MAGA - describe when America was “Great”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America was much better when most children were raised in functional nuclear families.

Please define “functional “.

Defining “better” would be great, too, but let’s start with “functional”.
Quite a lot of what used to look functional on the surface involved alcohol, cigarettes, what now would be viewed as abusive behavior, and laws and social conventions that made it extremely difficult for women to leave highly problematic marriages.
So many biographies from children who survived supposedly “functional nuclear families” — and those are just the stories that got published.

You’ve made important points. Those families weren’t perfect, yet their children became adults who could read and write.

+1. And spend a lot of time in therapy

— Gen X

Yeah, I wish my parent who grew up in the 1940s - 1950s in families that struggled had spent some time in therapy. Would definitely have benefited from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:America was much better before the rampant acceptance of obscenities in day to day life. Now we have presidential candidates using terms like Harris “effn”, Trump “p**y” Walz “ “g-d damn it”.

Not to mention rampant sexploitation in the entertainment industry.

I don’t think Vance at least has publicly cursed, but I could be wrong.

Of course there are outliers but statistics show kid’s fare much better in 2 parent households.

Didn’t Nixon and LBJ curse up a storm? Obscenities always existed. I’m not sure why you think this is a recent development

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
“Kearney also contended that a stable two-parent household, particularly one where both parents are actively involved[b], offers unique advantages to children that extend beyond a pooled income. Having two parents in the household, Kearney explained, offers benefits such as increased parental time for activities like reading and homework assistance, as well as reduced stress and greater emotional bandwidth for parenting”


https://www.brookings.edu/articles/key-takeaways-from-the-discussion-on-the-two-parent-privilege/#:~:text=Having%20two%20parents%20in%20the,greater%20emotional%20bandwidth%20for%20parenting.

Exactly nobody argues with this. But if a household is stable, the parents choose to stay together without being legally or economically forced.

There is a huge difference between “a two parents household” and a “stable” two parent household “with two actively involved parents”. Getting rid of no fault divorce or forcing and shaming women into staying in bad marriages does not make a household stable or the father more involved.

— Gen x who grew up in a two parent household with abuse and addiction and carefully, in tentionally and with a ton of therapy built a stable two parent household with a man who is a 50% parent for her kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking MAGAs honestly - please describe when America was “great” and what you want “again”. Thank you.

1980’s. Silicon Valley was crating innovation without own children

Business would hire US citizens and train them

College grads could find entry leve jobs and afford a house in 5 years of saving

It was immoral to fire someone and replace them with cheap temporary foreign worker

Globalization killed all the above.

gzlobalization that was the legacy of reagan/bush that clinton had to sign.

reagan/bush exported jobs, killed unions, destroyed public education, demonized (creating the welfare queen myth) and was devastating to the national debt that Bush Junior and Trump totally cratered in the name of "trickle down" economics.

Bush you say? The same Bush who's VP Darth Vader Dick Cheney is voting for Harris (along with many other holdouts from that administration and likely GWB himself, though I dont believe he has stated it publicly)? MAGA is a direct repudiation of neoconservatism from that era.

We're glad you're divorcing those bozos, but Trump is you rebound guy. Kick him to the curb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America was much better before the rampant acceptance of obscenities in day to day life. Now we have presidential candidates using terms like Harris “effn”, Trump “p**y” Walz “ “g-d damn it”.

Not to mention rampant sexploitation in the entertainment industry.

I don’t think Vance at least has publicly cursed, but I could be wrong.

Of course there are outliers but statistics show kid’s fare much better in 2 parent households.

Didn’t Nixon and LBJ curse up a storm? Obscenities always existed. I’m not sure why you think this is a recent development

Mass media lead to cultivated images.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if I could afford my bills and groceries again. That would be great again.

Was everything "great" years ago? Hell no. But I need to afford groceries, heat, electricity, mortgage, etc. right now. Due to inflation, I've been knocked down lower on Maslows hierarchy of needs. My needs now are simply shelter, food, water, etc.

I dunno. I grew up in 1970s and my parents lived paycheck to paycheck. I mean they borrowed from the bank every month to pay off bills. We had very little in terms of things and never went on vacation. One small b&w tv. 5 of us sharing a bathroom. Both of my parents grew up in families who had very little as well. As in, 5 kids sleeping in one room. All hand-me-down clothes. One family didn't have a car, the other had a 30+ year old car that was falling apart. Basically the same as what you are saying now: the only things spent on were simply shelter, food, water. So, where was the great? I mean, I guess it sounds like for you it was the 90s? When a Democrat was in the White House?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a time where going to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Wharton meant something.

Now not so much.

Many employers now prefer to hire folks from state schools.

