We are in this mess because people think that government should do every thing in the book and pay for it.
Government should give food to people.
Government should pay for their housing
Government should pay living wages
Government should supply healthcare
If we dont expect the government to do these things, we have to accept the other side of the situation if they dont. We will have a huge portion of people die of starvation, lack of medical treatment, and be homeless. We cant have our cake and eat it too.
If you cut the welfare budget and people start dying more, what are you going to say to those that scream we are being inhumane? Those who ask why we have such a large portion of our population homeless or starving? Taking away such entitlements could back fire in such ways you have not thought about.
I would suggest that wasteful spending in any aspect of government, including those who get the money who may not really need it (ie: could get a job but arent, or other aspects where the system is being abused) should be a significant priority to help bring the costs of these programs down as much as possible. Those that NEED it, should get it, Ive no problem with that. I would prefer to see the abuses and waste in any part of the government gone through and dealt with. Whether social programs, or defense, or anything else. Something also needs to be done about the pension systems in the country. IMHO guaranteed retirement income from the government (outside of SS of course, shouldnt exist), everyone should end up on a 401k or similar program, where they can put money in tax free, potentially have it matched by the organization, and then have that to work with when they retire in addition to their SS benefits.
Eventually when many of these bloated pensions (many of them government jobs, some not of course), come due, and many all at once over the next 10 years, I can forsee significant budget holes being blown into many states and in our own federal budget. (Also, see the post office as a problematic example of this). What we need is a complete overhaul of the government budget. It needs to be gone through line by line and all the waste and abuse, and special interest stuff needs to be removed, and the systems for the most bloated programs need to have some very hard decisions made for them. The biggest one in my eyes would be raising the retirement age from 65 to 70 as the first step. The defense budget needs to be gone through and cut down to a more reasonable level. At the end of the day $900 billion is rather obscene to be spending each and every year on that. Defense of the country is one of the largest duties of our federal government to do however, so while cutting should happen, it would still need to be left with enough to ensure our safety as a nation. SS/Medicare would both benefit from the retirement age being raised, and from significant reforms to raise long-term solvency, and to cut costs while not significantly altering current payouts. Real cutting of health care COSTS needs to happen. Originally Obamacare was supposed to make healthcare more affordable, in the end, it didnt lower the costs, it maybe tempered the increases (a little), and it made heathcare available to even more of the population (a good thing). What we need is greater competition within the healthcare industry, and through that a way to allow greater competition to cut costs.
The entire Tax code needs to be revamped, simplified, and adjusted to allow for the removal of loopholes, special deductions, and other aspects that allow people (especially the rich and big corporations) to end up paying little to no taxes, something to fix the whole "fair share" issue which raising their rates, without fixing the loopholes and deductions, doesnt do. The standard deduction would be the only deduction, and it would be raised to a higher number overall, claiming individuals on your taxes would also remain intact. From there you take your income and compare it to that number, and you pay the tiered rates like you do now, period. Yes, some people, even in the middle class, may end up paying more taxes, part of whats offsetting that is of course the larger standard deduction. The business tax setup would look at revenues vs expenses vs ending inventory/equipment value (with only one method being available to use for valuation to not allow for accounting shenanigans to get out of paying the real taxes they should owe).
Investment into the economy and into business, and into creating new technologies (And new jobs) should be encouraged, but not overly subsidized, while there shouldnt be a special tax on capital gains and dividends, there also shouldnt be some huge discount on the rates they pay from those gains. Also, some of the investment vehicles that have been created over the last 20 years need to be reigned in a bit, the fact that things like the subprime mortgage crisis was even allowed to happen is a testament to how going to far with the idea that everyone should be able to afford a home can cause all sorts of issues. People buying homes they cannot realistically afford shouldnt happen. Proper downpayments should be required like they always used to be back 20+ years ago. Aspects of the government like Fannie and Freddie scare the heck out of me, due to the sheer amount of money we are talking about there that the government would have to bail out if they were to inevitably fail.
Personal Debt and Credit in general needs to be curtailed a bit. The way I view the economic situation of our country, and honestly the world as a whole, is that much of the growth we have seen over the last 20 years has been thanks in large part to the huge ramp up in the availability of credit, and the mounting debt in general that this has caused. Eventually that bubble is going to burst, and when that time comes, there will be nothing the government will be able to do about it, because they will have allready spent so much money, and be so far in debt, that their ability to do what they did in late 2008-early 2009 will be gone, or reduced to a level that wont even put a dent in things.
Sorry that I went off on a tangent, its just bothers me when I can see what needs to be done, and what could be done or attempted to be done to potentially deal with a lot of the issues the country faces financially. My ideas above? Very likely far from perfect, but better to look into than sitting back and doing nothing like our current government (republican/democrat/whoever else) is currently doing. I look into the future and what I see isnt good. I continue to wonder what my future what my potential retirement would even begin to look like. I wonder whether our country will even still be here in 30-40 years, or whether it will look anything like it does now anyway.
Action needs to be taken, the hard choices need to be made, and the long/hard process of going through the entire budget to deal with these many issues, needs to be done. Whether our current government, and current republicans/democrats/independents/etc that make it up can/will actually deal with those things, is another question entirely however.
What I am trying to say is, if we do cut from these entitlement programs and the money isnt there for people for medicare and food and shelter, there is a part of the country that is going to be screaming the government is being inhumane. Its a lose, lose situation the country is in. It comes down to whats more important, the country or the people.
I really dont care which way we go, just stop doing it half assed. commit to a strategy and go with it. This changing direction at the slightest of opposition is why we are where we are now.
100% agreed. Everyone is just so freaking worried about losing political points, or risking even slightly angering their base, that in the end, nothing can get done. They manage to pass stuff like this fiscal cliff mess, figuring that its bad enough that they would HAVE to come up with something before it would trigger (we've seen how well thats gone). They need to stop kicking the can down the road. They just keep doing it, over and over and over and over again, and we're quickly running out of time. Right now we're all but assured to go over the fiscal cliff. After which within a couple months we'll then hit the debt ceiling. Both sides keep playing chicken against eachother, and in the end, its not them that suffers, its US.
That reminds me. The market was down something like 150 points today. Not that unusual given where the market is. However, in after hours trading, after the whole lot of nothing that came from the meeting of the leaders of the house/senate met with the president, the futures for the market tanked like a stone. Last I saw, the projected open for the market with the last information available was down nearly 400 points. If I recall correctly, new years eve will be like christmas eve with the market only open for a partial day. If we still have no sign of a deal, and those investors in the market are facing a sudden massive increase in their taxes from the gains in the market, many more are going to sell their most profitable stocks and other investments in order for those profits to be taken under the 2012 tax year at the current 2012 rates. We could potentially see the market drop 500, 600, 700 points, heck of a way to end the year.
So, then tax rates go up, on everyone, capital gains rates and dividend rates all go up significantly, and we are no closer to having the certainty for the future we need to get businesses to actually start spending again. Then, okay, so they work at trying to hash something out after we go over the fiscal cliff. Both sides are actively blaming the other for going over the fiscal cliff, and for the increase in taxes. Neither side is likely to be particularly interested in working with the other, and, so, okay, maybe, just maybe, they come up with something before the debt ceiling comes up. Then what? We then have to deal with THAT. The possibility of a government shutdown on top of everything else. Noone knows for sure what to plan for, so no one is willing to risk spending money they may find that they no longer have to spend depending on what changes end up happenning. Its the uncertainty thats creating so much of our economic woes at the moment. Companies, after seeing what happenned in 2007/2008/2009, are hoarding cash and waiting out the rough times until they can have that certainty they need to be able to properly plan for the future and see how much they can safely spend to grow the business, hire more workers, and otherwise without risking damage to the company.
So yeah, what a mess. Welcome to modern day America I guess x.x
If we dont expect the government to do these things
government should provide temporary assistence till the person can find a job or get training.
people that can't work IE disability and i mean a real disability should be helped.
it is sad that a girl can have a kid and get welfare right now but it took a friend of mine over two years thousands in doctor bills and a lawyer to get disability from nerve damage that he suffered in the navy that finally did him in.
something to fix the whole "fair share" issue which raising their rates
this is a liberal lie. the top 1% earn 15% of the income but pay 37% of the taxes.
why people believe this i have no idea. if you go down to the top 25% they pay almost 75% of the taxes.
50% of of the population pay 98% of income tax.
my tax plan would have 2 brackets. 10% for those that make less than 500K a year and 20% for those that make 500K or more.
the standard deduction would increase to 20k for those under 500k plus any other credit or deductions.
those that make > 500K would be capped at 10% of their gross income in deductions.
businesses would have a 10% tax rate no deductions except for healthcare.
capital gains would work similar to pay. capital gains is taxed at 15%. those that make over 500k would have their deductions capped at 10% of their gross capital gains.
there is a part of the country that is going to be screaming the government is being inhumane.
then let them scream. we can no longer afford to be the welfare state that we are becoming. we can't afford it anymore.
The Government must be reduced so that we can florish and then these people who are screaming can get jobs.
that is like the OWS people screaming about the 1%, but when people went around to offer jobs (yes it was a test and they gathered about 100 applications from surrounding businesses and from places online). no one wanted them.
