The real question is how will all of this put more money in Cpj's paycheck-- really. That is the whole idea... how can we be more prosperous as a nation? The questions I am pondering right now are:
1) If we are on a track where the "haves" and "have nots" is where there will be richer and richer "haves" and an increasing number of "have nots" without a pot to piss in, how soon before a revolution happens that will blow up that entire paradigm? Remember I said that someone with nothing to lose is dangerous. I really believe that. We are not on a sustainable track. If it comes down to that, everyone is screwed.
2) I got my socialist/evil vs. capitalist/good indoctrination back in 7th grade in the 80's. What they didn't teach me then was that the socialist boat left the harbor in 1935. And even before then, since the founding of the country, socialism in some form has always been a part of our country. For the last 83 years, this whole socialism thing has been a part of both political parties and with liberals and conservatives. Don't puke up your middle school social studies Cold War era propaganda in my face. You are smarter than that. Use your damn head.
3) Can you stop making excuses for the socialists (like Donald Trump) that you elected while pointing your socialist finger at other socialists?
I am not done, and I will also offer solutions. Part of the whole solutions thing is agreeing on what the problems are.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
Its interesting for sure - and hats off to Alpha for hanging in there. We may not agree with him on most things, but it really helps to have the opposite opinion voiced in any conversation as it helps everyone understand their own positions better.
As I see it, the biggest two problems are 1) Little to no integrity shown by ANY politicians, and 2) Extremism on all sides.
*shrug* - I don't pretend to have the answers....
-Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
"If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
Alpha, read up on the El Nino and La Nina cycle in the Pacific Ocean. It cycles without much regard to the atmospheric CO2 level. It's more about the upwelling, or lack thereof, of DEEP ocean currents. We're in a La Nina cycle that is driving the jet stream further south and bringing colder weather to everyone in the U.S. The El Nino keeps the jet stream further north and makes for dry winters and starves the western states of needed moisture. I suspect that those western states will receive a lot more moisture in the form of rain and snow than previous years. Washington State, Oregon, and California are getting that La Nina effect right now.
And whether or not you admit it, we're still coming out of the Little Ice Age that ended around the end of the Civil War. That's recent geological history and a FACT that can't be ignored.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
I grew up in the cold war and spent many of my military years in then West Germany as a deterrent to the Evil Empire. You are wrong if you don't think the threat was very real.
That propaganda (both sides used it, ours much milder) was for a purpose. I don't believe I was lied to, but most of what I remember just showed the sharp contrast between Americanism vs Communism.
I went to the former East Germany after the Wall came down. I've never seen such drab, dreary and miserable towns and villages in my life. Shoddy buildings and stinky cars. Living under Communism just sucked for those people.
We have had powerful influential business tycoons and industrialist that have shaped our country's economy since the Railroad Barons and up through the early 20th Century and continues today.
Until recently with the billionaires most didn't do anything except try to advance their own industry not mettle in politics so much except to get laws passed to benefit their companies and raise their profits. So I think they are still mostly interested in the economic side not in influencing how we think and not trying to change our political views and mindset.
Where that happens is in academia, our schools colleges and universities are the ones pushing a socialist leftist progressive agenda and bombarding the students day in and day out with their leftist ideology. Little room for debate and any opposition is frowned upon and can even effect their grades.
Look around and you can see the influence it has had on our younger generations and their refusal to hear any side of a debate except their own.
The USA is still #1 and the best country in the world. You can still achieve the 'American Dream' if you work hard enough at it.
Oscar Wilde said "With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone"
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
I am not done, and I will also offer solutions. Part of the whole solutions thing is agreeing on what the problems are.
Bingo.
Nobody can give a solution to a problem until they have first identified it. We all try, but it ends up being a guess that we try to sell to others as a perfect solution that we are absolutely certain about.
We have to spend our greatest efforts in understanding the question, and making all of those involved understand it, before agreement or compromise can be achieved. Once the question is understood by those who honestly want to solve it, the answers begin to reveal themselves in simple steps that can be strung together to form a whole solution.
The 'solution' is never a panacea - it is just something that works to benefit most of the people, most of the time...for a while. It can be tweaked along the way, to include more people, but we finally tweak until it is broke again, and must reform our methods and goals.
