http://cspan.org/Events/Speaker-Boehner-Drops-Out-of-Debt-Talks/10737423029-7/


That whole "put social security funds in a lockbox" idea that Al Gore was laughed at fifteen years ago is going to seem a whole lot less fucking funny in about two weeks, isn't it old people.


"The Republican party is going to have to seriously ask themselves, can they say yes to anything?"

Its a mess of epic proportions, I don't know what to expect. Maybe some folks on here can shed some light.

Say bye bye to 401k's again in a couple weeks? Any safe bets with it to hold on to what is left of the last disaster?

Gold

Gold was smart until it became such a fad, but I'm apprehensive of it now.

It's likely in a huge bubble at this point anyway, but is also way too obvious a target if the gov't did decide to share the austerity at some point. If gold becomes illegal to trade for dollars and gov't transactions are still only payable in dollars, its value plummets.

Good luck bartering with something like that. You might as well use Bitcoins, cigarettes, or vodka at that point.

I've invested in it a little bit, but bits (literally) here and there. Kind of weird to hold something smaller than a postage stamp and it's worth $100. As for any sort of safe stock or other investments I just don't think they truely exist any more.

I invest in ammo though, that's good for the pending zombie apocalypse, in case the british come to take away our guns, and also for when left wing, er right wing, er jihadi, er... yeah guys with guns come into my neighborhood shooting.

Look up Social Darwinism and the works of Ayn Rand. See how that plays out with the Tea Party. Primarily the more fringe parts of the GOP wants a return to the Victorian Era of the USA during our Industrial Revolution, with the burden of education and charity placed back into the hands of churches and private foundations. The government would then return to its previous role of mostly providing the common defense for the states and regulating matters of international trade and diplomacy. Domestic regulation would be decided by the market place and only the market place.

A government default would bring this about, as then their would be no choice but to dismantle the social safety net and greatly reduce government. How? Because there is no money to pay for it. There has even been some very fringe groups that feel the old, the sick, the poor are a demographic the overcrowded planet could do without. Can't afford to feed yourself? Tough. Elderly and can't afford your pills? Well haven't you lived long enough? You probably get my point. I don't particularly like it, but lets be honest here. Throwing the baby out with the bath water also means you don't have to feed it, clothe it or send it to college.

The thing is, the GOP stands a very good chance of succeeding. If it comes about, the government will be forced to live within its means and right now "its means" really only leaves room for servicing the debt and paying for defense. Everything else is on the chopping block. Even the funds to maintain infrastructure, let alone replace it. The thing is, it would probably create jobs and wealth but there would be absolutely no more hand outs.

I have a feeling that August 2nd will be the day everything changes. Many won't like it but life goes on. Best get busy working hard and innovating, find a charity to help you or find a gun and blow your head off. Social Darwinism, folks. Survival of the Fittest.

Historically, social darwinism generally meant the survival of those born wealthy. It was kind of funny to see the deep roots that idea took here in the late 1800s, given the prior century was largely driven by the exact opposite.

Give the wealthy tax breaks, let them do what they want to the environment as well as in the market and with their employees and maybe they might not move their operation to China. Just maybe. Sounds like what your are talking about, Malse?

/shrug. It all sucks, but it is reality. Manufacturing is already a global commodity. Labor prices are set by whatever country can put out the highest quality for the least cost. That means nations with no regulation set the rate since pretty much anyone can make anything. Countries actually need to make tangible goods that people want and can't make themselves to have an economy. It doesn't work if anyone can make or do anything and the only winner is those who can exploit the cheapest labor without any government, social or humanitarian repercussions. It is why China is burying everyone else alive. The more successful, powerful and influential China grows, the more the Chinese government feels that they are doing things exactly and perfectly right. Unfortunately for the US worker, the only way to compete with China is a return to a 100% capitalistic economy. Otherwise regulations and labor unions have priced all those high paying jobs out of what the global market sets. So either people need to be paid far less, or the country needs to get busy finding new industries...which again...means getting the government to back off with the taxes and regs that stifle all that. If we don't have people working and the economy making stuff people want, than we are fucked no matter how you slice it.

Be interesting to see what a tanking dollar will do to energy prices. If the container ship part of the global logistics chain becomes too expensive due to skyrocketing oil prices, than many outsourced manufacturing jobs will suddenly become cheaper if they were done domestically. In reality, the government default would probably do the economy some damage in the short term and probably hurt the US's good name, but it would also force our country to innovate, conserve, diversify....... or die. The GOP could usher in an era of green tech that would have Al Gore fapping for hours only because we would have to adopt it in order to just function. Anyway,the party would certainly be over and now we have to go in to work with a hangover.

Ultimately as the little guys there isn't jackshit any of us can do about it. Buying ammo sounds reasonable. Buying a bicycle might be wise too. Otherwise I am leaving my investments alone. Bring on the default. Maybe it is as close as we will ever get to having a reset button on our government and the biggest wake-up should be that our government is retarded and should not be trusted. Better to trust in yourself.

As for gold, with the greatest demand for it being jewelry, it is amazing how it goes up in value during hard times when people don't have the money to eat, let alone buy shiny things that otherwise have no practical value. Central banks hardly ever sell it since to release tons of it saturates the market and drives the price down. Honestly it is best to invest in the providers of things that people need no matter what, such as food, drink and medicine. "Medicine" may or may not include booze and smokes. That or what might be in huge demand elsewhere even if not so much in the USA. Such as bulldozers etc.

I'm ambivalent about betting on China. They've got their own troubles looming, like eventually paying the piper on their currency shenanigans and figuring out how to maintain their economic growth rate without resorting to insanity like building ghost stimulus cities (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1975397,00.html).

Also don't forget that the US still has the largest manufacturing output in the world by a significant margin. With our trade deficit and the common notion that we manufacture nothing anymore, that's easy to forget. And let's face it, a lot of what we do still build here is the kind of stuff you want more than Asian-built electronic toys if the whole world goes sideways.

Well, all those manufacturers need a full order book and "Now Hiring" signs on the front gate. That would really be what solves the debt issue in conjunction with smart belt tightening and letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Will that happen? Probably not. The GOP has almost turned their ideology into its own religion which means you can't bargain with them rationally. This budget issue is their opportunity to get everything they want and that is exactly what they want. Everything. They want Obama out and a one party state starting in 2012. Either outcome of this, Obama looks bad. This isn't about what is good for the economy on the short term or the voters. It is just a big power grab because the money is in their favor. The thing is their power grab might actually balance the budget and create some jobs but at horrible expense to certain demographics. Quite a few family members would not survive the Social Darwinian cuts and as a college student I can't support them.

Hopefully Obama will realize that once he is uninhibited by having to be re-elected, he might play a bit dirtier. Most people want a compromise between the parties, not the overspending of the Democrats nor the draconian cuts favored by the Republicans while still pampering the wealthy.

I have been hearing that bonds are going to default. Any truth to this?

Bonds will be honored. Social Security and other programs probably won't be.

Nobody really knows. If program failure and general shutdown occur, just the knowledge that the bonds are in jeopardy is probably enough to derate them for a very long time, which is really just as bad as default for an economy that is quite literally over 50% debt-powered. The Fed has put out over 16 trillion in bonds in the last two years alone, we with a de-rating bump we will never, ever pay that off in a hundred years.

You would think this all would be common sense. Raise the ceiling and then make the cuts. /sigh.

It is simple...but it's not about a balanced budget, it's not about SS, medicare, etc, it's simply about political power. The GOP is seeing their party spilt by the tea partiers and want to cater to that ill-informed mass of stupidity no matter what, or who, get's destroyed.

Just when you think the parties couldn't get more extreme...they do.

The BBC site calls the whole process held up by "right wing nutters". Yup.

All the talk about leaving tax breaks for the big business folks alone so they will create more jobs is bullshit. I forget where I saw the chart, but there was a very nice graph showing how as the most successful companies were making more profits over the past 5 or 10 years, they were also laying off and/or eliminating jobs (which of course meant even more money for the greedy asses at the top).

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, end ALL corporate tax breaks and subsidies for the energy companies, and start slapping more tariffs on those companies that move overseas.

Start cutting spending by eliminating all the duplication in Washington and in the entitlement programs; put people to work by establishing infrastructure projects (lord knows the present state of our infrastructure is deplorable); and change the current tax codes/laws to be more efficient.

All the talk about leaving tax breaks for the big business folks alone so they will create more jobs is bullshit. I forget where I saw the chart, but there was a very nice graph showing how as the most successful companies were making more profits over the past 5 or 10 years, they were also laying off and/or eliminating jobs (which of course meant even more money for the greedy asses at the top).

GOP believes playing nice to the big multinationals will keep them from leaving the USA completely and taking all the tax base away. Never mind the jobs. A company leaving US shores pays zero tax, as opposed to very little tax. Remember, anything can be made or done by anyone anywhere in the world. It is all about what nation offers the best deal.


Start cutting spending by eliminating all the duplication in Washington and in the entitlement programs; put people to work by establishing infrastructure projects (lord knows the present state of our infrastructure is deplorable) Sounds like a fine idea. Who is going to pay for it? Reagan believed in spending on infrastructure. Now it would seem that education, infrastructure etc falls under the realm of the Democrats and thus not worthy of being anything past optional spending. IE, not an investment, but an expense that can be avoided.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, end ALL corporate tax breaks and subsidies for the energy companies, and start slapping more tariffs on those companies that move overseas.... change the current tax codes/laws to be more efficient.

Again, makes sense but the government is not in the making sense business. GOP views the end of a tax cut as being an increase in revenue. Which is unacceptable. Bottom line is they want to pay even less taxes than they do now with the goal of "making the government so small it can be taken into the bathroom and drowned in the bathtub." Laissez-faire is what is wanted as far as economics, but with the reserved right to enforce morality and values through legislation.