Companies, after seeing what happenned in 2007/2008/2009, are hoarding cash and waiting out the rough times until they can have that certainty they need to be able to properly plan for the future and see how much they can safely spend to grow the business, hire more workers, and otherwise without risking damage to the company.
finally someone gets it. this is not a business friendly enviroment. in fact it is pretty hostile. this will continue to go on until there is some kind of leadership in washington. which right now there is 0 leadership.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
that is like the OWS people screaming about the 1%, but when people went around to offer jobs (yes it was a test and they gathered about 100 applications from surrounding businesses and from places online). no one wanted them.
finally someone gets it. this is not a business friendly enviroment. in fact it is pretty hostile. this will continue to go on until there is some kind of leadership in washington. which right now there is 0 leadership.
How is it that there is "0 leadership" in Washington? It's fine if you don't like the leadership, but I don't see how it's possible to claim that there isn't any. However, if there is a lack of leadership, it's probably due to the obstructionist conservatives who won't let anything good happen while it could possibly be attributed to a centrist president and the Democrats.
mystery, I love how you partial quote people totally missing the intent of the original post to twist peoples words.
Are you ready to accept the fact people are going to die if we cut back/remove the entitlement programs? Is the country worth those lives? These would be innocent people who just cant make it with out the entitlement programs.
Like I said before, its a lose, lose situation the country is in. I dont care what way is chosen, just pick a way and do it correctly.
My biggest problem with the fical cliff is the fact that it doesn't cut corporate welfare which cost our country more than 2x what social safety nets do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
If we dont expect the government to do these things
government should provide temporary assistence till the person can find a job or get training.
people that can't work IE disability and i mean a real disability should be helped.
it is sad that a girl can have a kid and get welfare right now but it took a friend of mine over two years thousands in doctor bills and a lawyer to get disability from nerve damage that he suffered in the navy that finally did him in.
something to fix the whole "fair share" issue which raising their rates
this is a liberal lie. the top 1% earn 15% of the income but pay 37% of the taxes.
why people believe this i have no idea. if you go down to the top 25% they pay almost 75% of the taxes.
50% of of the population pay 98% of income tax.
my tax plan would have 2 brackets. 10% for those that make less than 500K a year and 20% for those that make 500K or more.
the standard deduction would increase to 20k for those under 500k plus any other credit or deductions.
those that make > 500K would be capped at 10% of their gross income in deductions.
businesses would have a 10% tax rate no deductions except for healthcare.
I think the first off, it's that we're in a major economic recession and the velocity of money has went down immensely since the credit freeze. Most new job creation has been piddly jobs, as well as an increase to temp and contract for hire work. Now, if you have years experience in tech or in business management you can make good cash freelance. But for a lot of other people, freelance blows chunks over the steady paycheck because of the drive down.
Furthermore, those with degrees and no work experience have been devalued as labor. Companies wait for a specific candidate, at a specific time, to get a specific job. Whereas at one point prior to the recession a young person could have a "good enough degree" some work experience hither and thither, company does the training, and boom the person is working with a full deck.
That's really where part of the problem, if you were over 30 prior to the recession you're doing okay now if your job still has value today that you held prior to the recession. Furthermore, for elderly workers there's a rise in "overqualified" stations which basically undermines the entire meritocracy. Studies have even shown that elderly workers tend to be more loyal and more efficient than young age peers mid career in part because they have, well, more experience and no children.
Now this is where employers have shot themselves in the foot, they have priced themselves out of the market for "too young" and "too old." Which reminds me of a story about a law firm that had a mandatory retirement age of 65. When one of the eldest and most powerful partners was forced out, he took his son, many other employees, and their clients to a new firm. Within a year the old firm died. There's also many stories where a company lays off an older work, but need to hire two college age kids to fill that position for the same price...less efficiency..and costs more in benefits.
Which is why value and service, rather than profit are the key to good business. Since the 1980's, we've seen the rise of finance and households and businesses become burdened by debt. This has created a deflationary environment where labor is depreciated to a large point and has become more reactionary in places such as Greece. The US is equally showing signs of social tensions that will remain for decades, such as increases in crime in specific locations.
Until now rather than businesses asking for corporate welfare and special favor, have they finally asked for sane government to come back in. For all these decades since the Reagan Revolution we have called government villainous and evil...and now we see that we need the politicians to do a good job. That means we can't manipulate them to always do our dirty work, whether that is capital or labor.
As for capital, the current amount of profits that went into wages was about 60% throughout the industrial revolution up to the tech revolution. Today that has been cut down to about 50% of profits. That shows that companies hang onto more of their money, thus decreasing velocity of that money through specific smaller locations. With that money going towards Wall Street blue chip stocks that money is recycled into paper products of no true intrinsic value the same with commodities which have no true intrinsic values especially if bought out of futures.
Thus far, what we pay socially as a price is not the value we get out of these futures, stocks, bonds, and commodities. The multiplicative effect of connectivity and frontiers have been stifled. I remain agnostic on innovation being the only key, as we need economies of scale to employ the lowly grunts in society that retail has not been able to comply with.
Government taxes where the wealth is, and frankly the rich and upper class have always paid for the federal tab since the income tax was 2%. While I would like to see more efficient government, but that government costs money. We as a society keep asking for more security, but from what? Terrorists? Meanwhile we have food born illnesses in our food supply killing young and old alike, or unsafe cars. Misallocation of resources goes beyond the druggie on food stamps, it's a pandemic that have finally caught up to the elite and those that they have abandoned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts.
-Charles Darwin
You need to understand how human beings bring together their brains and enable their ideas to combine and recombine, to meet and, indeed, to mate. In other words, you need to understand how ideas have sex.
My biggest problem with the fical cliff is the fact that it doesn't cut corporate welfare which cost our country more than 2x what social safety nets do.
According to the information provided on those, both of those numbers are tiny compared to the overall whole of the budget. When you have medicare/medicaid, Social Security, and Defense that add up to at least $2.5 Trillion of the budget themselves, when you are talking about Corporate tax provisions (the largest part for oil to help keep our oil prices lower, and to encourage oil companies to grow their drilling capacity) which isnt even $100 billion, im not sure I see it as being the BIGGEST problem, to be honest. Also, do you have more recent numbers for those things by chance? I believe the numbers provided in the article I read were from back in 2006, Id be interested to see the more recent numbers to perhaps get a better comparison to work off of. With that said, Im not saying I neccessarily disagree with cutting into those special tax incentives that they get, especially for oil.
As Ive said before the entire federal budget needs to be gone through line by line by line and everything needs to be fleshed out in detail and real cuts need to be made where they can to bring down the deficit as much as possible.
As for the leadership issue in washington. Seriously, people need to get over the partisan politics stuff. BOTH sides are to blame for the situation we are in. Its not just the republicans, its not just the democrats, and its not just Obama, its all of the above. Period. The sooner everyone realizes this and we can try to get everyone compromising (REALLY COMPROMISING, not the half hearted efforts we've been seeing from both sides of late) we might, just maybe, be able to get some of these larger overarching issues taken care of.
The biggest thing holding the economy back is uncertainty. The period from 2008-2010 led to a huge number of business failures the likes of which we havent seen in ages. Big, small, old, new, it really didnt matter. The pressures of the recession and the mess that was created, simply took many businesses by surprise and caught them offguard and many simply didnt have the money to be able to survive it. Now since the level of certainty for the future still hasnt improved, and in some ways has gotten worse, many businesses, especially the largest ones, are hoarding cash to assure that they can survive whatever may come in the future. If we have another recession, they want to be prepared for that. To me, thats the smart thing to do. Spending money now, when we dont know what the future is going to hold, isnt a smart way to do business. Id love for them to hire/expand as much as anyone else, we could really use the jobs, but to do so at the future expense of the business should the future be negative, isnt what I want to see. Its just like us as individuals having money saved up to cover 3-6 months of expenses in case of an emergency or sudden loss of income. Ford was the sole survivor from the big three automakers in detroit because they saw the dark clouds on the horizon and planned ahead with a stock offering to get them the cash they needed to be able to survive the recession without having to be bailed out or asking the government for a dime.
Republican plan- Make sure the "job providers" are safe and the wretches of the country need to support themselves. Actually makes a bit of sense in some ways.
No revenue increase and massive cuts is what they want if you boil it down.
Democratic plan- Raise revenue where the money is (I.e. rich people) so that the lower class doesn't get cut off.
some raises in revenue on the upper levels of society and smaller cuts is what it boils down.
Neither really hit the meat of the problem is that the poor of this country keep getting poorer and poorer. There are two classes of people. Those that own buisnesses and those that are workers. very very very very few inbetween. Before there was a massive gap between the two in monetary measurments it was fine. However the difference between the two has skyrocketed to an insane degree. Something about our capitalism is broken. We need to fix it. Then the poor won't HAVE to depend on the government except for those that are mentally or physically disabled. We won't need all these social programs. With health reform we won't need medicade and medicare as much. The biggest "eaters" of our budget will go down SIGNIFICANTLY if we tackle the issue of our social inequality.
Neither democrats or republicans touch on this at all. The republicans say they do but they really don't. Most of their plans make jobs but those jobs are for minimum wage that they want to abolish. Screw the unions. Work more for less money so as to provide more jobs. Its GREEDY to want more pay for the jobs you do. But its just good buisness when the owners want to pay less in taxes or make cuts to jobs/pay/beneifits.
