• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of America?

What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of America?

  • Total voters
    121
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

vesper said:
I haven't lost all hope yet but everyday that hope gets drained. In reading through the threads it's apparent there's a growing lack of morality in our society. Those who claim they are for the "live and let live" are often those who do not believe in personal responsibility for those choices. I about lost my breakfast reading through comments in a Poll question over a 13 year old boy having sex with a woman and the number of folks on this forum attempting to justify it which amounts to pedophilia. So many believe others should carry the financial burden of those who crap up their own lives because of poor choices. Between the growing number who have lost their moral compasses and the absence of personal responsibility one can not help but become pessimistic.
Click to expand...
Opt instead for a healthy criticism. Never become jaded. There's no such thing as an insoluble problem.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

Public K-12 Enrollment and Graduate Projections by County - California Department of Finance
rabbitcaebannog said:
Okay, so you don't believe Bartlett, who by far is no left leaning person btw? How about a highly conservative think tank that basically agrees with Bartlett.

Some new empirical evidence suggests that tax and expenditure limits do not work. Benjamin Zycher, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, recently produced a study that finds that the provisions are ineffective. As Zycher explains:
The ineffectiveness of TELs is unambiguous in terms of summary statistics, case-study examination of the records of several individual states, and estimation of an econometric model. . . . In part, it is likely that the limits themselves are the products of the same political pressures and election dynamics that yield fiscal outcomes. Moreover, the competition among political interests that results in budget outcomes also is likely to weaken or circumvent limits that otherwise would be effective. Prop 13 in California, 35 Years Later | Tax Foundation

It's hard to cut spending on things like schools, with a growing population. If they wanted to cut school spending, they should have just decided not to invest in school spending. You could have more kids entering school and with each influx of students, just cut a teacher. With more people moving into an area, cut police, fire and emergency personnel. Cutting taxes will NOT automatically cut these services, especially as the population grows. Usually, these services grow as the population grows. So, less revenue coming in for years while services are still needed equals more revenue needed in the future....and the future is now the present. They have a shortfall of money because they didn't pay it forward during the good times.
Click to expand...


While the authors of the weak articles you posted brushed by the subject, the fact is, California has been, and continues to be, home to some of the highest per student spending on education in the country. Purposely removed from figures provided by the CTA, and the California Department of Education has been the $10's of billions spent on school upgrades and construction over the last 40 years. For example, California is putting the finishing touches on the largest public works projects in the nation, a $20+ billion school replacement program that resulted in a $500 million High School, and many other outrageous wastes of money.

All this spending has been conveniently left of the calculations used for spending on education, so the Teachers Union can continue to suggest Prop 13 has devasted schools, and resulted in the dismal graduation rates among students in California.

By the way, the Los Angeles Unified School district is spending $1 billion to hand out iPads to every student. The money came from the Construction Fund, and will not be refelcted in figures used when pleading their case for lack of spending.

One final thing, the k-12 student population has been shrinking over many years, and isn't expected to see any real increase for many more years.

Public K-12 Enrollment and Graduate Projections by County - California Department of Finance

Over the next ten years California will experience a growth in public K-12 enrollment of 0.7 percent to reach a total of over 6,264,000 students. This growth will result in an additional 45,800 students by 2022-23, occurring mostly in secondary enrollment. Elementary enrollment is expected to remain fairly steady with a slight uptick by 2022-23 as births continue to remain flat contributing to a lower forecast for the 2013 series.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

Public K-12 Enrollment and Graduate Projections by County - California Department of Finance
rabbitcaebannog said:
Okay, so you don't believe Bartlett, who by far is no left leaning person btw? How about a highly conservative think tank that basically agrees with Bartlett.

