How have we gotten out of all other recessions?
Zeus, even with his high disapproval ratings he is still winning in the Presidential race against the current candidates, sorry, but that is the way the polls read. No current candidate will beat him, because as dissatisfied as they are with Obama, they stll won't vote for Mitt or Michelle.
How have we gotten out of all other recessions?
It is a hand out, when it becomes a way of life or generational.
You have presented nothing, that shows how you intend to motivate people to work for somethng that they now get for free.
The program is NOT sustainable, by its very design. When SS was instituted, there were 18 people in the work force for every person drawing social security benefits. Today that number is under 5 people working per person drawing benefits, and that number is still shrinking. A system based on the idea that the workers of today pay for the retirement of elderly workers cannot be sustained when the numbers of people on the benefits side grows too large, and when the people drawing benefits do so for far longer than the plan ever accounted for. Even if we extend the ceiling of SS taxes to higher incomes and increase the tax rates, would be like putting a bandaid on a patch of melanoma. As the numbers of people USING SS grows in comparison to the numbers of people PAYING into SS, the crisis will only get worse. We are already 10-30 years early (depending on which side you listened to in the 80s) in when we would have to start using the SS Trust fund as SS revenues fall behind SS obligations. Even if the trust fund were not filled with IOUs instead of cash, it means the trusts fund is smaller than anticipated when it became needed to meet obligations, which means it will run out FASTER than the 10-30 years estimates from the 80s said we had. And NO, the general fund cannot make up the difference - at least not for more than a decade or so.
The system, as currently designed, cannot HELP but fail eventually. Band-aid solutions of placing an ever-growing burden of taxation on the wealthy cannot change that. As a wise woman once said, the problem is, eventually we will run out of other people's money.
Therefore, a DIFFERENT system needs to be started, one which is economically viable and sustainable for future generations when the number of beneficiaries actually outgrows the number of contributors (that day WILL come!), and over the course of a decade or so, slowly switch over to the new design.
Zeus, even with his high disapproval ratings he is still winning in the Presidential race against the current candidates, sorry, but that is the way the polls read. No current candidate will beat him, because as dissatisfied as they are with Obama, they stll won't vote for Mitt or Michelle.
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.
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.![]()
And again, since you seem to be thick headed... people can't "go back" to something that is no longer there! It doesn't matter how much they want to, or IF their government (which isn't run by the people like America) will even let them.
Republican's haven't said one word about cutting any benefit for any current Social Security or Medicare recipient. They have proposed reforms, which would take effect on SS recipients 20 years down the road... it wouldn't effect anyone currently on SS.
First of all, yes it IS a disaster and failure. In the UK, they are not able to afford the shoddy health care they have... In Canada, they are not able to adequately care for the people. In some countries, they are chopping off feet to avoid having to buy corrective shoes. The entire socialist medical system is an absolute and abject failure from the ground up... from the cost of health care, to the availability and quality of health care, it is a failure.
And again, since you seem to be thick headed... people can't "go back" to something that is no longer there! It doesn't matter how much they want to, or IF their government (which isn't run by the people like America) will even let them.
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.
Zeus, even with his high disapproval ratings he is still winning in the Presidential race against the current candidates, sorry, but that is the way the polls read. No current candidate will beat him, because as dissatisfied as they are with Obama, they stll won't vote for Mitt or Michelle.
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?
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.
Certain people are trying to "go back" and the government of Canada and other countries are stopping them. Why?
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
Sorry Sweetlips.....the spending and debt they have inflected on us to date has already tanked the economy....with more pain on the horizon.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...
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.
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...
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!
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.
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.