The rich as well as the big companies for the most part have the nation...and the world, by the balls with a pair of Vice Grips. They have proven that they don't need to have much of a payroll to function, and they are not in the business of providing inefficiency in the economy out of some charitable drive to provide jobs. If its not outsourcing to China or Pakistan or Mexico, than it is robots and other automation that cuts the need for a real live person out of the loop. Construction really was one of the last industries that still requires actual labor as most all building projects are one offs and not able to be converted into a bulk commodity. If we get building again, than the job outlook will be much better and as long as people have meaningful work than they will be more inclined to compromise. Right now too many are backed into corners with the horrible mix of stagflation, high unemployment and not much indication of things improving. You can't have the one sector of the economy that employs the most people with the most high paying jobs be dead for too long or this is what you get. Plus with an election next year, is there really an incentive to fix anything? All the GOP needs is for things to stay shitty until November 2012 so they can blame it all on Obama and show that uppity nigger the exit to the "White" House. Their investment portfolios are probably all doing just peachy so its not like they have any personal obligation to those who don't make them a cent: The average voters.

they were also laying off and/or eliminating jobs (which of course meant even more money for the greedy asses at the top).

Something people usually overlook with this is that many industries have become dramatically more efficient as technology, particularly computer software, has advanced in recent decades.

I can't even imagine how many middle class jobs Word, Excel, and Quickbooks alone have eliminated. Remember when you'd talk to a travel agent or airline ticket agent if you wanted to fly? Pay every bill by mailing a check which had to be manually processed on the receiving end?

This populist notion that it's a company's fault for firing someone is quite the fad lately, but it doesn't make any sense. If a given employee is productive and contributing to the bottom line, firing them means less money for those "asses at the top", not more. No sane, solvent company operates in the way that you're claiming.

Is it fair for ex-ticket agents to blame Delta for canning them, when it was the Internet and a handful of websites that put them out of work?

There has to be a line at some point though where you can only put so many people out of work or into menial low paying positions. If you cross it, you have so many folks unable to afford your business offerings that you kill off your business by taking too much money out of the economy while putting not enough of it back in in the form of salaries, raw materials purchases and R&D. IMHO, we have crossed that line a while ago and now it is the entitlements that are preventing the system from being dragged down by the weight of too many idle people who either got outsourced or made obsolete.

It used to be that your money that went to buy a widget also went into your neighbor's pocket when he gets paid his salary at the Widget Works after spending a week of making the widgets like the one you just paid for. Now the only people at the Widget Works who gets paid is the CEO and the shareholders while the rest of the money goes overseas to pay someone else's neighbor. So you have thousands of workers no longer spending their money in your neighborhood with the rich guys with their taste for the finer imported symbols of European aristocracy not putting much of a dent in the every day offerings in the local economy. That is a whole lot of money going out of the national economy and very little going back in. All those incomes lost and transactions that never happened and thus could not be taxed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-nassar/why-wal-mart-does-not-str_b_99463.html Yup, Walmart carries the banner for this.

Right now we are stuck with the government having to provide the infusion of liquidity in the economy because much of the money that used to go into American wallets and purses in exchange for providing needed labors for business has gone overseas or has been reduced to not much above subsistence. Either by inflation or a general reduction in take home pay the end result is the same. That has also been reflected in a reduced tax base from consumer earnings and spending. So the government is screwed on both fronts. Before that, there was the work around of trying to focus on what the US does make and apparently that was food and housing. That bubble popped and now we are all too fat stuck in housing we can't afford while bleeding the health care system dry from all our fat induced illnesses.

So, in reality.....this problem is more about jobs than anything and the government is stuck with trying to figure out how to make the US a business friendly place in order to make the jobs all the while trying to hedge off a collapse before that business friendly environment can be created. That is if we want to insist on everyone who is born in the USA who can work being able to get a job, which really isn't true anymore. One could argue that people need to leave the USA in a form of reverse immigration to where the jobs are as well. Granted, most all nations but ours put up a huge wall as far as immigration goes..... So, what does that leave? Cut off the entitlements and it is hard to say who really gets the savings and where the money ultimately will go because that is money no longer going into the economy. This really could again point at the infrastructure issues. It would be a huge job creator (and these jobs would probably pay a living wage plus a bit of extra for the restoration of disposable middle class income) if it were to be addressed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/transportation-infrastructure-cost_n_911207.html?1311795208

People made those same jobs arguments when we moved from an agrarian economy to an industrial one too. People who don't adapt are always left behind during transitions. How many generations should we hold back progress if the current generations aren't willing to keep up?

This conventional wisdom that all of America's money is leaking into overseas pockets is not very accurate. Our trade deficit is no joke, but we still export ~$2 trillion/year and our ~$15 trillion GDP is roughly 1,500% larger than our trade deficit (or about 1/4 of the entire world's GDP combined).

I agree that we need people to be more mindful about where they spend their money though. I personally put a lot of effort into setting up buying habits that make my default purchases support local business and my neighbors here in North Atlanta when at all feasible - even if it costs more. Failing that, I try to at least buy domestic. It's difficult-to-impossible for some items, but every little bit helps.

That is true, that not all of it is leaking but enough of it is in order to drive down growth and limit opportunity to a degree in addition to having a government stuck with more money going out than it takes in. Going from industrial to a service economy also took quite a few (but not all) high paying jobs that did not require the expense of an advanced education and replaced them with jobs that pay wage slavery salaries. That is if you can't get past the college gateway (and its burden of debt) in order to get something in services that require more creativity and thinking.

"How many generations should we hold back progress if the current generations aren't willing to keep up?"

Aren't willing or aren't able? If you give people an opportunity to work and support themselves, guaranteed most would take it. I can see that maybe you might agree with Alan Greenspan in that the current generation of workers are lazy and it s our own stupid fault. Then again previous generations could get a job in good paying blue collar jobs with just a diploma from a public high school so where is the comparison? Good jobs and good incomes now now require that you need to either invent a better mouse trap, rounder wheel, create your own industry or be adept enough to get a higher education that hopefully leads to a job that pays more than your monthly student loan payment. Not everyone is going to be able to pull that off, so what should be done with them? Please report to the nearest Soylent plant?

Our current economy has a higher cost of admission to the ranks of the middle class and most of those costs are tied up in indebtedness. So yes, the economy has to retool itself, but who pays for it? If we can't than should we just find a way to be comfortable in a much more austere reality knowing that there were opportunities to do better that were not taken?

I called my credit card company and asked to have my limit raised. They said no. They said I can't hardly pay the minimum now, how would I be able to pay it with a higher max limit? Oh.. Darn it. Too much doom and gloom with you all. We need drastic austerity measures. Default and reset with tighter standards. Good for "tea party" conservatives for standing on their principals for once.

Along the lines both Lum and San raised, automation does indeed have a large impact on people losing their jobs. At the postal service, they have recently begun using machines to sort magazines and large envelopes into delivery sequence, taking jobs away from clerks who sorted to the routes and time away from carriers for sorting which is then offset my making the routes longer, taking away jobs from the least senior carriers.

One other effect that I am waiting to see over the next few years is the complete discontinuation of subscription service for magazines (other than online subs, of course). People are not going to be willing to pay for magazines that arrive folded, ripped, or missing content due to the machine sorting. So, as the magazine publishers stop that service, the postal service will lose that revenue, moving us ever closer to being totally obsolete.

I never cease to be amazed at how poorly this dysfunctional organization has been managed since President Reagan appointed Marvin Runyon as Postmaster General.

Sorry for the derail.

Let's go to a flat 3, 4 or 5cents tax for every dollar spent; regardless of income, anything you buy you pay the same tax. No more income tax, no more looking for deductions and getting it all together before April 15, and no more sending out millions of tax refund checks. That is not such a bad price to pay for being a citizen of this country and having the services we have, and the military to protect us. And that tax would more than cover the cost of government as well as get the debt paid, eventually. Just make it signed in stone that it can not be raised for a minimum of fifty years, and then must be ratified by all fifty states. If the reason is compelling enough, maybe then it could be changed. Yeah, nice pipe dream, huh?

I called my credit card company and asked to have my limit raised. They said no. They said I can't hardly pay the minimum now, how would I be able to pay it with a higher max limit? Oh.. Darn it. Too much doom and gloom with you all. We need drastic austerity measures. Default and reset with tighter standards. Good for "tea party" conservatives for standing on their principals for once.


Funny, they raise my limit all the time. Maybe you should get off welfare.

Sounds great. A flat tax for everyone would be fine. I dunno. Simple doesn't usually compute with government since if it is simple, even us dopes at home can't be swindled.

The thing is, this needed to be fixed when times were good. Now any change is going to assure a hard landing for many.

That is true, that not all of it is leaking but enough of it is in order to drive down growth and limit opportunity to a degree in addition to having a government stuck with more money going out than it takes in. Going from industrial to a service economy also took quite a few (but not all) high paying jobs that did not require the expense of an advanced education and replaced them with jobs that pay wage slavery salaries. That is if you can't get past the college gateway (and its burden of debt) in order to get something in services that require more creativity and thinking.

"How many generations should we hold back progress if the current generations aren't willing to keep up?"

Aren't willing or aren't able? If you give people an opportunity to work and support themselves, guaranteed most would take it. I can see that maybe you might agree with Alan Greenspan in that the current generation of workers are lazy and it s our own stupid fault. Then again previous generations could get a job in good paying blue collar jobs with just a diploma from a public high school so where is the comparison? Good jobs and good incomes now now require that you need to either invent a better mouse trap, rounder wheel, create your own industry or be adept enough to get a higher education that hopefully leads to a job that pays more than your monthly student loan payment. Not everyone is going to be able to pull that off, so what should be done with them? Please report to the nearest Soylent plant?

