The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

“DOING THE RIGHT THING” — BY STOPPING SOMEONE FROM VOTING DEMOCRAT:

 

Bonnie Pollak, a Republican, weighed her options. Should she be loyal to her spouse, respect his legal right and mail the ballot? Or remain faithful to her deeply held beliefs and suppress his vote?

 

“It was a real dilemma,” says Ms. Pollak, 58 years old, a student in a doctoral program who lives in Manhattan. “I decided to do the right thing.”

 

Ms. Pollak threw the ballot away.

 

 

Friends don't let friends, or spouses, vote Democrat.

 

Wow a Republican explicitly endorsing voter disenfranchisement because they're voting for the right party. Shocking.

[EvilMonkey]

Oh, I am sorry, must have mistyped a few of the words from the story. Here is the correct version, with link.

 

Bonnie Pollak, a Democrat, weighed her options. Should she be loyal to her spouse, respect his legal right and mail the ballot? Or remain faithful to her deeply held beliefs and suppress his vote?

 

"It was a real dilemma," says Ms. Pollak, 58 years old, a student in a doctoral program in social welfare who lives in Manhattan. "I decided to do the right thing."

 

Ms. Pollak threw the ballot away.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239...absentee+ballot

 

 

[Balta1701]

I wonder if the person writing that article actually knows that they're writing about a crime.

[mr_genius]

Loyal Democrat Shepard Smith, FOX news prime time anchor, has been in his usual form. The convention just makes him just that much worse. So much for the 'conservative' bias at FOX.

Edited September 5, 2012 by mr_genius

[bigruss]

Oh, I am sorry, must have mistyped a few of the words from the story. Here is the correct version, with link.

 

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239...absentee+ballot

I feel like you set this up

[Zoogz]

It also makes the system harder to sustain if it is balanced on the backs of a minority of the country.

 

It does but it doesn't at the same time...

 

Harder to sustain: due to the fact that capital can be moved very easily and hidden just as easily (Romney plus practically every other multi-millionaire in the country), it's hard for the IRS to find and tax all of the possible revenue. This is mainly a function of how much political will goes into finding and taxing all of the routes capital takes and also how much political will is spent in making a tax code that is flexible enough to find and close loopholes like the ones that leveraged buyout firms used to deduct bonds used to raise money (vis-a-vis raising capital, which would be taxed). In our post-Citizens United world, where the Supreme Court tells us that the money will not lead to corruption... it's awfully easy to donate a lot of money to certain figures so that audits can be easily forgotten.

 

Easier to sustain: The minority in question actually gets rewards for gaining this minority status... they become rich! There's a very large incentive to be able to pay more money to the government, they have more money in their pocket to begin with. I would argue that people who are rich absolutely use more of the country's (read: the commons') resources by being rich too, so it isn't as if they are not getting any return on taxes.

 

Labor absolutely needs capital or labor can't work. I would argue that capital needs labor just as much, as we've been in a system for quite a while now where we've allowed capital to try to beget capital (hedge funds, leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers, etc.) and society as a whole hasn't exactly made out well. It is clear that financiers rather than industrialists control this country. Ask an industrialist who has to remain competitive what would be best for her (or his) company, and you would find that they want:

 

1. Vibrant markets... capital in many hands makes for more possible buyers.

2. A healthy labor force... makes for better quality, less turnover means less training.

3. A smart labor force... will be able to help your company grow by tapping new markets, designing new products, finding new uses for existing products (think about the Arm & Hammer people)

 

How do we get those? By offering good wages, making sure that good health facilities are available (and cutting pollution), and making sure that schools are well-run and able to teach children.

 

Financiers (the "too big to fail" sort) on the other hand want:

1. Limited markets... makes them easier to manipulate (think LIBOR scandal)

2. An unhealthy labor force... paying doctors with credit cards means that banks get to keep extracting money from you, and retirement is the way that you get to keep your wealth... if you die in your prime earning years, you may have built a nest egg but you aren't getting it.

3. Dumb people... how many of the people here know how CDOs or derivatives work? Heck, who here even knows ALL of the causes of the 2008 meltdown? (No, Fannie/Freddie do not get 100% of the blame).

