How have we gotten out of all other recessions?
Obama's "Plan"
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
At this same time in the 1980 election, no one polled higher than Jimmy Carter for Republicans. Reagan won in a landslide. At this time in 1968, Hubert Humphrey led in all the polls for president, but he didn't even end up winning his party's nomination, and Nixon won in a landslide. At this time in the 2008election cycle, Hillary Clinton had all but been inaugurated, and Bill ordained First Dude... things didn't pan out... a lot of things happened on the political landscape... other voices emerged, and eventually prevailed. It's not very smart to be looking at some poll right now, and making a determination as to who will win the election next November.
The GOP is going to have a very long and tedious process to nominate a candidate. It has really just gotten started, so it's not surprising that any of the people in the race, aren't threatening the sitting president's poll numbers right now. If that were the case, it would be quite unusual and shocking, don't you think? So while I know it makes liberals feel warm and fuzzy that Obama polls better than any individual GOP candidate, it is perfectly normal and predictable, and nothing to get excited about.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It depends, which one are we talking about? In the 1930s, when most of the workforce was unskilled manual labor, we implemented road and bridge building projects all over America, and got people back to work doing something, and it sparked economic prosperity, but cost us a lot of debt that we've still never repaid. If we're talking about the more recent Carter Malaise, inherited by Reagan, we got out of that by lowering top marginal income tax and capital gains tax rates, sparking enormous economic growth and prosperity, which lasted 30 years. By unleashing capitalism, you create demand for the more skilled work force available today.
apple0154
MEOW
I have presented a number of ideas. The first thing is helping people before they lose everything. The day a person loses their job is the time to offer assistance. I've heard some companies offer laid off employees assistance in preparing resumes, for example.
When someone has been in a job for 10 or 15 years their life is pretty much routine so they continue the same lifestyle while expecting to find employment in the near future. That results in financial problems much sooner than necessary. There needs to be immediate access to financial counseling. They need a plan at the very start, not just stumble from day to day hoping they find a job.
Those same people probably are not aware of the extent of technological changes that have occurred in their particular industry, what parts of their job have become automated and what alternate duties are expected of them. Training seminars/courses to bring them up to date so they can compete in the job market and information on similar jobs and how they can transfer some of their knowledge to those jobs.
So, the first thing is to help people in order to prevent them from ending up on welfare. Prevention. Spend the necessary hundreds of dollars for courses and counseling rather than end up spending thousands of dollars on welfare checks later on.
The second thing, dealing with people who are already on welfare, is a complete medical examination and counseling along with psychological testing. Start by ruling out any medical conditions. Then offer, insist upon, courses to improve their ability to find work. Then monitor their job application performance. Are they applying for jobs?
As far as their giving up something they're getting for free how many people aspire to collect welfare? How many people quit their job so they can get all that "free stuff" welfare offers?
(Excerpt) Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF* allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300. (End)
http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/
*Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides financial help for children and their parents or relatives who are living with them. Monthly cash payments help pay for food, clothing, housing, utilities, furniture, transportation, telephone, laundry, household equipment, medical supplies not paid for by Medicaid and other basic needs. http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/help/financial/temporary_assistance.html
A family of 4 living on $900/mth. $10,800/yr.
A single person living on $300/mth. $300 a month for food, clothing, housing, utilities, furniture, transportation, telephone, laundry, household equipment.... That's $3,600/yr. Who would want to give that up that lifestyle??!!! Does it really take a lot of thinking to understand why welfare people are selling drugs and stealing from people's homes and committing all sorts of petty crimes? When it's a choice between taking your child to a dentist or skipping a week's worth of dinners what would you do?
There is no reason, whatsoever, for anyone to go hungry with the amount of food the country produces. Foreclosed homes allowed to sit empty and deteriorate while families are crowded into one room motels. It's nothing short of vile and disgusting and people wonder why welfare recipients do not jump out of bed in the morning full of motivation and wearing a big smile while going on a job interview.