We need to set up a better system where everyone has a shot at making it in this world. Lets take real socialogically proven methods to our "wretches" in society with better education, a more effective war on drugs, more enforcement of our gun control, and a reformed prison system that helps these people and examins them on a case by case basis to isolate the reason for them turning to crime in the first place.
Because all of the afformentioned programs are NOT effective in the least and are dragging down our economy and our country. We are getting dumber, fatter, lazier, and more broken with each passing generation and it needs to stop somewhere.
Politicans need to be kicked out of washington and psychologist, sociologist, engineers, chemists, doctors, scientist and humanitarians need to replace them. If we did that in 2 years I bet we would get real reform and it would happen quickly.
How is it that there is "0 leadership" in Washington? It's fine if you don't like the leadership, but I don't see how it's possible to claim that there isn't any. However, if there is a lack of leadership, it's probably due to the obstructionist conservatives who won't let anything good happen while it could possibly be attributed to a centrist president and the Democrats.
If there was leadership then we would have a deal by now and even before now. Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, and even Bush jr. All had to deal with split opposing congresses. yet they were still able to accomplish their major goals and get things done.
That is called leadership. Obama doesn't know how to lead because he has never lead anything in his life. All prior presidents had some business experience and knew how to lead people. obama has 0.
That is why he is having such a hard time. he refuses to give up on this notion that raising taxes on the rich is actually going to pay anything down.
Or that the rich aren't paying enough. This is how deluded that this guy is.
Are you ready to accept the fact people are going to die if we cut back/remove the entitlement programs? Is the country worth those lives? These would be innocent people who just cant make it with out the entitlement programs.
People didn't have all these social programs before and didn't just die. Again another liberal lie that is fed to the public.
All these social programs actually hurt more than help. They create un-needed depedance on government to live. What is worse is that they keep telling these people if you elect me then you will get better.
we will take the money from those evil rich people and give it to you. It never happens and their quality of life continues to degrade. If they try to get a job and actually do something usefull the government hacks their benefits to the point they have to quit work to make it.
there is very little in the way of job training or help even though most of these people would qualify for pell grants to get an education or job training.
Companies wait for a specific candidate, at a specific time, to get a specific job. Whereas at one point prior to the recession a young person could have a "good enough degree" some work experience hither and thither, company does the training, and boom the person is working with a full deck.
I don't disagree in fact i fully agree i have seen it, heard it and experienced it. Company have tightened their hiring restrictions and it is only going to get worse.
as i said it is not a friendly business enviroment and businesses are responding in kind by making it almost impossible to get hired or they are just not hiring at all unless they need to.
Furthermore, for elderly workers there's a rise in "overqualified" stations which basically undermines the entire meritocracy. Studies have even shown that elderly workers tend to be more loyal and more efficient than young age peers mid career in part because they have, well, more experience and no children.
The other problem is that college's are telling kids they will make 40-50k a year once they get their degree. what they fail to tell them is that is after several years of experience in the field.
so which would you hire?
person A that has 15 years job experience that will work for 30-35k a year which you are paying. (yes this is happening experienced workers are taking the pay cut to get the jobs).
Person B that just graduated and wants 40k a year that you ahve to train etc...
from a company stand point it is pretty easy.
we've seen the rise of finance and households and businesses become burdened by debt.
This is more of a social mentality and the fact that we are not teaching money management to our kids. Even though college we do not enforce proper money management skills.
Which i consider a social injustice.
While I would like to see more efficient government, but that government costs money.
actually it would cost less. the thing is you have to transfer power back to where it belongs and that is with the states. There are a great many things that could be handled by the states that the federal government doesn't need to involve itself with but just minor oversite.
The problem with that is it gets rid of this massive centralized government we have been forming for years and there is no way that washington is going to give up that power. since when you give power to the states you give power back to the people. since they have more of an impact in local elections.
Republican plan- Make sure the "job providers" are safe and the wretches of the country need to support themselves. Actually makes a bit of sense in some ways.
No revenue increase and massive cuts is what they want if you boil it down.
Democratic plan- Raise revenue where the money is (I.e. rich people) so that the lower class doesn't get cut off.
some raises in revenue on the upper levels of society and smaller cuts is what it boils down.
where you get your information from i have to question because it is severly biased.
Those that own buisnesses and those that are workers. very very very very few inbetween.
Probably because most people realize that you make more owning the business than working for someone else.
Something about our capitalism is broken.
because we have let to much government regulation clog up the system.
now it is only going to get worse with businesses having to pay for obamacare. it is a job killer and once it gets into full swing i see unemployeement skyrocketing.
that or we will have a glut of temp jobs and people working part time.
Screw the unions. Work more for less money so as to provide more jobs. Its GREEDY to want more pay for the jobs you do. But its just good buisness when the owners want to pay less in taxes or make cuts to jobs/pay/beneifits.
Unions do not allow for market adjustments in pay in fact they inflate wage prices driving companies out of business. if a company has to hire someone in at 40 bucks an hour but is only producing 20 dollars an hour in value the company loses.
Politicans need to be kicked out of washington and psychologist, sociologist, engineers, chemists, doctors, scientist and humanitarians need to replace them. If we did that in 2 years I bet we would get real reform and it would happen quickly.
I agree only we don't even need those people except in key spots we just need people with common sense and a bit of finacial responsibility.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
it is sad that a girl can have a kid and get welfare right now but it took a friend of mine over two years thousands in doctor bills and a lawyer to get disability from nerve damage that he suffered in the navy that finally did him in.
Just to rewind a sec, I didn't see this before - which disability was he applying under? VA disability or normal Social Security Disability? With the two year wait, it sounds like normal civilian disability which is not the appropriate one for him to go through, in fact likely he's getting a far reduced benefit from what he's actually due if so.
I think both have the same upper threshold at $2.5k/mo or so, but the lower thresholds are supposed to be higher and quicker to reach the cap with the VA disability.
I have yet to see someone take that long to get accepted for VA Disability myself, but as someone who has nerve issues myself, I have yet to have bumped into a VA person with nerve issues either - and honestly, with the being able to even see my "private results" (since I'm good friends with my GP that shared them with me), I got to see and know when some of the doctors reported contradictory findings - because of a "good day" or whatever else. [Besides my psychiatrist at least - but my "mild depression" that he downplayed so much isn't why I can't work]
And RE: Social Programs and people "not dying" - why is it that the average nation within 5-10 years of instituting basic welfare and food availability for the poor has experienced a huge spike of 7-10 years of increased life expectancy amongst their male population? Not to mention a reduction in crime rates. Sure, medical advances are likely some part of that - but even the cure for cancer if-when it ever happens is only expected to result in 1-2 years tagged onto the average at the most.
Heck, pick up a history book and look up what a Hooverville was - that's one of the ways that "welfare" was done before welfare - and it was hardly efficient nor pretty for culture to deal with. OWS was a fraction of the size and disruptiveness even in NYC - and we saw how much many people approved of it. (And it didn't do much panhandling/theft either in contrast)
People didn't have all these social programs before and didn't just die. Again another liberal lie that is fed to the public.
All these social programs actually hurt more than help. They create un-needed depedance on government to live. What is worse is that they keep telling these people if you elect me then you will get better.
we will take the money from those evil rich people and give it to you. It never happens and their quality of life continues to degrade. If they try to get a job and actually do something usefull the government hacks their benefits to the point they have to quit work to make it.
there is very little in the way of job training or help even though most of these people would qualify for pell grants to get an education or job training.
You also have to realize times are different. When the majority of the population is a pay check or 2 from the poor house, removing the entitlement programs is going to hurt a lot more then it will help. The chasm between the haves and have nots would just widen. I dont think that would be a good thing.
Republican plan- Make sure the "job providers" are safe and the wretches of the country need to support themselves. Actually makes a bit of sense in some ways.
No revenue increase and massive cuts is what they want if you boil it down.
Democratic plan- Raise revenue where the money is (I.e. rich people) so that the lower class doesn't get cut off.
some raises in revenue on the upper levels of society and smaller cuts is what it boils down.
where you get your information from i have to question because it is severly biased.
You feel differently? This is actually at the basics the most honest representation of the two parties.
Let me guess you feel Obama is actually satan in disguise and Jesus is speaking at the next RNC? Sarcasm aside you have an extremely bias view on the political forums as does everyone. But so far examining the bills of the two parties this is at the core of what both want. I honestly don't think either is much better than the other in terms of functionality as was for the long ass rant that followed.
Those that own buisnesses and those that are workers. very very very very few inbetween.
Probably because most people realize that you make more owning the business than working for someone else.
You stopped making sense. IF that were the case then there would be nothing but "owners" and "lazy people". There is a real problem between the two classes. Class warfare exists. Its unfortnuate but true.
Something about our capitalism is broken.
because we have let to much government regulation clog up the system.
now it is only going to get worse with businesses having to pay for obamacare. it is a job killer and once it gets into full swing i see unemployeement skyrocketing.
that or we will have a glut of temp jobs and people working part time.
Wrong. I cannot say the government regulation is perfect but the problem started happening a LONG before this "over regulation". The idea that somehow the builsness world would be perfect if government butted out is a crazy conservative lie that is spoonfed to the lower income supporters of the republican party. The problems actaully started to arise around the 80's when trickle down economics started. How to fix captialism is difficult.
