What Should Be America's New Year's Resolution?

January 1, 2009

Every year individual Americans vow to lose weight, pay off debts, quit smoking, or volunteer. It may be time for the entire country to make a commitment to reform in 2009. The country sure has a lot of debt to pay off, government policy could do more to fight obesity and volunteer programs are crucial to keeping social programs running. This year, America could resolve to become more healthy, by joining other Western nations by creating universal healthcare. Or, as a nation the US could become more environmentally responsible, proving a domestic and international commitment to conservation.

Obviously, there is lot Americans want to, shall I say, "change" this year. What do you think the country should make its number one priority for 2009?

Source

48 Comments

CaterpillarGirl 4 years 19 weeks

This is america, and we are humans who have free will and make our own decisions, regardless of our backrounds or means, If I am a rich person who worked to get there than i deserve it, if i am a poor person whose circumstances cut me down, than i work to better myself. Its all there for us to grab, we just have to know how to use it.

CaterpillarGirl 4 years 19 weeks

SKC Sparkle 4 years 20 weeks

I think America should focus on the problems within its own borders. Unemployment, bankrupcy, education - America has plenty to keep itself busy for the next ten to twenty years. Leave the Middle East alone and stop invading countries for oil!

Frank y Ava 4 years 20 weeks

"Let's see, I would cut unnecessary spending, do away with welfare, and lower taxes for ALL people."Oh really? Should we let the children starve or do you think we should establish a different system?

Frank y Ava 4 years 20 weeks

"Let's see, I would cut unnecessary spending, do away with welfare, and lower taxes for ALL people." Oh really? Should we let the children starve or do you think we should establish a different system?

nadiap 4 years 20 weeks

one US resolution should be to cut off funding to Israel. All of it. Ins't this country tired of financing murder?Secondly this nonsense about the car union is pure propaganda. Destroying the middle class (so they can create a desperate labor workforce for corporations has always been the conservatives's dream.) You know how they want to conserve those good old days of the 1800's. The way to do it is to bust unions. It started under Reagan and Bush has realized the dream. Those southern senators moaning and whining about the unions. Where were all these objections when Paulson came for his massive handout? You know They just want to bring back the glory days of slavery. I read recently that Since Bush came to power 600 billion dollars in wealth have been transfered from the bottom to the upper class. That was before He & Paulson pulled that 700 billion dollar bank heist for their scumbag friends on wall Street. Oh Republicans love welfare too; for the wealthy and corporations of course. They don't fool me for a second.

nadiap 4 years 20 weeks

one US resolution should be to cut off funding to Israel. All of it. Ins't this country tired of financing murder? Secondly this nonsense about the car union is pure propaganda. Destroying the middle class (so they can create a desperate labor workforce for corporations has always been the conservatives's dream.) You know how they want to conserve those good old days of the 1800's. The way to do it is to bust unions. It started under Reagan and Bush has realized the dream. Those southern senators moaning and whining about the unions. Where were all these objections when Paulson came for his massive handout? You know They just want to bring back the glory days of slavery. I read recently that Since Bush came to power 600 billion dollars in wealth have been transfered from the bottom to the upper class. That was before He & Paulson pulled that 700 billion dollar bank heist for their scumbag friends on wall Street. Oh Republicans love welfare too; for the wealthy and corporations of course. They don't fool me for a second.

organicsugr 4 years 20 weeks

We also tax making money. How backwards is that?

beavis667 4 years 20 weeks

We tax saving/investing money and give tax breaks for borrowing it. I'd like to see the government reverse that. If we were more savings minded and less credit minded, we'd be much better off.

hypnoticmix 4 years 20 weeks

Well let me clarify I was speaking to the (mechanics) of the system which we live by. Of course we all want everyone to be successful. If I became a millionaire I would want the same for others. However, it does not change the fact that I became a millionaire on the back of people who are struggling are intelligent and can't seem to get ahead. They want to be out of that position. I would want them to be out of that position but the fact of the matter is I wouldn't be in my position if it weren't for them being in their position.

