Americans Have Almost Entirely Forgotten Their History

[Chevy1]

Pretty incredible what our young people don't know about the American Experience....

Americans Have Almost Entirely Forgotten Their History ...........

"A study by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation found that only 1 in 3 Americans can actually pass the U.S. citizenship test, which asks the most basic questions about our history and how our system of government works."

"Passing the test requires answering 60 percent of questions correctly, but a majority of those participating in the survey couldn’t even do that."

"The survey listed some of the embarrassing answers given on the test."

"-Seventy-two percent of respondents either incorrectly identified or were unsure which states comprised the original 13 colonies;

-Only 24 percent could correctly identify one thing Benjamin Franklin was famous for, with 37 percent believing he invented the lightbulb;

-Only 24 percent knew the correct answer as to why the colonists fought the British;

-Twelve percent incorrectly thought WWII General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War, while 6 percent thought he was a Vietnam War general;

-While most knew the cause of the Cold War, 2 percent said it was climate change."

"Young people performed worst on the test. Out of all test-takers under the age of 45, only 19 percent passed."

"Given these numbers, it’s no wonder why so many young Americans say they would rather live under socialism than capitalism, and have little understanding of what that would mean in reality."

 

[the spectre]

The Cultural Marxists have done their job well when it comes to the dumbing down of Americans.

 

[extragreen]

Given these numbers, it’s no wonder why so many young Americans say they would rather live under socialism than capitalism,

That's not necessarily as much an acquittal of socialism as it is an indictment of present day capitalism. When the 2 systems are considered by most people, they are contrasted using the strict form of socialism compared to the ideal form of capitalism. In their strictest forms, capitalism gives us no public schools, no parks, no public law enforcement, no public firefighters, no government programs such as Social Security and Medicare, no public highways, no minimum wage, and no unemployment compensation to name a few. On the other hand strict socialism would remove corporations and perhaps a good portion of our responsibility and incentive. In my opinion, no sane person would advocate for the strict form of either. While all or nearly all conservatives on this board and every where else will disagree, we have at the moment too much capitalism and not enough socialism. Fire away.

 

[19MU88]

That's not necessarily as much an acquittal of socialism as it is an indictment of present day capitalism. When the 2 systems are considered by most people, they are contrasted using the strict form of socialism compared to the ideal form of capitalism. In their strictest forms, capitalism gives us no public schools, no parks, no public law enforcement, no public firefighters, no government programs such as Social Security and Medicare, no public highways, no minimum wage, and no unemployment compensation to name a few. On the other hand strict socialism would remove corporations and perhaps a good portion of our responsibility and incentive. In my opinion, no sane person would advocate for the strict form of either. While all or nearly all conservatives on this board and every where else will disagree, we have at the moment too much capitalism and not enough socialism. Fire away.

just think....it could have been state run cabinet business and you would not have had to fail at capitalism

 

[i am herdman]

Our school system at work.

 

[the spectre]

We have to much cronyism not to much capitalism.

 

[Chevy1]

In their strictest forms, capitalism gives us no public schools, no parks, no public law enforcement, no public firefighters, no government programs such as Social Security and Medicare, no public highways, no minimum wage, and no unemployment compensation to name a few. On the other hand strict socialism would remove corporations and perhaps a good portion of our responsibility and incentive. In my opinion, no sane person would advocate for the strict form of either..

Agree - both capitalism and socialism in their "strict form" - will fail. The end result of strict capitalism will produce a society of a few winners....while the vast majority will be on the losing end. And pure socialism will fail because no one has incentive to perform - see nearly all the old Warsaw Pact countries - all of them crashed.

Not sure if I agree with the cause-effect outcome cited by the article. IMO, most young people take on tremendous debt to attend college and are resentful they have to bear that burden. This is sad due to the fact it's not always been that way in this country. The "greatest generation" provided a system that supported state colleges at a much higher level than today.

 

[herdfan429]

Agree - both capitalism and socialism in their "strict form" - will fail. The end result of strict capitalism will produce a society of a few winners....while the vast majority will be on the losing end. And pure socialism will fail because no one has incentive to perform - see nearly all the old Warsaw Pact countries - all of them crashed.

Not sure if I agree with the cause-effect outcome cited by the article. IMO, most young people take on tremendous debt to attend college and are resentful they have to bear that burden. This is sad due to the fact it's not always been that way in this country. The "greatest generation" provided a system that supported state colleges at a much higher level than today.

Yeah that’s the problem. There isn’t enough state support for colleges now.