But basically it boils down to this. Capitalism was a game. You build your tier 1 deck and didn't make any misplays so you were successful. However now there are people that have broken the system. THEY are the extremely successful business owners of our time. The major corporations. They have broken the system in their favor. I can't blame them for doing it as its the natural progression of humans to want to expand and get more and more and more and more and more and more without any regard on how your actions will affect the world around them. Its human nature.
However its a major problem. Now we have a poorer middle class and lower class with and an upper class that has seen riches that would make kings weep. The fact is businessmen broke capitalism. Not the government. The only reason you think that the business world is being held back by the government is because someone extremely rich paid a lot of money to make sure thats what you thought.
Screw the unions. Work more for less money so as to provide more jobs. Its GREEDY to want more pay for the jobs you do. But its just good buisness when the owners want to pay less in taxes or make cuts to jobs/pay/beneifits.
Unions do not allow for market adjustments in pay in fact they inflate wage prices driving companies out of business. if a company has to hire someone in at 40 bucks an hour but is only producing 20 dollars an hour in value the company loses.
Unions aren't some evil essence that is out to greedily take up every dime of the company. It is not within their best interests to sink a company for a few extra dollars an hour. Thats not true and you need to learn more about how unions work and the history of them. They are the reason we don't work for .80c an hour like they do in china.
Unions work WITH the company and in some cases make companies work better. In several cases where they had mediation between unions and owners both will come out on top. The union can find ways to make the company run better or make the jobs easier for the workers so they can get more done. They also make sure that the owner doesn't rake in 10 million when he could take in 8 million to provide better wages and conditions for the workers. No union wants the company to go under. If you seriously think that unions are the problem then you need to look into the facts more.
You also have to realize times are different. When the majority of the population is a pay check or 2 from the poor house, removing the entitlement programs is going to hurt a lot more then it will help. The chasm between the haves and have nots would just widen. I dont think that would be a good thing.
You have to think about it like this though: the paychecks are going to stop coming anyway when the government will be forced to make massive spending cuts down the road due to a serious economic crisis. We're better off cutting social and entitlement programs now before it's too late. It's impossible for our government to continue managing this welfare and warfare state.
You also have to realize times are different. When the majority of the population is a pay check or 2 from the poor house, removing the entitlement programs is going to hurt a lot more then it will help. The chasm between the haves and have nots would just widen. I dont think that would be a good thing.
You have to think about it like this though: the paychecks are going to stop coming anyway when the government will be forced to make massive spending cuts down the road due to a serious economic crisis. We're better off cutting social and entitlement programs now before it's too late. It's impossible for our government to continue managing this welfare and warfare state.
Then perhaps its a good idea for them to try and fix the situations that are causing the welare state? Several people seem to believe that the reason we have so many poor people and unemployed is because the government gives them money. Its a logical fallicy. If we strip them of any income then crime will skyrocket. Great plan.
Instead lets set up an economy where people can ACTUALLY LIVE off of the wages they get. Make some cuts and make programs run more efficently for sure...but too gut them would lead to economic ruin.
The giant engine that fuels our economy (the buyers not the suppliers) will collapse and thus the suppliers also collapse under the weight of the unsold merchandise. Sounds fun.
You also have to realize times are different. When the majority of the population is a pay check or 2 from the poor house, removing the entitlement programs is going to hurt a lot more then it will help. The chasm between the haves and have nots would just widen. I dont think that would be a good thing.
You have to think about it like this though: the paychecks are going to stop coming anyway when the government will be forced to make massive spending cuts down the road due to a serious economic crisis. We're better off cutting social and entitlement programs now before it's too late. It's impossible for our government to continue managing this welfare and warfare state.
Cutting entitlement programs without fixing the job market is a recipe for revolution. With that many people with nothing to lose, it could get very ugly, very quickly. The solution is not as simple as just cut them off and they will go to work.
Then perhaps its a good idea for them to try and fix the situations that are causing the welare state? Several people seem to believe that the reason we have so many poor people and unemployed is because the government gives them money. Its a logical fallicy. If we strip them of any income then crime will skyrocket. Great plan.
Instead lets set up an economy where people can ACTUALLY LIVE off of the wages they get. Make some cuts and make programs run more efficently for sure...but too gut them would lead to economic ruin.
The giant engine that fuels our economy (the buyers not the suppliers) will collapse and thus the suppliers also collapse under the weight of the unsold merchandise. Sounds fun.
The fact that we have a consumption-driven economy is a huge reason why we are in this mess to begin with. We need to stop consuming so much and start producing more. The jobs we need to create need to be jobs that increase our productive capacity. That means more factory-based jobs and less service-based jobs. These are the kinds of jobs that unemployed people can work in. Logically you might ask "well why don't we have these jobs here and why are they overseas?" It's because we as a nation are overtaxed and overregulated. We need to encourage businesses to invest here instead of abroad, and that's not going to happen with an archaic tax code and mountains of unneeded regulations.
The only reason we have gotten away with all this consumption from foreigners is that they keep selling us their products and they buy our dollars. That can't continue forever though. Foreigners will eventually realize that the US will never be able to repay its debts from the treasuries it sells to them. That will cause interest rates to skyrocket and we will be in major trouble when that occurs.
The reason why we have service jobs and not production jobs is because both of those types of jobs *suck* but there's no way to offshore the service jobs (well, the ones that absolutely require actual physical contact) to the "losers" in oh, china.
(Note, I'm not looking down on the people who have to do these jobs, because they're *vitally* important for the smooth functioning of society. It's no fun being on the bottom of the totem pole, but you're holding up the guys above.)
This is also why I see political talk about "controlling our borders" as economically insane. Those immigrants aren't really taking jobs from Americans, Americans don't want those jobs. Spending 8 or more hours a day picking strawberries is miserable.
Then perhaps its a good idea for them to try and fix the situations that are causing the welare state? Several people seem to believe that the reason we have so many poor people and unemployed is because the government gives them money. Its a logical fallicy. If we strip them of any income then crime will skyrocket. Great plan.
Instead lets set up an economy where people can ACTUALLY LIVE off of the wages they get. Make some cuts and make programs run more efficently for sure...but too gut them would lead to economic ruin.
The giant engine that fuels our economy (the buyers not the suppliers) will collapse and thus the suppliers also collapse under the weight of the unsold merchandise. Sounds fun.
The fact that we have a consumption-driven economy is a huge reason why we are in this mess to begin with. We need to stop consuming so much and start producing more. The jobs we need to create need to be jobs that increase our productive capacity. That means more factory-based jobs and less service-based jobs. These are the kinds of jobs that unemployed people can work in. Logically you might ask "well why don't we have these jobs here and why are they overseas?" It's because we as a nation are overtaxed and overregulated. We need to encourage businesses to invest here instead of abroad, and that's not going to happen with an archaic tax code and mountains of unneeded regulations.
The only reason we have gotten away with all this consumption from foreigners is that they keep selling us their products and they buy our dollars. That can't continue forever though. Foreigners will eventually realize that the US will never be able to repay its debts from the treasuries it sells to them. That will cause interest rates to skyrocket and we will be in major trouble when that occurs.
I refute...everything. Source source source source source.
1) We are a consumer based economy. the REASON buisnesses are so sucessful here is the market. If we stop this market then there is no longer a good economy here.
2) Why do we need to have producing jobs? Factory work is outdated. Machines are far more effective. This kind of thinking is about 80 years out dated. Science and technology is where the jobs need to be. More skilled work. We need to build things. Good things. Manufacturing is a good thing that we need to do but thats not a reason to say "well thats what the poor need to do"
3) Overrugulation isn't the root of the problem here in America. That is a conservative lie. The problem is the system is broken. The regulation is a response by the government to try and fix the brokenness. Companies have a lot less regulation that people like to believe. The reason they are in china is not due to regulations and jumping through hoops but rather they can get away with treating the workers like sub-human animals that work for a pay rate that if put in America would mean that they would STILL be on the tit of the government. That won't fix the "welfare state" but make the rich a lot richer. Thats the true intention there. The regulation really isn't as bad as people say. The taxes are at a record low. WHAT regulations are "over regulating" the market?
4) And its a global market. The idea you are proposing sound a lot like you think America is an independent market. While in truth the entire world is intertwined with the American market. We get our products from all around the world but that doesn't mean that we can fix the economy by producing more raw materials....
Just to rewind a sec, I didn't see this before - which disability was he applying under?
he went with his military pension over the disability. This was a long term thing that just started affecting him ol about 5 years ago.
He has filed for SSD at least 2 or 3 times and finally got it on the third time. yet it took 5 years of medical records and a lawyer to do it.
yet a girl can have a baby or multiple babies no way to pay for them and get free assistence.
You feel differently?
Just with how you described it.
Republican Plan: empower businesses to create jobs and the economy. Keep investments and investment money safe and continue to encourage people to invest.
Reform the social programs that they actually work properly without causing the red ink that they are.
Democrat plan: tax the rich (even though they are already paying most of the taxes). Spend that money on new spending programs not reducing the deficit. Claim we need more revenue and continue to raise taxes.
Let me guess you feel Obama is actually satan in disguise and Jesus is speaking at the next RNC?
Nope not at all. The same as people thought bush was incompetant as a president obama is equally incompetant only he is taking the country on a rail we might not recover from.