Our current economy has a higher cost of admission to the ranks of the middle class and most of those costs are tied up in indebtedness. So yes, the economy has to retool itself, but who pays for it? If we can't than should we just find a way to be comfortable in a much more austere reality knowing that there were opportunities to do better that were not taken?

There was a time not horribly long ago when having the equivalent of a high school education and just being literate was an above average education. When we began trending toward a high school diploma as a baseline education for productive workers, there were probably people making the same argument you are now against increasing our average citizen's education level.

That anti-advancement sentiment is one of the best possible ways to ensure that the rest of the world innovates right by us, propelling their economies along for the ride, while we stagnate. What in the world is wrong with trending toward the average citizen being more educated?

You're just about oppositely mis-paraphrasing Greenspan's comments by trying to apply them to my statement about people needing to adapt to change. He was lamenting the entitlement complex of the younger generations who are driving the change, which really isn't related to my points above at all.

On a related note, I'll believe people just want an opportunity to support themselves in blue collar jobs when I can find a lawn guy that'll show up on time more than twice in a row. I've gone through a dozen in the 9 years I've lived at this house.

Meanwhile, it's rubbish to frame the discussion in terms of a false dichotomy between yesteryear's blue collar jobs and high tech jobs that are unobtainable without a doctorate in rocket surgery. My mom recently took out some student loans, went back to school to begin working in a medical field, and successfully transitioned from a dying industry to a growing one in the span of about two years.

For that matter, we're probably all more (generally) educated than the guy that changes my brake pads, yet he still makes more than the household median income by himself.

You seem to have good intentions, but you don't seem to be basing your opinions on reality so much as the sensationalized crap that people keep selling us for ratings and pageviews. When you go through life with that kind of defeatist, negative outlook, things usually turn out just as you expected.

Funny, they raise my limit all the time. Maybe you should get off welfare.


What, and stop the .gov free money you support? Fuck that! I Like's me some free money...sheeeeeeet biotch!

Back on the topic, I think we're fucked. They aren't ever going to broker a deal ... the Republicans know they are very much against public opinion on this one but are too afraid of the "tea party" to do anything about it.

Let's go to a flat 3, 4 or 5cents tax for every dollar spent; regardless of income, anything you buy you pay the same tax.

I could see going to some sort of VAT system like most of the rest of the world uses, but flat taxes, particularly flat consumption taxes, are horribly regressive at a time when we already have the most regressive tax system since feudalism.

The basic problem we have is that the income tax system has been taken over by every incentivization and punishment scheme imaginable because we are a nation of liars, cowards, and idiots, and refuse to just give poor people money when they need it, and take it from the wealthy when they don't. The current tax code is completely incomprehensible to anyone without a team of tax lawyers, which suits GE and Monsanto just fine because they can finagle out of most of it.

I've seen a negative income tax idea floated around that might be neat, which would be like a flat 10% for all income over 40,000 (for example, whatever being some other CPI tracking minimum realistic income to support a family) and replacing the entire welfare and social security system with a program that paid you the difference up to whatever basal family income if you earned less (thus the "negative" part). I doubt anyone would miss the IRS.

Back on the topic, I think we're fucked. They aren't ever going to broker a deal ... the Republicans know they are very much against public opinion on this one but are too afraid of the "tea party" to do anything about it.

Who's public opinion.. Every news agency/paper/tv/opinion poll in my area disagree with you. It all depends who the MSM want to talk to.. All very subjective.

Who's public opinion.. Every news agency/paper/tv/opinion poll in my area disagree with you. It all depends who the MSM want to talk to.. All very subjective.

Generally speaking, the bulk of the polls average out to over 50% of the county wanting a compromise of tax increases and spending cuts with less than 20% wanting only spending cuts. Even Fox is reporting that the public opinion on the Boehner proposal is quite diminished compared to the alternatives. Additionally most also show trust in Obama and the Democrats handling of the issue is about 20% greater than the Republican's handling of the issue.

I certainly feel they both have some issues, and both have some great ideas, but expecting a massive cut to all of the entitlements while ignoring any form of tax increase is just absurd.

As to tax reform, yes please. Its absurd I spend almost 1% of my entirely yearly income just to figure out how much my company and I owe the government.

There was a time not horribly long ago when having the equivalent of a high school education and just being literate was an above average education. When we began trending toward a high school diploma as a baseline education for productive workers, there were probably people making the same argument you are now against increasing our average citizen's education level.

That anti-advancement sentiment is one of the best possible ways to ensure that the rest of the world innovates right by us, propelling their economies along for the ride, while we stagnate. What in the world is wrong with trending toward the average citizen being more educated?

You're just about oppositely mis-paraphrasing Greenspan's comments by trying to apply them to my statement about people needing to adapt to change. He was lamenting the entitlement complex of the younger generations who are driving the change, which really isn't related to my points above at all.

On a related note, I'll believe people just want an opportunity to support themselves in blue collar jobs when I can find a lawn guy that'll show up on time more than twice in a row. I've gone through a dozen in the 9 years I've lived at this house.

Meanwhile, it's rubbish to frame the discussion in terms of a false dichotomy between yesteryear's blue collar jobs and high tech jobs that are unobtainable without a doctorate in rocket surgery. My mom recently took out some student loans, went back to school to begin working in a medical field, and successfully transitioned from a dying industry to a growing one in the span of about two years.

For that matter, we're probably all more (generally) educated than the guy that changes my brake pads, yet he still makes more than the household median income by himself.

You seem to have good intentions, but you don't seem to be basing your opinions on reality so much as the sensationalized crap that people keep selling us for ratings and pageviews. When you go through life with that kind of defeatist, negative outlook, things usually turn out just as you expected.

Nah. I joined the military. Went to war. Somehow survived and saved up some money. Enough to pay for my degree but I also got the post 9/11 GI-Bill so that will probably pay for it while leaving my savings and investments alone. My major is Civil Engineering and so far I am sitting on an A average in a program that is a growth industry. I think I am good to go. Still, I recognize that not everyone will be so lucky and are bound to get fucked. Do I think it is right? No I don't. Some will get fucked because they are considered young enough to be relevant in the job market but too old to be hired. Others are disabled but still intelligent enough to contribute. Some just plain are not that bright, but are willing to work hard if only they could get a wage good enough to support themselves and a family. Some are just too broke to get an education. So on and so forth. So I know the score, Sanchek. I busted my fucking hump to get this far and gave up A LOT. I will enjoy the doors that the degree opens, but my experience will probably count for more regardless. The time spent getting dirty and busting knuckles give perspective on how to really put 2 and 2 together.

Education is great, but it should not be the only model for success. Edison never went to school. He just worked hard. 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration or something like that, right? Still we are locked in this system where you MUST go to college, MUST go deep in the hole and when you get out you might just get a decent job that might just be enough to live off of while balancing a car payment, mortgage, etc. Some get the degree but after the loan their take home pay is less than if they just said fuck it and pursued a career at a corporate owned McDonalds. Look down on blue collar jobs all you want, but sometimes the idiot who cuts your grass, fixes the leak in your drain or puts the pads on your car keeps a cleaner balance sheet in the black than many college grads only due to the fact that every dollar he or she makes they get to keep. The attitude that blue collar workers are trash, lazy or whatever and deserve all the piss poor wages they deserve is probably why in spite of a bad economy, these jobs go begging. No one wants to do these tasks because they are "beneath them". They pay crap wages because those with degrees feel they should only warrant as such so no degree typically translated into you got culled out by social darwimism. Well, think about that as our infrastructure falls apart because no one wants to pay for or encourage anyone to take care of it. Think about that again as that blue collar dirtbag hands you a bill that you might feel is outrageous, but is worth every dime because they were willing to do something many did not feel was worthy of their time.

The entrepreneurial spirit is what made the USA great and an innovator in addition to hard work. Some people won't need college and some just plain should not bother with it. I don't look down on education since after all I am in college because I want to be, but it is not the silver bullet. The US deserves more outlets for people that want to make a decent living but are not going to get much out of the formal educations systems other than a loan they can never pay off. Give people the chance to make a decent living without being a college grad and that is more cash in our economy for all. Part of that is saying that it is Ok to get dirty and work for a living which is something we have strayed from. Many of the jobs we sent off overseas were sent off because no one wanted to do them. So it is not just a breakdown politically. Overall, the country has a shitty attitude towards work that isn't in AC or involves wearing a tie. If we say we don't want to do the work, than companies will find those that do. This might sound contradictory, but we need those jobs now. Good guess people will be more than willing to do them if they paid well enough to live and came with a bit of dignity.

PS: If you want your lawn done just so, cut it yourself. Knowing you, the lawn guy stopped showing up because you were a dick to them and paid a piss poor amount to do the job. Reap what you sow, Sanchek.

You're bringing a ton of pent up baggage and assumptions into this that makes no sense at all if you actually read what I'm writing and have written here in the past.

I'm not looking down on anyone for having a well-paid blue collar job. Just the opposite, I'm pointing out that these jobs do still exist in great quantities. I spent most of my childhood picking lumber and supplies up from your namesake in North Georgia, because I come from a blue collar background myself, for fuck's sake.

In that same vein, encouraging education is in no way directly tied to propping up our country's obsession with four-year diploma mills. Have you forgotten our discussion here (http://ayonae.com/mike-rowe-activist-t13104.html?t=13104) so soon? It should be obvious that I'm not infatuated with our higher education system at all.