We struggle mightily to find the right words and labels to define what our problems really are, and the most corrupt among us fan the flames of confusion by creating new definitions, twisting the rules, and using inaccurate labels to frustrate the process of understanding the question, and further a corrupt agenda..
Conservatives/Republicans do have significant investment in think tank intellectual groups like The Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity. If these groups have any influence on university curriculum, I don't know. Im ignorant of the funding and curriculum processes for colleges and universities.
Big Chief-- That was Soviet style communism... another society run by elites at the expense of the commoners where loyalty to the political party was everything. Nobody on this thread has advocated for that in any way. I am sure there are many lessons we can learn from them on what not to do. Blind loyalty to a political party is one of them.
Bisley-- There comes a point in a discussion where we need to use more concise terminology so we both know what the hell we are talking about. It is not an attempt to confuse-- quite the opposite... it is an attempt to clarify.
If some dude gets on the General Firearms Forum asking what kind of "bullet" he needs for his "45", he will be bombarded with a whole lot more questions before any of us can understand what the hell he is asking and give him a proper answer. If his response is that we are too hung up on definitions and are trying to confuse him... he is doing himself no favors.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
So what were you taught in the 1980s you consider 'Lies'?
I was already in the Army in the 70s. So how did the curriculum change?
You have done good for yourself and family with your business by working hard and grinding on. Is that system so bad?
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
The lie is that we are a purely capitalist society and that socialism is bad. The truth is that we have always had one form of socialism or another since the founding of the country and that since the 1930's, we took a much bigger jump off the socialism cliff-- another lie. People act like it doesn't exist in our country.
The system is ok, but it is not sustainable.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
We have discussions on health care... how Obamacare is socialism and that we need to go "back" to the free market. I am no fan of Obamacare at all. Really. But let us have an honest discussion-- even before Obamacare, 1/3 of the population was on socialized government insurance already and because of government intervention, the health care market is nothing close to being a free market.
We need to acknowledge the socialism that already exists in our society before we can even begin to identify solutions. I doubt there are very many people that would want to go to a purely capitalist system so the only reasonable solution is to look at some socialistic solutions. But when you bring that up.... wow! Everyone is screaming Soviet communism.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
There is huge difference in this system and the system 30 years ago. I live in a working class suburb of a big metropolitan area. Similar if not identical to the one I grew up in. The 1970's subdivision had houses that housed single families of three to four people on average with almost all in the process of home ownership. Fast forward to this current subdivision. Almost all the houses are rentals, some appearing to contain as many as ten or more occupants. Average home size is three bedroom dwellings. I can tell how many occupants by the vehicle count as well as street traffic. It's also obvious that not all occupants of all dwellings are related.
Interest rates in the 1970's averaged 13% or so. Anyone know why current rates are kept so artificially low? I do, and in one of Alpha's post part of the reason was addressed in his points about bubbles. The other reason is to control labor costs.
Anyone have any idea how many people they see at the grocery store have 40 hour a week jobs there? Anyone know where our commercial air lines are maintained?
I could go on, but too much typing hurts my head. Being insulated from reality doesn't mitigate its existence. Yea Im fortunate and have a decent job and a good life. I also have an adolescent son. The future is important.
The lie is that we are a purely capitalist society and that socialism is bad. The truth is that we have always had one form of socialism or another since the founding of the country and that since the 1930's, we took a much bigger jump off the socialism cliff-- another lie. People act like it doesn't exist in our country.
The system is ok, but it is not sustainable.
Semantics. You could just as easily say that we have always had some form of capitalism.
I could just as easily point out that what you label a lie is just you asserting that someone else (unspecified) has asserted something that you contend is a lie, so that you can then assert 'the truth' to the question you want to answer. It's BS, and we have all engaged in it, because we try to offer solutions before we understand the questions that need to be agreed upon, first.
It gets back to what I wrote in my last post, and you in your post, previous to my last one. When we try to offer solutions to a question that we don't completely understand, we guess, or extrapolate from what we wish or hope the truth is. Doing so turns the question into something that we do understand - politics, but not necessarily problem solving.
You and Alf continue to pile on the proof that this country has a severe problem. Everybody gets that, whether they blame it on capitalism, socialism, elite theory, or the hybrid of the three. Why continue to beat a dead horse, when it doesn't take us down the path of finding solutions?