Many people prefer unsupported sweeping generalizations to actual data.
You might be right — but there’s no way to tell by your comment, or even to accurately assess it.
“Many employees “ includes everything from McDonalds to top tier law firms.
It’s a mistake to assume that all of the “many” are hiring for the same reasons or even the same skill sets.

Depends on what you're hiring for of course. Do you want a superstar that will use your company as a stepping stone, or do you want someone who will stay around long term. Both have their pluses and minuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“Kearney also contended that a stable two-parent household, particularly one where both parents are actively involved, offers unique advantages to children that extend beyond a pooled income. Having two parents in the household, Kearney explained, offers benefits such as increased parental time for activities like reading and homework assistance, as well as reduced stress and greater emotional bandwidth for parenting”


https://www.brookings.edu/articles/key-takeaw...h%20for%20parenting.

I don't think anyone would argue with this. But many two-parent households were not stable. Many marriages were failing back then as well. Many parents avoided home and spent time on the barstool or elsewhere. Not everyone was caring for their kids. They stayed married, but it wasn't "stable".

The difference now is community members are expected to pay the price for others’ poor decisions.

Would it really be so bad if people were held responsible for their life choices again?

A rising tide lifts all boats, but drilling holes in each hull does the opposite.

Kindness and empathy both have the capacity to turn toxic. Hence the state of our disordered society.

Wait what? Are you saying that communities shouldn't have to step in to help children who live in chaotic, violent, or poor households?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1950s through the 1980s.

It tracked.the postwar economic boom, which lasted until the late 1970s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if I could afford my bills and groceries again. That would be great again.

Was everything "great" years ago? Hell no. But I need to afford groceries, heat, electricity, mortgage, etc. right now. Due to inflation, I've been knocked down lower on Maslows hierarchy of needs. My needs now are simply shelter, food, water, etc.

How big is your house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America was much better before the rampant acceptance of obscenities in day to day life. Now we have presidential candidates using terms like Harris “effn”, Trump “p**y” Walz “ “g-d damn it”.

Not to mention rampant sexploitation in the entertainment industry.

I don’t think Vance at least has publicly cursed, but I could be wrong.

Of course there are outliers but statistics show kid’s fare much better in 2 parent households.

Didn’t Nixon and LBJ curse up a storm? Obscenities always existed. I’m not sure why you think this is a recent development

LBJ would take a dump and ask his secretary to come in while he was to take notes. I kid you not. "LBJ bathroom meetings"

[Anonymous]

If you're a Republican complaining about grocery costs, then what in the hell do you think they would cost if migrants weren't working in all of these industries providing you with meat, dairy, produce, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America was much better before the rampant acceptance of obscenities in day to day life. Now we have presidential candidates using terms like Harris “effn”, Trump “p**y” Walz “ “g-d damn it”.

Not to mention rampant sexploitation in the entertainment industry.

I don’t think Vance at least has publicly cursed, but I could be wrong.

Of course there are outliers but statistics show kid’s fare much better in 2 parent households.

Didn’t Nixon and LBJ curse up a storm? Obscenities always existed. I’m not sure why you think this is a recent development

LBJ would take a dump and ask his secretary to come in while he was to take notes. I kid you not. "LBJ bathroom meetings"

The audio of him talking to his tailor is priceless. "Bunghole"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"When them thar ______ knew their place."

They'll lie and say that's not it, but that's it.

- foreigners, like that Melania with her stupid accent,

Amirite? Amirite??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
“Kearney also contended that a stable two-parent household, particularly one where both parents are actively involved, offers unique advantages to children that extend beyond a pooled income. Having two parents in the household, Kearney explained, offers benefits such as increased parental time for activities like reading and homework assistance, as well as reduced stress and greater emotional bandwidth for parenting”


https://www.brookings.edu/articles/key-takeaways-from-the-discussion-on-the-two-parent-privilege/#:~:text=Having%20two%20parents%20in%20the,greater%20emotional%20bandwidth%20for%20parenting.

Yet, as I recall (from reading in college many years ago) These studies didn’t really look seriously at other family models. Two parents families are the default model. But what if the two parents have a hostile relationship, or if even one of them is seriously impaired by alcohol, other substance abuse, mental illness, or even unremitting stress. Would that really be “better” on clearly specified measures than, say, a household that includes a grandmother, her adult daughter and son, and her own children’s children? That offers all of the benefits that Kearney indicated, possibly with more egalitarian and more flexibility among the adults in the household, and possibly more support for the kids. I’m not arguing in favor of either model. I’m saying that there are multiple models beyond the ones that most researchers look at from the secure perspectives of their own cultures.