Printable View
That's kind of harsh... But yeah, teenagers working for minimum wage is the lifeblood of this country :)
I may be a super awesome 30something now, but in my teenage years i washed dishes, dug ditches, unloaded trucks, bagged groceries, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
TopCat, I applaud your sentiments. I'd like to believe that "Hopefully our politicians will get a clue and sense the mood of the nation this time around" but I truly doubt it. Partisanship has a nasty way of refusing to dissipate until the major proponents thereof have died. Polarization is now the name of the political game in America, and I really hope my opinion is erroneous, but it's here to stay.
Clay, Calhoun, and Webster have been spinning in their graves for the past 4 years. Congressional compromise has been dead since the end of World War 2. Now, both houses of Congress must begin re-learning the art of compromise, for failure to do so will label them as "obstructionists" come their re-elections in 2 and 4 years. But they won't change.
Reality is unfortunately harsh. During summers in my teen years I worked in a silver mine operating a Ticonderoga and a Northwest #2. There's always employment for teens. Not necessarily great employment, but a paycheque is always out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfast
One thing to keep in mind. All of our senators/reps are career politicians. It is there main source of income.
So there main job is to get re-elected. Which probably means "Standing up to the enemy!!!!". So come election time they can bash there competition for compromising.
Slartibartfast, you hit the nail squarely on the head! A congressman's job is to become a senator. A senator's job is to become president.
If that is what you really believe, then I think you should read up on other countries. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerskouson
It is true though, that the US is more liberal than e.g. North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
Hardly an achievement :)
Bruno, please keep in mind that Parker's only 14 and still in high school. Let's not be too harsh on the lad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Chin up, Parker! We still like ya! :)
BOHICA: Barack Obama He's In Charge Again :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by shooter74743
Not what I originally thought it meant, but quite creative!Quote:
Originally Posted by TopCat
Guy #1: I'm going to give you someone else's money
Guy #2: I'm going to help you get a job so you can earn your own money
It's pretty hard for Guy #2 to beat Guy #1 when there are as many freeloaders as there are.
As Ben Franklin said:
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. "
While there have been times going back and forth where we have thought it a good idea to ignore the idea that we actually have to produce something economically, and at the root of production is the idea that individuals actually have to get out of bed and have some drive, there has always been a calibrating president that at least made the idological standpoint that it is good to solve your own problems and take care of yourself.
I think we are at a point now where people who choose to do nothing have no chance of being hungry, and those days are over, and we will be worse off for it. A large percentage of the population will do nothing productive unless they have to to eat, and the rest of us will carry them, all the while listening to them whine about a pie in the sky reason that we supposedly got ahead by taking the shirt off their backs.
Last night's election was a demonstration that a majority of the voting population no longer has any interest in dealing with numerical reality or sense, and certainly derives no satisfaction from the drive that they will take care of themselves and their families to the best of their ability.
I think that's a pretty vast oversimplification of what this election was about. I have a job, I've had a job since I was fifteen and was the only white kid on a mowing crew which i was not so affectionately dubbed "pendejo" (i had no idea what that meant at the time)...so when I go to vote, I'm not looking to do nothing and get something for it...in fact, the percentage of this country that honestly truly does behave in that way is pretty small...certainly not enough of a percentage to be the deciding factor in a presidential election when the candidate wins both the electoral and popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Both candidates have plans on how to deal with "numerical reality" and reduce the deficit...it's a matter of how it's done. Honestly, I think this was the Republican Party's election to lose...but it's moved so far right that they made that more difficult for themselves than it should have been. Mitt the moderate probably would have trounced Pres. Obama had he not gone "severely conservative".
So. the majority of this country are freeloaders just because they disagree with you?
It seemed to me that the majority of people disagreed/did not trust Romney, more than they blindly agreed with all of Obama's plan.
The majority of the country has no interest in linking what they produce / do to what they consume. And the response when you bring that up is that there is a hidden group with unlimited wealth to make up the difference. That's freeloading. There are super-producing ideologues among that group, but it isn't the majority.
I see approximately $60,000 of debt added to each household after the last 4 years, and all I hear is about how we're not doing enough to help people. It makes no sense.
You can't even begin to discuss how you solve the problem of repaying the debt until you get to the point that you can stop accumulating it. Right now, it's getting serviced at what...1.5%? What do you do when it's 4% or 5%? You have to reissue debt as it matures, and suddenly the cost to service it will skyrocket.
In a situation where that kind of debt is incurred, and a very significant number of households are not paying taxes for anything other than pay-as-you go social programs (which themselves are adding to the debt, and projected to do more so in the future), how do you begin to have a realistic understanding of the assignment of that debt to households that actually produce more than they consume. Do you think they're going to continue to?