Some new empirical evidence suggests that tax and expenditure limits do not work. Benjamin Zycher, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, recently produced a study that finds that the provisions are ineffective. As Zycher explains:
The ineffectiveness of TELs is unambiguous in terms of summary statistics, case-study examination of the records of several individual states, and estimation of an econometric model. . . . In part, it is likely that the limits themselves are the products of the same political pressures and election dynamics that yield fiscal outcomes. Moreover, the competition among political interests that results in budget outcomes also is likely to weaken or circumvent limits that otherwise would be effective. Prop 13 in California, 35 Years Later | Tax Foundation

It's hard to cut spending on things like schools, with a growing population. If they wanted to cut school spending, they should have just decided not to invest in school spending. You could have more kids entering school and with each influx of students, just cut a teacher. With more people moving into an area, cut police, fire and emergency personnel. Cutting taxes will NOT automatically cut these services, especially as the population grows. Usually, these services grow as the population grows. So, less revenue coming in for years while services are still needed equals more revenue needed in the future....and the future is now the present. They have a shortfall of money because they didn't pay it forward during the good times.
Click to expand...


While the authors of the weak articles you posted brushed by the subject, the fact is, California has been, and continues to be, home to some of the highest per student spending on education in the country. Purposely removed from figures provided by the CTA, and the California Department of Education has been the $10's of billions spent on school upgrades and construction over the last 40 years. For example, California is putting the finishing touches on the largest public works projects in the nation, a $20+ billion school replacement program that resulted in a $500 million High School, and many other outrageous wastes of money.

All this spending has been conveniently left of the calculations used for spending on education, so the Teachers Union can continue to suggest Prop 13 has devasted schools, and resulted in the dismal graduation rates among students in California.

By the way, the Los Angeles Unified School district is spending $1 billion to hand out iPads to every student. The money came from the Construction Fund, and will not be used when pleading their case for lack of spending.

One final thing, the k-12 student population over the last 5 years has been shrinking, and isn't expected to see any real increase for another couple years.

Public K-12 Enrollment and Graduate Projections by County - California Department of Finance

Over the next ten years California will experience a growth in public K-12 enrollment of 0.7 percent to reach a total of over 6,264,000 students. This growth will result in an additional 45,800 students by 2022-23, occurring mostly in secondary enrollment. Elementary enrollment is expected to remain fairly steady with a slight uptick by 2022-23 as births continue to remain flat contributing to a lower forecast for the 2013 series.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

Edited to eliminate duplicate
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of America?
Click to expand...

Very Pessimistic. I can't see it changing much at all.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
Public K-12 Enrollment and Graduate Projections by County - California Department of Finance


While the authors of the weak articles you posted brushed by the subject, the fact is, California has been, and continues to be, home to some of the highest per student spending on education in the country. Purposely removed from figures provided by the CTA, and the California Department of Education has been the $10's of billions spent on school upgrades and construction over the last 40 years. For example, California is putting the finishing touches on the largest public works projects in the nation, a $20+ billion school replacement program that resulted in a $500 million High School, and many other outrageous wastes of money.

All this spending has been conveniently left of the calculations used for spending on education, so the Teachers Union can continue to suggest Prop 13 has devasted schools, and resulted in the dismal graduation rates among students in California.

By the way, the Los Angeles Unified School district is spending $1 billion to hand out iPads to every student. The money came from the Construction Fund, and will not be refelcted in figures used when pleading their case for lack of spending.

One final thing, the k-12 student population has been shrinking over many years, and isn't expected to see any real increase for many more years.

Public K-12 Enrollment and Graduate Projections by County - California Department of Finance

Over the next ten years California will experience a growth in public K-12 enrollment of 0.7 percent to reach a total of over 6,264,000 students. This growth will result in an additional 45,800 students by 2022-23, occurring mostly in secondary enrollment. Elementary enrollment is expected to remain fairly steady with a slight uptick by 2022-23 as births continue to remain flat contributing to a lower forecast for the 2013 series.
Click to expand...

Well that is an out right lie. CA national standing on per pupil funding began to dip below the national average after the passage of Prop 13. Today it ranks 49th lowest per pupil funding. The "expected" population numbers mean Jack. They have a lack of funding today due to bad policies of improper funding from decades ago. The effects are coming home to roost now. All states have to maintain school buildings and many times those funds come from federal grants so please give me more information about your claim on these so called "removed" figures. TIA
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

I'm cautiously optimistic.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

rabbitcaebannog said:
Well that is an out right lie. CA national standing on per pupil funding began to dip below the national average after the passage of Prop 13. Today it ranks 49th lowest per pupil funding. The "expected" population numbers mean Jack. They have a lack of funding today due to bad policies of improper funding from decades ago. The effects are coming home to roost now. All states have to maintain school buildings and many times those funds come from federal grants so please give me more information about your claim on these so called "removed" figures. TIA
Click to expand...