The problem is more or less defined. All we really have not settled is who to blame, and when it all went wrong. So now we need to ask the questions that, once understood, will reveal a pathway to solving the problem. Politics can solve the problem, but only if the questions have been understood and agreed upon between the opposing factions, before negotiations begin. If one party resists understanding the questions, the other party has nobody to negotiate with, and the chaos continues until everyone gives up and does something stupid that changes the argument to something less productive, but easier to participate in.
Bob wants to go into politics and do good things for the country. In order for people to vote for him, he needs to get his name out there. That takes money. Poor people do not have the kind of money needed to finance what it takes to have a winning campaign these days so he needs to find him some rich people. A rich person is rich for a reason. They aren't cutting those checks altruistically. They spend that cash to make more cash. Some things are getting done: Rich donors select to support candidates that best represent their interests. Rich donors convince candidates to take up their interests as a condition of their support. Rich donors give cash as a way to have a seat at the table in order to represent their interests once they are elected.
This leaves us with rich people being over represented in our government. While I do feel it is important that they have a voice in our country, I feel that their influence is currently too high. The solution is to either amend the constitution to limit that influence or find a constitutional way to limit that influence.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
I would only support term limits if the influence of lobbyists and corporations was limited. As is, term limits would make the problem even worse because it puts the politician in the position where they are going to be looking for a job when their term is up. How better to find a new job than to do political favors for some huge corporation while in office?
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
The constitution was intentionally set up to allow amendment. I'd like to believe the process exclusive of anything frivolous, but I'm not a lawyer and can't verify that conclusively.
You and Alf continue to pile on the proof that this country has a severe problem. Everybody gets that, whether they blame it on capitalism, socialism, elite theory, or the hybrid of the three. Why continue to beat a dead horse, when it doesn't take us down the path of finding solutions?
My apologies Bisley. Some of my posts were directed to some of the other participants in this thread to hopefully offer clarification on some concepts and some of the positions that I am taking.
I would personally conclude that corruption of the political process has placed us in a situation where the interests of our citizens are not being properly addressed. I have also concluded that the vast majority of our elected officials are part of the problem and not the solution.
Solutions? Get the money out of politics one way or another. I find that the biggest threat. After that, I believe that the problem of an unhealthy level of income inequality (that will put all of us in danger) will begin to resolve itself.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
We have discussions on health care... how Obamacare is socialism and that we need to go "back" to the free market. I am no fan of Obamacare at all. Really. But let us have an honest discussion-- even before Obamacare, 1/3 of the population was on socialized government insurance already and because of government intervention, the health care market is nothing close to being a free market.
We need to acknowledge the socialism that already exists in our society before we can even begin to identify solutions. I doubt there are very many people that would want to go to a purely capitalist system so the only reasonable solution is to look at some socialistic solutions. But when you bring that up.... wow! Everyone is screaming Soviet communism.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
We have discussions on health care... how Obamacare is socialism and that we need to go "back" to the free market. I am no fan of Obamacare at all. Really. But let us have an honest discussion-- even before Obamacare, 1/3 of the population was on socialized government insurance already and because of government intervention, the health care market is nothing close to being a free market.
We need to acknowledge the socialism that already exists in our society before we can even begin to identify solutions. I doubt there are very many people that would want to go to a purely capitalist system so the only reasonable solution is to look at some socialistic solutions. But when you bring that up.... wow! Everyone is screaming Soviet communism.
Health insurance has several problems. Tort reform is needed put the brakes on the outlandishly high payouts for alleged and real medical malpractice lawsuits. And the drug companies need their sweetheart no bid contracts with the government cancelled and true competition for drugs and services put in play. Same for drug prices; there's a lot of mercenary drug companies milking people dry on high drug costs, much higher than what is needed to recoup the development costs.
Health insurance should follow pretty much the same guidelines as auto insurance. A safe driver that has no accidents and no DUI arrests should not have to pay the same rates as people who are habitually pulled over for speeding and reckless driving, or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. And that is the way it should be with health insurance, and used to be that way before the ACA got passed. High health risks should not be paying the same rates as healthy people who try to take care of themselves. I know that sounds cruel, but it is still fair.
Social Security has been likened to socialism; I can tell you for a fact the program is NOT socialist in nature even though it looks that way. IT IS A PONZI SCHEME, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. The government prosecutes Ponzi Schemes when someone in the public does it, but exempts themselves. Anyone calling Social Security socialism is woefully uninformed.