 

Vibrant markets, healthy/smart citizenry, health care, etc... none of it comes from the government. On the other hand, none of it comes from business either... it's a partnership. The USA proved that prosperity could be grown with a partnership of both actors for many decades in the last century. I am no communist, as you cannot get a (full) vibrant market from government involvement alone. Dictatorships only work if the dictator is benevolent and literally cares about others over themselves... and I challenge you to find even a king (much less a 19th-20th century dictator) that fits that description. On the other hand, we have had school systems for a very long time that have worked except for the fact that money is being extracted from districts at a frightening pace.

 

At this time, I truly feel that we have a financial sector that is the first one at the government trough and is pushing everyone else out of the way. On top of that, they keep all the rewards and give us the bill for all risks. There's a reason that our government was set up with checks and balances, it guaranteed that one branch would never have primacy over another. We need that in our private sector right now.

 

In the meantime, yes, it would be great to increase taxes on the rich... they are absolutely using more of this country's services and most (not all) have proven that they are happy to collect rents rather than to grow our economy. The rich are also happy to move their wealth where it can't get taxed and to try to use strategies that lawyers and accountants create to avoid taxes that are not necessarily legal (example: the "Son of Boss" Marriott tax strategy). When >90% of the wealth creation goes to the upper 20%, then they should have to give the rest of the country some sort of compensation for that awesome privilege.

 

(...pant, pant, pant.... )

Edited September 6, 2012 by Zoogz

[southsider2k5]

 

 

[Reddy]

typical SS response. how bout you actually write something of substance in response instead of dodging and deflecting?

[southsider2k5]

typical SS response. how bout you actually write something of substance in response instead of dodging and deflecting?

 

There was no substance in that post. It was a left wing rant with no basis in reality.

[Reddy]

There was no substance in that post. It was a left wing rant with no basis in reality.

other than to suggest that workers get compensated fairly and to encourage capitalism at its finest and suggest that the wealthy actually pay their taxes.

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Awesome rebuttal.

[MexSoxFan#1]

It does but it doesn't at the same time...

 

Harder to sustain: due to the fact that capital can be moved very easily and hidden just as easily (Romney plus practically every other multi-millionaire in the country), it's hard for the IRS to find and tax all of the possible revenue. This is mainly a function of how much political will goes into finding and taxing all of the routes capital takes and also how much political will is spent in making a tax code that is flexible enough to find and close loopholes like the ones that leveraged buyout firms used to deduct bonds used to raise money (vis-a-vis raising capital, which would be taxed). In our post-Citizens United world, where the Supreme Court tells us that the money will not lead to corruption... it's awfully easy to donate a lot of money to certain figures so that audits can be easily forgotten.

 

Easier to sustain: The minority in question actually gets rewards for gaining this minority status... they become rich! There's a very large incentive to be able to pay more money to the government, they have more money in their pocket to begin with. I would argue that people who are rich absolutely use more of the country's (read: the commons') resources by being rich too, so it isn't as if they are not getting any return on taxes.

 

Labor absolutely needs capital or labor can't work. I would argue that capital needs labor just as much, as we've been in a system for quite a while now where we've allowed capital to try to beget capital (hedge funds, leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers, etc.) and society as a whole hasn't exactly made out well. It is clear that financiers rather than industrialists control this country. Ask an industrialist who has to remain competitive what would be best for her (or his) company, and you would find that they want:

 

1. Vibrant markets... capital in many hands makes for more possible buyers.

2. A healthy labor force... makes for better quality, less turnover means less training.

3. A smart labor force... will be able to help your company grow by tapping new markets, designing new products, finding new uses for existing products (think about the Arm & Hammer people)

 

How do we get those? By offering good wages, making sure that good health facilities are available (and cutting pollution), and making sure that schools are well-run and able to teach children.

 

Financiers (the "too big to fail" sort) on the other hand want:

1. Limited markets... makes them easier to manipulate (think LIBOR scandal)

2. An unhealthy labor force... paying doctors with credit cards means that banks get to keep extracting money from you, and retirement is the way that you get to keep your wealth... if you die in your prime earning years, you may have built a nest egg but you aren't getting it.

3. Dumb people... how many of the people here know how CDOs or derivatives work? Heck, who here even knows ALL of the causes of the 2008 meltdown? (No, Fannie/Freddie do not get 100% of the blame).