All I hear is that we're not giving enough money away and this politician or that politician doesn't identify with the poor. No presidential politican identifies with the poor. They pander to the poor.
I see no realistic solution to the numerical problem other than a genuine effort to incent people to create, invest and innovate, and the current structure incents exactly the opposite.
So the majority has kicked the can down the road a little bit longer, choosing to ignore reality.
Unfortunately for the Republicans Romney was a terrible candidate. Between his constant changes of position and major gaffes and lies about his background and accomplishments and a bunch of other stuff he was doomed from the start. Had someone like our friend from N.J run I think the outcome would have been very different. I think it's a miracle the election wasn't a total bust for them.
I also like to point out that the 'freeloader' argument is incorrect.
I live in a country that is way more socialist than what Obama is being accused of. Most of the people I know here are hard working people as well. We all work our jobs. We just like some stuff to be provided as cost efficient as possible.
Don't call people freeloaders just because they think that it is more important for society to have a working healthcare system than to make sure the insurance companies make double digit profits and their CEOs and their lawyers can buy a new yacht.
I was ok with either of the candidates and I think that's about the only time I have felt that - I'm almost 60. I don't think our problems are something that a president fixes, but he can certainly make them worse. I wish Obama the best.
TBS, I agree with you. What's strange, as a libertarian type of conservative, was all of the accusations that Romney was a far right conservative. And strange because I knew a lot about him before he ever ran for president. I thought "this guy is going to get in trouble because of the things about him that got him elected in massachusetts".
In our election system, you have to pretend to be something in the primary, and then pretend to be something else entirely in the general election. That is always going to lead to people either lying (romney pretending to be a solid middle-of-the-road conservative) or hiding something from the or past (Obama and his college legal philosophy work).
The primaries can be especially ridiculous due to the "i can prove i'm more conservativer than you" or "i can prove i'm more liberaler than you". Coming from where I am, and leaning more toward libertarian, but with the identification that the truly unfortunate (disabled and medically ill, etc) need to be taken care of, imagine how much consternation I would have with Rick Santorum getting as far as he did, simply because most people hand no clue about his history.
Anyone who makes it to the presidency pretty much needs to be an egomaniacal narcissist, a truly twisted individual in one way or another, because no honest person who had any concept of the rest of the world would be able to tolerate putting themselves at such a lying deceit fest that politics has become. And it is *shocking* that still such a large part of the majority thinks that "it's bad, but only the other guy is bad enough that it's a problem, my guy isn't as bad and he has good intentions".
Stock market is showing Love today for Mr O :)
Well, I doubt that the majority of folks in the US would get better care anywhere else in the world. I don't think most insurers make "double digit profits", either, especially as a percent of revenue. We do have an issue with compensation packages and how we value some individuals, but even the dollar amounts they are getting wouldn't solve 1% of our problems if we magically added a multiplier limit to CEO salaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Fiscal irresponsibility in the US isn't due to lack of provided health care or how big of a boat someone 3 states away has, it exists at the individual level, and the monetary virtue and thrift that a lot of western europeans have (germany, belgium, etc) doesn't generally exist in the US. It is systemic here, and to pretend that it is a small structural matter and not the fault of individuals is disingenuous. It is more like greece on an individual level here for a large part of the population, and it is consumption driven, consumption without regard to production or means. Belgium, Germany, UK, etc, don't have middle class folks trying to outlive their standard of living at the same rate.
The fact that we've amassed $60,000 of debt per household over the last 4 years has very little to do with healthcare or CEOs. It is a convenient argument for western europeans to buy into, thinking that all we need is a political fix to be more like western europe, but the problem goes deeper at the individual level. If you told the average middle class household (I am middle class, and live below my means in a fairly small house) in the US that you would provide health care for them at a 50% effective tax rate, and that they had to live on the remainder, they just couldn't do it on average -few of them would forgo the things they feel that they're entitled to (two fairly new cars, a payment-based livestyle, financing every large-ticket item, one to two vacations a year, etc).
This thread makes me very happy for the IGNORE LIST feature.
See! Now let's see the money trickle down!Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
More jobs already!
:p
If I die with $1 million in the bank, then I've lost $1 million -- I have nothing to show for it. If I die $1 million in debt, then I've had one helluva good time!
Sage point.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
I live in Belgium. The majority of the people I know will never consider spending more money per month than what they earn per month. Buying things on credit is not done a lot here, although it exists. most people I know budget their income up front so that you know at the beginning of the month what you have to work with when all fixed costs (mortgage, heating, etc) are accounted for.