He has 0 leadership capabilities and the only thing he can do is stamp his feet and blame someone else for his failure to get a bill out of congress.
reagan bush Sr, clinton, and Bush Jr. all had to deal with opposing congresses and they all managed to do it. even congresses that tried to utterly defy them and purposely stall them. yet they managed to do it. why? leadership.
You stopped making sense. IF that were the case then there would be nothing but "owners" and "lazy people".
It makes perfect sense. people that are businesses owners realized they can make more as business owners. that doesn't mean everyone will become one. it isn't an easy job. it requires a lot of hard work and most don't take paychecks etc for basic needs their first year or two.
they work 80-90 hours a week.
The only reason you think that the business world is being held back by the government is because someone extremely rich paid a lot of money to make sure thats what you thought.
Not at all. Government doesn't pay my bills, government doesn't keep food on my table. who i work for does. I see money go to the federal government but get very little on return for it (federal government not state).
The only return that i do see is the military helping protect me and my family.
All these other social spending programs that they come up with not for me. Don't qualify i work have a good job. so i get a big screw you.
Unions aren't some evil essence that is out to greedily take up every dime of the company.
yet they continue to do it. Why do you think most of the manufactoring base is moving to the south? why do you think more and more factories are moving to the south? why? to escape the union garbage. it is to expensive and not worth their time.
it is cheaper for them to offer similar benefits and a 401k then have to deal with union bosses looking to fatten their pocket. you think corporations are greedy and crooked you are giving a blind eye to these union bosses who careless about the people they represent.
Thats not true and you need to learn more about how unions work and the history of them.
I know all about unions i came from a union state. my dad and bother both work for unions. for a time they did what they were suppose to do. now they don't. now they are just as corrupt or more corrupt than the companies.
Unions work WITH the company and in some cases make companies work better.
maybe some of the smaller ones yea, but the big ones like the auto workers, teamsters and others no.
they don't.
They also make sure that the owner doesn't rake in 10 million when he could take in 8 million to provide better wages and conditions for the workers.
then the employee's should invest in the company and become stock holders and then have a say in the matter.
that 2m that the union thinks they should take could have provided those things if they were needed. it isn't up to the union what the owner should or shouldn't get it isn't their company.
if they want to be part owners of the company then they need to invest in that company.
No union wants the company to go under. If you seriously think that unions are the problem then you need to look into the facts more.
If they weren't a problem then companies wouldn't be moving like mad to right to work states to avoid them.
You and I shall never see eye to eye on the matter. That much is clear. I still stand by my statements that the idea that Government broke capitalism is a lie. I don't know how to explain it any clearer.
Unions are a necessary thing. Otherwise you leave it with the haves and the have nots with no way to claw the way up. Most people can't start their own company. You need money. If you have no money (say 90% of Americans) then there is no hope at all for you to get the compnay started. Like you said. It takes a lot of start up money and no profit for up to 2 years. The system is broken and government wasn't the one that broke it.
The reason companies are moving away from unions is because they are whiny and don't like the idea of not getting the maximum profit at the expense of others. Plain and simnple. There are not other explinations. The government mediates between unions and owners specifically to make a compromise and make sure both are getting a fair deal. If a union asks for too much then they are in the wrong. But to say "unions" are destroying the economy is nothing more than pointing fingers and whining about a broken system and wanting to blame everything but the problem. Its the government, its the regulations, its the unions, its the poor, is the welfare state. never is it about the people walking away filthy rich while forcing others to take payment so low that even when working full time they need assistance to live at the most basic level. No. NO its never their fault. Ever. Thats what bothers me.
The reason why we have service jobs and not production jobs is because both of those types of jobs *suck* but there's no way to offshore the service jobs (well, the ones that absolutely require actual physical contact) to the "losers" in oh, china.
(Note, I'm not looking down on the people who have to do these jobs, because they're *vitally* important for the smooth functioning of society. It's no fun being on the bottom of the totem pole, but you're holding up the guys above.)
This is also why I see political talk about "controlling our borders" as economically insane. Those immigrants aren't really taking jobs from Americans, Americans don't want those jobs. Spending 8 or more hours a day picking strawberries is miserable.
All you are saying is todays Americans are spoiled and that type of work is below them. Americans have to swallow their pride and start doing the work that is there and stop complaining there is nothing for them to do.
They also make sure that the owner doesn't rake in 10 million when he could take in 8 million to provide better wages and conditions for the workers.
then the employee's should invest in the company and become stock holders and then have a say in the matter.
that 2m that the union thinks they should take could have provided those things if they were needed. it isn't up to the union what the owner should or shouldn't get it isn't their company.
if they want to be part owners of the company then they need to invest in that company.
How exactly do the lower class invest in the company to make sure they earn a fair wage? Are they supposed to not buy food or pay for housing so that they can afford to take their poverty level wage and spend it on the company with hopes that some day they'll be able to earn a living wage?
I'm not a fan of unions but this line of logic is laughable.
1) We are a consumer based economy. the REASON buisnesses are so sucessful here is the market. If we stop this market then there is no longer a good economy here.
You continue to forget the fact that major consumption without adequate production has been the weakness to our economy. We went on an unprecedented consumption binge during the housing bubble to create a phantom economy. Once the housing bubble burst, all the wealth people had from housing evaporated and all that remained was the debt that was accumulated from all the consumption. Even after the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to 0%, encouraging people to consume even more and save less. What do we have to show for all of our consumption? Nothing, except a weaker dollar and more debt.
2) Why do we need to have producing jobs? Factory work is outdated. Machines are far more effective. This kind of thinking is about 80 years out dated. Science and technology is where the jobs need to be. More skilled work. We need to build things. Good things. Manufacturing is a good thing that we need to do but thats not a reason to say "well thats what the poor need to do"
Even as technology improves, you still have to produce stuff some how. Raw materials don't magically convert themselves into the end products that we desire. We can't expect the rest of the world to continue to produce almost everything for us.
3) Overrugulation isn't the root of the problem here in America. That is a conservative lie. The problem is the system is broken. The regulation is a response by the government to try and fix the brokenness. Companies have a lot less regulation that people like to believe. The reason they are in china is not due to regulations and jumping through hoops but rather they can get away with treating the workers like sub-human animals that work for a pay rate that if put in America would mean that they would STILL be on the tit of the government. That won't fix the "welfare state" but make the rich a lot richer. Thats the true intention there. The regulation really isn't as bad as people say. The taxes are at a record low. WHAT regulations are "over regulating" the market?
What is "the system" that you are talking about that is broken? Capitalism? Free-market economics? If so, our failures have not come because of the free-market due to the fact that we have no free market in the first place. Politicians try to say we have a free market economy, but when you really look at things, it's really not.
Heck, I'd be willing to wager that a lot of conservatives (more specifically neo-conservatives) don't truly believe in a legitmate free market that libertarians want to see. We have yet to see a market that is untainted by crony capitalism, fascism, government subsidies, government picking winners and losers, and excessive regulation. The reason I say that is because when you listen to your typical cookie-cutter Republican or conservative on a talk show or TV, you don't hear or see them championing the ideas of Austrians such as Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. Pretty much everyone in government is a Keynesian in some way.
4) And its a global market. The idea you are proposing sound a lot like you think America is an independent market. While in truth the entire world is intertwined with the American market. We get our products from all around the world but that doesn't mean that we can fix the economy by producing more raw materials....
We can certainly make things better for ourselves by producing our own stuff. That's how we became the wealthiest creditor nation in the world. We produced stuff that the rest of the world bought. Today, we are the largest debtor nation in the world. Look our trade deficit. It's enormous. It cannot be sustained for much longer and yet we continue to consume foreign products with no end in sight.
The question is. Could we product it anywhere near as cheaply as the same products could be made overseas and then imported back to be sold? If items were made here, I would imagine, they would cost more to produce for many items. And if they cost more to make, they would have to be priced higher, and would thusly make it more expensive for the consumers to buy, which would make them less likely to buy it/reduce their allready reducing buying power.
While I agree that we need to work a lot harder on producing more here ourselves and bringing our trade deficit back into balance, I just dont know how viable it would be would be my concern.
What is "the system" that you are talking about that is broken? Capitalism? Free-market economics? If so, our failures have not come because of the free-market due to the fact that we have no free market in the first place. Politicians try to say we have a free market economy, but when you really look at things, it's really not.
Heck, I'd be willing to wager that a lot of conservatives (more specifically neo-conservatives) don't truly believe in a legitmate free market that libertarians want to see. We have yet to see a market that is untainted by crony capitalism, fascism, government subsidies, government picking winners and losers, and excessive regulation. The reason I say that is because when you listen to your typical cookie-cutter Republican or conservative on a talk show or TV, you don't hear or see them championing the ideas of Austrians such as Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. Pretty much everyone in government is a Keynesian in some way.
Influence inherently concentrates over time, and inevitably leads to some kind of oligarchy. No human has figured out a system to stop this effect. The only thing that "better" systems have over "worse" systems is how quickly the effect gets to a critical mass such that the unprivileged finally spark a revolution.