 

Vibrant markets, healthy/smart citizenry, health care, etc... none of it comes from the government. On the other hand, none of it comes from business either... it's a partnership. The USA proved that prosperity could be grown with a partnership of both actors for many decades in the last century. I am no communist, as you cannot get a (full) vibrant market from government involvement alone. Dictatorships only work if the dictator is benevolent and literally cares about others over themselves... and I challenge you to find even a king (much less a 19th-20th century dictator) that fits that description. On the other hand, we have had school systems for a very long time that have worked except for the fact that money is being extracted from districts at a frightening pace.

 

At this time, I truly feel that we have a financial sector that is the first one at the government trough and is pushing everyone else out of the way. On top of that, they keep all the rewards and give us the bill for all risks. There's a reason that our government was set up with checks and balances, it guaranteed that one branch would never have primacy over another. We need that in our private sector right now.

 

In the meantime, yes, it would be great to increase taxes on the rich... they are absolutely using more of this country's services and most (not all) have proven that they are happy to collect rents rather than to grow our economy. The rich are also happy to move their wealth where it can't get taxed and to try to use strategies that lawyers and accountants create to avoid taxes that are not necessarily legal (example: the "Son of Boss" Marriott tax strategy). When >90% of the wealth creation goes to the upper 20%, then they should have to give the rest of the country some sort of compensation for that awesome privilege.

 

(...pant, pant, pant.... )

 

FTW

 

[Balta1701]

WOOOO PAUL RYAN IS COMING TO KNOXVILLE! I GET TO SEE THOSE DREAMY EYES!!!!

[mr_genius]

WOOOO PAUL RYAN IS COMING TO KNOXVILLE! I GET TO SEE THOSE DREAMY EYES!!!!

 

you lucky bastard

[southsider2k5]

I'm sure there will be no candidates for me this year. I got to see Bill Clinton, and could have seen Hillary if I had the time last time around.

[Jenksismyhero]

Good back story on Clint Eastwood's appearance at the RNC. I'm still not sure why that got such negative attention. I'd rather have someone give an unscripted speech, even if a bit rambly, than listen to campaign speak for 30-40 minutes.

 

http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html

 

 

[Y2HH]

There was no substance in that post. It was a left wing rant with no basis in reality.

 

The scary thing is none of them see that...all they see is FTW, or AWESOME.

[Zoogz]

The scary thing is none of them see that...all they see is FTW, or AWESOME.

 

What substance would you like? Or are you perfectly happy with the previous twelve (to thirty) years?

[StrangeSox]

There was no substance in that post. It was a left wing rant with no basis in reality.

 

Just like Posner's ruling in the Iraq protesters case that you dismissed out of hand, right?

[Y2HH]

What substance would you like? Or are you perfectly happy with the previous twelve (to thirty) years?

 

Fine...I'll bite.

 

I'd like ACTUAL substance, based on reality. Not this dream world you invent in your mind because you live within a lazy generation that likes to live so far above and beyond it's means that "debt" isn't a 4 letter word...but expected, and worse, shrugged off as no big deal.

 

I'm more than happy with the past twelve to thirty years. Why wouldn't I be? Life is awesome...and it's getting better.

 

Everything around us has gotten better, the problem is people like you, who can't to see it, because you're too busy comparing everything you have around you (which is practically everything a person could want), to an unrealistic ideal of what YOU believe the world should be like. Everything about my life is far superior to what it was 12 years ago...and 30 years ago? Not even in the same galaxy. I was alive in 1982...and 1982 wasn't all that grand. My father, an immigrant, worked hard to get where he is, and made sure I worked hard too, in school, at work and in life...versus just laying back and having him foot the bill for everything in my life, I found a calling...I followed it...and I studied, and practiced, and networked to make connections for the future. He taught me the value of money, the value of honor and the value of dealing with reality, not what people pitch to you as reality...but REALITY. The most he EVER made in a year was 43,000$, and that was just a few years ago before he retired. My family never "wanted" for anything because he taught us to live within our means. So we didn't grow up with expectations of simple things like a VCR when we couldn't afford it. Yes, we didn't grow up with a VCR in the house, throughout the 80's/90's...because we needed the money for more important things. That's reality, and understanding how to deal with it. We weren't taught to grow up and look at what our neighbors had an compare ourselves to them based on those objects. We were taught to have the things we have because we needed them/wanted them...AND could afford them. A lesson that's sadly lost on the majority of this nation.