If we treat them like animals, mistreated animals at that, what behavior and motivation can we expect to see from them? It that so difficult to comprehend?
apple0154
MEOW
When SS was implemented working conditions were quite different. To use an example one person planting a garden can only supply food for a set number of people due to the fact one person can only do so much digging, planting, weeding, watering and harvesting. It was physically impossible for one individual to maintain a garden to feed a multitude of people so the ratio of working to non-working people had a limit. Today, the number of workers required to support non-workers is drastically reduced due to technology; machinery for planting and harvesting, automatic watering systems, pesticides, etc.
Extrapolate that to housing and clothing and household goods. Pre-fab homes that can be erected in a matter of days compared to months required to build a regular home. Clothing mass produced. Etc. Etc.
The point being it was impossible in the past to support a large number of non-working people. It simply could not be done. That is not the case today. Today, it has nothing to do with the ability to produce sufficient goods. A few people can produce what required a large number of people to do, in the past.
Look at the housing crisis. For years, as long as I can recall, we were told there just wasn't enough homes to house the homeless. There were no physical buildings. That was the bottom line. We didn't have the resources to build enough houses for everyone. Then came the housing boom. How did we manage to build so many homes when we were told, year after year, we couldn't build enough homes?
So, now we have the physical homes and they sit empty. The argument we could not build a sufficient number of homes has proven to be a lie. We can, and did, build a sufficient number of homes. More than sufficient. People were buying two and three homes. So the argument we can not support the number of retirees is nonsense.
The problem is the payout of SS. The solution is to tax back the funds from those who do not require it. That is what other countries have done. Say, for example, start taxing back the SS payments from those having a retirement income of over $100,000 and graduate it up to an income of $250,000, at which point it's taxed at 100%.
The problem is not the decrease in the labor pool as people retire. There will be no shortage of goods produced. Just like the bogus homeless housing crisis which had nothing to do with our ability to provide homes the retirement crisis is a made-up crisis. SS was designed to prevent people from slipping into poverty. It's absurd to write checks to multi-millionaires while claiming there's a crisis.
A simple changing of the law is all that's required but we know the reaction of some people when it comes to the wealthy. Rather than cut payments to multi-millionaires they'd rather see benefits cut to all.
Oh, well. Maybe Obama's next term will straighten a lot of folks out.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh I wouldn't be so sure of that Rana, oh on principle I agree with you but, as H.L. Menken famously quiped, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.".
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Actually Dixie it didn't. It was a stop gap measure that had mixed results and the costs were insignificant compared to the cost of winning WWII (which by the way were all paid off by the time Johnson was President). Your also mischaracterizing the recession that Reagan inherited as Carter also inherited a recesion that was due almost entirely to Nixon's mismanagement of the economy and it was in fact Carter's chairman of the fed, Paul Volcker, who implemented the solution to the problem under Carter for which Carter took a big political hit and Reagan was bright enough and not such an ideologue that he too saw that Volcer was correct and kept him on board, much to his credit, when he became President.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
When SS was implemented working conditions were quite different. To use an example one person planting a garden can only supply food for a set number of people due to the fact one person can only do so much digging, planting, weeding, watering and harvesting. It was physically impossible for one individual to maintain a garden to feed a multitude of people so the ratio of working to non-working people had a limit. Today, the number of workers required to support non-workers is drastically reduced due to technology; machinery for planting and harvesting, automatic watering systems, pesticides, etc.
Extrapolate that to housing and clothing and household goods. Pre-fab homes that can be erected in a matter of days compared to months required to build a regular home. Clothing mass produced. Etc. Etc.
The point being it was impossible in the past to support a large number of non-working people. It simply could not be done. That is not the case today. Today, it has nothing to do with the ability to produce sufficient goods. A few people can produce what required a large number of people to do, in the past.
Look at the housing crisis. For years, as long as I can recall, we were told there just wasn't enough homes to house the homeless. There were no physical buildings. That was the bottom line. We didn't have the resources to build enough houses for everyone. Then came the housing boom. How did we manage to build so many homes when we were told, year after year, we couldn't build enough homes?