moonlight spice 4 years 20 weeks

@stephley"If you need people to be unsuccessful in order to consider yourself a success, you aren't."*applaudes*

moonlight spice 4 years 20 weeks

@stephley "If you need people to be unsuccessful in order to consider yourself a success, you aren't." *applaudes*

stephley 4 years 20 weeks

Actually, not everyone defines success as involving their dream career or outrageous material goods. Many people have a healthy sense of 'enough' for themselves and their families. Striving to better yourself in America does not reasonably lead to a 'survival of the fittest' scenario. Darwin was talking about the natural world, not business or American society – how many of the ‘fittest’ in current society are basically ordinary people who have extraordinary positions because of family connections? The top is not weighed down with our best or brightest.If you need people to be unsuccessful in order to consider yourself a success, you aren't.

stephley 4 years 20 weeks

Actually, not everyone defines success as involving their dream career or outrageous material goods. Many people have a healthy sense of 'enough' for themselves and their families. Striving to better yourself in America does not reasonably lead to a 'survival of the fittest' scenario. Darwin was talking about the natural world, not business or American society – how many of the ‘fittest’ in current society are basically ordinary people who have extraordinary positions because of family connections? The top is not weighed down with our best or brightest. If you need people to be unsuccessful in order to consider yourself a success, you aren't.

moonlight spice 4 years 20 weeks

Brooke- I'm sorry if I upset you; you misinterpreted what I said. I said: "*If* you think...*then* you are...ignorant." I did not assume that you did or did not think that, I said IF. I did not mean to insult you.That is wonderful about your boyfriend's success. But for every one time that happens I can name ten others where a smart, hard working student wasn't able to succeed because of the reasons I've mentioned. I was one of the lucky ones too, but my story is not important. What is important is that there are some rich kids who waste their places at top schools, partying, not contributing, slacking off; they are only there because they had the money. Meanwhile others are struggling to get into good schools like mine...I had the exemplary test scores (and the grades to back them up) but by definition only 5% of people have test scores like mine. Does that have to be the standard?For the record, although I criticize certain rich people above, I do not hate rich people - nor do most people who say that we should have taxes that are more progressive and that we need certain social programs to help the poor. Many of my friends are both rich and highly motivated/intelligent. I respect them highly. hypontic - Survival of the fittest? To an extent I would agree with that, but again, all children should have opportunity. Those who are smart, talented, and/or hard working will succeed, those who aren't will not. Also, the individual needs a healthy society to succeed. Unless the society is strong the individual will be limited. Therefore anyone who wishes to be successful ought to consider how their actions affect and are affected by others, and work for mutual survival and benefits that will last longer than the sort of brutal and short life implied by the Social Darwinist idea.

moonlight spice 4 years 20 weeks

Brooke- I'm sorry if I upset you; you misinterpreted what I said. I said: "*If* you think...*then* you are...ignorant." I did not assume that you did or did not think that, I said IF. I did not mean to insult you. That is wonderful about your boyfriend's success. But for every one time that happens I can name ten others where a smart, hard working student wasn't able to succeed because of the reasons I've mentioned. I was one of the lucky ones too, but my story is not important. What is important is that there are some rich kids who waste their places at top schools, partying, not contributing, slacking off; they are only there because they had the money. Meanwhile others are struggling to get into good schools like mine...I had the exemplary test scores (and the grades to back them up) but by definition only 5% of people have test scores like mine. Does that have to be the standard? For the record, although I criticize certain rich people above, I do not hate rich people - nor do most people who say that we should have taxes that are more progressive and that we need certain social programs to help the poor. Many of my friends are both rich and highly motivated/intelligent. I respect them highly. hypontic - Survival of the fittest? To an extent I would agree with that, but again, all children should have opportunity. Those who are smart, talented, and/or hard working will succeed, those who aren't will not. Also, the individual needs a healthy society to succeed. Unless the society is strong the individual will be limited. Therefore anyone who wishes to be successful ought to consider how their actions affect and are affected by others, and work for mutual survival and benefits that will last longer than the sort of brutal and short life implied by the Social Darwinist idea.