No, an absolute fact. The lie is the one you posted. That lie, clung to by the liberal/progressive left, was created by the California Department of Education, and parroted by the California Teachers Association, the corrupt union responsible for the demise of quality education in the state.

It's a complete lie, a total manipulation of the facts, and further evidence of the corruption that is at the center of public education in general, and California Public Education specifically. When all spending on education in California is totalled up, including the billions spent every year on projects tucked into quaint things like "construction", only D.C. ranks higher.

For example, would you not agree that spending $1 billion to equip every student in the LA Unified School District is part of education spending? Well, it's not, according to LAUSD. The funds are being taken from their construction budget, so they aren't counted as spending on students. See how that works?

L.A. school board moves forward with computer effort - latimes.com

Sorry, but you're in an a no-win on this. The Kool-aid can't wash away the facts.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
No, an absolute fact. The lie is the one you posted. That lie, clung to by the liberal/progressive left, was created by the California Department of Education, and parroted by the California Teachers Association, the corrupt union responsible for the demise of quality education in the state.

It's a complete lie, a total manipulation of the facts, and further evidence of the corruption that is at the center of public education in general, and California Public Education specifically. When all spending on education in California is totalled up, including the billions spent every year on projects tucked into quaint things like "construction", only D.C. ranks higher.

For example, would you not agree that spending $1 billion to equip every student in the LA Unified School District is part of education spending? Well, it's not, according to LAUSD. The funds are being taken from their construction budget, so they aren't counted as spending on students. See how that works?

L.A. school board moves forward with computer effort - latimes.com

Sorry, but you're in an a no-win on this. The Kool-aid can't wash away the facts.
Click to expand...




Complete BS. I find it funny you blame the California Teachers Association as "responsible for the demise of quality education in the state." Fact, CA spends 49th in the nation as far as per pupil spending. Construction is not counted as part of that expenditure for any state so such a pathetic red herring:roll: That sounds incredibly desperate to use. Again, FACT---CA spends less on per pupil spending than 49 other states. Then you gave me a link that proves jack. Many states including my own are using funds to prepare for mandates from the federal government to be prepared to test students by a certain time (has been extended in many places) on national standards. THAT has nothing to do with CA as an individual state. Many places are scurrying to get their technology up to date. If the students in that district can use it for other things, that may be a good thing since technology is important in this day and age, but after reading that article it sounds like they may only be able to afford those devices for test taking. That I find as a waste of money and truly sad.

http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC_TechnologyGuidelines-V2dot1_FAQ.pdf
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

EdwinWillers said:
Many factors affect one's outlook about various things - history, current events, politics, religion, media, family & friends, personal character traits, life experiences, environment, upbringing, education, etc. etc. etc.

Just curious. Nothing ulterior, just curiosity.

What is your outlook re the future of the United States of America - and maybe why?

Very Optimistic
Somewhat Optimistic
Dunno
Somewhat Pessimistic
Very Pessimistic
Click to expand...

How long with the US make it?

Pretend that the US is a person. That person lives on junk food and is in poor health because of it. But he doesn't have money to pay the doctor. Nor will he stop eating junk food. That person is fearful of offending anyone. So he just offends everyone. He cannot pay his utilities and food bill without borrowing money. He has few genuine friends. His only friends are people he gives money to. And he has to borrow the money to give it to them. The people who have loaned him money up to his credit limit no longer have confidence in him, have downgraded his credit rating. And, in fact, he has lost a great deal of his income generating potential. He has snubbed every friend he has whose mores and values are similar to his own and whose loyalty he can count on. He has openly courted so called friends who openly call for his destruction. He is just out of his infancy and older people laugh while he swaggers and boasts that he is the best that ever was knowing full well that greater men than himself have met an untimely and painful demise.