However, that doesn't excuse the notion that people should be able to graduate high school, complete no vocational training, apprenticeship, or other training, and expect to be entitled a middle class wage just for happening to be born in the US. Dead weight like that is why there are no jobs in the first place.

Even if I were this raging anti-labor dick that you seem invested in envisioning me as, I'm never even here when the guys cut my lawn. All they have to do is show up on time, within a few days of when they promise, and I make sure they get a check on time. Easiest customer you can have. Yet, they always show up about twice and then start being weeks late or just disappear. Yeah sure, they want to work so badly...

More likely, doing lawn work in Georgia seems like a better idea in the Spring than it does in the Summer.

Meanwhile, my neighbors just use the services that employ gray-area Mexicans who show up on time every single week (for half the money I pay).

All I want to know is this... If Social Security goes away, Can I sue the government for all the wages they took for social security for all the years I have been working?

More than likely: no.

There's a Torts Act that allows you to sue the Federal Government for employee negligence and a few other oddities, but sovereign governments pretty much have to give you permission to sue them for a particular thing before you can bring civil suit. Somehow, I doubt they will invite us to sue them for taxes paid (and spent).

More than likely: no.

There's a Torts Act that allows you to sue the Federal Government for employee negligence and a few other oddities, but sovereign governments pretty much have to give you permission to sue them for a particular thing before you can bring civil suit. Somehow, I doubt they will invite us to sue them for taxes paid (and spent).

Wow that is crap... I think its time to move

You aren't wrong.

Os, do me a favor and research how we got out the depression? Now tell me it's a good idea to make massive cuts to social programs and still keep the rich taxed at historically low rates.

"
Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/gross_domestic_product/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org) estimated (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12130) that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/), according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ronald_wilson_reagan/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010."


...and yet we have the GOP parading around like the rich are being sucked dry and the ignorant masses crying for huge cuts in "entitlement" programs like the Social Security they EARNED and Medicare they paid into. We are out of balance, to use an old cliche "the rich get richer and the poor (and middle class) get poorer". Greed is rampant. I'm not for Socialism, I'm for a healthy balance between Socialism and Capitalism. Obama may take us too far to the left...but until we are balanced again, he's got my support to take us that way. The GOP has nothing to offer anyone not in the upper 10% of income even if the so many aren't informed enough to realize that yet.

The GOP has nothing to offer anyone not in the upper 10% of income even if the so many aren't informed enough to realize that yet.

They still swear by trickle down theory only quite a bit of the trickle down goes offshore. Also, it is probably a requirement to read "Atlas Shrugged" before joining the GOP. Basically if you have a good idea and get rich, you should be entitled to keep all the reward from your efforts due to being better than your average bear and that being forced to pay into a system that supports lesser forms of humanity is wrong. Funny how that seems to translate into "not even pay your fair share" as it seems with many.

The flat tax, intelligent government belt tightening and rational ways of retraining the workforce will be what it takes to pull out of the nosedive. Sanchek, I agree with you on the fact that a good job should not just be handed out, but there has to be systems in place to train people up in a manner where they are not indentured servants or beholden to a creditor for decades while netting the same income as someone who didn't graduate high school. Yes a degree will allow advancement opportunities later, but the reality is that the Baby Boomers who should have left the work force are refusing to and it is not allowing many promotions. Too many counted on a growing income later which didn't pan out.

Over the last two years mil­i­tary retirees and VA com­pen­sa­tion recip­i­ents have com­plained about the lack of a cost-of-living adjust­ment to their pay. As reported here, the issue was not polit­i­cal or even deficit reduc­tion; it was due solely to the fact that COLA (http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/retired-pay/retired-cola) is based on infla­tion as deter­mined by the pre­vi­ous year’s Con­sumer Price Index (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm).
But, that may all soon change — right when retirees are look­ing for­ward to get­ting a COLA for the first-time since 2009. In an effort to reduce gov­ern­ment expenses, the Sen­ate is now con­sid­er­ing chang­ing the rules for how COLA is deter­mined. The pro­posed changes will likely result in reduc­ing the COLA in 2012 by up to .3 per­cent.
Tom Philpott reports that the new basis for COLA would be the Chain Con­sumer Price Index for All Urban Con­sumers (or C-CPI-U). Adopt­ing the Chain CPI to adjust enti­tle­ments has been rec­om­mended by every group look­ing for ways to address the fed­eral debt cri­sis.



It appears that after two years of get­ting a break from pay­ing a COLA, the Fed­eral Gov­ern­ment is now look­ing to change the rules just as the COLA and infla­tion are about shoot upwards.


MilitaryAdvantage.Military.com



Every politician receives a 100% pension for life. I have to say that it amazes me, our Representatives and Senators never put their own health and pension plans on the chopping block when they talk about budget cuts. Yet, the veterans that fight and sacrifice so god damn much are the first to be sacrificed.

:devil

It has always been like that, though! Ever since an emperor, king or council of elders sent soldiers off to war with the hope that they would win the fight while not having too many of them come back alive.

It is not just military members. It is also cops, firefighters etc.

Also, apparently people on disability have not been given any adjustments for inflation either in quite a few years. Trikki, the military is also not promoting much and would like nothing more than to not have to pay anyone BAH other than the very best and most senior members. Best way to to do that is to make the NCO ranks very hard to get for anyone at E-3 or below currently. It certainly will downsize the military and save money.

Right now I am scared the politicians will find a way to weasel me out of the Post 9-11 GI Bill that I paid into and earned. LOL, torches and pitchforks!

Ive been in sales my entire life. I create jobs, or cause jobs to be lost if you look at the big picture. I get taxed at damn near 40% on commissions and bonuses.
If everyone else got taxed the way I do they would be pissed, but with any organization the top 10-20% make all the money the other 80-90% are dead weight or just mediocre enough to do the task the producers dont need to waste time on.
So we decide to tax the top performers even more, then it just means there will be less of the 80-90% around. i find the situation appalling and I guess its just that I havent sat around and drew a salary since I was in the military. Where it didnt matter how I performed the worst that will happen is I wont get promoted that fast if I slack around.

Changing the terminology of "taxes" into "revenue" and turning entitlements (ie ssi_) into a privilege is BS. this country makes enough money to pay its bills it just needs to stop spending more than it makes. if you want to go the family table argument you cant keep spending 50% more than you earn and pray that a new job or lottery ticket is going to hit. Which is what this country is doing. Infrastructure argument is a joke as well, I havent seen shovel ready jobs ?? for damn near a trillion dollars??? wth!


All I see is the rich getting richer and the entire economy going to a service industry to the elite.But that has been going on for a long time and if you didnt see it you were just blinded by the carrot on the stick.
You cant make people get edumacated, or even show up on time. I agree there are hard times out there, but I feel the country and politicians as a whole are holding the people hostage for there own best interests with mis information and poor policy.

people are just starting to realize that there might not be any change left with the hope.. Buying ammo and growing your own food is the best information I have seen on this thread cause at the rate its going if you dont have your own garden, cow and chickens you might starve.

People, please stop with the hysteria and fear. It's exactly what they, the left and right, want. The chances of a default is slim. You all know as well as I do there will be some last minute "see, we saved you" deal.. Besides, Ron Paul is right, this cycle is unsustainable no matter what we try. It's gonna fall like a house of cards eventually. Might as well get on with it.

Heh, sounds like we are well on our way back down the road to Feudalism based on that, Nekko. Guessing you have probably read some Ayn Rand or at least understand what she is talking about.

Otherwise the budget of a sovereign nation isn't balancing the family check book, unless you insist that the country always turns a profit to then be used to save or invest for the future. Governments don't have to turn a profit though. Its not a business. Should they be run like one? Hard to say. China is run like a business and they certainly do make a profit but the Chinese enjoy fall less freedom than we do and suffer from a lack of ingenuity since most Chinese get pigeonholed into the same jobs their whole life and it hard to break free of it. Free exchange of ideas to drive innovation is also limited.

Still, the Chinese government has lots of surplus cash to sit on or spend for whatever they see fit.

A government could also say "too bad so sad" or "a lack of planning (on the part of the individual) does not require action on our part" and leave people to fend for themselves. It would be far cheaper, but it might run counter to a philosophy that the government is in place to serve and protect the people. As to how far that "serve and protect" is supposed to go, than please Google: "Ideology of Democrats and Republicans".

True it would be real easy to leave those that for whatever reason are unable to provide for themselves assed out. Hitler even took it a step further and euthanized such folks to save the money spent on hospitals, asylums and medicine. The USA doesn't roll like that. At least not yet anyway. So if we can't kill them or just turn them loose to be beggars on the street, then what? Where do you make the cuts without drifting into being the very people that we go out of our way to be critical of in other countries?

Cuts do need to be made, regardless if its a power play or scare tactic, if even to just set the precedent that balanced budgets are the correct thing to do. There was something I saw somewhere that noted that the Federal Reserve still brings in much more money than it sends out...and the treasury is just another department of government who has to deal with the Fed. Departments may sign the checks, but the federal reserve is still where they are debited and the Federal Reserve, as far as people know, is a long way from being insolvent.

People, please stop with the hysteria and fear. It's exactly what they, the left and right, want. The chances of a default is slim. You all know as well as I do there will be some last minute "see, we saved you" deal.. Besides, Ron Paul is right, this cycle is unsustainable no matter what we try. It's gonna fall like a house of cards eventually. Might as well get on with it.

Ron Paul has said it's unsustainable, but he's also said we must raise the debt limit too.

It's not default I'm worried about Oz...it's our bond rating coupled with radical spending cuts, both will cause the economy to start spiraling downward again.