brookrene 4 years 20 weeks

moonlight, I am NOT ignorant, contrary to your belief. My boyfriend grew up in inner city los angeles stealing pizzas to eat, he's what you would call a "poor kid" or a hood rat as he would call himself. His mother was not around most his life and he was raised by his grandparents. He wanted to leave the craphole he was living in and had the ambition to do so. I'm sure the schools in inner cities aren't great, but he went to school and got straight A's and worked his @ss off because he knew it was the way to get out. He owns a multi-million dollar company now and will retire in a few years at 45. Then will pass that opportunity onto his employees who have worked hard. Poor kids may have to work harder yes, but when they do it pays off big time. Do they have the same opportunities as far as money goes? NO. But, if they choose to use their brains and get straight A's and through hard work and perseverance then they will be rewarded. As witnessed above. hypnotic - i totally agree. It is survival of the fittest. I will always strive to better myself.

brookrene 4 years 20 weeks

hypnoticmix 4 years 20 weeks

Speaking of the pursuit of happiness I've said it before that it is absolutely impossible to support a world where everyone is successful. Imagine a world where every one's dream career came true (in our current way of life), can't happen the world just couldn't support such a burden. The pursuit of happiness is in my opinion code for survival of the fittest. The successful need the unsuccessful to be successful. They're an essential tool. For many it's a sad truth but it's the truth non the less.

moonlight spice 4 years 20 weeks

Brookrene- no people being rich does not necessarily make them bad, and no, everyone should not receive equal pay....But you say that the beauty of America is the pursuit of happiness - and yes, this would be beautiful, if it were the reality and not the ideal. The fact is that the poor are realistically unable to pursue their happiness. When you are trying to keep your family in the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter and you have to take several jobs to do so - how can you pursue happiness? Not all people in need are lazy bums on welfare (nor are all people on welfare lazy bums). Many of them work extremely hard, but due to a lack of education they are unable to get jobs that pay well. Why don't they have this education? Simply because they lack the equality that *I* want for this country: not equality of wage (although I feel the wage gap should not be SO extreme), but equality of OPPORTUNITY. If you think a poor child has the same opportunities as a rich child then you are, to be blunt, ignorant. This country would be better: more industrious, more innovative, more advanced if every child had equal opportunity to education (etc) because then those with the potential for greatness would be the ones who get the best jobs. Poor children should not be punished because of their parent's income, and under the current system they are. Your proposal would do nothing to solve that - in fact, it would just make things worse.

moonlight spice 4 years 20 weeks

Brookrene- no people being rich does not necessarily make them bad, and no, everyone should not receive equal pay.... But you say that the beauty of America is the pursuit of happiness - and yes, this would be beautiful, if it were the reality and not the ideal. The fact is that the poor are realistically unable to pursue their happiness. When you are trying to keep your family in the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter and you have to take several jobs to do so - how can you pursue happiness? Not all people in need are lazy bums on welfare (nor are all people on welfare lazy bums). Many of them work extremely hard, but due to a lack of education they are unable to get jobs that pay well. Why don't they have this education? Simply because they lack the equality that *I* want for this country: not equality of wage (although I feel the wage gap should not be SO extreme), but equality of OPPORTUNITY. If you think a poor child has the same opportunities as a rich child then you are, to be blunt, ignorant. This country would be better: more industrious, more innovative, more advanced if every child had equal opportunity to education (etc) because then those with the potential for greatness would be the ones who get the best jobs. Poor children should not be punished because of their parent's income, and under the current system they are. Your proposal would do nothing to solve that - in fact, it would just make things worse.

brookrene 4 years 20 weeks

UnDave - I agree with you about the unions. Let's see, I would cut unnecessary spending, do away with welfare, and lower taxes for ALL people. I would try to do away with the philosophy that rich people are evil people. Just because people make more money than you doesn't make them bad. I don't feel it's right to demand equality based on monetary income. The beauty of America is the PURSUIT of happiness, not take from the wealthy and give to the poor to even things out.

brookrene 4 years 20 weeks

stephley 4 years 20 weeks

Found this in a November Washington Monthly article: : According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research -- who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read -- average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income -- hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers. [...] [T]hen what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $24 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure. Voila. Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people."

stephley 4 years 20 weeks

Found this in a November Washington Monthly article:: According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research -- who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read -- average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income -- hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers. [...] [T]hen what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $24 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure. Voila.Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people."

Link Love

48 Comments

You Might Also Like