Do I need to go on?

How long would this individual make it? Not long.

Now, pretend this individual is a country. Pretend that country is OUR country.

Because that individual IS our country.
 
Last edited:
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

rabbitcaebannog said:
Complete BS. I find it funny you blame the California Teachers Association as "responsible for the demise of quality education in the state." Fact, CA spends 49th in the nation as far as per pupil spending. Construction is not counted as part of that expenditure for any state so such a pathetic red herring:roll: That sounds incredibly desperate to use. Again, FACT---CA spends less on per pupil spending than 49 other states. Then you gave me a link that proves jack. Many states including my own are using funds to prepare for mandates from the federal government to be prepared to test students by a certain time (has been extended in many places) on national standards. THAT has nothing to do with CA as an individual state. Many places are scurrying to get their technology up to date. If the students in that district can use it for other things, that may be a good thing since technology is important in this day and age, but after reading that article it sounds like they may only be able to afford those devices for test taking. That I find as a waste of money and truly sad.

http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCC_TechnologyGuidelines-V2dot1_FAQ.pdf
Click to expand...

The "ranking" your depending on is based on a selective "teaching staff expenditure per pupil", which is about as bogus a pile of BS as possible. Gee, I guess that's the only spending on education there is in the state. Nothing on administrators, nothing for maintenance, infrastructure, iPads, etc., etc.

In teaching staff expenditure per pupil, California ranked 49th of 51.

I'm sorry to write that your using nothing but crap prepared by sources seeking more funds as a reward for the dismal job they do here.

For one moment, think about this fact. Teachers in California are among the highest paid in the Nation. The k-12 population in the state has been dropping, and is not expected to increase for many years.

With just these simple facts, how is it possible for California to be ranked 49th out of 51 states and D.C.?

Insanity, and I'm sorry to see another victim of this tripe from the CTA and the people they own in Sacramento. 49th?

They built a $500 million High School, and that doesn't count?

Should L.A.'s Billion Dollar Schools be Investigated?: Full Disclosure Network® Report -- LOS ANGELES, Aug. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
The "ranking" your depending on is based on a selective "teaching staff expenditure per pupil", which is about as bogus a pile of BS as possible. Gee, I guess that's the only spending on education there is in the state. Nothing on administrators, nothing for maintenance, infrastructure, iPads, etc., etc.

In teaching staff expenditure per pupil, California ranked 49th of 51.

I'm sorry to write that your using nothing but crap prepared by sources seeking more funds as a reward for the dismal job they do here.

For one moment, think about this fact. Teachers in California are among the highest paid in the Nation. The k-12 population in the state has been dropping, and is not expected to increase for many years.

With just these simple facts, how is it possible for California to be ranked 49th out of 51 states and D.C.?

Insanity, and I'm sorry to see another victim of this tripe from the CTA and the people they own in Sacramento. 49th?

They built a $500 million High School, and that doesn't count?

Should L.A.'s Billion Dollar Schools be Investigated?: Full Disclosure Network® Report -- LOS ANGELES, Aug. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
Click to expand...

The per pupil spending formula is a standard formula used by all public schools. Not something CA invented and is being 'selective' about. Again, maintenance is separate funding from per pupil expenditures. I'm waiting for you to show me what fund(s) that came from in your state, because many times it can and is funded by federal grants. Also, it is commonly known that high cost of living states pay higher teacher salaries, and lower cost of living states pay less. I also stated the fact that the population is dropping doesn't mean much for cost that have accrued over the years and need to be addressed now.
 
Last edited:
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

rabbitcaebannog said:
The per pupil spending formula is a standard formula used by all public schools. Not something CA invented and is being 'selective'. Again, maintenance is separate funding from per pupil expenditures. I'm waiting for you to show me what fund(s) that came from in your state, because many times it can and is funded by federal grants. Also, it is commonly known that high cost of living states pay higher teacher salaries and low cost of living states pay less. I also stated that the fact the population is dropping doesn't mean much for cost that have accrued over the years and need to be attended to now.
Click to expand...