 

Based on what you JUST said, you claim that life in 1981 (31 years ago), was better than it is now. Well, sad news...because it wasn't. I'm not sure what history books you've been reading about the 80's...but you might want to close them. Or, as Good Will Hunting might say, "You spend all this money on beautiful, fancy books--and they're the wrong f***in' books."

 

But you know what is awesome? Being alive to see 2012...and hopefully more.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Y2HH

[EvilMonkey]

We weren't taught to grow up and look at what our neighbors had an compare ourselves to them based on those objects. We were taught to have the things we have because we needed them/wanted them...AND could afford them. A lesson that's sadly lost on the majority of this nation.

I lived this part. I didn't realize it until one time I said to my dad "Tom's got a pool, they built a room addition on the back just for him and his parents bought him a car. What do they have that we don't?". And my dad replied "credit card debt". I had not much of a clue what he meant so I read up on it and figured it out. Then it made sense why instead of an Izod in high school, I got the damn Sears dragon. I didn't get Levis, I got K-mart stretch denim.

 

I try to pass this knowledge onto my kids, sadly not sure it succeeds all to well some days.

[Zoogz]

Thanks for engaging... without any actual debate, it's just a big huge canyon.

 

Fine...I'll bite.

 

I'd like ACTUAL substance, based on reality. Not this dream world you invent in your mind because you live within a lazy generation that likes to live so far above and beyond it's means that "debt" isn't a 4 letter word...but expected, and worse, shrugged off as no big deal.

 

First, I rather disagree with the word "lazy"... I promise to you that I feel rather differently about the situation. (I dunno how much older you are than I am, but I was born in 1980) Is this based on data, or the plural of 'anecdote'?

 

I'm more than happy with the past twelve to thirty years. Why wouldn't I be? Life is awesome...and it's getting better.

 

I will fervently agree with you that life is infinitely more interesting now. After all, in 1982 (heck, possibly not even in 2000) I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.

 

Everything around us has gotten better, the problem is people like you, who can't to see it, because you're too busy comparing everything you have around you (which is practically everything a person could want), to an unrealistic ideal of what YOU believe the world should be like.

 

Everything around us has not "gotten better", and I am not the "problem", and thankfully it's not just "me" that believes that the world could be better.

 

Everything about my life is far superior to what it was 12 years ago...and 30 years ago? Not even in the same galaxy. I was alive in 1982...and 1982 wasn't all that grand. My father, an immigrant, worked hard to get where he is, and made sure I worked hard too, in school, at work and in life...versus just laying back and having him foot the bill for everything in my life, I found a calling...I followed it...and I studied, and practiced, and networked to make connections for the future. He taught me the value of money, the value of honor and the value of dealing with reality, not what people pitch to you as reality...but REALITY. The most he EVER made in a year was 43,000$, and that was just a few years ago before he retired.

 

I congratulate your family and father on being able to make it in this country. There's some sort of dichotomy here though, where it seems to be assumed that because you're out of work you're automatically lazy. I reject that black-and-white assertion. I was laid off myself, along with fifty people in 2003... I was not lazy. I was out of work for six months, supporting my family on unemployment insurance and credit cards while letting my college loans reinflate past where they were when I left. I'm *still* paying off those credit cards and the loan, despite paying some of the card balances twice over already. I'm trying to tread lightly here, lest you think that I'm espousing *forcing* companies to keep people employed. I'm not.. I want a dynamic economy where people don't have years of their financial future decided by a company's officers one thousand miles away when it is often in the company's best interests not because the company is in any sort of trouble, but because the company's officers gain an extra $2m from their stock options.

 

Now, here's the tricky part... what do you do in this situation? Companies should be allowed to remove personnel for good and legitimate reasons, all the way down to "it's just not a good fit". If we had an economy where someone could find another job in four weeks, or eight weeks, it's not a multi-year financial sinkhole for someone who did not deserve it.

 

And lastly comes the huge jump... we have an economy that's built on consumption. If consumption by all these lower- and middle-class people goes down, then jobs will go down. It's a vicious cycle. We used to have an economy based on exporting... which is why your father was able to keep a job throughout his life, we needed goods in order to export in order to gain money. That's not how money is made anymore... leveraged buyout companies can come into a company with a low initial investment, pull dividend money as they reorganize a company, and sell it off for a profit. In other words, it benefits them to literally let people go. Are these people lazy? Hardly... they helped BUILD the company and give the company the money and credit for the leveraged buyout company to be able to gain the credit to issue bonds.