From time to time our costs are bigger. For example if something breaks down. That is what savings accounts are for. On a yearly basis, the typical Belgian will never spend more than he earns, and will typically put money in a savings account or investment.
Bruno --
I'm certain that you're well aware that American gov't.'s from the state level on up are huge fans of deficit spending. Here in Michigan, Gov. John Engler had 5 consecutive years of deficit spending. Michigan has been broke since the middle of his second term (1998). Gotta love that particular Republican governour!
Fiscal irresponsibility in the US knows no political bounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus
The way all of our systems are set up, from infrastructure to public pensions, there is never a political incentive to do anything other than spend past means, and be as irresponsible as possible about truing up or funding pre-funded ventures. Or as my grandmother used to say about me as a kid (you'll never be able to keep your hot little hands out of your pocket if you have 5 dollars sitting in it doing nothing for you at the time).
If you gain cost efficiency from your gov't, I tip my hat to your gov't. In the US, there is no possible way that you will send $5 of tax into the government and spit out $10 of services. I am highly suspect that you can either but I will concede not be an authority on your political system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Trust me, as an admirer of fiscal responsibility in western europe (and a descendant of german and german swiss), I wish we - as individuals and as a group - had the discipline that exists in belgium, german, switzerland, etc. It is going to need to come from the liberal side of the aisle in the US, though, just like cuts in medicare, etc, need to, because a moderate conservative politician will be branded as a "tea party grandma killer" if they'd try such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I just don't think most folks have the heart to live within their means, and most don't even understand fully that they're not living within their means, because we're so dependent on consumer dollars for economic growth. It's almost as if you're speaking profanity here if you tell someone they need to cut back on spending in their house.... a dirty thing, because you're telling them to kill the economy in some peoples' eyes. So instead, the populace is told "it's never been a better time to borrow, and the economy needs your dollars, keep borrowing and spending...you'll be a fiscal martyr at worst...a hero".
Many of the western european governments are very tidy with their money, and very smart about their fiscal setup in terms of future social benefits, funded or not. Unlike us, when they make an obligation for themselves, like pensions, they make part of the obligation variable based on economic experience, and they fund a lot of their obligation up front uniformly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDshaver
It always seems that the Republicans look out for the rich, and everyone else tries to look out for the majority, the poor. I see Obama's first term as four years cleaning up the mess of the previous administration - I'd say that's a 10 year job. I see most policies he wanted to enact stunted by the Republicans in the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by mainaman
IMO, The lesser of two evils is the one that's honest about his plight.
Many of the western european governments do what their people want. We've seen it recently - try to take anything away from them, and there's rioting in the streets. USA's government isn't afraid of its people.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
That movie V for Vendetta had it right - People shouldn't be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people
There is a GIGANTIC difference between (belgium, switzerland, spain, germany, holland) and (greece, spain, portugal...). The ones I'm referring to are the former, the riots are occurring in the latter, even though it seems a popular choice to just rob from the former to fix the latter. The same thing would happen in the US if there was austerity type measures and those outliving their means were forced to live within them in exchange for some of the savings of those who were living within their means. Despite basically being legalized theft by the former, it would be those people who were rioting.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheffieldlover
I don't think anyone in the US governments is really afraid of any citizens. I think if they become unpopular, they feel that rather than listening to the citizens, it's a matter of spinning what they're doing to mislead them.
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful :rofl2:Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsixty
Attachment 111513
Fiscal responsibility needs to come from both sides. The GOP needs to cede on tax breaks for the ultra wealthy, and take the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommendation to make appropriate cuts to our bloated military, and the Dems need to cut back on social security and medicare. The point is, there is enough blame to go around on both sides, and partisan bickering only inflames tensions and solves nothing. Now is the time for our elected officials to use the honeymoon period to come together to solve this issue, or we will all be jumping off the fiscal cliff together.....
I don't think DaveW was that far off. While his explanation might not cover all of it, he's definitely on to something.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanjewell
"...more than half of all Americans paid no Federal income tax in the tax year 2009, and the number of people who did pay taxes was even lower -- 51 percent, not 53 percent. For tax year 2011, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 54 percent of Americans will pay Federal income tax."
