Socialism explained

[Key Guy]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

KeyGuy's comments: Even God rewards His children, promising, 'Great is your reward in Heaven'. On what does He base His reward?

[lazarus]

KeyGuy's comments: Even God rewards His children, promising, 'Great is your reward in Heaven'. On what does He base His reward?

Let's hear your answer.

[lazarus]

A simple illustration but also simplistic.

From Wiki...

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.

1. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production.

2. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not prices for the means of production).[7]

3. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies, with private ownership of property and of profit-making small business. Social Democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

[lazarus]

http://www.youtube.com/user/PublicServiceAdmin

[Key Guy]

It's way easier for me to address one point at a time:

Quote:

3. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies, with private ownership of property and of profit-making small business. Social Democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets.

Here are the main problems that I have with this...

1. Who decides the sizes of the businesses that are to be state-run or privately owned?

2. What criteria do they use?

3. Where did or do they get their authority?

4. If government owns or controls a business, how does an individual get special treatment, ie: Sabbaths off?

The biggest of all problems is that proponents of this thinking can not and will not answer these direct questions. We Americans are simply supposed to bow to the leaders and stop questioning.

America was NEVER founded on blind obedience to government. Our fathers even encouraged questionings of authority and keeping an ace in the back pocket; revolution, as needed. Socialism relies on, at the very least, the voluntary giving up of God-given individual rights. At its worst, socialism forces that response.

[Key Guy]

http://www.youtube.com/user/PublicServiceAdmin

This tells me everything:

THE PUBLIC SERVICE ADMINISTRATION, LA-based comics and actors on politics. Featuring veterans of MTV, ABC, NBC, The Daily Show, Second City Chicago, MAD TV, Reno 911, Current TV, and Showbiz Show With David Spade.

Their pieces have been presented on CNN's "The Situation Room" Headline News, NPR, Countdown With Keith Olbermann, Nightline, and written up in Newsweek.

They have done creative advocacy work with groups such as MoveOn.org, Courage Campaign, and Healthcare For America Now.

[bonnie]

Quote:

The biggest of all problems is that proponents of this thinking can not and will not answer these direct questions. We Americans are simply supposed to bow to the leaders and stop questioning.

America was NEVER founded on blind obedience to government. Our fathers even encouraged questionings of authority and keeping an ace in the back pocket; revolution, as needed. Socialism relies on, at the very least, the voluntary giving up of God-given individual rights. At its worst, socialism forces that response.

To many have forgotten or don't believe the US had a unique place in bible prophecy.

Founded on principals where religious and personal freedoms were what made this country great and a haven for many.

It is looked at as a false pride.

The very principals this country was founded on are slowly eroding.

We know that will happen. But somehow I don't think we are to champion and idolize those that strip this country of what has made it great

[phkrause]

Very interesting link Lazarus.

To no one in particular. In the Bible the systems that God instituted for the Israelites, the sabbatical and jubilee systems. What were they based on and what in today's system's would they most resemble? It looks to me like God didn't seem to care for capitalism either, but I could be wrong. Just a thought, but if someone wants to start a new thread that would be fine.

pk

[lazarus]

Here are the main problems that I have with this...

1. Who decides the sizes of the businesses that are to be state-run or privately owned?

Obviously the government does. The American government has always made decisions about what sectors of the economy it controls.

Air Traffic control could be a privately run business but it's government run.

Amtrak is rail business owned or partly owned by the government.

Local bus rail networks

The Interstate Highway system.

National Park land could be sold off to companies interested in running national parks. The government has decided to retain control.

Veterans health care could be privately run but the government chooses to administer it.

Space exploration

Quote:

2. What criteria do they use?

I'm not really sure but of course national security, enterprises that are of particular national importance, the transport network for example. Areas that are essential to the the well being of the people but there is not private enterprise that is able or willing to undertake it.

Quote:

3. Where did or do they get their authority?

The American people have already given the US government the authority to do these things. As the people seek to pursue Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness the government has the power and the authority to create an environment where this can happen.

Quote:

4. If government owns or controls a business, how does an individual get special treatment, ie: Sabbaths off?

I'm not sure what you are asking. The employee may or may not get special treatment depending on the circumstances of their employment, just like private enterprise.

Quote:

We Americans are simply supposed to bow to the leaders and stop questioning.

Give me a quote where a current leader has said or implied that you should do that.

