Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on May 1, 2012 8:31:04 GMT -5
Yes and no. We the middle age or senior citizens have probably for the most part, turned our economic situation around, and are at least stabilized, economically, if not improving. Our children, or grandchildren, not so much. Jobs are not there. Living wage jobs even less so. Social Security and Medicare for them is just a dream, if not a nightmare for them. Even if the situation improves these two generations will lose a decade of accumulating any significant assets. i was actually talking about NOW, not decades from now. the situation was the same under Bush as it is now, with the exception of the payroll tax deduction, which i lay 100% at Obama's feet. so, if we eliminate the comments that have to do with NOW, we get: Jobs are not there, let alone living wage jobs. i actually agree with you there. time to raise FMW. Federal Minimum Wage? Should be abolished. Tell our children and grandchildren to suck it up. We pay for their schooling to get the living wage job, or even that bigtime professional job. Instead, we get headbangers Addicts Pregnant teenagers All who only learn to game the Government and court system. If we learn to avoid this, and get the kids an education, we do not need to worry abour fmw. If we are to learn to live in the new world order, with all continents building widgets and jet engines on $1.50 an hour, we have to change our children's mentality. It does go back to family values and direction from their parents to the children. It took decades to destroy the family unit. It will take decades to put it back together.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 8:40:54 GMT -5
I see that Biden made a speech attacking Mitt's foreign policy positions, declaring that he would return us to Bush diplomacy days. I think that it would have been the supreme irony if he had said that while touring Afghanistan. In spite of the fact that Bush took us into that God forsaken sinkhole, it is pretty clear by now that Obama just does not "get it" that we don't even have an definitive objective in that war, much less a remote possibility of achieving it, if we had one.". I don't blame Bush for taking us into Afghanistan, I blame him for mis-managing it, and subsequently invading Iraq and plunging us into an unneccessary war while prolonging the other one. That's enough blame for anyone. And at this point I no longer support continuing in Afghanistan. We got our man. Nothing else there can end well. And I blame him for not paying for it. In early 2002, no one would have batted an eye at some sort of patriotically named across the board bump in income tax rates to pay for the wars. Make 'em sunset in 5 years, and he would have had the appearance of a Republican tax cut in 2007 to help McCain out, and a pretty clear policy directive that these wars should not last indefinitely.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 1, 2012 8:47:56 GMT -5
... Federal Minimum Wage? Should be abolished. Tell our children and grandchildren to suck it up. We pay for their schooling to get the living wage job, or even that bigtime professional job. Instead, we get headbangers Addicts Pregnant teenagers All who only learn to game the Government and court system. If we learn to avoid this, and get the kids an education, we do not need to worry abour fmw. If we are to learn to live in the new world order, with all continents building widgets and jet engines on $1.50 an hour, we have to change our children's mentality. It does go back to family values and direction from their parents to the children. It took decades to destroy the family unit. It will take decades to put it back together. If only every single child worked hard in school, they would all get into top universities in which they could again work hard and get into professional schools and end up all having "bigtime professional job(s)".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2012 8:49:02 GMT -5
i was actually talking about NOW, not decades from now. the situation was the same under Bush as it is now, with the exception of the payroll tax deduction, which i lay 100% at Obama's feet. so, if we eliminate the comments that have to do with NOW, we get: Jobs are not there, let alone living wage jobs. i actually agree with you there. time to raise FMW. Federal Minimum Wage? Should be abolished. Tell our children and grandchildren to suck it up. We pay for their schooling to get the living wage job, or even that bigtime professional job. Instead, we get headbangers Addicts Pregnant teenagers All who only learn to game the Government and court system. If we learn to avoid this, and get the kids an education, we do not need to worry abour fmw. If we are to learn to live in the new world order, with all continents building widgets and jet engines on $1.50 an hour, we have to change our children's mentality. It does go back to family values and direction from their parents to the children. It took decades to destroy the family unit. It will take decades to put it back together. You're totally right, VB. We should abolish our labor laws and adopt a caste system. If you're frugal... $1.50 an hour should be plenty to live on. We should probably also abolish our housing and sanitation laws, because people making $1.50 an hour will probably be in the market for multi-family tenements. And the tenements would mean people are using less electricity and other natural resources. Heck, this might finally shut those darn hippies up about global warming. Obviously, we wouldn't have to worry about no child left behind, because children would have to drop out of school in the 8th grade in order to go to work and help support the family.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 1, 2012 9:36:04 GMT -5
If you're frugal... $1.50 an hour should be plenty to live on. -------------------- Especially if you use coupons.....
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 1, 2012 10:20:28 GMT -5
Hmm. I don't know about your family unit, but mine is doing just fine, as are my children's and my granddaughter's. In fact, so are those of my friends. That's not to say there are no broken family units. There always have been. However, it isn't the norm by any stretch of the imagination, IMO.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 1, 2012 13:49:55 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm wondering if there are any politicians out there that don't try to take credit for the sun coming up or blame the incumbent for the sun going down.
Well, obviously, every kid isn't college material or cut out for a "bigtime professional job". But if more parents and children saw school as the huge opportunity it is rather than free babysitting, there would be a lot more kids graduating high school either with marketable skills (from trade school) or with enough background and drive to get marketable skills. You can talk all you want about employers not being willing to do on the job training anymore, but when you have large numbers of kids graduating high school barely literate, you can hardly blame employers for not wanting to deal with it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 1, 2012 15:15:21 GMT -5
i was actually talking about NOW, not decades from now. the situation was the same under Bush as it is now, with the exception of the payroll tax deduction, which i lay 100% at Obama's feet. so, if we eliminate the comments that have to do with NOW, we get: Jobs are not there, let alone living wage jobs. i actually agree with you there. time to raise FMW. Federal Minimum Wage? Should be abolished. Tell our children and grandchildren to suck it up. we have been telling them that since 1970, when the FMW reached it's inflation adjusted peak. yet none of the problems you complain about have gone away. why is that?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 1, 2012 15:26:35 GMT -5
Because the "War on Poverty" was a politically motivated program to redistribute wealth that never really helped reduce or eliminate poverty. Kind of like the War on Drugs by Reagan - doesn't solve the underlying issue.