We all want to get back to balance...even surplus...but it needs to be gradual and needs to be by both revenue building and major cuts. The cuts are easy and I'm as made as anyone with Obama giving money to all kinds of other countries, not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and starting something in Libya. Couple that with cuts in superfulous government departments and waste...and we'll get there. The really scary part for me is, right now, I don't see us getting there with the two corrupt, greedy, political power hungry parties.

That, and we elected these asshats to serve in our best interests as representatives. We certainly didn't elect them so they could borrow our cars and then go play a head on game of chicken with them. At best we might get the cars back with no gas left and a Big Gulp spilled on the floor of the passenger seat. If they continue to act the fools that they are, we get to watch our cars entrusted to them get demolished in slow -mo. How can we have any leg to stand on as a country that other nations need to get their shit together if we can't even do the same?

Every politician receives a 100% pension for life. I have to say that it amazes me, our Representatives and Senators never put their own health and pension plans on the chopping block when they talk about budget cuts.




La Cosa Congress .......... they are just as dirty and corrupt and self-serving as any "organized crime" enterprise.

How does one get rid of them? Outside of voting them out next cycle that is. If they totally blow it next week, is there anyway to recall them? Votes of no confidence? Typically when you screw up that bad anywhere else you get fired, never mind stay on the job and collect a fat salary capped off by a generous pension.

What basically has to happen is the GOP needs to implode so the theocrats and lunatics can be isolated, then we can split the Democrats, since they're about 3 separate and generally unrelated voting blocs that are only a party to oppose to the Republicans (much in the way actual conservatives still stick with the crazies to oppose the Democrats, exactly like they want it).

The irony of all this is that most of the republicans that got voted in, were voted in because people wanted to avoid bullshit like this. In 2006 people voted a lot of Dems in because they wanted to change things. That sure as fuck didn't happen, then in 2010 we tried again. It didn't happen. We need to clean out the entire congress and start from scratch.

The irony of all this is that most of the republicans that got voted in, were voted in because people wanted to avoid bullshit like this. In 2006 people voted a lot of Dems in because they wanted to change things. That sure as fuck didn't happen, then in 2010 we tried again. It didn't happen. We need to clean out the entire congress and start from scratch.

To be fair, this time is actually a bit different as the main problems are those freshman congressmen elected in 2010. Most of the veterans know how stupid it would be to not negotiate over this, but the "tea party" freshman don't give a shit.

Maybe this thread would be better named "Tea Party Happy to Destroy US economy".

I don't know. Eric Cantor seems as awful as any of them, and he's been there for a decade.

I don't see how. The tea party is the part of the GOP that's a little more honest about hating poor darkies. What might have been the tea party four years ago died and got replaced before it made it out of back yard barbeque meetings.

I don't know. Eric Cantor seems as awful as any of them, and he's been there for a decade.

I think Eric Cantor is a mole working for the Islamic jihadists seeking to bring down America.

Two things need to happen, we need to reduce spending *AND* raise taxes. What's sad is I think most Americans realize this, yet our politician's won't bend on either side because they've forgotten what it is to compromise. Pushing Obama into a 1 term residency isn't worth the economy, and even then it will probably backfire and he'll get a second term because Sarah Palin will somehow get the nod for the prime candidate.

Sarah Palin Pres/Michelle Bachmann VP 2012. What a ticket that would be. Or vise verse versa vise.

LOLZ.

Back to topic, lets see what this compromise that is in the works entails now that all the symbolic bullshit is over and the real deal making now commencing.

Oh gee a deal has been struck.. im so shocked. Look im shocked. As usual the usual suspects around here proclaiming dooooooooooooooom. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

The Senate leaders have a deal, though I've video taped a parade of idiots who all won't vote for it. I'm not sure it'll pass to be honest with you.

Same old problem/solution shit as always with these manufactured crises. People will never stop falling for this ploy for the same reason that fake reality TV is overwhelmingly popular. We are not a very impressive species sometimes.

13th hour "deal" is enough of a clusterfuck that some of the accounting overlords are seriously considering a de-rating anyway. And while the various bits of posturing is clearly theater (nobody ever talks about real policy matters in public anymore, so anything on the TV is basically by nature irrelevant), the political development here was quite new. We just had a minority wing of rabid lunatics answering only to a small oligarchy of the immensely wealthy take our legislative process hostage, AND IT WORKED. Expect more of it now that they've tasted blood in the water, all that public money tied up in Social Security is just too juicy of a target for the vampires.

What an unsustainable joke.. We should have just defaulted when we had the chance and started over.

Default would not be what anyone would term a good thing. We got a pick of "Bad" , "Worse" or "The Worst". Bad works. At least there is a stable platform to work from for a few months as the government eases into the next round of monkey shit fights.

As the DOW tumbles......

:devil

LOL. Get a deal. Raise the ceiling and agree to some cuts..... ...and the economy shits the bed anyway. Outstanding :mad:

Well, time to pay off those credit cards before we all get bent over with high interests. Heh, and China is going to make a killing off the interest rate raise.

Can we have some good news please?

Credit cards should be a thing of the past. Mine is paid off in full monthly ..only used for gas, food, Internet purchase. House is a few years from being paid off. Investments being hurt at the moment, 'no' plans to retire for at least 20 more years...time is on my side. Markets will come back.

If I recall my history, the last time the American people were unhappy with their government, they got rid of it themselves and formed a new one.

Not inciting anything, just reminding you of the example your country has set for many countries fighting for democracy. Democracy IS a government where you hire (elect) a representative that technically works for you. When they no longer want to work for you, what do you do?

The last time the government of the land in the continental United States tried to bully their populace, a revolution broke out. Does it need to reach that height again? Could it be a non violent revolution? If enough of you got together and faced these people that you've put in power, they cannot ignore you. Sometimes you need to shake an institution to its foundation before things can be set to a balance again. Remind these good folks with their fat cheques and pensions why they should fear you and not the other way around.

And, de-rated.

Smooth.

The plan is working perfectly! soon we can begin to cut all these wasteful big government programs and agency's like the USDA who drags down our agriculture with all the pesky E-Coli and Salmonella testing and the EPA and this "proper disposal of toxic waste" BS.

Once we cut all this and get the budget back on track we can use these funds in a more proper manner. such as funding the invasion of Iran! or making sure we know whats going on inside of the vagina's of every woman in the country.

If I recall my history, the last time the American people were unhappy with their government, they got rid of it themselves and formed a new one.

Not inciting anything, just reminding you of the example your country has set for many countries fighting for democracy. Democracy IS a government where you hire (elect) a representative that technically works for you. When they no longer want to work for you, what do you do?

The last time the government of the land in the continental United States tried to bully their populace, a revolution broke out. Does it need to reach that height again? Could it be a non violent revolution? If enough of you got together and faced these people that you've put in power, they cannot ignore you. Sometimes you need to shake an institution to its foundation before things can be set to a balance again. Remind these good folks with their fat cheques and pensions why they should fear you and not the other way around.

But check that history book again and look at the end result ... the US government and the revolutionaries battled for years until the government broke them, creating a near crippled economy in the south and the rise of organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan in the post war chaos.

It has to get extremely bad for anything other than excercizing our political rights to be a logical option, imo. Most of us live far better than 95% of the rest of the world and we shouldn't forget that.

Exactly. I just got back from Mexico City for work. Gas is 3.65 a gallon there, beers are still roughly the same price as here, as well as food, yet the average worker makes in one day to what an average worker in the US makes in an hour. I'll take what we have any day and just keep asking for improvement.

Oh I'm not saying to re-inact your countries cry for independance, but more along the lines of getting the general citizenry out of their facebook, pizza pop, twitter, netflicks induced stupor and remind the government who is boss. The only reason this type of stuff has been going on is because you let it happen.

Trust me, this is the pot calling the kettle black because the same thing is happening in Canada, just not as cut throat due to regulations introduced by the Liberal governments in the past.

Our working class is too big, with too much to lose. The average working person has too much immediate security that they would lose in a revolution - compared to the wealthy who can bank on disaster, or the poor who are already at rock bottom. I realize it's not that simple, but that's essentially the big issue with the American public. Most people are too complacent, not apathetic, and those living paycheck to paycheck have better things to do. Even the rabid members of the left and right show up to rallies, and then back to day jobs.

Relevant: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/Amusing-Ourselves-To-Death.jpg

So the cure for what you linked is also the fix for the economy?

Explain what that cure would be, other than a war, massive plague or invasion by space aliens.

Our working class is too big, with too much to lose. The average working person has too much immediate security that they would lose in a revolution - compared to the wealthy who can bank on disaster, or the poor who are already at rock bottom. I realize it's not that simple, but that's essentially the big issue with the American public. Most people are too complacent, not apathetic, and those living paycheck to paycheck have better things to do. Even the rabid members of the left and right show up to rallies, and then back to day jobs.

What you described there is why Karl Marx's vision of the future never happened...namely, the formation of the middle class.

But! The middle class is being nickled and dimed slowly. It's being bled out in little bits. Benefits and wages are stagnating or even decreasing while the cost of living goes up.

How long does this need to happen before people realize all they've allowed themselves to lose?

Karl Marx's predictions of a communist revolution involved a society first going through unrestrained capitalism. Just saying.

So the cure for what you linked is also the fix for the economy?

Explain what that cure would be, other than a war, massive plague or invasion by space aliens.

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that we'd be innovating at a more rapid rate if less people were watching Jersey Shore. There probably is no cure, short of intervening in the production or consumption of all those timewasters (e.g. the Chinese and South Koreans limiting MMO playtime legally).

Well, to be fair ... there are a few more than 300,000,000 people in this country that don't watch the Jersey Shore and only 7,000,000 that do.

" The United States will no longer support your crisis if it falls outside of our borders and territories, your conflict has cost the American people tremendously and we are preparing to collect. Foreign trade will be suspended and our immigration policies will be rescinded until our economy stabilizes."