100% agreed. Everyone is just so freaking worried about losing political points, or risking even slightly angering their base, that in the end, nothing can get done. They manage to pass stuff like this fiscal cliff mess, figuring that its bad enough that they would HAVE to come up with something before it would trigger (we've seen how well thats gone). They need to stop kicking the can down the road. They just keep doing it, over and over and over and over again, and we're quickly running out of time. Right now we're all but assured to go over the fiscal cliff. After which within a couple months we'll then hit the debt ceiling. Both sides keep playing chicken against eachother, and in the end, its not them that suffers, its US.
That reminds me. The market was down something like 150 points today. Not that unusual given where the market is. However, in after hours trading, after the whole lot of nothing that came from the meeting of the leaders of the house/senate met with the president, the futures for the market tanked like a stone. Last I saw, the projected open for the market with the last information available was down nearly 400 points. If I recall correctly, new years eve will be like christmas eve with the market only open for a partial day. If we still have no sign of a deal, and those investors in the market are facing a sudden massive increase in their taxes from the gains in the market, many more are going to sell their most profitable stocks and other investments in order for those profits to be taken under the 2012 tax year at the current 2012 rates. We could potentially see the market drop 500, 600, 700 points, heck of a way to end the year.
So, then tax rates go up, on everyone, capital gains rates and dividend rates all go up significantly, and we are no closer to having the certainty for the future we need to get businesses to actually start spending again. Then, okay, so they work at trying to hash something out after we go over the fiscal cliff. Both sides are actively blaming the other for going over the fiscal cliff, and for the increase in taxes. Neither side is likely to be particularly interested in working with the other, and, so, okay, maybe, just maybe, they come up with something before the debt ceiling comes up. Then what? We then have to deal with THAT. The possibility of a government shutdown on top of everything else. Noone knows for sure what to plan for, so no one is willing to risk spending money they may find that they no longer have to spend depending on what changes end up happenning. Its the uncertainty thats creating so much of our economic woes at the moment. Companies, after seeing what happenned in 2007/2008/2009, are hoarding cash and waiting out the rough times until they can have that certainty they need to be able to properly plan for the future and see how much they can safely spend to grow the business, hire more workers, and otherwise without risking damage to the company.
So yeah, what a mess. Welcome to modern day America I guess x.x
government should provide temporary assistence till the person can find a job or get training.
people that can't work IE disability and i mean a real disability should be helped.
it is sad that a girl can have a kid and get welfare right now but it took a friend of mine over two years thousands in doctor bills and a lawyer to get disability from nerve damage that he suffered in the navy that finally did him in.
this is a liberal lie. the top 1% earn 15% of the income but pay 37% of the taxes.
why people believe this i have no idea. if you go down to the top 25% they pay almost 75% of the taxes.
50% of of the population pay 98% of income tax.
my tax plan would have 2 brackets. 10% for those that make less than 500K a year and 20% for those that make 500K or more.
the standard deduction would increase to 20k for those under 500k plus any other credit or deductions.
those that make > 500K would be capped at 10% of their gross income in deductions.
businesses would have a 10% tax rate no deductions except for healthcare.
capital gains would work similar to pay. capital gains is taxed at 15%. those that make over 500k would have their deductions capped at 10% of their gross capital gains.
then let them scream. we can no longer afford to be the welfare state that we are becoming. we can't afford it anymore.
The Government must be reduced so that we can florish and then these people who are screaming can get jobs.
that is like the OWS people screaming about the 1%, but when people went around to offer jobs (yes it was a test and they gathered about 100 applications from surrounding businesses and from places online). no one wanted them.
finally someone gets it. this is not a business friendly enviroment. in fact it is pretty hostile. this will continue to go on until there is some kind of leadership in washington. which right now there is 0 leadership.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Source?
How is it that there is "0 leadership" in Washington? It's fine if you don't like the leadership, but I don't see how it's possible to claim that there isn't any. However, if there is a lack of leadership, it's probably due to the obstructionist conservatives who won't let anything good happen while it could possibly be attributed to a centrist president and the Democrats.
Are you ready to accept the fact people are going to die if we cut back/remove the entitlement programs? Is the country worth those lives? These would be innocent people who just cant make it with out the entitlement programs.
Like I said before, its a lose, lose situation the country is in. I dont care what way is chosen, just pick a way and do it correctly.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
I think the first off, it's that we're in a major economic recession and the velocity of money has went down immensely since the credit freeze. Most new job creation has been piddly jobs, as well as an increase to temp and contract for hire work. Now, if you have years experience in tech or in business management you can make good cash freelance. But for a lot of other people, freelance blows chunks over the steady paycheck because of the drive down.
Furthermore, those with degrees and no work experience have been devalued as labor. Companies wait for a specific candidate, at a specific time, to get a specific job. Whereas at one point prior to the recession a young person could have a "good enough degree" some work experience hither and thither, company does the training, and boom the person is working with a full deck.
That's really where part of the problem, if you were over 30 prior to the recession you're doing okay now if your job still has value today that you held prior to the recession. Furthermore, for elderly workers there's a rise in "overqualified" stations which basically undermines the entire meritocracy. Studies have even shown that elderly workers tend to be more loyal and more efficient than young age peers mid career in part because they have, well, more experience and no children.
Now this is where employers have shot themselves in the foot, they have priced themselves out of the market for "too young" and "too old." Which reminds me of a story about a law firm that had a mandatory retirement age of 65. When one of the eldest and most powerful partners was forced out, he took his son, many other employees, and their clients to a new firm. Within a year the old firm died. There's also many stories where a company lays off an older work, but need to hire two college age kids to fill that position for the same price...less efficiency..and costs more in benefits.
Which is why value and service, rather than profit are the key to good business. Since the 1980's, we've seen the rise of finance and households and businesses become burdened by debt. This has created a deflationary environment where labor is depreciated to a large point and has become more reactionary in places such as Greece. The US is equally showing signs of social tensions that will remain for decades, such as increases in crime in specific locations.
Until now rather than businesses asking for corporate welfare and special favor, have they finally asked for sane government to come back in. For all these decades since the Reagan Revolution we have called government villainous and evil...and now we see that we need the politicians to do a good job. That means we can't manipulate them to always do our dirty work, whether that is capital or labor.
As for capital, the current amount of profits that went into wages was about 60% throughout the industrial revolution up to the tech revolution. Today that has been cut down to about 50% of profits. That shows that companies hang onto more of their money, thus decreasing velocity of that money through specific smaller locations. With that money going towards Wall Street blue chip stocks that money is recycled into paper products of no true intrinsic value the same with commodities which have no true intrinsic values especially if bought out of futures.
Thus far, what we pay socially as a price is not the value we get out of these futures, stocks, bonds, and commodities. The multiplicative effect of connectivity and frontiers have been stifled. I remain agnostic on innovation being the only key, as we need economies of scale to employ the lowly grunts in society that retail has not been able to comply with.
Government taxes where the wealth is, and frankly the rich and upper class have always paid for the federal tab since the income tax was 2%. While I would like to see more efficient government, but that government costs money. We as a society keep asking for more security, but from what? Terrorists? Meanwhile we have food born illnesses in our food supply killing young and old alike, or unsafe cars. Misallocation of resources goes beyond the druggie on food stamps, it's a pandemic that have finally caught up to the elite and those that they have abandoned.
-Charles Darwin
You need to understand how human beings bring together their brains and enable their ideas to combine and recombine, to meet and, indeed, to mate. In other words, you need to understand how ideas have sex.
-Matt Ridley
According to the information provided on those, both of those numbers are tiny compared to the overall whole of the budget. When you have medicare/medicaid, Social Security, and Defense that add up to at least $2.5 Trillion of the budget themselves, when you are talking about Corporate tax provisions (the largest part for oil to help keep our oil prices lower, and to encourage oil companies to grow their drilling capacity) which isnt even $100 billion, im not sure I see it as being the BIGGEST problem, to be honest. Also, do you have more recent numbers for those things by chance? I believe the numbers provided in the article I read were from back in 2006, Id be interested to see the more recent numbers to perhaps get a better comparison to work off of. With that said, Im not saying I neccessarily disagree with cutting into those special tax incentives that they get, especially for oil.
As Ive said before the entire federal budget needs to be gone through line by line by line and everything needs to be fleshed out in detail and real cuts need to be made where they can to bring down the deficit as much as possible.
As for the leadership issue in washington. Seriously, people need to get over the partisan politics stuff. BOTH sides are to blame for the situation we are in. Its not just the republicans, its not just the democrats, and its not just Obama, its all of the above. Period. The sooner everyone realizes this and we can try to get everyone compromising (REALLY COMPROMISING, not the half hearted efforts we've been seeing from both sides of late) we might, just maybe, be able to get some of these larger overarching issues taken care of.
The biggest thing holding the economy back is uncertainty. The period from 2008-2010 led to a huge number of business failures the likes of which we havent seen in ages. Big, small, old, new, it really didnt matter. The pressures of the recession and the mess that was created, simply took many businesses by surprise and caught them offguard and many simply didnt have the money to be able to survive it. Now since the level of certainty for the future still hasnt improved, and in some ways has gotten worse, many businesses, especially the largest ones, are hoarding cash to assure that they can survive whatever may come in the future. If we have another recession, they want to be prepared for that. To me, thats the smart thing to do. Spending money now, when we dont know what the future is going to hold, isnt a smart way to do business. Id love for them to hire/expand as much as anyone else, we could really use the jobs, but to do so at the future expense of the business should the future be negative, isnt what I want to see. Its just like us as individuals having money saved up to cover 3-6 months of expenses in case of an emergency or sudden loss of income. Ford was the sole survivor from the big three automakers in detroit because they saw the dark clouds on the horizon and planned ahead with a stock offering to get them the cash they needed to be able to survive the recession without having to be bailed out or asking the government for a dime.