 

A lot of nuance, I admit, but this is not an isolated part of the economy. It's absolutely frightening, especially to the millions of people who are coping with prices far higher than in the 80s.

 

My family never "wanted" for anything because he taught us to live within our means. So we didn't grow up with expectations of simple things like a VCR when we couldn't afford it. Yes, we didn't grow up with a VCR in the house, throughout the 80's/90's...because we needed the money for more important things. That's reality, and understanding how to deal with it. We weren't taught to grow up and look at what our neighbors had an compare ourselves to them based on those objects. We were taught to have the things we have because we needed them/wanted them...AND could afford them. A lesson that's sadly lost on the majority of this nation.

 

I suppose that this is where the "rising prices" part goes, but it's seriously frightening to face even food costs if you have little money. I'm sure that there are stories of people buying steaks on food stamps, and I am sickened by those stories just as much as you are. On the other hand, if you are able to prove that even 15% of the people are getting too much in food stamp benefits then that means two things.

 

1) I will be in the group of people to ask the government to reevaluate a program that is spending money unnecessarily, while still

2) realizing that this means that for every three people that are getting too many benefits that there are seventeen people that are surviving on meager rations as best as possible... or worse, not getting enough, and starving. You know, many of our best entrepreneurs came from very humble beginnings, but we still need to give them the tools to succeed.

 

Based on what you JUST said, you claim that life in 1981 (31 years ago), was better than it is now.

 

Nope, not what I asked. I asked if you personally were perfectly happy with the past twelve or thirty years. I phrased it that way because while, through hard work and through luck (being in the right place at the right time), I managed to claw my way through the last twelve years into a position where I can finally start paying down my debts, yet it only takes one car accident, one of my family contracting a disease like cancer (or heck, even the flu) and what I've built can be shattered in an agonizing heartbeat. It's not hard to find those stories either. So, if I were to hear the same question, I would have to say that while I'm content with many aspects of life, that doesn't mean that we should stop striving to make the world a better place. Heck, I thought that the marketplace was all about striving to make things better, not just sitting back and declaring everything perfect. That almost sounds... lazy.

 

Well, sad news...because it wasn't. I'm not sure what history books you've been reading about the 80's...but you might want to close them. Or, as Good Will Hunting might say, "You spend all this money on beautiful, fancy books--and they're the wrong f***in' books."

 

But you know what is awesome? Being alive to see 2012...and hopefully more.

 

And on that note, I agree. This world is absolutely amazing... and I want to leave the world in a better place so that my children have the same access to energy resources so that food can be grown and so that food can go from field to market, so that they can learn anything they want to fit in the best way to an economy that has jobs, and if Heaven forbid they get sick, they don't have to mortgage the rest of their life. I want a vibrant market that doesn't consider all people under company officer level as possible fodder for bigger bonuses. They may not be reality now... but that doesn't mean I should just sit back and dream.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Y2HH]

First, I rather disagree with the word "lazy"... I promise to you that I feel rather differently about the situation. (I dunno how much older you are than I am, but I was born in 1980) Is this based on data, or the plural of 'anecdote'?

 

I don't mean lazy in that they're hard working/smart yet unemployed through no fault of their own, as I understand this happens to people, but usually when it happens to people like that, it's temporary. I meant lazy in that they feel entitled to almost everything, and no matter how much they have, it's not enough. And I don't mean entitled via the government, but via their parents and the environment surrounding them. They grew up with a television in their bedrooms, an XBOX, a computer and probably an iPhone or some Android equivalent...none of which they pay for or care about, because if it breaks, someone else will fix it. This also points to our massive success as a nation, the fact that a generation of kids like this can be raised shows we have it all...despite not seeing it.

 

I will fervently agree with you that life is infinitely more interesting now. After all, in 1982 (heck, possibly not even in 2000) I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.

 

I find it more interesting...and better.

 

Everything around us has not "gotten better", and I am not the "problem", and thankfully it's not just "me" that believes that the world could be better.

 

Yes, it has. Everything around you HAS gotten better. That's not to say it can't get even better than it is, but it IS better in comparison.

