Federal Government priorities

Yes I agree that you cannot solve the conflicts and contradictions that commonly permeate societies and sometimes divide elites. A resulting balance of forces will fundamentally shape the way other societal problems (those mentioned above) are addressed or not addressed adequately as the case may be. However these problems are common to most if not all societies and must be addressed at some level.

The state therefore more often than not becomes a contested social space involving any number of strategic movies or battles between competing social groups and classes seeking to alter the status quo in their favor. This says nothing about interstate competition. Nor do things have to be a zero sum game. Shore the rich are getting richer but the whole economic cake is expanding at the same time. Theories of immiseration whether they be Malthusian, Marxist or Neo-liberal (State Taxation, general equilibrium) rarely stack up. Nor is deficit spending for that matter a zero sum game necessarily, as it can prevent immiseration and a general route during recessions and be payed off with increasing ease as the economic pie grows in the following upturn. Saying that I have said some silly things in the past in here and I will certainly say many more.

 

ok,we got a host of problems going on,we all know this.However,I think I have an idea that just MIGHT help us prioritize.2 simple steps.first..have a government that will actually LISTEN to the people.second,& even more important,people that understand that the government cannot fix every little fucking problem in the world.elected officials are just like you & I,human.we need to step the fuck up,take responsibility for our own actions,& quit just expecting the government to fix everything.

 

I'd like to have an answer to my post #14.

 

Do you as a citizen have this responsibility?

 

Don't know what I'd do as a citizen to provide jobs for ghetto dwellers. I am not rich.On the private side,I think those that took their companies out of the country (if they cared about the country,instead of the bottom line) could set up shop in these long neglected areas to provide living wage jobs to those with little hope of becoming independant. Nike is one I can presently think of. All the money that goes out in foreign aid might be directed in some way toward helping the least of our own citizens. I suppose no one really cares much,as witness the time that these areas have existed. In these cases(ghettos) the squeaking wheel does not get the grease.

 

And what is government not listening to?

What actions would that be?

These are pretty broad statements that really say nothing at all.

.

 

what people fail to realise [in the US] is the fact that it consists of 2 level of Higher government. The Federal Government and the STATE government. the federal government is design to be the sturn foundation that holds the country together and set the basic laws of the land. the State is level that does all the local [in state] dirty work that effects your everyday life.

if you want to change something in your community you have to take it up with the STATE, not the feds in washington. you must first change your local state policies then, if you are doing it right and succeed, other states will follow suit. thus leading to change.
this is an unrecognised process.


[Hurray for Community College education!!]

 

oh and education tends to fall in the jurisdiction of the state government. the "no child left behind" act is a seris of incentives so the state can get more money for education.
the fed said they'll give X amount of money to the State if they follow the fed's guidelines and issue the standardised tests.

 

Do you think this is a good thing?

.

 

Odon

LOL - the problem with simplistic answers is that they can be looked at simplistically.

*

I mean can’t you see that you are basically just reiterating what I said.

Simplistic answer – re-stock the river

But if you just choose the first or cheapest fish you find there is the great possibility you might be introducing the wrong type of fish for the environment.

Thing is that if people look at problems in a simplistic way the simplistic solution they may come up with might be of little or no good.

Most obvious problems are the symptom of other problems that might not be so clearly seen especially if you take a simplistic approach that doesn’t even think through the problem or look for causes.

 

Education

I’m all for education but again to me that isn’t some separated and stand alone issue that has no connections to many other issues. To me such things as welfare reform and drug policy have as much to do with improving education as anything that goes on within a classroom.

 

I was trying to say, within one problem there are many...but the main problem is what we should be focusing on.
It sounds unfair to say you can't say that the problem you would like solving is to re-stock the river...because within that problem is other problems.
So, what you have to say is: "I think they should solve the problem of what best fish should be added to the river." Or "Is the river fresh or salt water?"...It's like asking a Genie for gold but you have to use the other two wishes on finding gold and digging up the gold. Heck, one would have to be used in finding a good surveyor to find the gold in the first place. Come on...that's being a tad ridiculous, no?
I think most people would realise that there are other smaller problems to solve to achieve a solution to the bigger problem.
Give people some credit here...or some latitude to the problem at hand.

 

LOL as I say you try to explain something in too simplistic a way and someone jumps on you.

OK – I was trying to point out that only thinking simplistically can lead to problems – simple in this example was thinking – one ‘problem’ equals to one solution

Someone is told that the river has no fish.

Their simplistic answer is to re-stock the river with fish.

Yes once you move away from simplistic it becomes more complex and you begin to ask questions which is a good thing.

But which is the main problem, the overfishing, the pollution, the general river management, lack of regulation or no regulation at all and so on and so on…

Thing is that the lack of fish may be the symptom of other problems not ‘the problem’.

If someone is told that the river has no fish the first question should be why?

Only when the issue is understood can possible solutions be found.

The thing is I find many people don’t ask why or seek understanding but instead think they can go straight to the solution because to them things seem simple.

 

no, the teachers felt as though they were "teaching to the test" not really teaching the content, you know?

 

Of course there is no one single problem that can be addressed that would have much effect... what is really needed is a paradigm shift in consciousness.
Aquarian conspiracy anyone?

We need to asap begin to somehow imbue the new generations with a gestalt of sustainability, anti-consumerism, humanism... what we seem to have now is a society less and less fulfilled by human relationship and more obsessed with the belief that the newest fashion craze, internal combustion monstrosity, or high-tech gizmo will somehow fulfill their lives, make them cool and popular. The implications run much deeper, but I think the prophetic DR. King said it best 40-some years ago...

"We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered. A nation can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy."
Dr. Martin Luther King, April, 1967

 

I was actually asking about your opinions of federal programs in general, but I guess this one is not the poster child of the feds. This is Bush's pride and joy and it wreaks with false indicators, such as testing, and uses pseudo-science as a basis. But, when all is said and done, states do not have to participate.

Much of what conservatives call Federal control is nothing more than incentive programs that they can take or leave. They take the money and bitch about the strings.

.

 

:iagree:

 

Balbus, I may have miss-spoke but the main point is that the OP isn't seemingly saying that the other related issues and the "why" question should be ignored. You need to give people some credit in knowing the premise is not "what problem would you like solved at the snap of your fingers"...I'm just saying give people some credit in knowing that.

 

The Federal Government should focus on it's constitutional mandated jobs, one of which is to secure our borders, a job which is sorely lacking in compliance. Go read the Constitution, it will take you 10 minutes, and you will be shocked at how simple everything is laid out. But NO, our Government has to go sticking it's big nose stuff that is none of it's business - disgusting!!!!

 

Simple means vagueness in a 21st century world.

FYI over 1.5 million migrants are caught and deported every year, which is more than actually come in illegally every year, for a 2,400 miles long border they're not doing a bad job.