Where is the US economy headed?

By the way, do you know of one child that has starved to death in this country lately? You make ridiculous charges. Back it up with evidence. As far as I have been hearing, our children are suffering from obesity, not starving, and that includes children in poverty.

0 Replies

okie :

Quote:

As far as I have been hearing, our children are suffering from obesity, not starving, and that includes children in poverty

i hope you are not confusing "signs" of obesity - such as a big belly - with being well nourished .
there is no reason at all why any children in north-america ( the U.S. and canada) should not receive a well-balanced diet .
you might well argue that it is the the responsibility of the parents to provide good and sufficient nourishment for their children .
while i "basically" agree with that , obese and malnourished chidren will be a burden to society as a whole .
talking about "parents' responsibility" doesn't help much once those children get sick , can't keep up in school ... ... they become a burden to (AND the responsibility of ) society as a whole - whether we like it or not .
far better to insure that all babies and children are well-nourished from an early age on - it perhaps sounds like "socialism" - to me it sounds like "common sense" (pay a little now or pay more , much more) later on .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

okie :

Quote:
As far as I have been hearing, our children are suffering from obesity, not starving, and that includes children in poverty

i hope you are not confusing "signs" of obesity - such as a big belly - with being well nourished .

no.

Quote:

there is no reason at all why any children in north-america ( the U.S. and canada) should not receive a well-balanced diet .

Tell that to the parents and the kids, and the schools.

Quote:

you might well argue that it is the the responsibility of the parents to provide good and sufficient nourishment for their children .

You are correct, that is the point.

Quote:

while i "basically" agree with that , obese and malnourished chidren will be a burden to society as a whole .
talking about "parents' responsibility" doesn't help much once those children get sick , can't keep up in school ... ... they become a burden to (AND the responsibility of ) society as a whole - whether we like it or not .

Blaming everything on government does not accomplish anything if it isn't the government's fault or responsibility.

Quote:

far better to insure that all babies and children are well-nourished from an early age on - it perhaps sounds like "socialism" - to me it sounds like "common sense" (pay a little now or pay more , much more) later on .
hbg

And there are programs to help with that, such as WICK or whatever it is, food stamps, whatever, but if the parents buy pop and potato chips with food stamps, that isn't the rest of our fault. Anytime there is a problem, it is the same old song, the same old refrain, it is our fault and government has not done enough. I repeat to cyclops and to you, do you have any evidence of anybody starving here lately? In contrast, look around, there is plenty of evidence of irresponsible eating habits.

But my main point is cyclops throws out the same old thing that some like to say, that why feed people in Iraq if people are starving to death here, but the problem with that is that nobody is starving to death here, or if they do its because of child neglect. There are enough programs already to avoid malnutrition, let alone preventing death due to starvation. By the way, visit any fast food place or a Walmart and count the number of people that look like they are starving to death.

0 Replies

okie wrote :

Quote:

Blaming everything on government does not accomplish anything if it isn't the government's fault or responsibility.

you are reading something i did NOT write .

here is what i did write :

Quote:

while i "basically" agree with that , obese and malnourished chidren will be a burden to society as a whole .
talking about "parents' responsibility" doesn't help much once those children get sick , can't keep up in school ... ... they become a burden to (AND the responsibility of ) society as a whole - whether we like it or not .
far better to insure that all babies and children are well-nourished from an early age on - it perhaps sounds like "socialism" - to me it sounds like "common sense" (pay a little now or pay more , much more) later on .

it seems that the present system does not offer a solution to the problem - sometimes one has to find a new and better solution - i wouldn't care what name is given to it - as long as it works and gets the job done - or society will have to pay (that's you and i and everyone else) .

anyone who supports capitalism would be happy to invest into a something that has as big a pay-off as well-nourished children , namely healthy and productive citizens . there is no better investment imo .
hbg

0 Replies

I agree to a point, but I would place the emphasis on the responsibilities of parents. We do not hear much these days about something called "citizenship." Freedom requires responsibility, and no amount of government is going to fix the problem of personal irresponsibility.

"The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield."
President Thomas Jefferson

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

0 Replies

okie wrote:

"The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield."
President Thomas Jefferson

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Well. Yes.

Can be said for the economical aspect of how big a nanny state you're living in. But it's also true for the issue of safety, and how Big Brother you allow the government to become.

Two sides. Same coin.

