Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (42446)	4/13/2004 10:23:47 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Your prejudices are coming through loud and clear As are yours. I completely agree that liberals took a wrong turn in the sixties when they simplistically thought that simply by "throwing more money at the problems" would work. But what was far worse was the wrong turn that conservatives took after Goldwater with a regressive turn back to the Gilded Age. I note that you ignored this part of the post If other countries can afford to see that their elderly live in dignity, and we're the "richest country in the world", then ... I just don't believe that the people in other countries are inherently brighter than we are. I do believe that for the bulk of the population, we are doing far from our best. By the end of the sixties the libs had "run out of steam". The Conservatives had an opportunity to conserve - to distill the best of what we had, and make it work. Instead, they displayed a Neanderthal, low brow destructive bent that has left the country that "led the world", limping to stay in the race. Now, we excel in prison population and militarism. What a record! There's no future here, but what do you expect from a group whose "Holy Grail" is the past. So a couple of questions. There are two basic ways to make a comparison. One is relative to an ideal; the other is relative to peers. I'll maintain that by either method this country "comes up short", when quality-of-life criteria for the population are considered. Do you agree? Few would claim that we have achieved Nirvana, so the second question is how would you improve the quality-of-life of the population? Criticizing errors (past or present) is relatively easy. Practical alternatives "going forward" is a more worthwhile challenge. Got any answers worthy of consideration? Just wondering lurqer