kamino

I am starting to notice a trend in the U.S.
It seems to me that People want to work less and wanting more hand outs (welfare), I have no problem helping the physically or mentally disabled or single mothers, but what about those that do nothing, just smooching off the system.
I see people wanting to put more bans on our freedoms such as freedom of speech/press/bearing arms. What is wrong with a person swearing on the TV? or radio? It seems to me that people are pointing fingers saying well my children, listen, if you don't want your kids to see or hear certain things be a parent and take responsibility and "YOU" monitor your kids, I can say this because I am a proud parent of two wonderful children. "I" take responsibility for there actions, what they are exposed to is not other peoples fault, it's mine. So instead of crying about it I take my kids away from it. I know that one day they will do what they want with out me knowing about it, and that is there choice, all I can do is teach them the best I can and hope they make the right choice. Why should the rest of us be made to suffer? Were placing more restrictions on guns, listen with the recent repeal of the gun ban in D.C. it has proved that by restricting guns it does nothing but hurt good law abiding citizens. Criminals do not suffer, they will get there guns anyways, that’s why there criminals. Let me put up a sign in my front door stating I have guns and that my neighbors don't and we will see who gets robed first!
I see us making exceptions for some but not for others, president bush redefines a terrorist to suit the problem of them not being combatants, we arrest them and hold them in jail for a long time with out trial, illegal immigrants protest in our streets and what do we do? We send cops to beat them. Have we lost all sense of morality? Do we now make exceptions when it suits us and toss the constitution aside when we see fit? Have we abandoned true justice to satisfy revenge?
I see us worrying more about other nations and giving food/money/troop support and recourses away to other nations when we have more then enough for our own people. Are we becoming more European? It seems that we actually care about what the French think, WTH?! The French, who the hell cares?
Why are we doing as little as possible to keep out illegal Immigrants (not legal) we build sections of fence that can be cut right through. Let’s get serious about it, but some serious walls that are manned, talk about some new jobs for Americans. I am not saying shoot any one who comes close but damn. To get my wife to be a legal immigrant cost me tons of money and was a royal pain in the butt, instead, lets try and really help these people out. Let’s get them across legally.
I see less and less of a separation of church and state. They should be teaching religion, not politics or science or telling me how to live my life. If I want to watch porn or swear or determine what I think is right or wrong that is my own damn business, not some half cracked nut job. As long as I am not hurting, stealing, or damaging anybody or there stuff why bother me?
A politician says they have created so many new jobs with the opening of a new factory(s), but how many more people lost there jobs to this new business that has so many machines and puts them out of work.
Am I misguided or we facing a real problem? If there is a problem, why am I not hearing more of a public outcry? Why are there not more protests in the streets or marches to the Capital? Have we lost our balls? We are Americans!!! We should not be sitting on the side lines while our government does what ever they feel with out our consent.

__________________
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
-Benjamin Franklin

rivrrat

Yes, it's going downhill. Faster and faster. It ****ing sucks and I don't like the direction the country is headed, on many many levels.

Yes, it can still be saved. We just need keep liberals and conservatives out of office.

__________________

Ikari

The people are loosing interest in the political system. Too many have given up on their duty to keep the Republic. More and more the main political party moves to isolate itself even further from the grasps of the People, to remove our control so they can insert their own. Further and further we go down the path of treason and tyranny and no one notices because we are too busy with Rock of Love 5.

Things can be saved, but it's going to take significant work at this point to return the system to the way it was; controlled by the People. But it is breaking, and we are loosing the Republic, and if we're not careful we're going to find ourselves one day in a neo-fascist the likes Orwell could never have imagined.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Singularity

There is no doubt that those subjective moral values considered "traditional" by many evangelicals and die-hard partisans are in jeopardy of being sundered from our society, largely if not totally. Many of those who lament this taking place claim that our national moral compass is failing, and it's the duty of good, ethical Americans to mount an offensive against those who seek to undermine and eliminate these values. To them, that river which erodes our traditional values also erodes our nation. When asked, these people will probably not outright say that America is dying; instead they will say that America is in danger of dying--and if they wax the "glass half full" philosophy, then they'll be quick to add that it can still be saved. Without a doubt, our country is changing in this way. But does this change mean that we as a country are dying, as these people often say?