I don't see how anyone could have bought into the president's theory of managing the deficit. His record on the deficit speaks for itself. I suspect he will attempt to correct that in the next 4 years on the backs of those that he disagrees with most. The idea of redistributing wealth is not isolated to different tax brackets. It will happen between sectors of the economy as well. And as for Romney being "severely conservative", are you kidding me? Romney is definitely NOT conservative. I keep hearing people say that the republican party needs to be more middle of the road and less conservative. To that I point out two realities. The first being that every time the left takes another step to the left, they redefine the what is now the middle. Don't think so? We have candidates that openly state that they are socialist.....AND THEY WIN. Twenty years ago that would not have been possible. But after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seems that no one has any fear of socialism any longer. I can already hear our European friends stating that its not so bad and that it works to some extent in their countries. To that I say, congratulations but here in the US it flies in the face of everything our forefathers stood for and fought against. It is contrary to our very Constitutional way of life (if that exists any longer). And second, I ask, is that how the democrats won the presidency? By appealing to the middle? No, they put fourth the most radical, most liberal voting member of Congress as their candidate and have convinced the public that anything to the right of their point of view is radical. Its absurd. Romney was NOT conservative. Perhaps if he was we may have had a national discussion worth listening to.
How nice for them. Sounds very responsible. I haven't seen anything like this out of Washington in my life. There isn't one major entitlement in the US that isn't bankrupt. With that in mind, how many more can we tolerate?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Well, I clearly don't think the first term did anything except dig a bigger hole. It's pretty arbitrary to claim that it's a "10 year job", especially if there is no incremental improvement. And FTR, I think second term GWB and Obama is about the same. There are no saints in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheffieldlover
Anyone objectively looking at the situation right now would view the last 4 years as the promise of future delayed inflation or more difficult future solutions just because 4 years has passed, and the public dollars that have been borrowed and spent are being spent on things that will yield little future economic gain. The solutions claimed as savings (like the savings in the health care bill) really don't exist, they are on paper, and dependent on things like cutting medicare physican reimbursement. It won't happen, every year, updated reimbursement rates will come out, physicians will threaten to drop their patients, and medicare patients will pressure politicians and threaten to vote them out.
The result will be the same as it was last year, the cut in reimbursement rates is stayed for a year by a bill...and there will be one like that every year. We are incenting more use of health care and drugs, the overall cost will be higher, there's no free lunch.
In 2010, there was a bill passed that was funded by a delay in pension contributions. It claimed some number of billions of savings due to reduced pension contributions by employers. If you examine that, what they're saying is that if you have a pension and your employer delays putting money in the plan as a temporary relief measure, the government gains revenue because the employer won't deduct it.
But in future years when they're forced to make up for it with additional contributions and lost interest, there will be greater deductions. There is no savings, it is a change in timing, BUT the first part of that was claimed as savings in the bill under the pay-as-you-go requirement and the last part was completely ignored. In reality, what happens is perhaps $10 billion of deductions don't occur this year, the returns on those contributions are lost, but maybe in 5 years, $12 billion additional is deducted for make-up contributions due to the prior holiday. The last part is intentionally ignored, figuring that nobody will remember or account for it.
Things like that do not fix the problem, they ignore it. This isn't even a political issue, it is a numerical issue. In the late 1990s, there was false revenue growth and taxes collected due to relaxed borrowing, all the time while manufacturing in the 1990s was going overseas - it was like we were taking cylinders out of a car engine while we were speeding up. If you borrow $100,000 without the means to pay it back, but pay a contractor with it, the contractor will pay taxes. So will the bank who originated and sold the loan - they'll pay taxes that year, which creates the illusion that income was earned and that the budget was balanced. Nothing was created except default proned- debt. That loan will come due, and with relaxed standards, there was no chance it would be paid. The cycles of deficits up until about 2004 were a function of leveraged spending. In the mid 80s, it was borrowing, in the mid to late 1990s, it was borrowing. In 2006,7,8 and all the way through now, we're seeing the cost of that leveraged spending, we are paying for it in defaults and reduced revenue now.
It is numerical issues. Almost every bill that goes by, regardless of the administration, it's easy to pick out examples where the numbers are spun - like I pointed out above. There is no honest accounting for what is going on, but there is a huge glom of the population that believes only the other guy does it, and "my guy is trying to fix it".
I have to agree that the fiscal mess in this country has little or nothing to do with the presidency. It has to do with a total lack of compromise in the houses of Congress. America is really missing Congressmen like Ted Kennedy and others who, although liberal or conservative, had a way of either crossing the line or bringing others across the line to get what was needed done.
Thats what the Romans thought, and they were around a lot longer than America...Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus
Yeah, I first got scared by the doom:Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
Attachment 111528
but then I zoomed out:
Attachment 111529
Attachment 111530
It's hard to make changes when the GOP does everything in their power to prevent that change. Also, there WAS incremental improvement. Preventing a total economic collapse counts as improvement. Unfortunately, it takes more than 4 years of good policy making to change the direction of a nation in a downward spiral. High unemployment, our debt...its all the tip of the iceberg. When the underlying issues are fixed, those too will be fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
