• 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!

adults and responsibility

where does the main issue lie?

  • There are factors we do not yet understand

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • these may seem like a failure of programs but are for the best for society

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
In today's complex society, do you feel that common failures we find in leaving outcomes up to the population to be a matter of insufficient discipline and moral behavior, insufficient education, misplaces expectations, or something else.

I will build this poll with an example. In the 80s, we instituted the 401k program and now most people can't afford to retire. Another example is the expectation that people become more educated in order to compete for jobs, which the results have been less than optimal with a huge student loan debt issue and education inflation for jobs.

I'm not sure which adults we're talking about. They're a diverse bunch.
 
Beginning with Ronald Reagan and continuing through the present, we have suffered from a complete failure of leadership. The greatest flaw was accepting the "service economy" as an alternative to a labor oriented productive economy. That is the something else that I chose. The battle between Management and Labor in the USA was won by management.
 
Nothing but anecdotal evidence and a sense of recent (5 decade) history. My generation grew up with the "do your own thing" motto, which had the unspoken assumption that you didn't hurt people. That's a very ("classic") liberal stance. Some liberals have gone off the rails and taken it too far but I've seen no evidence that it's endemic.


I have as yet to see the Dems insist on controlling people's thoughts - at least, any more than any other political organization. They push for anti-discrimination laws (or getting rid of discriminatory laws) but I've not seen much evidence of thought police.

They like to take other people's money.
 
What you describe isn't liberalization, it's some kind of sheep-like, groupthink passivity that's the antithesis of liberal. Liberals believe in personal freedoms and power over all considerations of group, government or good-for-the-country.

At one time that was the definition, but no longer.
 
They like to take other people's money.
That has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican - or even Libertarian for that matter. Every political party/government in every country on earth for a very, very long time (and for the foreseeable future) has collected taxes.
 
Last edited:
That has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican - or even Libertarian for that matter. Every political party/government in every country on earth for a very, very long time (and for the foreseeable future) has collected taxes.

Talk about blowing the context. :roll:
 
People are generally talking about over-taxation, and most people know that.
"Over-taxation" has no objective meaning.


Should we compare the over-spending of Conservative Bush to the balanced budget he was handed by a liberal President?
 
"Over-taxation" has no objective meaning.


Should we compare the over-spending of Conservative Bush to the balanced budget he was handed by a liberal President?

Sure that was a projected surplus, and there was a recession going on when Bush took office, and yes he spent too ****ing much. Every conservative I know disagreed with the increased spending across the board that went on. The govt taxes and spends too much.
 
Sure that was a projected surplus, and there was a recession going on when Bush took office, and yes he spent too ****ing much. Every conservative I know disagreed with the increased spending across the board that went on. The govt taxes and spends too much.
I agree it spends too much in general. I don't agree that all of Obama's increased spending was unneeded. If you're using that little blip of a recession that Bush had as an excuse, then obviously Obama inherited a whopper - The Great Bush Recession.


But we're stuck with the taxes, even with lower spending, until such time as the national debt is reduced to reasonable levels, which also includes the GDP catching up to it through inflation.
 
Last edited:
Good questions.

I can't help but think the top 3 are really all one and the same though ultimately.
 
that might fit under insufficient education, but then again, you can lead a horse to water ...

You mention all these carrots, 401Ks, education, etc. What sticks are we using to shape outcomes? They are essential to any such endeavor, yet it seems government is capable on these sorts of big issues only to be able to offer carrots and no sticks. Perhaps if the other horses see that the horse that wouldn't drink got whipped terribly, they'd magically start drinking. Of course, with us violence is not neither good nor likely to be effective long term...but some serious negatives reinforcement appears to be missing.

So you don't save for retirement, government still carries you. So you don't pay back your loan, government still takes care of you. Buy too big a home and earn too little, we got that covered. Don't want to go where the jobs are but prefer your hometown, we got it.
 
I agree it spends too much in general. I don't agree that all of Obama's increased spending was unneeded. If you're using that little blip of a recession that Bush had as an excuse, then obviously Obama inherited a whopper - The Great Bush Recession.


But we're stuck with the taxes, even with lower spending, until such time as the national debt is reduced to reasonable levels, which also includes the GDP catching up to it through inflation.

I'm not making any excuses, and I resent you implying that I did. You know damn well I wasn't, I was disagreeing that there was a surplus, it was a myth put out by the Clinton Admin that was proven to be unfounded. Yet liberals run around still to this day saying there was one, showing the old graphs that Clinton put out. It was a lie, when Bush should up for work there wasn't an extra penny to be found, and there was a recession in fact Clinton complained that Bush was causing it by talking about it during his campaign. I remember distinctly Clinton claiming that Bush was causing the recession by merely talking about it. Furthermore in no way did I say that the lack of a surplus made it okay for Bush to spend lots of money like Obama did. I disagree with Bush then, and I still do today.
 
I'm not making any excuses, and I resent you implying that I did. You know damn well I wasn't, I was disagreeing that there was a surplus, it was a myth put out by the Clinton Admin that was proven to be unfounded. Yet liberals run around still to this day saying there was one, showing the old graphs that Clinton put out. It was a lie, when Bush should up for work there wasn't an extra penny to be found, and there was a recession in fact Clinton complained that Bush was causing it by talking about it during his campaign. I remember distinctly Clinton claiming that Bush was causing the recession by merely talking about it. Furthermore in no way did I say that the lack of a surplus made it okay for Bush to spend lots of money like Obama did. I disagree with Bush then, and I still do today.
Then, once again, you need to be more clear when you communicate because it sure looked like you were making excuses when you mentioned a recession. Why would you bother mentioning it otherwise?


There's more than just Clinton's charts and projected budget showing a surplus. Which source would you consider acceptable and why?
 
Back
Top Bottom