Sincerely,
American Tax Payers

:devil

Karl Marx's predictions of a communist revolution involved a society first going through unrestrained capitalism. Just saying.

Aye, and sadly that's where it's going. With the onset of multi-national corporations who need not answer to any one particular government, said companies and pretty much do what they like. Piss them off? They take their segment of their company from your country and put it somewhere else.

Fact is, unless governments start buying shares in said companies, these companies don't have to do a damn thing they say.

" The United States will no longer support your crisis if it falls outside of our borders and territories, your conflict has cost the American people tremendously and we are preparing to collect. Foreign trade will be suspended and our immigration policies will be rescinded until our economy stabilizes."

Sincerely,
American Tax Payers

:devil

Actually, your government is making money from the money they send overseas. Foreign aid is being looked at as a type of economic weapon.

You "give" said country money to help rebuild, improve, whatever. But the stipulation is that you spend that money with the country who gave it to you, often at a 30% markup. When this isn't enough, then the loans come into play, often to buy equipment and/or products that are not native to said country. Upkeep costs come in, costing even more money and they need to borrow even more but at a lower rate, thereby ensuring a continued stream of income to the richer nations. It's like trying to help someone up off the ground by offering them your hand while at the same time standing on their neck. The only problem with this is if said country tries to default. THEN you see the first world nations getting friendly and forgiving partial debt, because a partial loss is better than a complete loss.

This is literally the coles notes version of foreign aid, but if you want examples, just look at what's happened in Brazil over the last 30 years.

Well, to be fair ... there are a few more than 300,000,000 people in this country that don't watch the Jersey Shore and only 7,000,000 that do.

Whoosh?

I don't think it's controversial to suggest that we'd be innovating at a more rapid rate if less people were watching Jersey Shore. There probably is no cure, short of intervening in the production or consumption of all those timewasters (e.g. the Chinese and South Koreans limiting MMO playtime legally).

Its doubtful if The Situation was shot and killed, all the mindless TV shows canned and all MMOs switched off that you would sudden find a vast increase in post graduate degrees and patents. People will still drink, do drugs, and otherwise find other ways to waste time.

You can't force people to be ambitious. That kind of defeats the point. If people want to get ahead than they will figure it out on their own without some government push. Granted, some money spent on welfare would be better spent on helping new businesses start up or for grants for R&D as opposed to allowing Fatty McChubchub to stay home and do nothing.

People romanticize more self-determined exceptionalism into entrepreneurship than there really is in most cases. It's amazing what a little boredom can produce.

Looks like we are going to see, Cause there are about to be allot more BORED people out of work.

Due to the downgrade? Meh, I doubt it. The source of all the FUD is pretty much purely political.

Well, whomever can grow the economy while ending the wars and making the government lean without imposing draconian cuts or laws that cut into basic freedoms wins. Kinda doubt it can be done without one political party utterly crushing the other.

I may be wrong, but I don't think there's any hope for the GOP to beat Obama next year. If you run the numbers on who votes and how they're likely to vote, I can see why the GOP is having a hard time fielding many serious candidates. Smarter to wait till Obama's out if you have a real shot at it, unless you're getting past your prime and need to go for it now (read: Romney).

Aye, and sadly that's where it's going. With the onset of multi-national corporations who need not answer to any one particular government, said companies and pretty much do what they like. Piss them off? They take their segment of their company from your country and put it somewhere else.

Fact is, unless governments start buying shares in said companies, these companies don't have to do a damn thing they say.

Corporate fascism?

How can people still pick Obama, unless they have had there head in the sand or didn't listen to any of his promises. Showing up an hour late for his press conference as the market tanks even further doesn't show me he cares.

I don't think the S&P downgrade has much to do with what we're seeing in the market right now. It's just the easiest single thing to point to if you need a front-page headline this week.

If anything, Treasuries are inversely correlated with the Dow more often than not. If people really believed AAA vs. AA+ had any meaning, they'd be dumping Treasuries for blue chips, not selling stocks.

In reality, I think people have been sensing for some time now that the market has diverged even farther from the real economy than usual. Until a QE3 is certain, it's difficult to imagine the market staying so overly inflated. The downgrade might have even contributed a spark to the fire, but I don't believe it's the fuel, and no Obama pep talk can change that overnight.

How can people still pick Obama, unless they have had there head in the sand or didn't listen to any of his promises. Showing up an hour late for his press conference as the market tanks even further doesn't show me he cares.

People will pick him because they know what they are getting. GOP, doesn't have jackshit to run against him. Either they are complete vanilla or too far off in the wacko zone. Take for example your boy from Texas there. Yah, if the best you can come up with is to pray, than you aren't offering anything constructive. If all we have left is prayer, than sorry, we are just plain fucked. Huntsman has some refreshing common sense, but it is doubtful he would win the nomination because he doesn't have many social axes to grind. If any one of them can offer some common business sense while not bringing along any social cold war baggage than great. I would vote for them. As it is now, some of these GOP hopefuls are past idiotic and worthless. They might offer some business friendly practices and look to shrink the government's regulation of business, but the flip side is they will want the government to enforce social issues, such as censorship of the internet or as someone said before, what women can do with their vaginas etc and IMHO, that isn't really a reduction in the size of government.

Really if anyone voted for a GOP candidate for president, it would be to have control of another branch of government and perhaps lift the deadlock. Only drawback is you could end up with a president that is a worthless idiot, like Palin, running the show with no one to rein them in. At least if Obama is a tool, as it is now, someone will counteract him. It works almost too well.

We need to keep in mind that the stock market has been on an upward bubble that began in the mid 80's. even at its lowest point in 08 it was still 5000 points above what it was 20 years earlier. maybe a bit of a downward correction was inevitable.

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html


I would love to be able to see Huntsman or Johnson have a chance to lay out their plans and ideas but sadly will never happen as long as places like Iowa hold such dominant sway in the process.

Down goes the market, so goes the oil. Now I can rip around in my truck again.

Down goes the market, so goes the oil. Now I can rip around in my truck again.


/Thread win


I have a 400ci small block chevy with a ton of Edelbrock goodies that sits in 3/4 chevy truck that just sits cause it gets 9MPG. I'd love to drive it again. Sorry for derail. Back to the economic enlightenment.

Heh, my TBI 350 doesn't do much better. Maybe 15 mph. Still, the truck sits if I can help it. Mostly just ride my E-Glide these days. Kinda more happy everything is paid for as gas will go up at the start of the cold season.

Funny my 78 F-150 non catalyst stock 400 gets 16 mpg. and yes it is non-catalyst as listed on the engine sticker. kinda cool as it has to be one of the last made in the USA vehicles with out one.
Did i mention it is sitting on 67K original miles.

My 350 is in a 1990 Suburban 4x4 which is about 6,000 pounds. :cool:

It needs the big block at least for more get out its own way power. Gas mileage is crap no matter what...and yah what a highjack of this thread.

My little Suzuki gets 25-30ish depending on if I drive it like a maniac or not :P I look forward to my tank being full for less than $20 again.

I look forward to my tank being full for less than $20 again.

Believe it when I see it. :spade

:devil

Corporate fascism?

Pretty much. At one time you had Kings, Dukes, Lords, Counts etc, who had all the wealth and dictated terms. The people under them were at their disposal and if they grew pissed off enough, they could take away their means of living. Why? Because they owned the land that provided the employment.

Now? You have multinational corporations, with Presidents, CEO's, COO's, VP's, etc that hold most of the wealth, who dictate which countries get what work. And if you piss them off? They take your means of living away by shipping off your jobs to other countries where they can get away with what you wouldn't let them do.

Democracy had a nice run. At first it felt like we were in charge. But as soon as you start allowing big business to fund the people who get elected into office, you are only propping up another type of autocracy.

Before you know it, the facade that is democratic elections will cease to exist. The only votes will be those in the board room and the only people being truly looked after will be the share holders.

Unless something changes.

Fact is, you cannot have a completely unrestricted capitalist society, no more than you can have a completely socialist society. One puts all the wealth in a small number of hands with the "hopes" that trickle down economics will work, however multinational corporations have disproved this. To those that say that trickle down economics works, I say "Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining." But we can't have a completely socialist society because lets face it, bills need to be paid. If EVERYONE is on the "whack" (what we call welfare here in Newfoundland) then who's paying the taxes to pay for the welfare and healthcare and what not?

Ultimately there needs to be a balance. There is a place at the table for big business, middle class as well as the lower class. The three of these will always exist in a society that will continue to thrive. As soon as the middle class disappears, then you see things fall apart.

Government needs to stop taking a hands off approach. I'm not saying completely take over a business, but instead of giving free tax money, why not buy preferred shares? (shares that get paid first before all others) The government could hold these shares in the interest of the citizenry with the promise to hold no more than 30% of any given corporation. This would provide ample opportunity to flex muscle when needed (You want to ship our jobs where?! I don't think so!) but not so much that you have a state run business. These rich folks know what they're doing, let them do it and make us money in the interim. They only need answer to their stock holders, so lets become stock holders! Who wants to pay less tax? I know I do! By buying shares in companies that work, we ensure we have a say at the table while providing alternate income streams while at the same time not interfering with what these companies do best......make MONEY!

Middle class? Keep us apathetic with relatively cheap pleasures and decent benefits. Keep us in line with the occasional drop in creature comforts or benefits, only to give them back after a "hard fight at the picket line/voting booth," and you'll keep us in line. you want free education and health care? Serve your country for five years, be it the military or as a civilian worker with international relief. Something that puts you in a difficult spot but cannot be done by anyone else. You are representing your country. Do it proud and your country should reward you for it. Those that don't? Pay up, that simple. Something for nothing does not wash!

