns called Hoovervilles, or road the rails from town to town looking for work. When WW2 erupted the unemployed found good paying jobs in Defense Plants but food, clothing, gasoline were rationed. Automobile factories were used to build military tanks and trucks. No new cars or new homes were built

People had good pay but no significant goods to purchase. By the end of 1945 there was huge pent-up consumer demand. Millions of military men and women returned home, married and had children (the Boomers) The Federal Govt created the GI Housing Bill to provide credit . . the housing and home appliances industries boomed. By the late 1960s credit was expanded by the introduction of plastic cards. The Boomers came of age and had a party.

That's why marketing was so successful and led us to excess, as you said.

I think we pretty well agree that the role of government will be limited and unnecessary. Capitalism has a built in mechanism of creative destruction that applies to consumer credit as well as outmoded products. The system will self-correct. Well, it has. We are living in the new normal. So, i think we agree with the OP.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 11/9/2012 12:26:12 PM >

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> What Should Be The Country's Goal? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109