Medicare is supported by workers who pay into the system, like Social Security, and is really close to, if not in fact, a Ponzi Scheme. Medicaid is straight up socialism.
IF you want examples of socialist programs passed by Congress and Presidents, then here are a few, in no particular order.
TVA-Tennessee Valley Authority --- Oddly, this is the ONLY government program that I'm aware of that actually makes money and competes directly with private enterprise, except for the Fed Gov owned dams out West.
CCC-Civilian Conservation Corps
NRA-National Recovery Act, also as National Industrial Recovery Act
LBJs Great Society Program, a set of government social and domestic programs initiated by LBJ, and there were ulterior motives behind every one of them.
Federal Flood insurance program
Federal insurance for high probability of hurricane damage along the coasts.
I'm sure you can come up with some more. And I can also assure you that IF you read the Constitution, then you see that they are not supported in the Constitution in the Enumerated Powers of the government, whackadoodle partisan judge(s) decisions notwithstanding.
Now I enter into the territory where they be dragons. Since 1973 and Roe v. Wade, there have been approximately 60,000,000 abortions in the U.S. That is 60,000,000 future taxpayers that were eliminated from the system, and why Social Security and Medicare deductions from worker's checks keep increasing. That means 60 MILLION workers that would have been paying into the systems. And why these Ponzi schemes are failing. Along with putting both funds in the general government fund instead of kept separate as they used to be. Congress passed a law to co-mingle those funds into the general fund so they'd have more money to spend.
Some folks know these things, some don't, and it's some of that stuff that needs to be talked about.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
Im currently uniformed about LBJ's great society. I do intend to read up on it in the future.
I have read a bit about the FDR administration. Over the course of three different books, I got the inescapable idea that they were literally groping in the dark to find anything to prevent masses of Americans from starving to death. At the time some members of his administration did have some maybe undeserved confidence in themselves, but in retrospect I think groping in the dark is a fair characterisation. This does seem to be a vast improvement over using lethal force to remove the Bonus Army from the Whitehouse lawn. That seems to be the total effort expended by the Hoover administration.
This whole groping anology brings me to the ACA. I think that no matter how good someone's health is or how well they take care of themselves, good health is a temporary condition. I also think that health care is in a current state of crisis. This brings me to the most deaded part of the ACA the mandate and back to another small 'D' democratic administration groping for a solution? Or since we all agree the government is corrupt, was something more going on here? I honestly don't know. I do know that for nearly everyone with very few exceptions good health is temporary.
Social Security and other automatic payroll deduction programs are easy play chests for corrupt politicians. I'd like to see a comparison of total monies collected annually to that of annual lobby money collected including money promised. Of course, thanks to Citizens United, that's not possible.
Who should the law serve? Everybody? The producers? The helpless? The criminal? The soldier? The church? Citizens only, or anybody who physically occupies ground within our borders? Business?
We are always being forced to accept a framework for negotiating solutions that the loudest politicians are spoon-feeding to us, through a complicit media. They tell us what the answers are, after they, themselves have created the questions. We have to revisit the framework for solving problems, so that the voters actually understand the questions that they want their politicians to answer - not just responding to a 'stacked deck' that was created by lawyers who 'made their bones' by picking juries that would free the guilty. Which party they claim to represent is irrelevant, because they will do their magic for anyone who can pay.
Obviously, the law should be applied to everyone, but with the clear understanding that it cannot possibly benefit everyone, equally. There will be winners and losers, with any law passed, or any existing law that is enforced, regardless of how well-intentioned it may have been. Every law benefits one person, while hindering another. The question is whether this is fair, and whether any other system would be more fair.
Originally, very smart people determined that the law had to benefit the majority, to have any fairness at all. There was always a possibility (actually, a likelihood, these days), that 50.1% would agree with a particular law or premise, and 49.9% would disagree with it. When that happens, the balance can be tipped (temporarily) by radicals creating tumultuous events, especially when there is a sensationalist media. If the media has it's own agenda, it's even worse.
So, while understanding just one of the questions is vital to solving one problem, but it can be the first stone in a foundation for understanding other questions, so that simple solutions can be found for them. For over 200 years, everyone accepted that the Constitution provided a sufficient framework for negotiating solutions.Over time, opportunistic politicians have minimized that premise, and are replacing it, clandestinely, with a framework that nobody is focused on. They have, and are still, changing the rules, while the people sleep.