Lower class? No more free rides. If you are able bodied, with no kids to support, you WILL work. Even if it's picking up shit on the side of the road, I'm quite sure there's something that can be found for you. Even if it's to clock time at a local homeless shelter, helping the less fortunate.

If you are a single mother with kids (lets say), then you keep your cheque, your housing and your day care, but you WILL go to work. You have 30 days to find something or something will be provided to you after those 30 days. When you start work, your previous benefits will not change, but the money you would earn at your job goes back to the government to help fund you. As you progress in your job, you may eventually find yourself making more than what you do on assistance. This is a GOOD thing! I'm not saying cut people cold turkey, but lets use welfare to launch people into the middle class, not use it as a trap to keep them in the dungeons of poverty.

This is an abridged version of what I have in mind if I ever became Prime Minister. It's not perfect, but it sounds a helluva lot better than what we're seeing now.

Folks, it's all about balance.

And for the market tanking? I'm tickled pink. My investments are down value wise, but as long as I don't cash them, I still have the same amount of shares. Even better, because I invest monthly, I'm buying even MORE shares with my money now than I did before the drop. When the market comes back up, I'll be better off for it. If it wasn't for people freaking out and selling at a market downturn I'd never be able to retire.

Binny, I don't like your scenario. :devil

Seriously, I don't. You paint a picture where if you are born into whatever demographic, than you are stuck in it. This isn't India. People get rich in the USA all the time. Many don't even deserve to, but they do. It is still a conscious decision as to where you go in life.

We can be in agreement that if you are able to work, than you should, but the USA doesn't have enough built in inefficiency or the public infrastructure to give everyone something to do that will pay a living wage. Public infrastructure is being implied as the means for those of very little means to function day to day without having to receive additional aid from the gov such as public transit and boarding houses etc. So what do you do with those people? make them slaves or chuck em on the street?

As to what happens when you get there to the top of your trade, well if we are talking taxes here than people should all pay an equal percentage. Granted the biggest problem with the super elite and wealthy is they do not make a living from wages. In many cases, their wealth is on paper based on a snapshot of the market at the time and they don't actually pay any taxes until they liquidate an investment. You can be extremely rich and yet have almost zero income. No income means no income tax paid and the money can be put in trust to pass on tax free for generations. Once in that trust, assets and investments can be liquidated almost tax free and no individual pays any taxes on it because the trust owns it. That is why the middle class takes it in the ass by the tax man. They still draw a salary, which tends to be a decent one compared to poorer people, and the taxes come out automatically. There never is an opportunity to dodge the tax man.

SOME people get rich Lummus, a very, VERY small percentage. The majority are failures at what they do and make due with what they have. For every Bill Gates, there are a million poor people with great ideas.

I'm not saying settle and go with the flow, but that IS what's happening. We are a race in general are more reactionary than proactionary. We don't decide to take action until AFTER the "bad guys" have stolen all the candy. Sure we use fear a little bit to put some pre-emptive measures in place, but for the most part they are ineffectual to anyone with the balls and smarts to proceed with their plans.

Mark my words, until people start taking responsibility for their role in their governments, eventually that responsibility will cease to exist when you want it most. Here in North America, people fear the government. In places like (most of) Africa, people fear the government. In Russia, people fear the government. Same in South America. Notice how in parts of Europe the government fears the people? It's also those same countries that actually provide free healthcare and education to their citizens, yet they are still world leaders and capable of keeping afloat. Governments SHOULD fear it's people because it is the people that are technically their boss. The whole mess that the world is currently going through is a result of our giving in to the "Homer Syndrome." Remember that famous quote Homer gave? "We hire politicians so we don't have to think." When we don't think, we don't care. When we don't care, these people can pretty do what they like with OUR money. Imagine the disgust of a tax paying American citizen losing their home to an organization who shortly afterwards took that American's tax dollars as a bailout?

My solutions are not perfect, and I welcome other peoples ideas. But I think we can all agree, the current status quo is not sustainable.

You have to remember, we're a country of temporarily embarrassed millionaires voting against our own self-interest. We'll all be just like Bill Gates one day if we just try hard enough!

You have to remember, we're a country of temporarily embarrassed millionaires voting against our own self-interest. We'll all be just like Bill Gates one day if we just try hard enough!

LOL, that's what the government/big business wants you to think while they take your tax dollars and wipe their ass with it. Even worse, if you DON'T give your money to them so they can waste it, they'll throw your ass in jail!

I have to agree with chaning your status. I grew up in upper low class. We had food stamps but no other real assistance. Now my fiance and I clear $100k.

Why wouldn't a flat tax system work? people are charged X% from top to bottom and businesses are charged a different % from top to bottom.

Flat tax doesnt "work" because 20% means a whole hell of a lot more to someone with low income than it does to someone with high income.

For example, let's have the average family, which if I remember correctly the median household income in America is around $35,000 (feel free to quibble about a few thousand, but this is roughly right). Twenty percent of this is $7,000. This leaves $28,000 left. Let's say this is a single family earner, with the other spouse staying at home raising their one child, a somewhat typical median situation. That $7,000 is a HUGE amount of money when you're talking about this income level. That money means "luxuries", like saving for your child's education, maybe paying for your own nightschool to improve your situation, better health insurance so that if something happens to someone in the family you wont be homeless (because it's unlikely with this income level that you have a good work-provided health plan), and god-forbid maybe saving a bit for retirement.

Now, a minimally "wealthy" family making $500,000, with 20% flat tax leaving them $400,000 in take home income. Do you think their lifestyle is substantially more impacted than the $35,000 family? This scales even further as income rises, in that the 20% taxed means even less of an impact to your lifestyle.

Now, I started with a median family income, which of course means a huge portion of American households make less than that, in which case taking 20% from them means even more spending power lost, and even more difficulty even paying the basic costs of surviving.

This is where the theory of the progressive tax percentage comes in - that those with substantially higher incomes can maintain or even improve their lifestyle while paying a larger percentage of their income to taxes. (This doesnt address whether it's "fair" or not, just that they *can* afford it). The reality is though, once you exceed a certain income or personal wealth threshold in America (somewhere in the single-digit millions generally, though it can be with lower incomes if you're smart or in special situations), you actually pay a *smaller* percentage of your income in taxes - Warren Buffett has pontificated on this a few times, noting that he pays a smaller percentage of his income to taxes than his secretary does.

All depends.

Many successful people don't want to pay more taxes to support the failures and the unambitious in society. Which makes sense because it comes down to a penalty for succeeding.

The flip side side of that is you only need so much money in life. Many wealthy people probably would prefer to give their excess wealth away to charities where they might get a bit more mileage out of their donations than having a government take it from them and then spend it on the usual hit or miss (mostly miss) government projects.

That doesn't work everywhere. Some countries, especially in the up and comer's such as China and India, do not believe in charity. They hoard it all. Bill Gates discovered that recently in China when he was given a very cold shoulder.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not even anywhere close to making a comfortable living with being a student and all. Still, if I start making a good living, it would be nice to have a bit more decision making power over where my money goes. If everyone gets taxed the same, than fine. The government can only piss away a flat amount of everyone's money. Anything past that, it is up to the person who earned it.

The failures in society are going to be there either way, you can pay to beat them with police and prisons or pay to teach them to read and subsidize them enough that they can live on lawn-care wages. You go ahead and guess which one ends up being a lot less expensive.

China doesn't believe in charity because they still have central party planning that is perfectly fine with portions of their population being indentured servants in crushing poverty. We could accept that here, but I don't think most people really want it. There's a reason the age of revolution, even here in the US, focused on "leveling" the monetary distribution. That's been totally written out of most history books as some sort of proto-communism, but basically the day the poor people started to be able to write letters and newspapers, they started working out ways for a more equitable system, of which all of us today are benefitting from, at least until the Tea Party brings back slavery.

All depends.

Many successful people don't want to pay more taxes to support the failures and the unambitious in society. Which makes sense because it comes down to a penalty for succeeding.
What defines unambitious? Low pay scale? I'm a public school teacher, so our household will never clear $100k. My wife works part time and takes care of our daughter the rest of the time. It has been suggested to me that I could get a job that pays better, and that's true. But the flaw in that thinking is wondering what becomes of lower paying jobs.

I'm smart, graduated with honors, decent range of job skills. If everyone like me decided to move up the pay scale, only the bottom percentages of both intellect and skill will be left to do ALL low paying jobs. That's the bottom percentage of the population handling teaching (I'll let you figure out where that leads), nursing, childcare, construction, police, etc. If you tax me into oblivion I have to become more 'ambitious' just to keep my family afloat.

We could argue types of lifestyle and luxuries that I don't need, but there are a large number of service oriented jobs in that $35k salary range. Below $25k exists a number of jobs that we need as well. We can slap whatever labels we want on people, but we will always need cashiers, attendants, commercial landscaping, etc. 100% of the population can never move up because the populations NEEDS those lower jobs to support higher paying jobs. The lower paying jobs shouldn't get a free pass, by any means, but the belief that anyone who wants to can work their way up is BS and dangerous to society as a whole.

Yes, because I society pays people what they're worth (this is dripping with sarcasm by the way).

People who work in high stress front line service work (IE: Cashiers, food prep, child care, cleaners, etc) get paid crap while we reward the likes of Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears with mega-millions. Really? Then there are those that play professional sports. Some of these folks are making over $100 million for five years of play time? I'm sorry, but even with the risk of injury while playing a game, NO person is worth that much to throw, hit, catch, kick or dribble a ball.

I could go on and on, however it still stands that 10% of the population holds 90% of the wealth. It can sometimes go a little either way, but for centuries, nay millenia, it's been that way. Personally, I wish we could go back to the hunter/gatherer days.