The 49th ranking has nothing to do with actual spending per pupil. Look it up. The wiki link I posted says as much.

Look at the "study" that produced the lie the California Teachers union has spread, along with the administrators in Sacramento.

Obviously talking points are the foundation for the position so many take on this issue.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
The 49th ranking has nothing to do with actual spending per pupil. Look it up. The wiki link I posted says as much.

Look at the "study" that produced the lie the California Teachers union has spread, along with the administrators in Sacramento.

Obviously talking points are the foundation for the position so many take on this issue.
Click to expand...

What on earth does a Wiki link have to do with per pupil spending besides it NOT stating updated information for such spending?

What study may that be? Link please.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

rabbitcaebannog said:
What on earth does a Wiki link have to do with per pupil spending besides it NOT stating updated information for such spending?

What study may that be? Link please.
Click to expand...

What study? The one that resulted in California being ranked 49th. Do you just read such headlines and buy them at face value? Got to love it.

When the California Constitutuion requires the State the earmark 40% of the state budget on education, do you accept that the most populous state in the union, the one with the highest taxes and fees, somehow has among the worst spending in the nation on education?

Here's a hint at who does these "studies":

California national rank on per-pupil spending abysmal, but tide is poised to change

"Factor in cost-of-living considerations and California's place in the pecking order among all 50 states and the District of Columbia is a dismal 49. That's ahead of only Nevada and Utah,according to a widely cited annual January report by Education Week. (Per-pupil spending figures from Education Week include state and local funds, but not federal money, or funds for capital improvements.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
What study? The one that resulted in California being ranked 49th. Do you just read such headlines and buy them at face value? Got to love it.

When the California Constitutuion requires the State the earmark 40% of the state budget on education, do you accept that the most populous state in the union, the one with the highest taxes and fees, somehow has among the worst spending in the nation on education?

Here's a hint at who does these "studies":

California national rank on per-pupil spending abysmal, but tide is poised to change

"Factor in cost-of-living considerations and California's place in the pecking order among all 50 states and the District of Columbia is a dismal 49. That's ahead of only Nevada and Utah,according to a widely cited annual January report by Education Week. (Per-pupil spending figures from Education Week include state and local funds, but not federal money, or funds for capital improvements.
Click to expand...

Interesting because I got my information from EdSource which has zero union backing/funding. As a matter of fact it is funded through Major Donors.

The work of EdSource is made possible through the generous support of private and family foundations, corporations, and individuals. We gratefully acknowledge the following donors for their recent investment in our mission and in our work. http://edsource.org/today/major-donors#.Ut7_DrI8KK0

Glad to see my source was backed up from a second source.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
What study? The one that resulted in California being ranked 49th. Do you just read such headlines and buy them at face value? Got to love it.

When the California Constitutuion requires the State the earmark 40% of the state budget on education, do you accept that the most populous state in the union, the one with the highest taxes and fees, somehow has among the worst spending in the nation on education?

Here's a hint at who does these "studies":

California national rank on per-pupil spending abysmal, but tide is poised to change

"Factor in cost-of-living considerations and California's place in the pecking order among all 50 states and the District of Columbia is a dismal 49. That's ahead of only Nevada and Utah,according to a widely cited annual January report by Education Week. (Per-pupil spending figures from Education Week include state and local funds, but not federal money, or funds for capital improvements.
Click to expand...

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

I always enjoy reading things that end with... "the tide is poised to change." They kinda never seem to say when, though! :mrgreen:
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

rabbitcaebannog said:
Interesting because I got my information from EdSource which has zero union backing/funding. As a matter of fact it is funded through Major Donors.

The work of EdSource is made possible through the generous support of private and family foundations, corporations, and individuals. We gratefully acknowledge the following donors for their recent investment in our mission and in our work. Major Donors | EdSource Today

Glad to see my source was backed up from a second source.
Click to expand...

Nice list of donors. If you care to take the time, you will discover some of the most prolific Progressive operations on the planet. All part of the great Soros Progressive Machine. Check out the Ford Foudation for example. Interesting how they and George Soros are joined at the hip in so many of these trusts and "charitible" organizations. You should learn about Soros' Democracy Alliance.