Quote:

America was NEVER founded on blind obedience to government. Our fathers even encouraged questionings of authority and keeping an ace in the back pocket; revolution, as needed. Socialism relies on, at the very least, the voluntary giving up of God-given individual rights. At its worst, socialism forces that response.

When America was founded a significant proportion of its population was FORCED to be obedient. Don't ever forget that. Any attempt a rebellion was met with swift and harsh punishment. It has only been 40 years since all Americas have enjoyed God-given individual rights. These same socialist countries allowed American citizens to drink from the same water fountains as they themselves drank from when they could do the same in the own country. How ironic is that.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Obviously the government does. The American government has always made decisions about what sectors of the economy it controls.

That is not quite correct.No one has ever denied the need and place of government.

Quote:

Air Traffic control could be a privately run business but it's government run.

Amtrak is rail business owned or partly owned by the government.

Local bus rail networks

The Interstate Highway system.

National Park land could be sold off to companies interested in running national parks. The government has decided to retain control.

Veterans health care could be privately run but the government chooses to administer it.

Space exploration

With the exception of Air Traffic Controllers which business runs as efficiently as private industry could do.

Quote:

I'm not really sure but of course national security, enterprises that are of particular national importance, the transport network for example. Areas that are essential to the the well being of the people but there is not private enterprise that is able or willing to undertake it.

Again, no one has denied the need for "limited" government. As in our constitution

Quote:

The American people have already given the US government the authority to do these things. As the people seek to pursue Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness the government has the power and the authority to create an environment where this can happen.

No,the government cannot create that type of environment. They cannot create happiness. They can and should guarentee

our freedoms that this nation was founded on.We have had a slow erosion of our founding principals for years. Slow enough or seeming necessary enough that not a whimper was raised in most cases.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you are asking. The employee may or may not get special treatment depending on the circumstances of their employment, just like private enterprise.

The US government should be about the guarentee of our religious freedom

Quote:

Give me a quote where a current leader has said or implied that you should do that.

The most glaring of late is his definition of a Supreme Court Justice. His potential choice has said it is up to the justices to make law. That is not the job of the justices. If that is the route it takes we will lose a great chunk of our freedoms by having a SS Justice make law based on empathy.

Quote:

When America was founded a significant proportion of its population was FORCED to be obedient. Don't ever forget that. Any attempt a rebellion was met with swift and harsh punishment. It has only been 40 years since all Americas have enjoyed God-given individual rights. These same socialist countries allowed American citizens to drink from the same water fountains as they themselves drank from when they could do the same in the own country. How ironic is that.

The place of the founding of the US in bible prophecy is not made less because of fallible human beings. It was not founded on the premise that all would be perfect and do all things right.

Nor was the meaning of the US constitution made less because of slavery. How it was implemented made it less than it should have been.

[lazarus]

The place of the founding of the US in bible prophecy is not made less because of fallible human beings. It was not founded on the premise that all would be perfect and do all things right.

Sorry, I'm not sure what "the place of the founding of the US in Bible prophesy" means.

Quote:

We have had a slow erosion of our founding principals for years. Slow enough or seeming necessary enough that not a whimper was raised in most cases.

On the contrary there is a slow practical implementation of those principles. Repeal of slavery, universal sufferage, voting rights, the end of segregation. etc.

The US constitution is an imperfect document created by imperfect people. Americans have greater freedoms now than they did when the constitution was created, that cannot be denied.

MLK said

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

Quote:

Nor was the meaning of the US constitution made less because of slavery. How it was implemented made it less than it should have been.

I agree but the reality of freedom in America is much different than many Americans would make it out to be. How can you be so rejecting of even social democratic socialism when US capitalism (which has elements of socialism in it) embraced the tyranny of Jim Crow?

[Key Guy]

Laz,

Why do all discussions of the Constitution and America's freedoms revolve around slavery and black issues? They really don't, you know.

Yes, we (Americans, from generations before me, by the way) have an abysmal history in that arena, but there is fantastic progress.

Now, there are some of us decrying the obvious and gradual losses of the freedoms originally guaranteed to ALL Americans (I assume you are one of those). There is a most recent acceleration of these losses and whether you like it or not, EVERYONE will be suffering from these losses, more and more are suffering already.

Just as an example, the killer taxes needed to pay for universal health care will hurt everybody. It simply doesn't matter what color your skin happens to be.

The gradual losses of freedom of speech, worship, self defense, search and seizure without due process, etc, affect everyone. It simply doesn't matter what color your skin happens to be.

Surprise!! There are folks on this forum that are concerned with the losses of freedoms to every American, white, black, yellow, green... who cares...? We are all Americans facing the same threats. If you don't see that now, don't worry... you will soon.

[lazarus]

Laz,

Why do all discussions of the Constitution and America's freedoms revolve around slavery and black issues? They really don't, you know.

Of course they don't. When people declare the USA has always been the land of the free they clearly forget these issues. Its a matter of perspective. America has not been a country when there has been freedom for its people, that is the point. Its like saying I'm a health person when I have a cancerous growth on my arm!

When folks say that socialism = tyranny I will respond by saying that Capitalism = tyranny for many Americans for many years. It's not what you are used to hearing but nevertheless its true.

Quote:

Now, there are some of us decrying the obvious and gradual losses of the freedoms originally guaranteed to ALL Americans (I assume you are one of those). There is a most recent acceleration of these losses and whether you like it or not, EVERYONE will be suffering from these losses, more and more are suffering already.

What losses of freedoms are you talking about compared to the gains over the years.

If you say the Patriot act, loss of Habius Corpus, the detention of American citizens without charge, I can agree. warrant less wiretaps too.

Quote:

Just as an example, the killer taxes needed to pay for universal health care will hurt everybody. It simply doesn't matter what color your skin happens to be.

The USA voted for Obama and knew what his plans were. Americans will pay higher taxes especially those earning higher salaries. In reality, a 39.6 percent rate on yearly income over $250,000, tax cuts for everybody else. They voted for it! The American people did not accept the GOP borrow and spend philosophy. We are now into tax and spend until they get tired of that. Both parties borrow too much and spend to much.

The idol of conservatism, Reagan balloned the budget from $700b to $3 Tillion. Nothing does more long term to drive up taxes than does debt but no conservative would say that Reagan rob the country of freedoms.

Quote:

The gradual losses of freedom of speech, worship, self defense, search and seizure without due process, etc, affect everyone. It simply doesn't matter what color your skin happens to be.

In this case it does matter. African Americans for the last 40 years have been able to exercise free speech, worship etc because of the greater freedoms that they fought for. There are greater freedoms for my generation than my father's generation. Like I said its a matter of perspective.

Are you saying all of these losses have occurred in that last few months. If not then you have to blame Bush Clinton Bush Reagan and Carter if you want to go back that far.

Why all this talk about loss of freedom now that Obama is in. Its laughable.

[lazarus]

From Salon:

Even more surprising, a recent Rasmussen survey found Americans favoring "capitalism" over "socialism" by only 53 percent. Among the under-30 set, capitalism edges out socialism 37 to 33 percent. Have younger voters decided that since most Americans already enjoy "socialist" water, sewers, trash collection, fire and police protection, highways, public schools, universities, hospitals, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we may as well nationalize private enterprise altogether?

Of course not. The average American could no more concisely define "socialism" than explain the infield fly rule in Sanskrit. But if Rush Limbaugh calls Obama a socialist, maybe a socialist's not such a terrible thing to be.

Regardless of how they label themselves, Americans are mainly pragmatists. Most are leery of abstract dogma. It's their very insistence on ideological purity that makes Republican Knotheads look so foolish. When Obama calmly explains, as he did last week, that he didn't come into office yearning to take over Wall Street and Detroit, people hear him.

The socialism cry is a red herring.

[Key Guy]

What losses of freedoms are you talking about compared to the gains over the years.

If you say the Patriot act, loss of Habius Corpus, the detention of American citizens without charge, I can agree. warrant less wiretaps too.

Yep, those are exactly what I'm talking about. Bush or no Bush, those are all VERY bad. I speak against them with the same passion that I speak against gov't involvement in business.

Also, I realize that there is a difference between theory and reality. In theory, we were the land of the free. In reality, we fell far short for generations. Should that stop us from aspiring to be the land of the free still? Of course not. I'm not going to let our collective past hang around our necks to slow down the aspiration to perfection.

[Key Guy]

Quote:

[The gradual losses of freedom of speech, worship, self defense, search and seizure without due process, etc, affect everyone. It simply doesn't matter what color your skin happens to be....]

In this case it does matter. African Americans for the last 40 years have been able to exercise free speech, worship etc because of the greater freedoms that they fought for. There are greater freedoms for my generation than my father's generation. Like I said its a matter of perspective.

Are you saying all of these losses have occurred in that last few months. If not then you have to blame Bush Clinton Bush Reagan and Carter if you want to go back that far.

Why all this talk about loss of freedom now that Obama is in. Its laughable.

No, no...

1. I wasn't all that active on the forum again 'til the past 8 months or so. I was and am opposed to the trampling of our freedoms that Bush initiated.

2. I agree that gov't simply cannot live within its budget.

3. I agree that Americans voted for the change we are seeing. But the purpose of the Constitution is to restrict certain changes that even the majority may want. The Constitution is there to protect minorities: racial, religious, political, etc. That's why I am decrying the erosions. Eventually, everybody becomes a minority in some area.

4. I celebrate the progress of the past 40 years with you. But I'm really getting tired of the constant harping on a history that is in the past. It's better, thank God. If you want to keep living back there, that's sad.

You could say that I am harping on this same freedoms issue with post after post of unacceptable moves by the current administration.

The difference between your harping and my harping is that your harping is about something that you even recognize has improved and is improving, while my harping is about something that just keeps getting worse.

PS: I don't care what color the president is, he's screwing up big time in his policies and governance. Ol' white Bush screwed up, too and I was opposed to those wrong policies, as well.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Yep, those are exactly what I'm talking about. Bush or no Bush, those are all VERY bad. I speak against them with the same passion that I speak against gov't involvement in business.

The desire isto bring up past presidents as if that gives Obama a pass as we continue down that path.And shifts the focus on others instead of answering critsims of Obama

The difference here is that Obama does not see the US Constitution as a positive. It didn't go far enough in economic justice. That is not the job of the government.The first president to share his belief that the constitution is only negative.

Quote:

Also, I realize that there is a difference between theory and reality. In theory, we were the land of the free. In reality, we fell far short for generations. Should that stop us from aspiring to be the land of the free still? Of course not. I'm not going to let our collective past hang around our necks to slow down the aspiration to perfection.

The US citizens fell far short,not the constitution. One thing seems to be overlooked when comparing socialism of other countries and the US.

On;y under the freedoms here did innovations,invention and private enterprise flourish as had never been seen before. It still isn't in third world countries and other socialistic governments still on average cannot compete.

Freedom allows much,both good and bad. It is not the freedoms that cause it,it is how it is lived.

What liberal democrats do not grasp is there is a large gap between conservatism and republicism.

Few conservatives heaped the slavish praise on Bush as liberal democrats lavish on almost every word of Obama.

[lazarus]

Yep, those are exactly what I'm talking about. Bush or no Bush, those are all VERY bad. I speak against them with the same passion that I speak against gov't involvement in business.

Give him time, I'm confident Obama will seek to roll back some of those losses in freedom. As for the business issues I think Obama is doing what any developed nation has and will do when faced with a crisis of this magnitude. Every nation who has a car industry has moved to protect it. Obama has not gone as far as some other countries have done. Its important for the government to do what it can to protect key aspects of the US economy. Having said that I think Chrysler should be liquidated. They've been in trouble since I was a kid!

Quote:

Also, I realize that there is a difference between theory and reality. In theory, we were the land of the free. In reality, we fell far short for generations. Should that stop us from aspiring to be the land of the free still? Of course not. I'm not going to let our collective past hang around our necks to slow down the aspiration to perfection.

When American freedom has been proclaimed it is often talked about not as a theory but an actuality. America is now more free than it was 150 years ago and therefore the march to freedom continues and so it should. The past is the past but it should inform our debates and perspectives on the present and the future.

My point was simply to suggest another perspective on this issue of socialism being an opponent of liberty and capitalism being a champion. Its not that simple. Its clear that a mixed social democratic society benefits all.

[bonnie]

Quote:

4. I celebrate the progress of the past 40 years with you. But I'm really getting tired of the constant harping on a history that is in the past. It's better, thank God. If you want to keep living back there, that's sad.

It is better. Perfect? Nope and never will be on this earth.

What took place with slavery in this country is something I don't think people today can even get their heads around it.

Trying to guilt people today that did not have a part of that or those that did and have realized how wrong they were gets nowhere fast.

I can't apologize for actions I had no part in. Trying to do so is nothing but an insult to those that suffered.

I have often been curious tho why it is only one race of people blamed for the atrocity?

If I remember my history correctly those that became slaves were provided to the slavers for personal gain or ??

If we must forever more do penance for something we personally didn't do,I would believe it needs to be shared.

I don't know what it was like but I would be looking long and hard at those that made it possible as well.

You hear frequently the same about the native americans and how badly they were treated. They were and there is no excuse.

There seems to be this vision of this pristine peaceful country inhabited by peaceful,loving people.

They stole from one another,they killed each other,took captive and stole lands another tribe claimed as their own. They did not stroll hand in hand thru the wilderness to neighboring tribes.

As guilty as the "white man" was, they only did what the native americans had been doing to each other for centuries.

We can't fix it,can't make it not true. We can only be responsible for how we treat others and speak up if we see racism and bigotry.

It still does not lessen the importance of the US Constitution

because of the actions of fallible human beings.

You could say that I am harping on this same freedoms issue with post after post of unacceptable moves by the current administration.

Quote:

The difference between your harping and my harping is that your harping is about something that you even recognize has improved and is improving, while my harping is about something that just keeps getting worse.

PS: I don't care what color the president is, he's screwing up big time in his policies and governance. Ol' white Bush screwed up, too and I was opposed to those wrong policies, as well.

Some still believe that we will lose our constitutional rights. When we do it will not matter what color your skin is.

[Dr. Shane]

The US constitution is an imperfect document created by imperfect people. Americans have greater freedoms now than they did when the constitution was created, that cannot be denied.

This is a 21st century mindset judging a 17th century document.

One must remember that prior to the US Civil War the states were much more autonomous (self-governing). The federal government did not even slightly resemble what it is today. Blacks did enjoy freedom in the northern states. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banned slavery north of the Ohio River. Many states granted blacks citizenship which allowed them to vote and enjoy other rights. Slavery only existed in southern states.

The fact that the US Constitution ban the slave trade was very progressive for its time. It did not take affect until 1808. Great Britian follow suit in 1806 and it took affect the following year. In 1820 the US made the slave trade piracy punishable by death. A treaty was signed with Spain that allow the British Royal Navy to board Spanish ships suspected of carrying slaves. This was pivotal because Great Britain ruled the seas.

Although the slave trade had come to an end, slavery was still legal in Britain and America's southern states. Southern states allowed slavery so they could be competitive. Without slavery the southern farmers would not have been able to compete with British plantations in its export market. Once Great Britain banned slavery in 1833 such a ban in the US became much more economically plausible. Within 30 years of that British ban, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Civil rights for blacks in the southern states would still not come for 100 years. However blacks did enjoy civil rights in northern and western states throughout the US.

[Dr. Shane]

Let me add to my point.

Slavery was, and still is to a lesser degree, a global sin. One cannot beat America up with the slavery stick when the issue is dealt with honestly and comprehensively. Slavery was a world-wide problem. America and European powers were very much part of the problem. However, on the flip side, America and European powers (especially Great Britain) were instrumental in moving the world away from slavery. Slavery has been part of civilization for centuries and it is due primarily to 19th Century America and Western Europe that the world has mostly moved beyond it now.

[Key Guy]

Great history lessons, guys and gals. Education prevents a host of problems.

The point of this? Education regarding the truth of our history and Constitution would dramatically change that poll result of the mere 53% favoring capitalism. Do you think toll results like that would be the same 100 years ago? If not, why not?

I submit that our citizens were more educated regarding US History and Social Studies. There is no doubt that American students are being dumbed-down, yet we are spending way more money per student than ever before.

What's wrong with this picture?

[Key Guy]

http://www.santaynezvalleyjournal.com/archive/7/19/4390/

Quote:

THINKING ABOUT MINORITIES

By Harris Sherline, Contributing Writer

With all the talk about minorities in this country and the heat that is so often generated by the topic, have you ever thought about where you fit? Are you a member of some minority group and, if so, how has it affected your life, your beliefs and values, your perceptions of others, your friends and associates, your job or profession, your expectations and, of course, your day-to-day activities.

Even if you have never thought of yourself as a member of a minority group, chances are, when you examine the details of your personal circumstances, you will find that you are. Consider just some of the many and varied categories that apply.

Ethnic: Asian, Hispanic, Native American, Indian, East Indian, African, etc.

Race: White, Black, Asian, other

Gender: Male, female

Religion: Christianity (including Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Latter-day Saint, Seventh Day Adventist and others), Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Baha’i, Janism, Shinto and others. Atheist and other non-believers represent about 14 percent of the world’s population. There are many more types and categories of religions and religious beliefs, but this illustrates the multitude of those that most people generally follow.

In the United States, we seem to have elevated the issue of minorities, who is and who is not part of a minority group, to a major if not the primary consideration in a wide variety of choices. Decisions, such as college entrance and employment criteria, employee relations, customer relations, housing, business associations, friendships and pretty much every aspect of American life seem to take minority status into account.

Our laws have become such a labyrinth of complex considerations that we are forced to navigate in making decisions about hiring, firing and disciplining employees, making public statements, and membership in service clubs and other groups, among others. All decision making, personal, public and business, must be processed through a minefield of potentially risky options, with the consequences of making a poor or incorrect decision ranging from loss of one’s position or status to being sued to public approbation.

The New York Times reported this in an August 14, 2008 article: “William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, said that by the 2028 presidential election, racial and ethnic minorities will constitute a majority of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 for the first time … When the first census was conducted in 1790, about 64 percent of the people counted were white … By 1900, about 9 in 10 Americans were non-Hispanic white, most of European ancestry.”

America.gov noted in August 2008: “By 2050, minorities — those who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or mixed race — will account for 54 percent of the U.S. population … ” And U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that about 10 percent of the nation’s 3,000-plus counties have already reached the point where they contain a more than 50 percent minority population.

Almost everything in American life is influenced by minority status, and up to now, the primary characteristic of majority-minority status has been based on race, which has been dominated by whites, who have outnumbered all other groups.

But, what happens when the current minority becomes the majority? This is already the situation in California, which has been heavily impacted by the influx of Hispanics from south of the border. Furthermore, population projections indicate that by the year 2023, the majority of all American children under the age of 18 will be so-called minorities, and by 2039 today’s minorities will comprise the majority of all working-age Americans.

So what happens when whites become the minority? Will they then qualify for favored treatment under our laws? Will they be given preferential treatment in college admissions, employment, housing and other matters? Should they?

Will we ultimately reach the point where a white minority demands the same legal advantages and benefits that have been woven into the fabric of our society in the effort to level the playing field and make amends for past wrongs?

We are already seeing some evidence of this in lawsuits for reverse discrimination. The Liberty Lounge recently reported: “The U.S. Supreme Court announced … it would hear the reverse discrimination case appealed from lower courts by 20 New Haven firefighters who claimed they were denied the opportunity for a promotion because of their race.”

We will undoubtedly see many more of these types of cases as the current majority continues to move toward minority status.

But that’s just my opinion.

[bonnie]

Quote:

.

The point of this? Education regarding the truth of our history and Constitution would dramatically change that poll result of the mere 53% favoring capitalism. Do you think toll results like that would be the same 100 years ago? If not, why not?

I submit that our citizens were more educated regarding US History and Social Studies. There is no doubt that American students are being dumbed-down, yet we are spending way more money per student than ever before.

What's wrong with this picture?

Schools no longer place importance on the truth of our history. We have a very active Home School group in our area. One of the reasons they home school is the lack of teaching the children in even basic history and civics

There is more importance placed on Heather has two mommies or Tommy has two daddy's.

The last couple of generations are so removed from the sacrifice that so many made that they can live the life they live.

They should never be allowed to fail,never compete, nor have anyone say something that will hurt their feelings.

The large amount of money shoveled into public education is to allow teachers to assume a role no one should have over another's child.

I don't want my kids to be protected from failure. They had better learn to do their absolute best so they can compete in the work place. No one really cares about sensitive feelings in the workplace.

My kids can learn about homosexual behavior from my husband and I. With the knowledge of how to treat others yet not accept as right their conduct

If I choose not to educate them,that is my right. Not necessarily the best way to not educate them,but if that is my choice for my family,Bug off.

Public education has turned into a social experiment that is not going real well.

[lazarus]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

The US constitution is an imperfect document created by imperfect people. Americans have greater freedoms now than they did when the constitution was created, that cannot be denied.

This is a 21st century mindset judging a 17th century document.

Are you saying the constitution was a perfect document? Are you saying that Americans have less freedoms now than when it was written?