 

I congratulate your family and father on being able to make it in this country. There's some sort of dichotomy here though, where it seems to be assumed that because you're out of work you're automatically lazy. I reject that black-and-white assertion. I was laid off myself, along with fifty people in 2003... I was not lazy. I was out of work for six months, supporting my family on unemployment insurance and credit cards while letting my college loans reinflate past where they were when I left. I'm *still* paying off those credit cards and the loan, despite paying some of the card balances twice over already. I'm trying to tread lightly here, lest you think that I'm espousing *forcing* companies to keep people employed. I'm not.. I want a dynamic economy where people don't have years of their financial future decided by a company's officers one thousand miles away when it is often in the company's best interests not because the company is in any sort of trouble, but because the company's officers gain an extra $2m from their stock options.

 

I never said that out of work people are automatically lazy. Those that care will be sure to make their situation temporary, not permanent. I was speaking generationally when speaking of laziness. Those born after the 1990's are what I like to call the entitled generation. They grew up with every advantage, yet most did almost nothing with them. The world is passing us by academically (not higher education yet) because our youth just doesn't care about studying or hard work...because almost everything they have was handed to them with no strings attached. They don't understand what it is to struggle, and while we all deserve to take a bow for that, because it means "we've made it", I'm not sure it's good for their upbringings/futures...they've lost that "fire", so to say, to better themselves. When you tell them there are kids that can't afford to go to school so they work in sweatshops for dollars a day, they don't understand...it just doesn't reach them.

 

Now, here's the tricky part... what do you do in this situation? Companies should be allowed to remove personnel for good and legitimate reasons, all the way down to "it's just not a good fit". If we had an economy where someone could find another job in four weeks, or eight weeks, it's not a multi-year financial sinkhole for someone who did not deserve it.

 

That's a two way street. There are economic times where companies have nothing to choose from because all the best are employed, giving the employee the advantage, and there are times when the opposite is true. What do we do in that situation? We endure. It's what we've always done.

 

And lastly comes the huge jump... we have an economy that's built on consumption. If consumption by all these lower- and middle-class people goes down, then jobs will go down. It's a vicious cycle. We used to have an economy based on exporting... which is why your father was able to keep a job throughout his life, we needed goods in order to export in order to gain money. That's not how money is made anymore... leveraged buyout companies can come into a company with a low initial investment, pull dividend money as they reorganize a company, and sell it off for a profit. In other words, it benefits them to literally let people go. Are these people lazy? Hardly... they helped BUILD the company and give the company the money and credit for the leveraged buyout company to be able to gain the credit to issue bonds.

 

This is dealing with the reality that as technology advanced, the world became "smaller". While it's the same size, the time in which information travels, or how fast goods can ship are infinitely shorter. We are no longer dealing with our own economy...because nobody has their own economy anymore, that's all an illusion. We are moving into a world economy now, and the competition will only grow more fierce as time goes on. Therefore, while our competition for most jobs are localized, the next generation will have it even harder, because they'll be competing with the entire world for practically any/every job available.

 

A lot of nuance, I admit, but this is not an isolated part of the economy. It's absolutely frightening, especially to the millions of people who are coping with prices far higher than in the 80s.

 

History is replete with hard times. Yet we've somehow made it. Remember the gas shortage in the 70's? Imagine that today.

 

I suppose that this is where the "rising prices" part goes, but it's seriously frightening to face even food costs if you have little money. I'm sure that there are stories of people buying steaks on food stamps, and I am sickened by those stories just as much as you are. On the other hand, if you are able to prove that even 15% of the people are getting too much in food stamp benefits then that means two things.

 

1) I will be in the group of people to ask the government to reevaluate a program that is spending money unnecessarily, while still

2) realizing that this means that for every three people that are getting too many benefits that there are seventeen people that are surviving on meager rations as best as possible... or worse, not getting enough, and starving. You know, many of our best entrepreneurs came from very humble beginnings, but we still need to give them the tools to succeed.

 

It's not that they're "getting too much", it's how some of them abuse the system, or how some stores abuse the people that use them. I see Liquor Stores with signs in the window that say "we accept food stamps"...seriously? And while some of them aren't even allowed to do so, they do it anyway...only they give the customers 50cents on the dollar. Because why not? However, this is a discussion for another time...as it's an entire can of worms that I don't have time to discuss at the moment.

 

I don't think everyone on welfare is lazy, either. The program is a good program...it's just become bastardized from what it was meant to be. In short, I believe welfare was incepted to help bring people back to their feet when they fall upon hard times...only politicians found a way to use it to keep them on their knees, instead.