You know, everyone had a role. No one person was worth more than the other. Men hunted and fished, women raised the children and prepared the meals. Medicine men/women kept people healthy and birthed children. And there was NO SHAME IN THAT! Men were not better than women, just different. People knew way back then that the group was only as good as it's weakest member. It also knew it was important to stick together and most importantly they knew how important it was to SHARE!

I find it funny when I see some people in a lot of the Western countries, mostly those WITH moderate or higher wealth who look down on those with less than they do. These are the people that say that they should "Get a better job" or "I'm not paying the taxes for them to have health care!" or "Bah! Welfare, what's it good for?" And yet, if you were to ask anyone that has had wealth and lost it, they'd take every word back.

But lets look at the problem, namely keeping people off the whack and off the streets. Education and Healthcare is key! Healthy people now means less cost to the system later. Education is one asset that no one can take away! You can lose your money, your house, your car, your wife/husband, your kids, your parents, your siblings, but once you have that piece of paper, it's yours FOREVER!

So why not invest in getting these people in school, and educated them not only for a job but for a health life as well? It's not perfect, and it certainly won't fix everything at once, but it's definitely a good start. And remember, if they're educated it's hard to justify permanently staying on the government funding system when you have a means of making a living. We all hit rough times, which is what welfare is for, but mainly a temporary solution to keep you going till better times come along.

Sounds like a utopia. Try to institute what you are writing in a country with 300 million people and a high amount of immigration. What about people who can't afford to support themselves but choose to have 3+ children... I should pay for that?

Kanyli, do you enjoy your job? If yes than the money is rather unimportant.

Plenty of people are very successful in society while living a basic and humble existence.

Failures = those who don't pull their own weight and must either be a burden on the public by having to pay for their imprisonment or some kind of welfare that they refuse to get off of/exploit. Yes, people do fall on bad luck and there should be something, but what is there is rampantly abused more often than not.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the alternative for the useless laggards? Letting them starve?

I hear that whole "rampant abuse of the system" thing quite a bit, and yet we still have a fair amount of children who need foodstamps just to survive, and I've never heard annoying explain what's going to happen to all these people. It seems to me that most of the folks saying "end welfare" would not be too keen on condemning thousands to die (I think the world is overpopulated and we're out of actually productive jobs so my opinion on that leans more towards inevitability).

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the alternative for the useless laggards? Letting them starve?

I hear that whole "rampant abuse of the system" thing quite a bit, and yet we still have a fair amount of children who need foodstamps just to survive, and I've never heard annoying explain what's going to happen to all these people. It seems to me that most of the folks saying "end welfare" would not be too keen on condemning thousands to die (I think the world is overpopulated and we're out of actually productive jobs so my opinion on that leans more towards inevitability).

Aye, they are also the same people who call a homeless single mother with three kids deadbeats while donating thousands of dollars to Haiti relief or support of OXFAM. Not saying helping foreign countries is bad, but I guess it's easier to pat yourself on the back when all you have to deal with is an envelope and the cheque you put into it. Entire different story when it's your own people that you have to live with and face on a day to day basis.

Makes me almost wish for an economic crash. Just reset the whole lot. See how many of these self-entitled people feel when they lose their house and all their assets are worthless. Who will you turn to then? Hmmm? Fact is, you'd be amazed at how quickly the supposedly "responsible" people would lose everything they own if something drastic happened in their lives.

I know of people who make excellent money and yet just barely pay their credit cards, and yet I know mothers who are on social assistance who manage to keep clothes on their kids backs, food on the table and are going to school themselves while saving for their children's education.

I'm not saying encourage the deadbeats, I'm saying don't throw the legitimate cases in with them. There are plenty of people who need welfare who shouldn't be begrudged it. I also think that the welfare system should be setup to encourage people to move up in life. It should not be a pit that is almost impossible to crawl out of. How do we do this? Education and Healthcare are a great start.

Sadly it took WWII for countries like France and England to realize this. It didn't matter whether you were rich or poor then. Bombs didn't discriminate on your social class. They found that as citizens as a whole they had to depend on one another. This lead to the basis for universal healthcare and education.

I do enjoy my job, and I value that over my pay. I hope I don't sound like I'm whining about teacher pay, that's for another thread. Rather, I just get tired of the mantra that those who aren't paid enough should just get better jobs. That isn't a sustainable philosophy, and I actually think it tends to roll most often from the, "I already have mine, screw everyone else" crowd.

While I might not be in my job for the money, I do think it's reasonable to expect a certain degree of comfort in lifestyle as a citizen of one of the wealthiest nations in the US. The rhetoric surrounding tax reform/health care reform is almost always driven by the upper SES groups, and typically caters to their needs over other citizens.

In truth, there's probably a happy balance in all of these arguments, IF we could work through a new tax code or health care or whatever without the usual picking of partisan sides. Besides, it's fun to be a moderate. When either party screws up, I still get to gloat.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the alternative for the useless laggards? Letting them starve?

No, probably not. Non-criminals might just need some self confidence boosters. Even some criminals might only need a chance to be part of something to be proud of. Don't think society is to the point of the Soylent Green woodchipper food processor yet.

That's a bit of a non-answer. I understand that you think these people just need to get off their asses, but seriously, with 30 million unemployed already, what exactly do you expect them to do?

Beats me.

There could be more people than there are meaningful things to do. Maybe ask the same question to the couple pumping out 5-6 kids?

Then again does anyone know how many people are unemployed versus jobs available but lacking in qualified applicants to do them? Isn't half of this problem in the economy related to quite a few jobs that no one will do because they don't want to or don't know how to? Mike Rowe had his day before Congress about that not so long ago, correct? It goes past just the "dirty" sectors of employment as well too. Companies here will still welcome highly qualified foreigners due either to there being no domestic applicants worthy to fill them or those that there are demand too high a salary.

As for how to fix it, well does it really seem like the political climate that is going to encourage job placement or retraining programs? Probably not. At least not funded by tax payer money. People will need their own motivation eventually, especially when the rug of government safety net programs gets yanked out from under. So that is another non-answer, because there really aren't any answers. None that are acceptable to actually become any kind of public policy.

http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/

Here are the picks of who are running. Bachmann is the current lead for the GOP nomination. So based on that, can you decide if there will be a climate that will get people to work?

That's a bit of a non-answer. I understand that you think these people just need to get off their asses, but seriously, with 30 million unemployed already, what exactly do you expect them to do?
That problem goes deeper than anyone wants to admit. The recession didn't just lose jobs temporarily, many of them are gone for good. Companies tightened their belts and realized they can survive with fewer workers. Coupled with a trend that's been growing for a while now where online warehouse stores can ship more merchandise cheaper than the local market, and job growth is a much smaller percentage of economic expansion than it used to be.

Even teaching is in line for this. One high school classroom teacher might get through 175 students a day. An online teacher with a few teacher aides to grade (or better yet, use an online program to grade automatically when students submit papers) can lecture to 400 students or more per class, answering relative questions, multiple classes a day. A few of the major universities are close to making this a viable reality.

how many people are unemployed versus jobs available but lacking in qualified applicants to do them?

And yet for decades now education has been taking it on the chin and then some while the GOP paints people like Kanylii as nothing more than a leach on public funding. Vocational training has taking it on the chin and the nuts at the same time.

Is it just me that views NCLB as completely assbackwards? should it not be the schools that are failing the standards be the ones that get more funding? to make a sports analogy. it would be like giving the winner of the superbowl the #1 pick in the draft and the team with the worst record the last pick.

It's not just NCLB, it's the cries to let schools be run like a business. Then we're shocked (shocked, I tell you!) at districts like the one in Atlanta or Washington that cheat to get ahead on standardized tests.

I post on a conservative - HIGHLY conservative - forum at times, and the more I read the posts there the more I'm convinced it's not the GOP, it's the radicals in the Tea Party who are driving the GOP. Everything has this sort of hallowed cry to follow the wisdom of the founders, who, you know, were experts on everything including 21st century commerce and economics. There is a strong feeling of xenophobia, spoken under the phrases of avoiding 'socialism' and 'communism'. So when other countries get it right, especially in education or health care, we're supposed to run terrified.

The GOP actions regarding the debt ceiling were, I think, run by the Tea Party. The fact that Bachman is the GOP lead right now speaks volumes to who is driving that party. Older members seem to be afraid of losing that Tea Party base.

Well lets hope this isn't a repeat of history. As in the Weimar Republic leading up to the Nazi era. There are similarities.

I would almost categorically ignore anyone making a big deal out of this straw poll. First, because Bachman basically paid for her votes with a petting zoo and Randy Travis concert. More importantly, because there's no reason to believe it's correlated with who will eventually get the nomination anyway. John McCain came in 10th in the 2007 Iowa straw poll, with 0.7% of the votes.

I would almost categorically ignore anyone making a big deal out of this straw poll. First, because Bachman basically paid for her votes with a petting zoo and Randy Travis concert. More importantly, because there's no reason to believe it's correlated with who will eventually get the nomination anyway. John McCain came in 10th in the 2007 Iowa straw poll, with 0.7% of the votes.
According to Colbert (and some news clips he referenced, first 2 minutes of the below linked video), she actually *did* buy her votes. Straw Poll votes cost $30 each, and she bought a bunch of vote-tickets and handed them out.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394645/august-15-2011/colbert-super-pac---iowa-straw-poll-results

Somewhat related, I'm rather curious about whether the 700+ write-ins for Perry were actually "Parry", as Colbert asked for in his PAC advertisement.

I'm really considering tossing some cash at Colberts super PAC. going to be a ton of fun watching him toy with the idiots.