0 Replies

Quote:

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

okie :
i would interpret that to also mean that those that are NOT weak or timid are charged with ensuring the freedom of the weak and the timid - i suspect that president eisenhower might not have disagreed with that .
i certainly doubt that he would have wanted to abandon the weak or timid - i seem to recall that he was a good christian .

i'm sure you'll give equal weight to these words by president eisenhower :

Quote:

Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

pretty strong words from someone who knew war and it's aftermath first hand - wouldn't you agree ?
hbg

0 Replies

okie represents the problems we face today; we're spending more on prisoners than we are on our children. While we close our schools, we build more prisons.

Figure that out, okie, if you can.

0 Replies

Quote:

okie represents the problems we face today; we're spending more on prisoners than we are on our children. While we close our schools, we build more prisons.

doesn't sound as if president eisenhower would have been supportive of such policy/action .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

Quote:
okie represents the problems we face today; we're spending more on prisoners than we are on our children. While we close our schools, we build more prisons.

doesn't sound as if president eisenhower would have been supportive of such policy/action .
hbg

I was a small kid when Eisenhower was president, so I am not ignorant of what he was about. My parents talked about Eisenhower around the table with neighbors on a regular basis. Also, I have mentioned it before, but I have an article here titled, "Why I am a Republican," written by Ike, which pretty much summarizes his life philosophy.
Because of what I have learned about the man, I am a fan of Eisenhower. He was a champion of individual rights, and responsibilities. I am very convinced that Ike would be aghast at the left wing world of today.

You make silly statements about building more prisons than schools. So what is your solution, turn all the criminals loose to prey on law abiding citizens? You are addressing the symptom, not the problem. The problem is that society is turning out too many criminals. Government is not failing children, except the government schools are a big failure I would say that, but primarily it is the parents that are failing their children. Ike would have said we are failing to carry out our responsibilities as citizens, and that we need to encourage two parent families, marriage, and responsible citizenship. I am quite convinced that he would have never proposed that it was government's responsibility to fix all of this. And where are we closing schools? You guys make such outlandish statements. First people are starving to death, now this. We are spending far more per student than ever, if you care to find out, compare what it was when Eisenhower was president.

Hamburger, Ike had a distaste for war, but he nevertheless recognized the reality of the need for it, and the need for a strong national defense. If you doubt it, do not take his statements out of context, but read more detail about the man.

0 Replies

I challenge anyone, Ragman, hamburger, ci, anybody, to read the following and then contend that culture and responsibility of the family, plus the absolute failure of government run schools do not influence the economy in a huge way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html

If the Congress had an ounce of brains, this is what they would be holding hearings on right now, instead of grilling people that are actually out there working and doing something productive.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I challenge anyone, Ragman, hamburger, ci, anybody, to read the following and then contend that culture and responsibility of the family, plus the absolute failure of government run schools do not influence the economy in a huge way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html

If the Congress had an ounce of brains, this is what they would be holding hearings on right now, instead of grilling people that are actually out there working and doing something productive.

What's your point?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I challenge anyone, Ragman, hamburger, ci, anybody, to read the following and then contend that culture and responsibility of the family, plus the absolute failure of government run schools do not influence the economy in a huge way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html

If the Congress had an ounce of brains, this is what they would be holding hearings on right now, instead of grilling people that are actually out there working and doing something productive.

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as an unconstitutional, unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.

Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.

Rather, the primary function of the Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I never said that at all. I am simply pointing out the parents are the first ones responsible, and that the government is not 100% responsible for everyone's children. Do you think so?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Certainly not Iraqi children.

I agree with the above posters, that it's a damn shame, when we let people starve to death here in America, while spending billions per week on a useless war in far-off Iraq.

okie wrote:

So you don't care about children in Iraq, or I suppose in Africa or anywhere else either I don't suppose. Based on that, why should you care about children in another state, or another county, or for that matter, in somebody else's house

It never fails to amaze me that there is such a strong contingent of Amercans who complain about and criticize the socialist "nanny state" (which, by design, was intended to elevate the standard of living for people in the country) in America but wholeheartedly advocate the elevating of the standard of living of people in a foreign country.

Cy's point, if I understand him correctly, is that there are billions spent each week in Iraq to "liberate the Iraqis", yet there are 30-40 million Americans living at or below the poverty line who do not have a contingent in the government who would apporoach with the same zeal, their economic or social liberation.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as an unconstitutional, unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.

