Quote:When you have ... young people wandering around without diplomas...
... you have young people that are going to be the least likely to be hired in a tight labor market. Perhaps someone should have explained that to them before they dropped out of school.
Government does not exist to protect the individual from the consequences of his or her choices in life.
Tw
I am sure that many among them went to school and have diplomas. However that is irrelevant. They are potentially a problem for themselves and the nation. We cannot afford to say it's your own fault so suffer and turn a blind eye. Should we turn a blind eye these individuals are our future criminals, homeless and welfare cases.Something must be done now to if not to cure the problem at least minimize it. I should point out that in the past many of these people would have found employment in blue collar industries. Unfortunately, many of those industries have been lost to foreign competition.
au1929 wrote:I am sure that many among them went to school and have diplomas.
Not according to your source.
au1929 wrote:However that is irrelevant. They are potentially a problem for themselves and the nation. We cannot afford to say it's your own fault so suffer and turn a blind eye. Should we turn a blind eye these individuals are our future criminals, homeless and welfare cases. Something must be done now to if not to cure the problem at least minimize it.
Is it your contention that the federal government exists to cure or ameliorate every problem inherent in the human condition?
Tw - that's what a democracy is about! At least in part - no?
Lw
U.S. Economy in Worst Hiring Slump in 20 Years
By DAVID LEONHARDT
The economy has fallen into its worst hiring slump in
almost 20 years, and business executives say they remain
unsure when it will end.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/business/06JOBS.html?th
Note these are people who are well educated and skilled.
What chance does someone graduating from high school have of landing a job
I should note that in times past when this occurred people went to collage or stayed in college earning advanced degrees, of course that when the costs were negligible or non existent. Today costs will make that virtually impossible.
I remember in the 30's [ancient history] before the war most of the older guys in the neighborhood went to Brooklyn or City college simply because there were no jobs to be had. Just a thought.
No diplomas>>>>no jobs?
Ha!Ha! Look at all the lawyers with their JD degrees, who're now unemployed because the law firms are closing.
I suggest as good careers: Plumbers and locksmiths.
LW
I am saying the federal government has a responsibility to do what ever it can to ameliorate a potential problem. One that will eventually rise up and hit them and in essence the people of the nation in the a$$. After all the federal government is not some distant foreign power but supposedly we the people. Although I many times find that hard to believe. It's pay me now or pay me more later.
Careful with that TW and LW! Government should do what they can to promote education of all citizens -- Bush is trying to do this but he hasn't a clue what course to take. He's schizo on this subject. Jefferson built and operated a free university where anyone could come and study -- so I guess that makes Jefferson the incorrigible socialist.
littlek wrote:Tw - that's what a democracy is about! At least in part - no?
No.
First, our federal government is not a democracy. (That's not splitting hairs, it's a very important distinction.)
Second, what our federal government "is about" is clearly defined in our Constitution. While some of the enumerated powers might be considered efforts to ameliorate a problem or problems inherent in the human condition, it is quite obvious--from the limitations on those powers--that the federal government is neither charged with nor empowered to undertake such a fundamentally impossible task.
Third, a democracy--by definition--"is about" whatever the majority of voters think that society should be "about". This means that if the voters in a democracy think people should be left to deal with the repercussions of their choices, that would be the law of the land.
I guess in trying to promote Democracy around the world, we don't really have the true product to sell. We have a complex Spartan style republic driven by a mega-buraucracy that simple nobody out there is going to understand. In other words, we're trying to sell a product we don't have complete confidence in ourselves. Everytime a problem is supposedly overcome, the hue and cry of "see, the system works" is brought up again and it sounds suspiciously like whistling in the dark. The truth for me is that this system just barely works and there's not one of the political forces that have all the answers, conservative, liberal, libetarians or all the other labels bourne or tagged onto individuals. They appear to be experimenting in a kind of a Josef Mengele "let's operate on this and see what happens" mentality.
Lightwizard wrote:I guess in trying to promote Democracy around the world, we don't really have the true product to sell. ... In other words, we're trying to sell a product we don't have complete confidence in ourselves.
This might be true were we attempting to create a
United States-style government anywhere else in the world. This--to my knowledge--we have never done. What we have done, are doing in Afghanistan, and will do in Iraq if we remove Saddam from power, is encourage them to create a constitution of their own, with a government selected by the people and sworn to uphold that constitution.
This broad concept is one that I believe we have successfully sold and in which we do have complete confidence.
Just what is a United States style of government? Is that something which is currently in fashion?
There are two political philosophies which drive the American system, the liberal and the conservative. The liberal, most often the Democrat but not always, sees the American Republic as a powerful means to make life better for the vast majority of it's citizens. As a means to this end Democrats have passed/created Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, Workmen's Compensation (for injuries sustained while on the job), anti-trust laws, Fairness in Lending and Housing Laws, Right to Unionize Laws and the related right to strike and arbitration laws, laws that protect a workers right to health insurance in case of layoff. In addition, Democrats have led the way historically in passing purity in Medications regulations, and Health care and cleanliness acts for restaurants and food stores. Democrats began the efforts that led Richard Nixon into signing the act that created the EPA, Environmental Protection Act, and the original Occupation and Safety Hazard Acts. It was the liberal philosophy that was the driving force behind the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's and the Voting Rights Acts of the same period. It has been liberal Democrats who have supported this nation's efforts in science, math, and general education. Whether through the creation of NASA or the Department of Education, it has been liberal Democrats who have tried to make this a more literate nation.