Elitism, in a hundred different flavors, has ruled the world, since recorded history. Whether by royalty, popes, or warrior kings, elitists have been controlling governments everywhere, forever.The USA was founded as the first serious attempt to prevent that, and made great strides, thanks to its first president, who refused 'royal' status, after winning a revolution to oust it. Fast forward to now, and we find that we have been losing that battle, by increments, ever since, because the people no longer understand the questions, and the scholars no longer believe in the philosophical principles that took centuries to perfect..
60 million tax payers, or 30 million tax payers, and 30 million drains on society. It ain’t a straight 60. No way, no how.
Based on the domographics of the individuals taking advantage of said services I'd guess closer to at least 20/40 split in favor of the drains and the fact that it is usually people I'll equipped to be parents that take that root.
Now into an ever so slightly less controversial topic, if less people paying in are a problem, I wonder if Mike would be ok letting in 60 million additional immigrants legally to make up the difference? We don't have to pay to educate them and they're not eligible for as many social services so much cheaper overall. We could do it over say 10 years and put similar restrictions to existing legal immigrants, just up the quotas or whatever a bunch.
You both failed to grasp the significance of LBJs Great Society programs and their effects that were significantly enhanced by the building upon those programs, and instituting new ones. Your grasp of U.S. history would appear to be lacking significantly in that area. I LIVED it, and you have failed to either study it or learn it on your own. That's on you 100%. Let's just say that those programs made it a lot easier for future generations, INCLUDING YOUR OWN, to be born tired and not get rested yet. Before the LBJ Great Society people had to work for a living to have food, shelter, and clothing. Let that tiny insignificant fact sink into your heads.
And Alpha, you should listen closer to your Democratic politicians. They are against the wall on the Southern border for one very significant reason, and a few, like Nancy Pelosi and others, have actually gone on record in public and voiced it. That reason is, "Who will pick our produce and do the other jobs that Americans won't do?" to paraphrase that old dingbat Nancy Pelosi. Sounds a lot like "Who will pick our cotton and be servants in our households?" voiced in the not so distant past, doesn't it! The people saying that crap back then were Democrats AND Republicans, btw. Bone up on American History. Your lack of knowledge is showing.
And those ignorant immigrants you want to bring in to do all those things put a drain of about $60,000 a year on the system when they hook up to all the services the government is REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THEM. Do your homework and stop being a freakin' troll.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
I didn’t fail a thing. This is simple math. Out of 60 million people, there is ZERO chance 100% of those people born will be productive.
Ah, but you DID make my point, because the flip side of that coin is, IT IS A 100% ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY WITH NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT 100% OF THOSE 60 MILLION PEOPLE CAN NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO SOCIETY BY WORKING. They're..........ummmmmmm.............. DEAD! See how that works.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
LBJ's 'Great Society' experiment was at least as controversial as Obamacare. It, too, was based on yet another misunderstood question, and it, too was arguably foisted upon the majority, by a president and legislators of both parties.
The question that needed understanding, then, was whether the 100 years since Abraham Lincoln had freed the slaves, by presidential proclamation and prompted by a perceived battlefield victory, was enough time for a radical social change to be accepted by those in opposition to it. The correct emotional answer was obviously, 'hell, yes!' But, the question of whether the federal government should (or could) dictate morals to the individual states, was a legal question that had little standing within the existing framework... (the Constitution).
However, controversy still existed, because the question of whether the states could be forced to free slaves was not solved by politicians debating legal and philosophical principles, within the existing framework of the Constitution.
Regardless of whether everyone agrees on whether a civil war was justified, the existing framework for debate and negotiations was abandoned by the politicians, and it did not return until the battlefield victor had achieved everything it desired. The rights of the individual states, among them being the question of slavery, had not been completely settled since the first American politicians began debating it in 1787, when they codified the federal law of the land with the Constitution. It was debated over and over again, during the 73 years before Abraham Lincoln was elected and Jefferson Davis led all but one of the states rights advocates out of the Congress, and down a path that led Lincoln to institute a military solution.