Republican plan- Make sure the "job providers" are safe and the wretches of the country need to support themselves. Actually makes a bit of sense in some ways.
No revenue increase and massive cuts is what they want if you boil it down.
Democratic plan- Raise revenue where the money is (I.e. rich people) so that the lower class doesn't get cut off.
some raises in revenue on the upper levels of society and smaller cuts is what it boils down.
Neither really hit the meat of the problem is that the poor of this country keep getting poorer and poorer. There are two classes of people. Those that own buisnesses and those that are workers. very very very very few inbetween. Before there was a massive gap between the two in monetary measurments it was fine. However the difference between the two has skyrocketed to an insane degree. Something about our capitalism is broken. We need to fix it. Then the poor won't HAVE to depend on the government except for those that are mentally or physically disabled. We won't need all these social programs. With health reform we won't need medicade and medicare as much. The biggest "eaters" of our budget will go down SIGNIFICANTLY if we tackle the issue of our social inequality.
Neither democrats or republicans touch on this at all. The republicans say they do but they really don't. Most of their plans make jobs but those jobs are for minimum wage that they want to abolish. Screw the unions. Work more for less money so as to provide more jobs. Its GREEDY to want more pay for the jobs you do. But its just good buisness when the owners want to pay less in taxes or make cuts to jobs/pay/beneifits.
We need to set up a better system where everyone has a shot at making it in this world. Lets take real socialogically proven methods to our "wretches" in society with better education, a more effective war on drugs, more enforcement of our gun control, and a reformed prison system that helps these people and examins them on a case by case basis to isolate the reason for them turning to crime in the first place.
Because all of the afformentioned programs are NOT effective in the least and are dragging down our economy and our country. We are getting dumber, fatter, lazier, and more broken with each passing generation and it needs to stop somewhere.
Politicans need to be kicked out of washington and psychologist, sociologist, engineers, chemists, doctors, scientist and humanitarians need to replace them. If we did that in 2 years I bet we would get real reform and it would happen quickly.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-video-occupy-d-c-protesters-brush-off-job-applications/
took me 2 minutes to find.
If there was leadership then we would have a deal by now and even before now. Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, and even Bush jr. All had to deal with split opposing congresses. yet they were still able to accomplish their major goals and get things done.
That is called leadership. Obama doesn't know how to lead because he has never lead anything in his life. All prior presidents had some business experience and knew how to lead people. obama has 0.
That is why he is having such a hard time. he refuses to give up on this notion that raising taxes on the rich is actually going to pay anything down.
Or that the rich aren't paying enough. This is how deluded that this guy is.
People didn't have all these social programs before and didn't just die. Again another liberal lie that is fed to the public.
All these social programs actually hurt more than help. They create un-needed depedance on government to live. What is worse is that they keep telling these people if you elect me then you will get better.
we will take the money from those evil rich people and give it to you. It never happens and their quality of life continues to degrade. If they try to get a job and actually do something usefull the government hacks their benefits to the point they have to quit work to make it.
there is very little in the way of job training or help even though most of these people would qualify for pell grants to get an education or job training.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I don't disagree in fact i fully agree i have seen it, heard it and experienced it. Company have tightened their hiring restrictions and it is only going to get worse.
as i said it is not a friendly business enviroment and businesses are responding in kind by making it almost impossible to get hired or they are just not hiring at all unless they need to.
The other problem is that college's are telling kids they will make 40-50k a year once they get their degree. what they fail to tell them is that is after several years of experience in the field.
so which would you hire?
person A that has 15 years job experience that will work for 30-35k a year which you are paying. (yes this is happening experienced workers are taking the pay cut to get the jobs).
Person B that just graduated and wants 40k a year that you ahve to train etc...
from a company stand point it is pretty easy.
This is more of a social mentality and the fact that we are not teaching money management to our kids. Even though college we do not enforce proper money management skills.
Which i consider a social injustice.
actually it would cost less. the thing is you have to transfer power back to where it belongs and that is with the states. There are a great many things that could be handled by the states that the federal government doesn't need to involve itself with but just minor oversite.
The problem with that is it gets rid of this massive centralized government we have been forming for years and there is no way that washington is going to give up that power. since when you give power to the states you give power back to the people. since they have more of an impact in local elections.
where you get your information from i have to question because it is severly biased.
Probably because most people realize that you make more owning the business than working for someone else.
because we have let to much government regulation clog up the system.
now it is only going to get worse with businesses having to pay for obamacare. it is a job killer and once it gets into full swing i see unemployeement skyrocketing.
that or we will have a glut of temp jobs and people working part time.
Unions do not allow for market adjustments in pay in fact they inflate wage prices driving companies out of business. if a company has to hire someone in at 40 bucks an hour but is only producing 20 dollars an hour in value the company loses.
I agree only we don't even need those people except in key spots we just need people with common sense and a bit of finacial responsibility.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Just to rewind a sec, I didn't see this before - which disability was he applying under? VA disability or normal Social Security Disability? With the two year wait, it sounds like normal civilian disability which is not the appropriate one for him to go through, in fact likely he's getting a far reduced benefit from what he's actually due if so.
I think both have the same upper threshold at $2.5k/mo or so, but the lower thresholds are supposed to be higher and quicker to reach the cap with the VA disability.
I have yet to see someone take that long to get accepted for VA Disability myself, but as someone who has nerve issues myself, I have yet to have bumped into a VA person with nerve issues either - and honestly, with the being able to even see my "private results" (since I'm good friends with my GP that shared them with me), I got to see and know when some of the doctors reported contradictory findings - because of a "good day" or whatever else. [Besides my psychiatrist at least - but my "mild depression" that he downplayed so much isn't why I can't work]
And RE: Social Programs and people "not dying" - why is it that the average nation within 5-10 years of instituting basic welfare and food availability for the poor has experienced a huge spike of 7-10 years of increased life expectancy amongst their male population? Not to mention a reduction in crime rates. Sure, medical advances are likely some part of that - but even the cure for cancer if-when it ever happens is only expected to result in 1-2 years tagged onto the average at the most.
Heck, pick up a history book and look up what a Hooverville was - that's one of the ways that "welfare" was done before welfare - and it was hardly efficient nor pretty for culture to deal with. OWS was a fraction of the size and disruptiveness even in NYC - and we saw how much many people approved of it. (And it didn't do much panhandling/theft either in contrast)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
You also have to realize times are different. When the majority of the population is a pay check or 2 from the poor house, removing the entitlement programs is going to hurt a lot more then it will help. The chasm between the haves and have nots would just widen. I dont think that would be a good thing.
You feel differently? This is actually at the basics the most honest representation of the two parties.
Let me guess you feel Obama is actually satan in disguise and Jesus is speaking at the next RNC? Sarcasm aside you have an extremely bias view on the political forums as does everyone. But so far examining the bills of the two parties this is at the core of what both want. I honestly don't think either is much better than the other in terms of functionality as was for the long ass rant that followed.
You stopped making sense. IF that were the case then there would be nothing but "owners" and "lazy people". There is a real problem between the two classes. Class warfare exists. Its unfortnuate but true.
Wrong. I cannot say the government regulation is perfect but the problem started happening a LONG before this "over regulation". The idea that somehow the builsness world would be perfect if government butted out is a crazy conservative lie that is spoonfed to the lower income supporters of the republican party. The problems actaully started to arise around the 80's when trickle down economics started. How to fix captialism is difficult.
But basically it boils down to this. Capitalism was a game. You build your tier 1 deck and didn't make any misplays so you were successful. However now there are people that have broken the system. THEY are the extremely successful business owners of our time. The major corporations. They have broken the system in their favor. I can't blame them for doing it as its the natural progression of humans to want to expand and get more and more and more and more and more and more without any regard on how your actions will affect the world around them. Its human nature.
However its a major problem. Now we have a poorer middle class and lower class with and an upper class that has seen riches that would make kings weep. The fact is businessmen broke capitalism. Not the government. The only reason you think that the business world is being held back by the government is because someone extremely rich paid a lot of money to make sure thats what you thought.
Unions aren't some evil essence that is out to greedily take up every dime of the company. It is not within their best interests to sink a company for a few extra dollars an hour. Thats not true and you need to learn more about how unions work and the history of them. They are the reason we don't work for .80c an hour like they do in china.
Unions work WITH the company and in some cases make companies work better. In several cases where they had mediation between unions and owners both will come out on top. The union can find ways to make the company run better or make the jobs easier for the workers so they can get more done. They also make sure that the owner doesn't rake in 10 million when he could take in 8 million to provide better wages and conditions for the workers. No union wants the company to go under. If you seriously think that unions are the problem then you need to look into the facts more.
You have to think about it like this though: the paychecks are going to stop coming anyway when the government will be forced to make massive spending cuts down the road due to a serious economic crisis. We're better off cutting social and entitlement programs now before it's too late. It's impossible for our government to continue managing this welfare and warfare state.