 

[Chevy1]

Yeah that’s the problem. There isn’t enough state support for colleges now.

You're right....today's American college students don't deserve advantages many received a generation ago - screw 'em...

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/statesupport

 

[herdfan429]

Compare that to fed dollars coming in through grants student loans etc. I don’t disagree state funding had been cut. I just think the money is coming from other places mainly the feds

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

TIL Chevy has no idea what capitalism is and what unfettered capitalism looks like.

 

[Chevy1]

TIL Chevy has no idea what capitalism is and what unfettered capitalism looks like.

Strange....you know nothing about me aside from what I post here....but you make a claim without any knowledge of where I grew up, what I've done or doing for a living or what my education level is. I would never assume to know what you know or don't know....I don't have the facts.....and neither do you in this case.

 

[WV-FAN]

What the hell do you think's going to happen when liberals are trying to rewrite our history?

 

[Bankerreturns]

That's not necessarily as much an acquittal of socialism as it is an indictment of present day capitalism. When the 2 systems are considered by most people, they are contrasted using the strict form of socialism compared to the ideal form of capitalism. In their strictest forms, capitalism gives us no public schools, no parks, no public law enforcement, no public firefighters, no government programs such as Social Security and Medicare, no public highways, no minimum wage, and no unemployment compensation to name a few. On the other hand strict socialism would remove corporations and perhaps a good portion of our responsibility and incentive. In my opinion, no sane person would advocate for the strict form of either. While all or nearly all conservatives on this board and every where else will disagree, we have at the moment too much capitalism and not enough socialism. Fire away.

I don't know where you copied that from, but be smart and don't try and take credit for it because it is fatally flawed on its face. It is conflating form of government with type of economy. We are a representative republic whose economy is based on capitalism. It is never the "economy's" responsibility to provide schools, highways, or anything other than a marketplace for the exchange of goods and services.

 

[Bankerreturns]

Heavy state and federal support of the university system is what led to the ridiculous prices paid today and those heavy burdens to attend college. Well, that coupled with the marketing of schools that make kids believe they have to go to certain colleges to get the right education.

For most Americans there is a limit to what they can afford to pay for college. However, since the government gives grants, subsidizes the costs and offers loans, it allows colleges to charge more and still get the number of kids they require to fill their schools. It's a prime example of the rules of capitalism being subverted with a socialistic system leading to an undesired outcome. The undesired outcome is not that more kids get to go to college, it is that colleges are able to charge ridiculous amounts for their product, more than the market would otherwise pay.

It would be different if the tuition money charged was actually required to provide the education, but it's not. Look at some of the facilities being built by colleges around the country, which they call "necessary to be competitive and attract students". You have over the top student activity centers, dorms that are nicer than most apartment complexes, overly ornate structures all over campuses, high end dining halls, not to mention the retarded level of spending on athletic facilities (which are funded partially by increasing tuition on each student by another $300 to $800 per semester in athletic fees when most kids don't even attend the athletic events).

 

[sistersville]

That's not necessarily as much an acquittal of socialism as it is an indictment of present day capitalism. When the 2 systems are considered by most people, they are contrasted using the strict form of socialism compared to the ideal form of capitalism. In their strictest forms, capitalism gives us no public schools, no parks, no public law enforcement, no public firefighters, no government programs such as Social Security and Medicare, no public highways, no minimum wage, and no unemployment compensation to name a few. On the other hand strict socialism would remove corporations and perhaps a good portion of our responsibility and incentive. In my opinion, no sane person would advocate for the strict form of either. While all or nearly all conservatives on this board and every where else will disagree, we have at the moment too much capitalism and not enough socialism. Fire away.[/QUOTE .

 

[extragreen]

It is conflating form of government with type of economy.

No it isn't. Pure socialism is where the government controls the means of production and pure capitalism is where the government is hands off. Both require the government's decision as to which will preside. Pure capitalists are the type who will attempt to tell you the government forced financial institutions to not verify the income of loan applicants.

 

[Bankerreturns]

No it isn't. Pure socialism is where the government controls the means of production and pure capitalism is where the government is hands off. Both require the government's decision as to which will preside. Pure capitalists are the type who will attempt to tell you the government forced financial institutions to not verify the income of loan applicants.

Pull down your skirt, your ignorance is showing.

 

[extragreen]

Pull down your skirt, your ignorance is showing.

You don't have the altitude to call me ignorant when you make low life claims that the government forced financial institutions to not verify income of loan applicants, and that doubling the minimum wage would increase the poverty level to $35,000.