You're always going to have people that struggle for one reason for another. *Most* of the time, it is their own fault.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 1, 2012 15:34:44 GMT -5
Because the "War on Poverty" was a politically motivated program to redistribute wealth that never really helped reduce or eliminate poverty. that is not really true. it DRAMATICALLY improved poverty for seniors (i believe that the poverty rate fell roughly in half). it did a fair job for adults. where it has failed, miserably, is for improving the fortunes of children. we should work on that.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 1, 2012 15:58:10 GMT -5
Hmm. I don't know about your family unit, but mine is doing just fine, as are my children's and my granddaughter's. In fact, so are those of my friends. That's not to say there are no broken family units. There always have been. However, it isn't the norm by any stretch of the imagination, IMO. I don't think insulting the other poster's family makes your point very well. But every year that goes by, more and more children are being born to unwed parents, and when you add the divorces that happen later, that's an awful lot of kids growing up in unstable situations, something that didn't happen as much in previous generations.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 1, 2012 16:02:16 GMT -5
I don't believe I insulted anyone else's family, formerroomate. No. I just reread my post and I didn't.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 1, 2012 16:30:09 GMT -5
Hmm. I don't know about your family unit, but mine is doing just fine, as are my children's and my granddaughter's. In fact, so are those of my friends. That's not to say there are no broken family units. There always have been. However, it isn't the norm by any stretch of the imagination, IMO. I don't think insulting the other poster's family makes your point very well. But every year that goes by, more and more children are being born to unwed parents, and when you add the divorces that happen later, that's an awful lot of kids growing up in unstable situations, something that didn't happen as much in previous generations. Part of the reason is the disproportionate number of minority men who are incarcerated.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 1, 2012 16:49:48 GMT -5
But did it really? The stats on poverty show the reduction was well on its way. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gifIn 1960, poverty was at about 40m people, or about 22/23%. By the 1965/66 time frame that the legislation that was passed in late August 1964 got working [you know, those not shovel ready laws], poverty was at 15%. Arguably, the SS act of 65 (passed in late July 65) was more beneficial for elderly poverty than the Economic Opportunity Act. How much of the further reductions were due to the War on Poverty versus the natural economic cycle? I don't know and neither do you [unless you can point me to a specific study quantifying it]. Notice poverty again got back up to 15% in the early 80's with that recession and was again 15% last year: www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=allPerhaps what we really need is a Recession Elimination Act, so unemployment stays below 15% forever.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 1, 2012 17:27:49 GMT -5
If they were busy supporting their families, many wouldn't have gotten into trouble in the first place. But when you have a welfare system that pushes fathers out of the picture, these men have less of a reason to make something of themeslves or keep out of trouble.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 1, 2012 17:32:12 GMT -5
If they were busy supporting their families, many wouldn't have gotten into trouble in the first place. But when you have a welfare system that pushes fathers out of the picture, these men have less of a reason to make something of themeslves or keep out of trouble. It's not quite that simple.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 1, 2012 17:39:00 GMT -5
Nothing ever is. Getting out of poverty is a much tricker process than it was in my grandparent's time. But you have to admit that a welfare system that discourages marriage is a big factor in the cycle of poverty and the large numbers of children being raised in unstable situations.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on May 1, 2012 17:41:23 GMT -5
Nothing ever is. Getting out of poverty is a much tricker process than it was in my grandparent's time. But you have to admit that a welfare system that discourages marriage is a big factor in the cycle of poverty and the large numbers of children being raised in unstable situations. True. The system certainly does not reward or assist stable families, nor does it promote their growth.
|
|
Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on May 1, 2012 21:00:57 GMT -5
Co-incidentally, the trend you cite developed with the"Supply Side/Trickle-down economics" of the Reagan years... when people of wealth received big tax cuts. The tax cuts translated into revenue lost, and that lost revenue precipitated budget shortfalls and increased deficit spending at the state and local levels. Yeah, the working people of the US of A certainly got "trickled on". 30 years later, the wealthiest 10% hold a larger percentage of the nation's assets than ever before.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on May 1, 2012 21:16:19 GMT -5
Not really. The trend coincides with recessions. Poverty increases during recessions as more people have a tough time making ends meet. Bullshit; according to this, at least: www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlTop 1% in 1983 = 33.8%, in 2007 = 34.6%...that percent, if updated for 2010 would have been just about the same, if not less than 1983 with the decrease in the stock market and housing market, which is heavily skewed towards the 1%. Can you tell me why this wasn't an issue in 1992, 1995 or 1998, when the percentage of net worth for the top 1% was all higher than now? You know, other than the obvious.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on May 1, 2012 22:55:38 GMT -5
What? Mitt didn't say anything about the planet Kolob?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2012 8:56:58 GMT -5
Mitt Romney's Fantasy World (and ours)
I see little difference between Romney & Obama. Both push (more or less) the same basic agenda. Maybe Romney will be a little more practical as to how to pay for the socialist programs. Obama has proved that he would rather be re-elected before even addressing that issue (spend now pay later). Romney might turn out the same way.
|
|