So, now we have the physical homes and they sit empty. The argument we could not build a sufficient number of homes has proven to be a lie. We can, and did, build a sufficient number of homes. More than sufficient. People were buying two and three homes. So the argument we can not support the number of retirees is nonsense.
The problem is the payout of SS. The solution is to tax back the funds from those who do not require it. That is what other countries have done. Say, for example, start taxing back the SS payments from those having a retirement income of over $100,000 and graduate it up to an income of $250,000, at which point it's taxed at 100%.
The problem is not the decrease in the labor pool as people retire. There will be no shortage of goods produced. Just like the bogus homeless housing crisis which had nothing to do with our ability to provide homes the retirement crisis is a made-up crisis. SS was designed to prevent people from slipping into poverty. It's absurd to write checks to multi-millionaires while claiming there's a crisis.
A simple changing of the law is all that's required but we know the reaction of some people when it comes to the wealthy. Rather than cut payments to multi-millionaires they'd rather see benefits cut to all.
Oh, well. Maybe Obama's next term will straighten a lot of folks out.
There is so much BS and scare tactics out there on SS. SS is in no danger (except from political ideologues). It does not contribute to the deficit and in fact runs currently at a surplus and although it is true at the current benefit level that in around 20 years SS is projected to start operating at a deficit it's any easy fix. We only need to lift the payroll cap which is, foolishly in my opinion, not adjusted for inflation.
apple0154
MEOW
Unfortunately, it is you who is thick headed. Certain people are trying to "go back" and the government of Canada and other countries are stopping them. Why? Because we've been there.
It's easy to go back. The world is full of greedy people just waiting to take advantage of the ill. What better group of people to bully and intimidate and bamboozle? Why do you think governments have procedures in place to have drugs tested? A person fighting an illness is an easy target for trained snake oil salesmen. Their fear and desperation plays right into the game.
Sorry, Dix. As I've said before show me one country where a politician is even campaigning on going back. Show me one country where the majority of the population wants to go back to a "pay or suffer" system. Just ONE country.
While there are people in every country wanting changes to their government plan NOT ONE country has a substantial number of proponents wanting to "go back" to the "pay or suffer" medical plan. Not ONE, Dix. Sorry.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You forget, Reagan also closed a lot of tax loopholes and deductions which also helped to raise revenue. He also promoted a STRONG dollar instead of this weak dollar crap the idiots in DC continue to use. We all know what will happen to commodity prices if the dollar strengthens. Lower costs of oil/nat gas etc... means lower costs to consumers for their energy bills, which will provide more disposable income, which will in turn either be saved (providing banks more capital to loan against), invested or spent (providing more demand and thus more jobs). It also keeps the money HERE rather than being sent to other countries.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
If the economy is anything like it is now in November of 2012... Obama gets crushed.... by anyone... even Kucinich/Paul/Biden/Palin/Bachman/Frank could beat him in a primary/general election
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
1. If they "continue" their same lifestyle, then they're stupid and not being personnally respoonsible.
2. It is their responsiblity to stay in touch with what's going on within their job parameters. Not doing so is nothing short of irresponsibility.
3. Most companies have education programs, where courses are paid for, once the courses are completed successfully. Gee, even more personal responsibility.
4. They why aren't all people on welfare commiting these crimes? Maybe because they have a sense of personal responsibility.
5. Because those items don't belong to the Government, they belong to either companies or by other persons.
6. Please show me where the unemployed are being kept in cages and put to sleep, if they're not adopted within a week.
Rereading some of your comments, it is you who seems to have a negative attitude towards the poor; seeing as how you attribute them to being lazy, uneducated, stupid, criminals, etc.
Nice to see that you know what everyone else is supposed to do; but what about the person involved doing something to help themselves, like contacting agency's that are allready in place.
You know; that little thing called responsibility.
Tell you what. Turn your living room into a bedroom, put in a couple of bunkbeds, and have some homeless sleep in your home.
Seeing as how you apparently believe that no one should have "advantages", as long as others don't have the same opportunity.
Come back and use your same old arguments, after you have done EVERYTHING that you can do to help EVERYONE ELSE. Until then, ...............................!