Definitely not. In fact, I believe our nation is far more powerful, stable, and moral today than it has ever been in the past.

Consider the cornerstone of traditional argument, that American values are not an evolving standard of what's decent. Many of the values held in common by our founding fathers were moral in the absolute sense; life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, those rights we have simply because we exist as free, autonomous, and rational beings. On these absolute morals, there is no disagreement. The dispute comes when the subjective, not the absolute moral values held by our founding fathers (or interpreted to have been held by the traditionalists) are upheld in place of equality. It is this discrimination and immorality disguised as an appeal to tradition that is challenged, and if history is any example, is destined to be overturned. And as our nation has kept going forward, we've all heard the cries of those who believe this change will be death of us as a country.

But this has made us stronger, not weaker. And certainly not in danger of ever dying as a country.

Consider the following traditional institutions or societal norms. At points in our nation's great history, these terrible acts were accepted and even promoted.

1. Slavery: The opening paragraph of A South Plantation Owner's View of Slavery states "For hundreds of years, slavery has been practiced around the world. At this time, abolitionist Americans have no right to deny this tradition. Our founding fathers, in fact, had slaves of their own. One must concur that slavery is not morally wrong but rather needed for the growth of America. The abolitionists of the North have weak arguments that can be overruled by all the advantages of slavery. These advantages include white supremacy and the advantages of living as a slave, the kingdom of cotton, and the reality of the United States' Constitution and its Amendments. The South will not lose slavery over a bunch of abolitionist fools view's of the wrongs of slavery, but will instead remain in charge of their black slaves and keep them working the fields of cotton." This appeal to tradition is laughable by our moral standards today, yet was undeniably accepted by many who fancied themselves moral and with impeccable upright values, especially in the antebellum South.

2. Segregation: Not more than 50 years ago, racism was more than just condoned, it was an everyday reality. All sorts of separate-by-race institutions existed, and all were disturbingly commonplace as well as enforcible by law. Our moral standards today--those same ones traditionalists negatively classify as evolving--certainly illuminates the immorality of it all. But just a few decades ago, within the lifetimes of perhaps a few denizens of this very board, it was traditionally accepted.

3. Women's Rights: Entailing far more than the right to vote in political election, women's rights in our country have only recently become almost-fully realized. It was only in July 1993 that marital rape became illegal in all fifty states, and we still see a few places where sexual discrimination exists today.

4. Homosexual's rights: Not only was it illegal to practice homosexual behavior, it was dangerous as well. We are all very familiar with the hate crimes and discrimination against homosexuals, all justified by a value system that claims the behavior is an abomination and morally wrong. This traditional value system also included legal discrimination up until this very century. By 2002, only 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws were finally invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas).

5. Marriage Equality: Although this hasn't been fully realized yet, the argument against it by traditionalists abound when it comes to allowing gays to participate. However, this goes beyond the issue of homosexual marriage. Within the last century, states could still place extensive restrictions on obtaining a divorce, subjugate the rights of women to their husbands, and ban interracial marriage. It wasn't until 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws nation-wide. A Virginia judge had upheld that state's ban on interracial marriages, invoking God's intention to separate the races. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his decision, declaring that "The picture now is very different. Racial discrimination within marriage has ended, married women have equal rights to married men, and most states have created access to no-fault divorce." (See Loving vs. Virginia).

All of these are compelling, but why stop at traditionally accepted discrimination and subjective values? What about how educated our society has become? What about the standard of living enjoyed by even the more destitute of our country? Then there is health care, legal access...you get the picture. Certainly these are far better today than they were historically, are they not? In actuality, the argument that our country is stronger today than it ever has been can be made on these issues alone. That's my opinion, of course.