Liberals believe that protecting the rights of the powerless we make this Republic, as a whole, more powerful. Liberals like the Constitution but they love the Bill of Rights because the Articles address the machine of the Republic and how it shall work, but the Bill of Rights talks directly of the freedoms that all the citizens of this nation shall enjoy. Oh, and yes, Democrats passed tax laws to raise the revenues to pay for all these programs, SS taxes, Unemployment Taxes, Incomes Taxes, Tariffs, Fees and other methods of funding this gigantic experiment in Democracy.
Conservatives believe that government ought to do as little as possible to involve itself into it's citizen's daily life, with some exceptions. There is a phrase, popular at one time, that the Federal Government ought to run the Army, deliver the mail and leave us alone. It's a very fine phrase, most often spoken by people with plenty of power over their own lives and not much regard for anyone without such power.
Conservatives make exceptions when they are passing Farm, Tobacco and Sugar Subsidies and other forms of welfare to business like when they insure loans to Corporations while cutting educational funding, while cutting taxes on everything in sight without regard to the size of the deficits those cuts create. (Note: Up until R. Reagan's terms, the Conservative view on deficit spending was to be furiously opposed to it, once Ronald Reagan's deficits soared to record heights they became acceptable and when Clinton had a surplus year, they were deemed unimportant.) Conservatives like big military budgets, small social program budgets and no budget at all in support of the Arts or Sciences.
They believe in the goodness of men, god bless them, that if we just leave business to mind it's own business that everything will be hunky-dory. (Do not refer here to Enron, Global Crossing et al.) Conservatives believe that there ought not to be any of the liberal programs listed above and they would also disband the SEC. They ignore racism, think that poverty, healthcare, and the general welfare are beyond the powers of any government to control. They love the Second Amendment but are not much inclined to cheer the First or the Sixth. They believe that protecting the powerful enables the powerful to share their power with the citizens as a whole, whether this actually happens or not is not within their power to control. Conservatives believe that you ought to be able to live your own life freely unless you are gay, have an unwanted pregnantcy or are named Clinton.
I apologize to any Conservative who might think I have mis-portrayed their philosophy. I have been puzzled my whole life as to why anyone would want to be both a conservative and an American, but then, I was well educated. If any Conservative would like to tell me how the conservative philosophy benefits more people than the liberal, I am all ears.
I am the average Joe.
Joe Nation
Yeah, Joe, I too am all aquiver - anticipating an enlightening reply from a conservative who'd be so kind as to educate us.
JoeN - A well written commentary on your viewpoint. I especially liked this statement:
Quote:The liberal, most often the Democrat but not always, sees the American Republic as a powerful means to make life better for the vast majority of it's citizens.
Where I disagree with you on this is that I think this describes
both the liberal and the conservative point of view. The difference is in how each believes the government acts as "a powerful means to make life better for the vast majority of it's citizens".
It seems to me that liberals believe the government does this by taking money from those who earn it and using it to better the lives of those who did not. By definition this has a negative impact on the standard of living of every earner, above and beyond the predictable tax burden each would have if the government did not engage in these wealth-transfer programs.
Conservatives believe that everyone is better off if the government embraces achievement, rather than penalizing it, and that programs that encourage hard work and entrepreneurship do more to raise the standard of living for everyone than programs that exist to shield some people from the logical--albeit undesirable--results of the decisions they make in life. Far from suggesting that conservatives think people who make bad choices in life are of no concern, conservatives believe the policies they promote--which assert personal accountability--result in fewer people making bad choices across our society.
Lastly, as to farm subsidies and other "conservative" policies you mentioned; while I recognize that these are championed by some conservatives, I do not consider these to be "conservative" policies, because they run contrary to the core conservative principles of small, constitutional government, personal accountability, and a free, unfettered and unprotected marketplace.
My apologies to any who feel my interpretation of the liberal point of view was of the mark.
i do believe that Health-Education-Welfare come under the heading of Life-Liberty-Pursuit of Happiness. the conservative cannot expect persons to fulfill their potential without ready access to these and yet conservative fiscal policy almost always minimizes these in favor of fiscal benefits for big business.
dyslexia wrote:i do believe that Health-Education-Welfare come under the heading of Life-Liberty-Pursuit of Happiness. the conservative cannot expect persons to fulfill their potential without ready access to these and yet conservative fiscal policy almost always minimizes these in favor of fiscal benefits for big business.
I can understand that point of view, but then "Life-Liberty-Pursuit of Happiness" are not words one finds in the Constitution, associated with enumerated powers. (They are of course, very important concepts raised in the Declaration of Independence. A fine document, but not the blueprint for how our federal system of government is to be run.)
And it isn't that a conservative disagrees on the importance of these issues, but rather on whether the federal government should play a role in attempting to ensure these things for the people.