Southern Congressmen did not begin returning until the middle of 1868, by which time the Congress had ratified the amendments that could not previously be agreed upon in the full Congress. Lincoln's death had resulted in a vengeful reconstruction of the Union, with the southern states being stripped of its ability to rebuild their economies, and insured that they would be resentful for generations. Only the devastation visited upon the Confederacy's economy and manpower prevented it from rising again, in 'righteous indignation.'
I don't mention any of the above as a referendum on slavery, or to argue whether Lincoln's actions violated the Constitution. I mention it to demonstrate that when politicians cannot agree on what is moral, or even whether morality is within the purview of government, the radicals will gain prominence among the voters and it won't necessarily be based on philosophical principles, but merely in support of their own agendas.
LBJ's 'Great Society' was a political move that was made possible by an emotional desire to revere a two fallen presidents, and whether or not it was done for moral reasons, it ignored the problems in its practical application and the unexpected consequences that will always follow, when historical context is not taken into account. It was one of the beginning events in the radicalism that eventually destroyed LBJ's presidential aspirations and empowered the minority of public opinion to dominate the majority.
The result, to date, of this little bit of American history, is that a government that intended to be pragmatic is now asserting moral imperatives, through political correctness.
I watched a biographical tv show about John Trudell the other night. He had some interesting things to say about events on the Pine Ridge reservation in the early 1970's. He used the phrase corporate state. In and of itself not an attention getter. What got my attention was when he used it. (Early 1970's)
….I firmly believe we are here and have been for some time. Voting on the federal level is doing nothing. We have stagnated to a point where both sides simply try to overturn the previous party's policies or they campaign on promises to remove policies and then renege after elected. Real corrective actions are never attempted by either party. Both parties pathetically attempt to correct symptoms to pander to the base rather than institute potential cures.
I finally took the time to read this entire thread. There has been some awesome posts/points, and historical context; but I have concluded my first posted observation is still true, in my opinion of course. Voting is not doing what was intended, the loud minorities are gaining control, and liberty is eroding under the guise of security. Social, environmental, and safety, to name few bigs.
Bisley - After reading your posts and many others, I simply do not share your optimism that voting will roll anything back.
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.
Replies
― Douglas Adams
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Interest rates in the 1970's averaged 13% or so. Anyone know why current rates are kept so artificially low? I do, and in one of Alpha's post part of the reason was addressed in his points about bubbles. The other reason is to control labor costs.
Anyone have any idea how many people they see at the grocery store have 40 hour a week jobs there? Anyone know where our commercial air lines are maintained?
I could go on, but too much typing hurts my head. Being insulated from reality doesn't mitigate its existence. Yea Im fortunate and have a decent job and a good life. I also have an adolescent son. The future is important.
― Douglas Adams
― Douglas Adams
I have read a bit about the FDR administration. Over the course of three different books, I got the inescapable idea that they were literally groping in the dark to find anything to prevent masses of Americans from starving to death. At the time some members of his administration did have some maybe undeserved confidence in themselves, but in retrospect I think groping in the dark is a fair characterisation. This does seem to be a vast improvement over using lethal force to remove the Bonus Army from the Whitehouse lawn. That seems to be the total effort expended by the Hoover administration.
This whole groping anology brings me to the ACA. I think that no matter how good someone's health is or how well they take care of themselves, good health is a temporary condition. I also think that health care is in a current state of crisis. This brings me to the most deaded part of the ACA the mandate and back to another small 'D' democratic administration groping for a solution? Or since we all agree the government is corrupt, was something more going on here? I honestly don't know. I do know that for nearly everyone with very few exceptions good health is temporary.
Social Security and other automatic payroll deduction programs are easy play chests for corrupt politicians. I'd like to see a comparison of total monies collected annually to that of annual lobby money collected including money promised. Of course, thanks to Citizens United, that's not possible.
Im out of time for now.⏰
I think maybe whats being asked for by the voice of the collective disenchanted, is just a bit more favorable swing of the pendulum.
Billy_Budd
I don't think anyone here has advocated Marxism in the least. Only recommended the reading of it.
― Douglas Adams
― Douglas Adams
Bisley - After reading your posts and many others, I simply do not share your optimism that voting will roll anything back.
Adam J. McCleod
We have been dealing with similar issues/problems for over 200 yrs.
I copied several of the quotes but left them at school. I'll post some tomorrow. Or just Google them.