Then there's the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, the Progressive brains behind the California Education Policy Fund.

As I have been writing, the information you're counting on has all been prepared by those who have a bias, and an interest in more money the CTA is trying to confiscate from taxpayers in California. The Prop 13 story is complete BS. Nothing presented by these highly dubious sources stands up to the smell test. The facts are inescapable.

I have to tell you I am VERY informed and involved in these matters in California, and you truely are in a no-win scenario with this issue you're attempting to debate.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

polgara said:
Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

I always enjoy reading things that end with... "the tide is poised to change." They kinda never seem to say when, though! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...



Morning Polgara :2wave:

Well, the tide did change by raising taxes.....again.

The last election saw Gov. Brown's "education" tax increase on the rich pass with a promise some of the money would actually find it's way there. Interestingly, another measure designed to specifically benefit education, but required a tax increase on all, went down to defeat.

In essence, voters said they didn't want to pay for their childrens education, they wanted the rich to pay for it.

I don't know, but that's an interesting kind of tide, when one considers the amount of hate Progressives are instructing their followers to have towards those they are requiring to educate their children.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
Morning Polgara :2wave:

Well, the tide did change by raising taxes.....again.

The last election saw Gov. Brown's "education" tax increase on the rich pass with a promise some of the money would actually find it's way there. Interestingly, another measure designed to specifically benefit education, but required a tax increase on all, went down to defeat.

In essence, voters said they didn't want to pay for their childrens education, they wanted the rich to pay for it.

I don't know, but that's an interesting kind of tide, when one considers the amount of hate Progressives are instructing their followers to have towards those they are requiring to educate their children.
Click to expand...

:agree: However, one has to assume that the followers must be like-minded, or they wouldn't buy into it. What's scary to me is they want control of the children at earlier and earlier ages all the time. Now it's pre-preschool? Teaching them that it's okay to hate each other ...what a sick society we are devolving into! I'm beginning to think that being taught "reading, writing, and arithmetic" by robots who have no emotional ax to grind might be the solution! When did the tide change that absolved parents from their responsibilities? :shock:
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

All empires eventually fail. It may take hundreds of years but all empires eventually fall apart. Sadly I think we're already headed that way.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

polgara said:
:agree: However, one has to assume that the followers must be like-minded, or they wouldn't buy into it. What's scary to me is they want control of the children at earlier and earlier ages all the time. Now it's pre-preschool? Teaching them that it's okay to hate each other ...what a sick society we are devolving into! I'm beginning to think that being taught "reading, writing, and arithmetic" by robots who have no emotional ax to grind might be the solution! When did the tide change that absolved parents from their responsibilities? :shock:
Click to expand...

When did the tide change? Well, despite the good intensions, it could be argued it started on August 20, 1964.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
When did the tide change? Well, despite the good intensions, it could be argued it started on August 20, 1964.
Click to expand...

I had to google the date it because nothing came to mind. Are you referring to President Johnson signing the Economic Opportunity Act? If so, you're probably right! :mrgreen:
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

ocean515 said:
Well, certainly Democrats share nothing in common with what was called Democrat 30 years ago. For example, the radicals known as Progressives have infected the Democrat party, and seem hellbent on creating more economic problems like they have in California. When the citizens in the other 49 states truley understand the damage they are causing, they will eliminate the movement, just as it was eliminated in the early 1900's.

IMO, these are cyclic societal outbreaks that are no different than those of the past, and from which the country will return from, as it continues with it's capitalist and freedom focused foundation.
Click to expand...

By and large, today's Democratic Party is not nearly as liberal as it once was. For example, LBJ was well to the left of Obama. FDR was well to the left of any modern Democrat. The only area where Democrats are more liberal today is on some social issues.
 
Re: What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of Amer

polgara said:
I had to google the date it because nothing came to mind. Are you referring to President Johnson signing the Economic Opportunity Act? If so, you're probably right! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

When the government said, "don't worry about it", far too many agreed to follow the instruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom