Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

so the govt should ignore basic demographics ie.,boomers retiring and the anticipated cost of SS Medicaid Medicare because projections are silly to liberals??

 

probably true but with higher taxes, lower private sector growth, and thus a lower standard of living.

 

it adds inefficient public jobs at expense of competitive private jobs and thus decreases our standard of living. 1+1=2

 

no longer a desire to support libsocialism after it slowly starved 120 million human souls to death? Why not take a vacation in the USSR like Bernie did. That is sure to rejuvenate your tired soul. Maybe you can visit the graves of the 120 million?

 

A projection beyond the next few years is not worth the paper it is written on. I suggest you take a good look at a book called "The Black Swan" to understand the folly of using modeling. As for the immediate future, we can easily fix the made up issue of unfunded liabilities by the federal government by understanding what fiat money can do for us. Currently the average person believes in a macro economic model based upon the old gold standard. That is the key first step in resolving these issues.

 

Don't be such a simpleton. It was science denialism, specifically of the theory of genetics, that lead to decreased crop yields. Look up, Trofim Lysenko. Take the time learn.

 

It was science did nihilism that caused 120 million to starve to death? Such a thing could never happened in a decentralized republican capitalist system therefore Lib socialism killed 120 million human souls and liberalism should be made illegal as our founders intended and for the reason that our founders intended.

 

demographic projections tell us exactly how many people will turn 65 every year. 1+1 = 2

 

Just wondering: what would be the outcome for all those people who would remain uneducated, because their parents cannot afford to pay for education (which is your stated position)?

'Poverty prevents them from breeding' is your stated position, but that's not what I heard from a taxi driver in India, commenting on all the hands reaching into his cab while stopped at traffic lights: "they breed too much because they don't have jobs, because they live in poverty".

 

A basic education (12 years, or more if you fail any grades) is provided all, and that should be enough to allow one to be capable of finding some employment which can fund acquiring additional education if found necessary. Perhaps we need to adjust what is being taught in secondary schooling to what is most necessary to gain employment?

While I can accept that "people live in poverty because they don't have jobs", I would have to say that "they breed too much when they should be concentrating on finding a job."

 

"Our founders" envisioned a government, inter alia, concerned with "promotion of the general welfare", impossible for a purely capitalist system to achieve by itself, in the absence of a complementary public sector.

 

Sure; but how would such 'adjustment' have helped the students in Detroit c1970 on? An education re global competition and global trade may have been far more important in changing that city's fate....

 

whaaa...... Is that ^^ a sentence? I can't make any sense of it.

Well, that's not a sentence either but in this case I think I get what you're trying so poorly to say, and I say it's BS until you provide a reliable link, not only to verify it, but to also clarify what in hell you're talking about. Sounds like a personal opinion to me.

 

Yes, the preamble states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And Article I, Section 8 states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It appears that there has been a great amount of disagreement over the interpretation of the meaning of those words in our Constitution even when it was newly created.

The preamble, as I was taught, speaks to the people while Article I and the Sections contained are meant to define the Federal government in relation to the States, not the individual people who reside in each State, forming a Union NOT a Unitary of multiple States, United as the means of protecting and preserving the freedom and liberty of the people of each State to govern themselves with minimal constraint imposed by a Central government.

 

Clarify what you're referring to have began happening in Detroit c1970 on.

 

Sure. Depends on whether you think insuring 'domestic tranquillity' and the 'general welfare', inter alia, can be achieved without public sector intervention in local, as well as in the national community's economic life. Individuals have widely varying capabilities and strengths.

BTW, notice the outcome of the right to possession of firearms for all, in a misguided attempt to achieve personal security and self-defense (disregarding the possibility of achieving domestic tranquillity by other means) : police now so paranoid and trigger-happy that an innocent woman, calling for assistance, is herself slaughtered in the street.

 

(c.1960, actually).

At that time, a prosperous city of c.1.8 million people, with a unionised workforce receiving good middle class wages.

Unions or no unions, the external forces bought to bear on the city (from those years on) resulted in depopulation and pauperisation of the city, resulting in the much-reduced present population of c700,000, suffering some of the highest crime and poverty rates in the nation, and the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history.

No mere 'adjustment' to the curriculum of secondary education - devoted solely to preparing a student to enter the workforce - would have saved the city.

And in the present (dysfunctional) global economy, today's students are facing exactly the same pernicious economic processes. Ask Trump.

G20 riots? Students engaged and confident of achieving worthwhile participation in their nations' economies don't rampage through the streets, destroying property and risking personal injury.

 

Yes, it not only can be but needs to be if we are to continue calling it the United States of America.
Another topic, and I'm not familiar with an incident you refer to, but it would appear to confirm the fact that we are becoming more divided as a result of government continually pitting us against one another with statements like "when they bring a knife, we bring a gun".

 

From what I've found, Detroit reached a peak population of 1.8 million in 1950.
And Detroit has been run under a Democrat government since January 2, 1962
If there are no jobs available it would make no difference if all the people had a college degree or not.
You mention external forces being brought to bear upon the city, am I to assume there were no internal forces such as municipal debts involved?
It would appear that 1.1 million people took corrective action and found employment elsewhere.
G20 riots? In Detroit?

 

1+1 = 2 centralized totalitarian power caused 120 million people to starve to death in the USSR and read China. If you have decentralized Republican capitalism mistaken policies affect only a few people.

 

Yes America is becoming more divided because liberals are becoming more communist and more anti-American. Bernie Sanders perfectly represents this he is more Soviet Than American

 

General welfare? If you have evidence of that I would be quite shocked. Do you like making things up just for the fun of it?

 

Prepare to be shocked.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

duh

 

So individuals, with their widely differing capabilities and tendencies (both good and evil) and strongly-held attitudes, eg, "greed is good" - so you think "domestic tranquillity" and the "general welfare" can be achieved without public sector oversight?

Eg, James is actually shocked by the concept of "general welfare".

The government is not "pitting us against one another" as you believe; some individuals are already committed (whether consciously or not) to an instinctive "survival of the fittest" world view that's got nothing to do with government and everything to do with individual self-interest regardless of consequences for the Tranquillity and General Welfare of the entire community.

 

Without going to excesses, yes. All our laws should be to protect everyone equally in their pursuit of happiness, not to provide it.

James, like each of us has opinions, which I often disagree with simply due to the way he presents them. So I ignore him, and don't care to make him the topic of discussion.

I disagree strongly, politicians who comprise our government most certainly do pit us against one another. Read the daily news stories sometime.
Survival has always required effort on the part of the individual. In what way are you applying the word "fittest" to represent, healthiest, wealthiest, or something else? I've had many friends who were healthier and/or wealthier than I who passed away long before reaching my age.
Tranquility is maintained by the application of laws meant to protect us from violence by others, obviously most often after the fact.
General welfare is provided in the form of infrastructure taxpayers have been willing to fund the creation and maintenance of such as roads, public schools, water, sewage treatment and waste disposal, power lines, bridges, etc. which allow access and availability regardless of ones health or wealth. Essentially, nothing more than an environment which enables us all to partake from. Note that our Constitution uses the term "general Welfare" not "individual Welfare" and in the preamble, which speaks of and to the people the word "promote" is used, while in Article I, Section 8 the word "provide" is used in reference to the States which would support the Federal governments Constitutional right in taxing all for funding/creating a rail system, interstate highways, some bridges, etc. which allow commerce to more easily take place between the States.