Are New Yorkers (gasp!) optimists?
I was looking through the Siena College Research Institute’s latest poll this morning and one figure jumped out at me: 44% of New Yorkers surveyed think the country is going in the right direction.
And a whopping 53% think New York state is “on the right track.”
Those may not sound like rose-colored-glasses levels of optimism, but compared with the rest of the country it’s practically giddy.
A Pew survey last week found that only 31% of Americans are “satisfied” with the way things are going in the US.
That matches almost exactly with the average of all polls tallied by Real Clear Politics. By their calculation, roughly 31% of us think things are going in the right direction.
Nearly 61% think things are going in the wrong direction. That’s glass-two-thirds-empty territory.
So here’s my In Box challenge: Tell us whether you think the country (New York state, or both) is going in the Right Direction or the Wrong Direction. And then give one succinct explanation as to why you feel that way.
Tags: election12, politics, polling
One wrong direction is federal government income is inadequate. Not that cost paring shouldn’t continue, although most of the reductions are merely reductions in the rate of increase. Reducing the social security tax for stimulus purposes was foolish. Stop it immediately. Increase income tax incrementally perhaps half a percent a year for a number of years. Remove the cap on Social Security tax witholding.
If/when business income returns personal income tax can be curbed.
One of the hardest things to stomach is the attitude that tax reductions are government spending. The president’s latest chorus of you owe use because we all helped you is as annoying as Bill Clinton because he is not asking, he is demanding. He is saying what is yours is ours because we helped you get it. Small wonder so many believe they have rights to entitlements.
The future of our country requires financial stability and respect for us.
Jeff’s comment is refreshing in that he actually points to what he thinks is a “wrong direction”. I get really annoyed at polls that say XX% of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction because I’m sure that if asked they would not all agree on what is the wrong direction. For example while conservatives may think we are headed the wrong way by mandating that individuals buy health insurance, progressives are equally convinced that failing to pursue Medicare for all is a wrong direction and despite the polar opposition of the two views they are lumped into one group by the poll.
I agree with Jeff that we need to work toward a better balance of revenues and spending but I would remind him that unless you are a subsistence farmer on a remote plot of land somewhere, the products of the economy are “ours” not “mine”. Nobody makes it alone and while we talk about “the government” as if it was some external entity it is in fact “us” working together to manage our society. Pogo famously said “We have met the enemy and he is us”. For many of us the problem is our attitude toward the collective “us” and insistence on I, me & mine.
The most odious challenge facing homo sapiens and the rest of spaceship Earth’s fauna is the incessant consumption of the Earth’s resources at an exponentially increasing rate by the exponentially increasing population of homo sapiens.
The so called natural cycles of heating and cooling that the Earth has experienced for the past few hundred million years holds not a candle to the destructiveness of man since the dawning of the industrial revolution. Humans are responsible for the most rapid of the Earth’s great fauna die offs ever recorded yet probably 99% of humans are ignorant of, indifferent to or in denial of the situation. Blinded by their self proclaimed magnificence in defeating that horrid Mother Nature, with fabulous technology, humans flock to the high priestesses of economics who proclaim, with straight faces, that the Earth is an infinite source such that as the price of a resource increases the means to obtain more “will” be found.
Therefore; with straight face, I suggest that both state and union as well as all of the various sovereign nations of the Earth are headed in the “wrong” direction. By “wrong” direction I contend that the direction humans are racing pellmell leads to a minimum fauna survival situation such that it will take millions perhaps hundreds of millions of years for the Earth to generate another critter with the capacity for thought equal to or surpassing our own once the current fauna die off plays out.
The directions I think would make sense if the current crop of supposedly intelligent critters would prefer to survive, includes at least the following:
1. Stop the exponential human population increases.
2. Stop the exponential raping of the Earth’s resources.
3. Stop the concentration of wealth into hands of the few.
4. Stop marketing money to the detriment of the many to the advantage of the few.
5. Stop using business models which require exponential expansion.
6. How about if I keep it simple “Stop Expanding”, “Start Contracting”
Do I think there is any likelihood that intelligent processes are going to be used to assure survival of the remaining fauna on the Earth? NO
Do I think the remaining fauna on the Earth have a long term survival prognosis? NO
Do I think many folks will agree with me? HELL NO
So Ken to sum it up you would say – “wrong direction”.
I think these “right direction, wrong direction” polls are pointless.
What matters is what people do not what people say, and right now they are still saying I will keep my money in my wallet or purse.
Paul – “I think these “right direction, wrong direction” polls are pointless.”
Pointless? No
Likely to have an influential positive impact? Possibly
What mechanism would you suggest to positively influence the Earth’s homo sapiens to use their self proclaimed greater intellectual capabilities to preserve what is left of the Earth’s resources and fauna such that there is a future for the current inhabitants of Earth?
What do you mean ‘we,’ kemosabe?
I’m a bit tired of this “we” stuff. I hate it when some politician starts by saying, “The American people…”
“We” do not think alike.
There is no “we.” America has always been about I, me and mine.
“What mechanism would you suggest to positively influence the Earth’s homo sapiens to use their self proclaimed greater intellectual capabilities to preserve what is left of the Earth’s resources and fauna such that there is a future for the current inhabitants of Earth?”
Certainly not a poll.
We are certainly not the first species on the planet to have evolved ourselves out of existence (assuming we are on that track, probably a safe assumption, not yet but eventually). We may be the first species to understand where they are headed.
“Certainly not a poll”
A thoughtful and cogent response to my question.
“not the first species on the planet to have evolved ourselves out of existence”
The mechanization of evolution enables the survival of a given species within a particular environmental niche; evolution does not engender a species with an end of the line defect per se. However; a species endowed by evolution to exist in a particular niche may be placed on the road to extinction by environmental events which transform said niche at a rate greater than evolution transform said species. These events may be massive volcanic events, large asteroid impact events unusually rapid global warming (such as we are now experiencing) and the reset all event, being bathed in the gamma ray burst of a hyper nova, guaranteed 100% complete sterilization of any planet so unlucky.
That we may be the first Earth species with the intellectual acumen to comprehend that they are destroying the environment for themselves and all other critters is the gist of my comment to this article on this blog. The obvious point being that if we are so cocksure that we are intelligent why do so few of us comprehend the inevitability of the end of the line cliff toward which we race and so many deny even the most remote possibility that it does exist?
What data would support the idea that we as a species are headed for some sort of cliff. I don’t see it. If we were all sick and dying and populations were falling OK, but that is not the case. Humans are healthier than we have ever been, we are on the verge of bringing whole parts of the globe into healthier lives and higher standards of living.
As far as Brains question goes, I am torn. I think in general the US is in a long term decline that is not impacted by short term politics. But we may come out of it a better country, less prideful, less aggressive and actually we may end up taking care of our own poor and vulnerable more than we have in the past. But we have some deep cultural problems that have to change for us to move forward. We have to do better at raising children at having stronger longer lasting families and we have to quite being the world leader in drug use, addictions, divorce, porn consumption and violence.
Is not being a world empire a bad thing? Up to know we could always say well you know we have problems but you have opportunity here, people can come here and work hard and rise above where they were, we are the richest country in the world. But today none of those statements are true and this is a recent event. An immigrant has a better chance to succeed in Germany than in the US. A poor person has a better chance of climbing the ladder in many European countries than in the US. We die earlier than even some developing countries.
We have work to do but it is not a lost cause not at all. I don’t know if countries move in directions or not? What does that mean really?
Here’s my answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=XNUc8nuo7HI
“What data would support the idea that we as a species are headed for some sort of cliff. I don’t see it.”
A classic example of the ignorance of, indifference to or denial of the validity of information presented by those dastardly “scientists” which demonstrates to a high 90’s percentile the likelihood that the Earth is currently in the grips of a mass extinction event which is unfolding at a rate far in excess of any mass extinction event which has been uncovered through the study of fossilized remains going back hundreds of millions of years.
Convinced by delusional thought processes that last minute efforts of an extraordinary nature can easily avert any/all black swan events, through the use of high technology gadgetry, humans blithely swat away any concept that the Earth is anything less than an infinite source of goodies to be plundered at will until the goodies are no more.
True to form the only fauna of concern to the average homo sapiens are themselves, appropriately convinced they can do it alone sans all other Earthly critters.
The concepts of society, politics, nation, empire, …. all expose our inability or lack of desire to resolve/control our animal instincts to procreate to ensure the preservation of our species. By and large we steadfastly refuse to use our intellectual capabilities, despite the blatant evidence that no other animal on Earth has been nearly as successful at species preservation, to examine the “real” damage we homo sapiens are doing to our only home in this universe by dint of the vastness of our numbers.
As we can barely maintain a few man space station in low Earth orbit, at exorbitant cost, (ignoring the sunk costs to design and build; to launch recover and prepare the space shuttle for the next launch cost in excess of $500 million) I do not foresee large numbers of people being transported interplanetary much less intergalactically in the foreseeable future.
The scientific data show that human populations are very successful, which is certainly part of the problem for resources in the future I would agree.
Basically you are just describing the human condition of sin and its driving force pride and selfishness.
Ken the only solution to the problem you are framing is totalitarianism.
One right direction is that most of use are getting up and going to work, if we can, and seeking something better than we had yesterday. That is exactly what businesses do as they work to make a profit. Generally that requires growth because taxation or inflation will overtake people or businesses that do not produce more than subsistance. Our local hospital is being overcome by legacy costs of pensions. Somehow they need to generate more income to pay for the expense or go bankrupt. The key word is more.
We already see that when there is more demand than supply, subsistance is untenable-the social security system. We’re down to two workers supporting one recipient from 30-1 at inception.
The creative destruction followers will say something’s gotta give before something different can succeed.
Ken’s claim is that we do not need the people we have. The prevalence of computers and machines would make it seem so. But look at a subsistance economy. As long as there is no tax, a person doesn’t have to produce more than his needs because he has sufficient. When a new idea comes to him… blue beads are aesthetically desirable he has to have something excess to trade for beads. So for personal security sake the neighborhood sets up a law system and police force and realizes that they need to pay people to do those services. They invent taxation but need to have trade to convert goods into money to pay the tax. If they don’t get up and work nothing gets traded. There is the crux of the me and we. If nobody wants more than they have be it a police force or blue beads or holding their own land on which to subsist there is no motivation to produce excess. Lacking personal property… we saw the benefits of that in the Soviet Union the desire to get up and go to work was weak. But then there was their black market…
Competition, for survival and prosperity is good for economy and life.
Environmentally, you could easily make the argument that things have improved recently (yes, that was a bald eagle I saw the other day) although nobody would dispute that there’s much more that can, and will, be done. The Adirondacks are a good case in point. Compare the situation today with the way it was approximately 100 years ago. Progress has surely been made. Other areas and countries will go through similar cycles. We’ll be fine.
Kathy, How is Dennis Prager answering Ken’s question for you? Or are you saying the answer lies in us not becoming hypocrites like Prager?
Zeke, my answer was not for Ken but in response to Brian’s question.
Prager effectively summarizes my answer.
By the way, when can I have a discussion with a liberal without the boyish name calling?
“Earth is currently in the grips of a mass extinction event which is unfolding at a rate far in excess of any mass extinction event which has been uncovered through the study of fossilized remains going back hundreds of millions of years.”
Sounds like we better head for the stars and abandon this puppy.
Since we are all dependent on the things that are becoming extinct for our survival it sounds like this “event” should alleviate some of the crowding issues that Ken was describing in his earlier comments.
Kathy you can probably have that conversation when you right wingers()oops is that name calling) come up with plausible ideas beyond that of sophmores in high school
By the way, boyish and liberal probably both name calling, but do not worry I’m neither.
“wingers” isn’t a word. And you also misspelled Sophomores.
Sorry the misspell bothered you Paul. And “wingers” isn’t a word? Source? Mine is any number of refs.
Zeke, Prager is beyond sophomoric. His credentials are impeccable and he spoke without apology – something that real leaders do. They cut through the nonsensical chaos and bring clarity. His dissertation was direct, precise, and on target.
Prager gives rational conservatives a bad name. If people like this are going to call themselves conservatives, I’ll have to find something else to describe my political philosophy.
Wingers is a word. I understand it as do many other people. A word is an utterance that conveys meaning. Wingers is definitely a word.
Boyish isn’t generally perceived as an insult. Next time try “childish”.
Man! It is really hard to keep up with the right wingers. I had no idea who this Dennis Prager character is so I Googled him and found this on Wikipedia:
“On November 28, 2006, he wrote that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, should not be allowed to take his Congressional oath using a Koran because “the act undermines American civilization.”[5] The Anti- Defamation League wrote that Prager’s position was “intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American.”[6] On December 4, in an interview with Prager, Tucker Carlson criticized this, saying: “I’m no great defender of the Koran but I’m not sure why America is imperiled by Keith Ellison’s taking the oath on it.” In response, Prager explained, “It‘s not imperiled by his taking the oath on it, it‘s imperiled for substituting the Bible for the first time since George Washington had a Bible at his inauguration. … The question is not what he believes in. The question is what is the central text of the American value system? That‘s why I think this is important. Otherwise I couldn‘t care less.”[7]
Why do religious zealots get so much voice in our society?
Even though I disagreed with his overall spin, Ken is correct factually about the massive level of extinctions the world is currently experiencing. I don’t think we as beings dependent on this world which we have been given, know the impact of this number of species extinctions on the human race, beyond just the general, it can’t be good.
Also we have been sold the idea and lie, that advancing technology=human progress. So our faith is in technology and our abilities to manipulate creation, instead of recognizing what is already present in creation that does not need human technology and never will.
Mervel is right about technology. Technology should make our lives better but often technology just makes us less human. It isn’t the fault of the technology, it is that our souls are hollow.
I was away for a day and stayed in a motel so I had the chance to watch television. It reminds me of why I don’t have it. It is a machine designed to make you stupid. I saw some TV preachers and it reminded me of Ron Popeil. They were nothing more than carnival hucksters selling their product. Watch then long enough and they’ll sell you some but what you need is the real stuff and not their cheap substitute.
There is such a mishmash of thinking today that it borders chaos. Words like diversity and tolerance have diluted common sense. When someone steps up with any kind of directness it is viewed as radical.
I think Prager’s statement regarding the Koran was courageous. It had nothing to do with intolerance. He explained his position. He is a conservative.
If the country is going in the wrong direction, it’s not because of several of the points mentioned here. It’s going to be more subtle. It will be the gradual decay of morality in a society.
The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see. – Winston Churchill
Boyish isn’t generally perceived as an insult. Next time try “childish”.
Nope. I meant boyish.
And it wasn’t meant to insult. It was an observation.
Well, Kathy, if you were aiming for provocative, you certainly hit the mark. I find it incredible that a Jew would object to the use of the Qur’an. I would expect victims of intolerance not to practise it on others. after all, aren’t jews, muslims and christians all “people of the book”?
Larry, did you read Prager’s statement??
“It‘s not imperiled by his taking the oath on it, it‘s imperiled for substituting the Bible for the first time since George Washington had a Bible at his inauguration. … The question is not what he believes in. The question is what is the central text of the American value system? That‘s why I think this is important. Otherwise I couldn‘t care less.
Conservatism: “a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.” – Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Prager’s statement was based on the above definition. He was not against Keith Ellison’s religion.
Knuckle,
Yes after not watching tv for a period of time to watch it you realize the insanity of it. But really, the handheld devices that all must now have, i-phone etc, what are they but hand held t.v.’s? So now the t.v. time is not just wasted in the living room, it is in our hands all of the time vacantly staring at us.
Kathy, did you read my post? I specifically said “…the use of the Qur’an.” I was referring to his objection to the use of the Qur’an in a swearing-in ceremony. I’m still incredulous, your semantics notwithstanding. I guess you could lay claim to the name “conservative”; you can have it if you want. I’ll think of something else to call myself. In any case, I wouldn’t want anyone to confuse my philosophy with yours. I abhor your smug religiosity and self-proclaimed righteousness.
Mervel, I don’t have a hand-held device either, though I do have an iPad that I can use if I go for lunch at a place that has wifi.
Thank you Larry.
Obviously, Kathy, you don’t understand what our forefathers stood for. If George Washington knew that swearing on a Bible would become some sort of ritualized practice I doubt he would have done it.
It is just as useful to take an oath without any paraphernalia, the point is not what you put your hand on the point is the oath. As far as I’m concerned THAT is the Conservative position and I am the conservative.
“There is such a mishmash of thinking today that it borders chaos.”
That is a key statement in understanding human nature. There are some people who are prone to dictatorial thinking. They want things to be regimented. They want everyone to think the same way – their way. It is a dangerous pattern of thought.
Change is hard.
But as a Christian when I look at the faith itself, we do much better when we are outside of the walls of power speaking and standing for those without a voice. So if the US Congress does not use Christian Bibles to swear people in it does not personally bother me. I am not sure the Jesus would want to vouch for the US Congress? Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Obviously, Kathy, you don’t understand what our forefathers stood for.
I know very well what they stood for. Numerous times I have posted the facts in excerpts of speeches and documents they have written. Etched in buildings throughout Washington, DC, is further proof of what was in the minds of our forefathers.
That tells me alot. And conservatives wish to preserve it. Freedom of worship – yes. Freedom to dismiss and remove the truth – no.
I abhor your smug religiosity and self-proclaimed righteousness.
Unfortunately Larry, you abhor someone who doesn’t agree with you. I stand by my beliefs with the inscriptions on every significant building in DC. and will not compromise.
I’m going to side with reality – not the redefining of history based on a liberal philosophy that keeps pulling up the anchor and changing direction.
If George Washington knew that swearing on a Bible would become some sort of ritualized practice I doubt he would have done it
Really? And you have come to that conclusion based on what?
Many times I have read comments on this forum of perceptions regarding what was or wasn’t in the minds of our forefathers – pretty presumptuous!
Kathy, I never said I abhored you personally. Smug religiosity and self-proclaimed righteousness, yes. Your philosophy that is based on early use of a Christian bible and inscriptions on public buildings? I guess I abhor that too. I’m not worried about people who don’t agree with me. I respect different opinions and like to engage in public debate about issues but it bothers me when people smugly proclaim “I’m right and you’re wrong!”
Based on the fact that Washington was offered an office akin to being king but he rejected the idea. Based on the fact that he wanted to free his slaves, even if it were only at his own death. Based on the fact that Washington did not himself spoke out against religious discrimination. Based on the fact that Washington had a keen sense of ritual and proper conduct.
My sense is that Washington swore on a Bible to emphasize for others that is oath was binding and eternal, but had he not used a Bible his oath would have been no less binding. And if a Koran or Torah was at hand, and someone asked him to repeat the vow on either or both of those he would have.
Kathy, I’m going to reiterate a point I’ve made before: the Founding Fathers wrote slavery into the constitution and many of them owned slaves themselves. If you’re going to insist that use of the Christian bible is dictated by our “history” are you also going to insist that we allow slavery? We are evolving as a nation and that includes outlawing abominations like slavery and tolerance for other faiths and peoples. Change does not repudiate our history, it adds to it.
I am closing this post for further comments at the request of the author. The meanness to meaning ratio has gotten too high to continue on in a public venue. Dale Hobson, NCPR