By the way, no one is being treated like animals; but if you're going to continue to just throw out liberal talking points, you're going to be talking to yourself.
apple0154
MEOW
Expecting a person to live on $300/mth is worse than treating a person like an animal. No one can survive on that. At least an animal won't be arrested for dumpster-diving. And there's still laws permitting the arrest of vagrants. How is one to secure a residence on $300/mth?
As for "you apparently believe that no one should have "advantages", as long as others don't have the same opportunity", I never implied any such thing. Food, shelter, medical care, clothes....that's about it. Either ensure the recipient has the money to obtain those things or supply them. Can it be any more basic than that?
And this constant nonsense about "personal responsibility". Just a slogan to avoid helping. If there's no job, there's no job.
And no one has to open their home or cut back on any of life's necessities. They just don't want to help but it's nice to see some folks finally come out and say it rather than make up excuses and that's what the Republican Party should do. They should come out and be straight with the people. It has nothing to do with affordability. Taxes could be raised on the wealthy and the not so wealthy and there would be money to help.
Again, it has nothing to do with affordability. Other countries, poorer countries, do it so the affordability argument is a lie.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Because you're a pinhead Communist Socialist who doesn't believe in freedom or democracy, and letting the people decide for themselves, you had rather ram through legislation forcing people to accept your state-run health system against their will. That's why!
It's not because your way is "better" because it's proven to NOT be better, in EVERY aspect! This is why you flounder when it comes to citing ANY example of a country the size of ours, which has produced the medical technological advancements we've produced, through a government-run system... there IS NO such example! We have (had) the best health care system on the planet, the best doctors, the best treatments, the best success rates, the greatest achievements, and all through the private free-market system. What you are trying to impose is inadequate health care, greatly diminished availability, and at a higher cost overall. In order to impose it, you have to destroy the best system on the planet ever known to humankind. That's the level of Stupid you are on!
Really, goes to show you just how stupid we have become! The cuts they are proposing will tank the economy, it seems like everyone is to blame and not just Obama...
Sorry Sweetlips.....the spending and debt they have inflected on us to date has already tanked the economy....with more pain on the horizon.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So you have no real intention of actually helping anyone in the prediciment you describe and instead you just want to force the expectation on everyone else.
Get back to me, when you actually do something other then bitch and moan and trying to throw other people's money down a bottomless well.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It's sort of like saying, the physical exertion from bailing water out of the sinking boat will exhaust us! That's how stupid you have become. We are currently spending $1.6 trillion per year, that we DON'T HAVE! What part of "DON'T HAVE" are you having difficulty with, maybe I can help? As in... the money doesn't exist, we don't have it, and there is no realistic way for us to get it. We've maxed out the credit card, and now you want to run buy a new wardrobe and some shoes, because when they close your account, you're not going to have a thing that's decent to wear. That's where you are on the "stupid scale" darling.
apple0154
MEOW
How many times do i have to repeat the same thing, over and over? Show me ONE country where the citizens want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system. Just ONE. Show me one country where a politician is campaigning on returning to a "pay or suffer" system.
Shortly after a Conservative election win in Canada a few years ago one politician casually mentioned the idea of changing the government medical plan in Canada. Just a passing thought, if you will. Both opposition parties, The Liberals and NDP, told the Conservatives if they so much as brought it up in Parliament they would have a "lack of confidence" vote and throw the government out.
Try to understand that every country has had a "pay or suffer" system. Every country started out that way and every country that changed to a government plan has kept it. Not only have they kept it but the citizens insist the country keep it.
Every country. Not ONE exception. Why can't you understand that?
Regardless of all the intentional misconceptions and outright lies the citizens in every country insist on keeping their government plan. Opponents of government medical can not point to ONE country that reverted or even one country considering reverting. The opponents have nothing to substantiate their threats and fear mongering. Nothing. All the while a study has shown 45,000 people die each year in the US due to a lack of medical care.
Please, do some research unless you feel people should die if they can't afford medical care. In that case it's pointless having this conversation.
apple0154
MEOW
Obviously you missed post #144. I wrote,
So, what are your ideas besides just letting them suffer?