They say our country is dying? I say nonsense.

kamino

Singularity,
I agree to your views of equality, these are things that have made this country great and much stronger. But, that does not avoid the fact that we as a people are giving away our civil liberties. While we have made strides in some areas we have fallen back incredibly in others.
Why should a group be able to tell me what I watch, listen to, read, speak or do in the privacy of my own bedroom is wrong or immoral? Esspecially when it does not harm cause damage or loss of life. The most it may do is offend some one. Are we to place a restriction on a certain kind of book because it does not coinside with our views, or because we find it disgusting to our moral fiber?
If we are to have a set of moral guidlines in this country, who is to make that decission? The Christians? The budist? The muslims? the Jews? None of which I agree with. Regardless of how you put it, it is still one relegions views beign forced upon me which goes against the very beleifes that go to this countrys very soul. People have been coming to this country even before we declared our independance to escape religious persicution.
As far as our social programs go? Well it is still people try to get free hand outs. My mother is a long time heroin user and as I was growing up with her I saw her using the welfare system, but not even trying to get a job. She was abusing the system, and make no mistake about it, there are others out there that do the same. There should be no problem for a person getting a job in this country (but there is, and immigration is a seperate issue.)
And you say that things are better now then before, but for whome? The poor? Maybe so, they get large tax breaks, but what about the rich? Does a man not have the right to keep what he has earned? Because a man comes up with an invention and make tons of money on it, why should he have to pay more? Why is there a difference in taxes between the classes. It is a redistribution of wealth, and it hurts every one, poor to the rich, why should my tax dollars go to pay for a person who is to lazy to get a job?
Ok I think that covers it.

Korimyr the Rat

I am far more concerned with our government handing money-- and as many of its own activities and privileges-- out to corporate entities than I am any amount of Welfare payments. Irritating as it might be to see useless people thriving by the sweat of my toil, they are politically insignificant and do not present any threat to either my life or my livelihood.

If anything, I appreciate the efforts of our government to bribe the lazy and useless to stay out of the way of people with ambition and initiative. The taxes I pay are far less of a burden than the effort required to compensate for other peoples' incompetence.

Yes, we have lost all sense of morality. More accurately, I would say that we have lost our moral courage, and that our desire to sacrifice liberty for security is motivated by the kind of cowardice and weakness that only sixty years of soft living can create.

There is a difference between sacrificing some small measure of our liberty for societal cohesion and moral order-- something necessary in a healthy culture-- and sacrificing not only liberty but accountability out of fear. The latter is an open invitation for any would-be privateer to come along and stripmine our cultural heritage and national wealth for their own gain.

At the same time that we sacrifice essential liberty-- and clarity of independent thought-- for promises of security that never materialize, we find ourselves granting more and more moral license. We grant license to immigrants who do not appreciate our cultural values, to corporations and their elected puppets who exploit us, and to our own future citizens who we refuse to either discipline or educate properly in their duties.

What is religion, if not telling people the proper way to live their lives? The problem here is not religion, but religion in contradiction to reason; there was a time that it was understood that legitimate religious expression acknowledged the value of scholarship and scientific inquiry.

An additional problem is religion which demands the law enforce its moral laws, when the leaders of the churches cannot themselves uphold them. Hypocrisy is spiritual poison, and the acceptance of hypocrisy is societal poison.

If there were public outcry, our nation would not be dying. Our nation is dying because our culture has grown too complacent and weak to support it any longer-- and far from attempting to correct this cultural weakness, our leaders are heeding the cries for more bread and circuses, for protection without responsibility.

Our nation is dying because we are getting the government we demand and the government we deserve.