 

Nope, not what I asked. I asked if you personally were perfectly happy with the past twelve or thirty years. I phrased it that way because while, through hard work and through luck (being in the right place at the right time), I managed to claw my way through the last twelve years into a position where I can finally start paying down my debts, yet it only takes one car accident, one of my family contracting a disease like cancer (or heck, even the flu) and what I've built can be shattered in an agonizing heartbeat. It's not hard to find those stories either. So, if I were to hear the same question, I would have to say that while I'm content with many aspects of life, that doesn't mean that we should stop striving to make the world a better place. Heck, I thought that the marketplace was all about striving to make things better, not just sitting back and declaring everything perfect. That almost sounds... lazy.

 

I am personally happy with the past 12-30 years, yes. This doesn't mean things can't get even better. But I'm not sad about where I am right now, either.

 

And on that note, I agree. This world is absolutely amazing... and I want to leave the world in a better place so that my children have the same access to energy resources so that food can be grown and so that food can go from field to market, so that they can learn anything they want to fit in the best way to an economy that has jobs, and if Heaven forbid they get sick, they don't have to mortgage the rest of their life. I want a vibrant market that doesn't consider all people under company officer level as possible fodder for bigger bonuses. They may not be reality now... but that doesn't mean I should just sit back and dream.

 

Good conversation.

 

Hope to see you around these parts more often.

[Y2HH]

I lived this part. I didn't realize it until one time I said to my dad "Tom's got a pool, they built a room addition on the back just for him and his parents bought him a car. What do they have that we don't?". And my dad replied "credit card debt". I had not much of a clue what he meant so I read up on it and figured it out. Then it made sense why instead of an Izod in high school, I got the damn Sears dragon. I didn't get Levis, I got K-mart stretch denim.

 

I try to pass this knowledge onto my kids, sadly not sure it succeeds all to well some days.

 

I know exactly what you mean with the clothing. Same with my family.

[Zoogz]

I don't mean lazy in that they're hard working/smart yet unemployed through no fault of their own, as I understand this happens to people, but usually when it happens to people like that, it's temporary. I meant lazy in that they feel entitled to almost everything, and no matter how much they have, it's not enough. And I don't mean entitled via the government, but via their parents and the environment surrounding them. They grew up with a television in their bedrooms, an XBOX, a computer and probably an iPhone or some Android equivalent...none of which they pay for or care about, because if it breaks, someone else will fix it. This also points to our massive success as a nation, the fact that a generation of kids like this can be raised shows we have it all...despite not seeing it.

 

I see it as a problem that 'temporarily' out of work lasts for longer and longer now than it used to as well. This is a public issue, because these people are the ones that are most likely to need government programs to keep going, and will be most likely to need them in the future based on the debts they incurred while out of work. This is how people start using the safety net as a hammock... it's not exactly a confidence booster to have employers keep telling you no for upwards of forty weeks, they will absolutely entertain disheartening thoughts of making the safety net permanent. It's their new normal. (I'm certainly not advocating that, but I'm not the world... people with physical and mental maladies are everywhere and not everyone has the same response to external stimuli)

 

But that becomes the next major question. Where can we get jobs from? The government is doing all it can to tighten its belt too and has been shedding jobs as well... so what policies can we possibly make to help this issue? There's the big question, I think, and there's happily tons of ideas, it's just a matter of trying to put some in place.

 

 

Yes, it has. Everything around you HAS gotten better. That's not to say it can't get even better than it is, but it IS better in comparison.

 

I maintain that if you look around that there are setbacks:

 

1) Mike Milliken and the rise of junk bonds.

2) Government repeal of Glass-Steagall creating a system conducive to fraud and abuse.

3) The Citizens United ruling and the entrance of even more massive amounts of money into the political system.

4) That really sad article I linked above.

 

Heck, I would even say the radicalized partisanship of both sides is semi-new (remember when there were progressive Republicans alongside conservative as well as racist Democrats alongside liberal?) and has not been an overall help to the country.