Then perhaps its a good idea for them to try and fix the situations that are causing the welare state? Several people seem to believe that the reason we have so many poor people and unemployed is because the government gives them money. Its a logical fallicy. If we strip them of any income then crime will skyrocket. Great plan.
Instead lets set up an economy where people can ACTUALLY LIVE off of the wages they get. Make some cuts and make programs run more efficently for sure...but too gut them would lead to economic ruin.
The giant engine that fuels our economy (the buyers not the suppliers) will collapse and thus the suppliers also collapse under the weight of the unsold merchandise. Sounds fun.
Cutting entitlement programs without fixing the job market is a recipe for revolution. With that many people with nothing to lose, it could get very ugly, very quickly. The solution is not as simple as just cut them off and they will go to work.
The fact that we have a consumption-driven economy is a huge reason why we are in this mess to begin with. We need to stop consuming so much and start producing more. The jobs we need to create need to be jobs that increase our productive capacity. That means more factory-based jobs and less service-based jobs. These are the kinds of jobs that unemployed people can work in. Logically you might ask "well why don't we have these jobs here and why are they overseas?" It's because we as a nation are overtaxed and overregulated. We need to encourage businesses to invest here instead of abroad, and that's not going to happen with an archaic tax code and mountains of unneeded regulations.
The only reason we have gotten away with all this consumption from foreigners is that they keep selling us their products and they buy our dollars. That can't continue forever though. Foreigners will eventually realize that the US will never be able to repay its debts from the treasuries it sells to them. That will cause interest rates to skyrocket and we will be in major trouble when that occurs.
(Note, I'm not looking down on the people who have to do these jobs, because they're *vitally* important for the smooth functioning of society. It's no fun being on the bottom of the totem pole, but you're holding up the guys above.)
This is also why I see political talk about "controlling our borders" as economically insane. Those immigrants aren't really taking jobs from Americans, Americans don't want those jobs. Spending 8 or more hours a day picking strawberries is miserable.
Twitch channel
I refute...everything. Source source source source source.
1) We are a consumer based economy. the REASON buisnesses are so sucessful here is the market. If we stop this market then there is no longer a good economy here.
2) Why do we need to have producing jobs? Factory work is outdated. Machines are far more effective. This kind of thinking is about 80 years out dated. Science and technology is where the jobs need to be. More skilled work. We need to build things. Good things. Manufacturing is a good thing that we need to do but thats not a reason to say "well thats what the poor need to do"
3) Overrugulation isn't the root of the problem here in America. That is a conservative lie. The problem is the system is broken. The regulation is a response by the government to try and fix the brokenness. Companies have a lot less regulation that people like to believe. The reason they are in china is not due to regulations and jumping through hoops but rather they can get away with treating the workers like sub-human animals that work for a pay rate that if put in America would mean that they would STILL be on the tit of the government. That won't fix the "welfare state" but make the rich a lot richer. Thats the true intention there. The regulation really isn't as bad as people say. The taxes are at a record low. WHAT regulations are "over regulating" the market?
4) And its a global market. The idea you are proposing sound a lot like you think America is an independent market. While in truth the entire world is intertwined with the American market. We get our products from all around the world but that doesn't mean that we can fix the economy by producing more raw materials....
he went with his military pension over the disability. This was a long term thing that just started affecting him ol about 5 years ago.
He has filed for SSD at least 2 or 3 times and finally got it on the third time. yet it took 5 years of medical records and a lawyer to do it.
yet a girl can have a baby or multiple babies no way to pay for them and get free assistence.
Just with how you described it.
Republican Plan: empower businesses to create jobs and the economy. Keep investments and investment money safe and continue to encourage people to invest.
Reform the social programs that they actually work properly without causing the red ink that they are.
Democrat plan: tax the rich (even though they are already paying most of the taxes). Spend that money on new spending programs not reducing the deficit. Claim we need more revenue and continue to raise taxes.
Nope not at all. The same as people thought bush was incompetant as a president obama is equally incompetant only he is taking the country on a rail we might not recover from.
He has 0 leadership capabilities and the only thing he can do is stamp his feet and blame someone else for his failure to get a bill out of congress.
reagan bush Sr, clinton, and Bush Jr. all had to deal with opposing congresses and they all managed to do it. even congresses that tried to utterly defy them and purposely stall them. yet they managed to do it. why? leadership.
It makes perfect sense. people that are businesses owners realized they can make more as business owners. that doesn't mean everyone will become one. it isn't an easy job. it requires a lot of hard work and most don't take paychecks etc for basic needs their first year or two.
they work 80-90 hours a week.
Not at all. Government doesn't pay my bills, government doesn't keep food on my table. who i work for does. I see money go to the federal government but get very little on return for it (federal government not state).
The only return that i do see is the military helping protect me and my family.
All these other social spending programs that they come up with not for me. Don't qualify i work have a good job. so i get a big screw you.
yet they continue to do it. Why do you think most of the manufactoring base is moving to the south? why do you think more and more factories are moving to the south? why? to escape the union garbage. it is to expensive and not worth their time.
it is cheaper for them to offer similar benefits and a 401k then have to deal with union bosses looking to fatten their pocket. you think corporations are greedy and crooked you are giving a blind eye to these union bosses who careless about the people they represent.
I know all about unions i came from a union state. my dad and bother both work for unions. for a time they did what they were suppose to do. now they don't. now they are just as corrupt or more corrupt than the companies.
maybe some of the smaller ones yea, but the big ones like the auto workers, teamsters and others no.
they don't.
then the employee's should invest in the company and become stock holders and then have a say in the matter.
that 2m that the union thinks they should take could have provided those things if they were needed. it isn't up to the union what the owner should or shouldn't get it isn't their company.
if they want to be part owners of the company then they need to invest in that company.
If they weren't a problem then companies wouldn't be moving like mad to right to work states to avoid them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
as a side note looks like a deal on taxes has been reached but won't be voted on tonight. it will probably be put into effect tomorrow.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Unions are a necessary thing. Otherwise you leave it with the haves and the have nots with no way to claw the way up. Most people can't start their own company. You need money. If you have no money (say 90% of Americans) then there is no hope at all for you to get the compnay started. Like you said. It takes a lot of start up money and no profit for up to 2 years. The system is broken and government wasn't the one that broke it.
The reason companies are moving away from unions is because they are whiny and don't like the idea of not getting the maximum profit at the expense of others. Plain and simnple. There are not other explinations. The government mediates between unions and owners specifically to make a compromise and make sure both are getting a fair deal. If a union asks for too much then they are in the wrong. But to say "unions" are destroying the economy is nothing more than pointing fingers and whining about a broken system and wanting to blame everything but the problem. Its the government, its the regulations, its the unions, its the poor, is the welfare state. never is it about the people walking away filthy rich while forcing others to take payment so low that even when working full time they need assistance to live at the most basic level. No. NO its never their fault. Ever. Thats what bothers me.
All you are saying is todays Americans are spoiled and that type of work is below them. Americans have to swallow their pride and start doing the work that is there and stop complaining there is nothing for them to do.
How exactly do the lower class invest in the company to make sure they earn a fair wage? Are they supposed to not buy food or pay for housing so that they can afford to take their poverty level wage and spend it on the company with hopes that some day they'll be able to earn a living wage?
I'm not a fan of unions but this line of logic is laughable.
You continue to forget the fact that major consumption without adequate production has been the weakness to our economy. We went on an unprecedented consumption binge during the housing bubble to create a phantom economy. Once the housing bubble burst, all the wealth people had from housing evaporated and all that remained was the debt that was accumulated from all the consumption. Even after the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve reduced interest rates to 0%, encouraging people to consume even more and save less. What do we have to show for all of our consumption? Nothing, except a weaker dollar and more debt.
Even as technology improves, you still have to produce stuff some how. Raw materials don't magically convert themselves into the end products that we desire. We can't expect the rest of the world to continue to produce almost everything for us.
What is "the system" that you are talking about that is broken? Capitalism? Free-market economics? If so, our failures have not come because of the free-market due to the fact that we have no free market in the first place. Politicians try to say we have a free market economy, but when you really look at things, it's really not.
Heck, I'd be willing to wager that a lot of conservatives (more specifically neo-conservatives) don't truly believe in a legitmate free market that libertarians want to see. We have yet to see a market that is untainted by crony capitalism, fascism, government subsidies, government picking winners and losers, and excessive regulation. The reason I say that is because when you listen to your typical cookie-cutter Republican or conservative on a talk show or TV, you don't hear or see them championing the ideas of Austrians such as Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. Pretty much everyone in government is a Keynesian in some way.
We can certainly make things better for ourselves by producing our own stuff. That's how we became the wealthiest creditor nation in the world. We produced stuff that the rest of the world bought. Today, we are the largest debtor nation in the world. Look our trade deficit. It's enormous. It cannot be sustained for much longer and yet we continue to consume foreign products with no end in sight.
While I agree that we need to work a lot harder on producing more here ourselves and bringing our trade deficit back into balance, I just dont know how viable it would be would be my concern.
Influence inherently concentrates over time, and inevitably leads to some kind of oligarchy. No human has figured out a system to stop this effect. The only thing that "better" systems have over "worse" systems is how quickly the effect gets to a critical mass such that the unprivileged finally spark a revolution.
Twitch channel