The U.S. built the most advanced and strongest industrialized country in the world before the Federal department of education was created by Carter.

Again, my point was in regard to culture, combined with the failure of schools, but typical of many here, the culprit is always what government is doing or not doing. We do need "change," but more money and big government thrown at the problem is not what we need. It is addressing the symptom instead of the problem in my opinion.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as an unconstitutional, unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.

The U.S. built the most advanced and strongest industrialized country in the world before the Federal department of education was created by Carter.

Again, my point was in regard to culture, combined with the failure of schools, but typical of many here, the culprit is always what government is doing or not doing. We do need "change," but more money and big government thrown at the problem is not what we need. It is addressing the symptom instead of the problem in my opinion.

okie wrote:

If the Congress had an ounce of brains, this is what they would be holding hearings on right now, instead of grilling people that are actually out there working and doing something productive.

make up your mind okie.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as an unconstitutional, unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.

The U.S. built the most advanced and strongest industrialized country in the world before the Federal department of education was created by Carter.

Again, my point was in regard to culture, combined with the failure of schools, but typical of many here, the culprit is always what government is doing or not doing. We do need "change," but more money and big government thrown at the problem is not what we need. It is addressing the symptom instead of the problem in my opinion.

okie, You need to educate yourself about topics you know very little about. In California, we spend $8,000 on our students every year, while we spend over $40,000 for our prisoners. We're number 37 in spending for our children for their education. After Bush implemented his NCLB federal mandate, many of our schools were closed, because they failed to meet standards without the necessary funding to meet those standards.

Meanwhile, we're spending 2.7 billion every week in Iraq on a war that sees no end. That money, our tax dollars, are being spent that does nothing for our children; their health or education.

Your myopia about "parent's responsibility" doesn't even come close in addressing the priorities for the American People.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

It never fails to amaze me that there is such a strong contingent of Amercans who complain about and criticize the socialist "nanny state" (which, by design, was intended to elevate the standard of living for people in the country) in America but wholeheartedly advocate the elevating of the standard of living of people in a foreign country.

Cy's point, if I understand him correctly, is that there are billions spent each week in Iraq to "liberate the Iraqis", yet there are 30-40 million Americans living at or below the poverty line who do not have a contingent in the government who would apporoach with the same zeal, their economic or social liberation.

I am in favor of elevating the standard of living here, but my solutions are different than cyclops. In Iraq, it is not our job to manage their affairs, but we do believe in helping them to help themselves. I am not happy with the situation there, but we made a decision and we should see it through, not cut and run at this point. Not only Iraq, I don't think this needs to be an argument over foreign aid money. They are two separate problems. In contrast, we can tell ourselves how to run this country, and I think education needs drastic reform as one piece of the puzzle of the economic future here.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
dyslexia wrote:

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as an unconstitutional, unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.

The U.S. built the most advanced and strongest industrialized country in the world before the Federal department of education was created by Carter.

Again, my point was in regard to culture, combined with the failure of schools, but typical of many here, the culprit is always what government is doing or not doing. We do need "change," but more money and big government thrown at the problem is not what we need. It is addressing the symptom instead of the problem in my opinion.

okie wrote:
If the Congress had an ounce of brains, this is what they would be holding hearings on right now, instead of grilling people that are actually out there working and doing something productive.
make up your mind okie.

Clueless as usual.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
dyslexia wrote:

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as an unconstitutional, unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs.

The U.S. built the most advanced and strongest industrialized country in the world before the Federal department of education was created by Carter.

Again, my point was in regard to culture, combined with the failure of schools, but typical of many here, the culprit is always what government is doing or not doing. We do need "change," but more money and big government thrown at the problem is not what we need. It is addressing the symptom instead of the problem in my opinion.

okie, You need to educate yourself about topics you know very little about. In California, we spend $8,000 on our students every year, while we spend over $40,000 for our prisoners. We're number 37 in spending for our children for their education. After Bush implemented his NCLB federal mandate, many of our schools were closed, because they failed to meet standards without the necessary funding to meet those standards.

Meanwhile, we're spending 2.7 billion every week in Iraq on a war that sees no end. That money, our tax dollars, are being spent that does nothing for our children; their health or education.

Your myopia about "parent's responsibility" doesn't even come close in addressing the priorities for the American People.

So your myopia about government is better?

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know