Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Too bad, I dont watch Fox News.
You don't have to; they get a lot of their material from your posts. :DYou are right about the unemployment rate – 14% being good is nuts.Even my liberal sources are starting to take the TP seriously, though:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/19/preston.on.politics/index.html?hpt=T2
Mrs. Chavez is mainly talking about entrepeneurs(small business) not multinational banks. But your point is taken as well. Now I challenge you to point me to a government intervention success story. ;D
OK, I will bite. Here is w a recent story form one of those liberal media outlets I frequent:http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/18/news/economy/kokomo_stimulus_case_study/index.htm?hpt=SbinYes, there does seem to some bias; I am sure you can find a counterpoint at Faux News. ;D
I find it significant that many Democrats are not trumpeting their support for Obamacare, or other fiscal stimulus sonce Obama took office, why is that?
I call it “bar code backlash”. Ever since stores went to bar codes, it is often hard to figure out what something costs. The tag on the shelf is missing or seems to describe something different. But the features described on the box and the glossy pictures convince you it is the perfect item for your needs and you rationalize that it can't be much more than the one you chose it over. Then you get to the counter and when your wallet is out you finally find out the cost… 😮 >:(
I haven't met anyone who strongly supports the TP that isn't socially conservative. I am not suggesting that such people don't exist, but I haven't met one. But I only know a handful of people who support TP.
I know what you mean all too well. I am far more aligned with his promises than his actions and results…
Here is an interesting report comparing the recession to others in the past with some timelines:http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/2009OutlookFinal_Long.pdfIf you look at the chart for unemployment rate, you will see this one is far worse than average, but even the average ones were not resolved in 48 months. The data for the current unemployment does seem to support his statement (the first half; the second half is an opinion). But pointing that out does no good; he knew it was like that when he took over. It's his job to clean up the mess whether he made any of it or not.
Any poll from CBS is skewed
Their interpretation may be, but I think they use pretty good polling practices. But polls in general have never been all that reliable.
Back on track, I just saw a new opinion poll article at CBS with some numbers on Palin in particular, but also the Tea Party in general:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018857-503544.html?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarouselWhile it sounds bad for Palin, the Tea Party in general numbers indicate pretty even lovers and haters while the majority are undecided. That surprised me, but other than here I tend to move in liberal circles so my perception is a little skewed (and before you jump on that with a clever comeback, yours is probably skewed also)…
My problem is not with taxes, it is how that money is spent. Hopefully the Tea Party cna do something about it.
OK, there is something we can agree on after all. :DWhile I am for providing for those less fortunate, I think it is ridiculous if they have to get $20 from me to give somebody a bowl of beans (or equivalent). I bet a company in the private sector could provide services at half the cost and make a profit.
Scout,You may be surprised that I am quite similar with respect to what I do – I have never drawn a dime of unemployment and have been underemployed a couple of times. But I had enough time in my field to be established. I worked part time in a warehouse to put myself through tech school and turned down a full time offer even though it would have paid more than the starting rate I took when I found a job in my field. I was able to stay afloat through that, but I sympathize with those that can't.I think it comes down to what consequences you will let people, many of whom have innocent children, suffer for poor choices and/or bad luck. What really frustrates me is that if we were able to administer it better, so that a $5 tax actually resulted in $4 spent on food, lodging or health care for someone who really needed the help, I doubt we would be having this conversation. I think a lot of people speak and/or vote against social programs because the costs are out of control, not because they have a basic disagreement with the government helping the needy.I just got the warning about another post – yours on education. I am a CDI (Control Data Institute) graduate. I am not sure if you are old enough to remember their ads from the 70s and 80s. They would teach you to program computers in a matter of months and then help you find a job, boasting a 97% placement rate. What they didn't tell you on the ads was that they did that by negotiating low (as in pretty close to minimum wage) hourly trials with companies that normally required degrees for programmers. Some companies were nasty about it, hiring 5 trials for each opening and cherry picking. I was fortunate to find a small company who was doing a single hire as a gamble. After I had been with them a few years, I had the “or equivalent” and was able to apply almost anywhere. Now I have 30 years experience and no one really cares what I have on the wall.
You are contradicting yourself within the same paragraph.
Is that not allowed? ;DActually, what I meant was not clear – I am not a “pure” socialist wishing to do away with free enterprise and capitalism, which I thought you implied earlier. When I said I didn't want to fix the imbalance, I meant that I have no desire to do away with the system that creates the imbalance.
If people don't or would not give enough then you must feel that the situation requires fixing because of stingy rich folk. Do you really think there is a systemic imbalance that holds people in some sort of economic status? It is my personal experience that those that really want to work can find something to to do. It may not be the job they want but work is out there. I think the biggest problem with people is that some are not willing to work unless they have a certain job. I would like to have a white-collar job but I would gladly mow yards if it puts food on the table.
There is a systemic imbalance, but it doesn't hold people down in any explicit manner. However, there is a near contradiction in your logic also. Many of those people who don't want to work unless they get a specific job have been educated/trained in a job that could give them a better life. If they take the first thing that comes along then they may become the latest in a long line of lawn mowers, which doesn't put much food on a table.
Historyscientist,Do you really think de-militarization will fix the budget problems of the US?
I think his suggestion is a little over the top, even for a tree hugging dove like myself. I think we spend too much and are a little over eager about getting into conflicts, but if we de-militarize, I think we better prepare for a change in language and religion.
I did not say I wanted to fix the imbalance; it is just that the imbalance is the primary thing that creates the conditions where a lot of people are poor and a substantial number of people can meet their own needs and not much more. The minority that could afford are not being charitable enough to help all those in need without being forced into it. It would be great if they would, but that isn't reality. Every generation has had a few great philanthropists, but the problem is much larger than they can handle. I really think a lot of people don't realize how skewed these numbers are. The average person in the top 20% makes 800 times as much money as the average person in the bottom 40%. Yes, my math is right – there are twice as many people sharing that 0.02% as sharing that 84.1%, so you have to double up the calculation to get the average.I don't think it is the only way to address the problem, but it may be the only way to do it in a free enterprise system. I don't think there should be a cap on what you can make; if you work harder/smarter than your neighbor, you should make more (and give more, but still have more left).
Yes, it is better for people to work if they are able and can find employment. It is difficult if not impossible to help all that truly need it without having some layabouts play the system.I am arguing morality, but if you look at the continuing trend of wealth concentrating and the poor getting less and less of the pie, then look back at history you will see it is unprecedented for a government to survive with this sort of disparity. 60% of the share only 4% of the wealth and even most of that is held by the top third of the strata. And that data is 6 years old with a trend of it getting worse. We are in a pretty precarious spot.
Charity has never worked with much effectiveness. Some people get helped, but not nearly enough. Look at where the money is:and look at how the bottom 40% has steadily lost its share of wealth:
If the people with the money voluntarily helped generously enough, charity might work. But they don't. You have to tax.
If the people with the money voluntarily helped generously enough, charity might work. But they don't. You have to tax. 