__________________

Scucca

There are two flaws in your thinking. First, the provision of unemployment benefit makes perfect sense in capitalism. We know that involuntary unemployment occurs. Indeed, it is vital for profit that such unemployment exists. Consider, our dislike of effort. Assuming full employment, why should you try your hardest for your employer? You can simply relax and avoid work. So what if the employer catches you and sacks you? You can just acquire a job elsewhere. Employer-employee relationships, however, change where unemployment exists. There is now a cost for employees from not trying their hardest. If you're sacked you joined the ranks of the unemployed. The chances of finding a new job are now low. You therefore behave in a more disciplined manner. You try your hardest so you do not lose your wage. This only operates if the involuntary unemployed are 'potential workers' (i.e. they are competition for available vacancies). That requires unemployment benefit to ensure the 'physical efficiency' of the potential worker is maintained.

The second flaw refers to the empirical evidence. The US does not have a generous welfare system. Indeed, compared to other countries, it is obsessed about efficiency of the system (i.e. proportion of monies going to the 'deserving'). We instead have to refer to European liberal democratic and social democratic nations. Despite their greater generosity, there is little evidence in these countries of an 'underclass' (i.e. socioeconomic group that show no income mobility, normally reliant on hand-outs and crime). We do not have the same in the US. Indeed, the US manages to twin an underclass problem with general income immobility

__________________

UtahBill

Extreme lefties and extreme righties are so biased that compromise on any issue is unlikely, so nothing gets done. We need more moderates....

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
No success can compensate for failure in the home.

Tucker Case

The US has many unique problems not found in other countries.

Not least of which being that it is extremely difficult to sustain a commonality in a country so expansive and so ethnically and ideologically diverse.

Basically, one could easily argue that the US is the most diverse country based on ideologies. Brazil is extremely ethnically diverse, but has a 74% Catholic majority thus creating a 74% commonality in ideology straight from the start.


The US doesn't have that common religious theme. While we have a large proportion of CHRISTIANS, the variance between each christian sect is often very dramatic.

Over 51% of the total population is some variant of Protestantism, but the largest single religion is Catholicism, making up about about 24% of the total population (44% of the Christian population). No other single religion makes up as large of a portion of the population, but Evangelicals make up around 23% of the country.

The ideological differences inherent in these faiths contributes to paradigm differences found nationwide.

Religious affiliation and degree of affiliation are definitely fantastic correlative predictors if you wanted to guess that person's political leaning, especially when geographical information is included.

If your know someone is an evangelical baptist from Alabama who attends church regularly, you can be fairly comfortable guessing that they are politically conservative.

A Catholic from Illinois who attends church only for Christmas and Easter is probably politically liberal.

Obviously these aren't certainties, but they are fairly strong probabilities.

The Geographical info is a lesser predictive factor than the religious information. It decreases the margin of error more than anything else.

This kind of ideological diversity creates a broader ranger of political leanings than found anywhere else.

Couple that with the general American malaise towards our corrupt political system and you have a population that ONLY reacts at the polar extremes of political thought.

Basically, 50% don't even care anymore, and the ones that do, only do so because they've become polarized towards the end of the spectrum.

Personally, this is why I think the US is dying a slow death. The ONLY way to fix the problem is to get the populous interested again and to end the two = one party monopoly on our political system.

Scucca

I take your point. However, in terms of my critique, the US is actually rather similar to the UK. Both follow a neoliberal approach where labour market flexibility is encouraged. Both do badly in the income mobility stakes and both display underclass problems. This makes the "woe is welfare" line rather confused. There is little evidence that welfare generosity creates simple work disincentive effects.

In terms of culture, we could argue that the US needs welfare 'less'. For example, one could argue that welfare policy encourages entrepreneurship. Thus, risk adverse people are more likely to create their own businesses knowing that, if it fails, they still have welfare to fall back on. The US, given greater entrepreneurship, may not need these safety nets. Nevertheless, welfare to maintain an unemployed 'reserve army' is still a basic requirement in capitalism