 

I never said that out of work people are automatically lazy. Those that care will be sure to make their situation temporary, not permanent. I was speaking generationally when speaking of laziness. Those born after the 1990's are what I like to call the entitled generation. They grew up with every advantage, yet most did almost nothing with them. The world is passing us by academically (not higher education yet) because our youth just doesn't care about studying or hard work...because almost everything they have was handed to them with no strings attached. They don't understand what it is to struggle, and while we all deserve to take a bow for that, because it means "we've made it", I'm not sure it's good for their upbringings/futures...they've lost that "fire", so to say, to better themselves. When you tell them there are kids that can't afford to go to school so they work in sweatshops for dollars a day, they don't understand...it just doesn't reach them.

 

You're talking of a cohort that is twenty-two maximum, and in many cases still teenagers. They don't make up the economy yet in any real significant percentage, nor are they really inhabitants of "the real world" yet. They'll hit the school of hard knocks soon enough, and the grand majority of them will grow up quickly because of it. This also pretty much describes teenagers of every generation, not just the current one. So far the world hasn't fallen apart from teenagers hitting the wall of reality.

 

I would also argue to at least some extent that the more we try to squeeze teachers and make it a generally unattractive job, the less good teachers will enter the profession, which will lead to less-prepared students that don't know how to cope with the world outside school.

 

That's a two way street. There are economic times where companies have nothing to choose from because all the best are employed, giving the employee the advantage, and there are times when the opposite is true. What do we do in that situation? We endure. It's what we've always done.

 

I'm pointing out what I believe are structural faults. To me, this isn't just "there's ice on the sidewalk, it'll melt in the spring"... this is "the foundation is cracked, and while the house still stands it may take some painful work to make sure the house doesn't fall". Might everything still stand? Sure, if no other cracks develop (rising energy prices, famines, etc.). Would it be prudent to do what we can to fix what we know is wrong so that if other cracks develop they don't bring more massive pain? I suppose that's up to everyone, and why we have a democracy.

 

This is dealing with the reality that as technology advanced, the world became "smaller". While it's the same size, the time in which information travels, or how fast goods can ship are infinitely shorter. We are no longer dealing with our own economy...because nobody has their own economy anymore, that's all an illusion. We are moving into a world economy now, and the competition will only grow more fierce as time goes on. Therefore, while our competition for most jobs are localized, the next generation will have it even harder, because they'll be competing with the entire world for practically any/every job available.

 

Which makes it that much more imperative to hand them a market where there are as few moral hazards as possible, I would think.

 

History is replete with hard times. Yet we've somehow made it. Remember the gas shortage in the 70's? Imagine that today.

 

Not much of an "imagine" right now:

This is one of the best reasons that we should try to invest in new ideas and more progress, in my opinion.

 

It's not that they're "getting too much", it's how some of them abuse the system, or how some stores abuse the people that use them. I see Liquor Stores with signs in the window that say "we accept food stamps"...seriously? And while some of them aren't even allowed to do so, they do it anyway...only they give the customers 50cents on the dollar. Because why not? However, this is a discussion for another time...as it's an entire can of worms that I don't have time to discuss at the moment.

I don't think everyone on welfare is lazy, either. The program is a good program...it's just become bastardized from what it was meant to be. In short, I believe welfare was incepted to help bring people back to their feet when they fall upon hard times...only politicians found a way to use it to keep them on their knees, instead.

 

It is a can of worms, because abuse of the system happens everywhere. It happens with food stamps, it happens with veteran benefits, Social Security, Medicare... everywhere. It also happens in the middle-class (bad people occupying good jobs) and at the upper rungs (rich people being able to shield their earnings from taxation, many aspects of the leveraged buyout schemes I detailed earlier.)

 

The problem is though that on the lowest levels, it feels as if people say we need to get rid of these programs just because there are moochers. I don't know if you believe the same thing, but I think it is important to keep those programs solvent and working or else good people who are absolutely short-term victims will be hurt, and hurt hard. I feel that if anyone is to advocate seriously about the waste and corruption at the lower levels that they also need to take a very hard look at all the other levels and advocate for the end of corruption there too. Here's the big opinion part... I honestly believe that corruption at the top is a more major waste to the system than at the bottom... but I cannot prove that, it's not as if a study can be commissioned or anything, so it is absolutely in the realm of opinion.

 

I am personally happy with the past 12-30 years, yes. This doesn't mean things can't get even better. But I'm not sad about where I am right now, either.

 

Good conversation.

 

Hope to see you around these parts more often.

 

I agree! Thank you for the very interesting back-and-forth. Without challenges and exercise, all things become stale and underworked... even world views.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Zoogz