Economy explained in less than 3 minutes

Well said Mark. Interestingly, I read the "controversial" postings on this site and personally knowing many of the folks that have stated their diverse opinions it is easy to see that an individual that doesn't know these folks would think that fists are about to be flying when in reality when they get together on the dock they have great times and enjoy each others company. We are truly a family and like any family have conflicting opinions at times but it doesn't mean we don't :love each other. :thup
 
Wow, haven't seen a political discussion on here for a while. The only problem that I have with this discussion is that we're always arguing between the right and the left, but the leaders on both the right and left are lying to us. They're lying to us because we can't handle the truth. We borrow 40% of everything we spend every day. That means that we could only sustain 60% of our federal lifestyle if we were paying our own way. If we took all of the income of the "rich", we still couldn't sustain our lifestyle. If we cut all entitlement programs for the poor, we still couldn't sustain our lifestyle.

Until everyone including the wealthy and the middle class pay more in taxes and the entire budget including entitlements for older citizens is reduced, we can't sustain our lifestyle.

I'm tired of the Democrats pretending that increasing the taxes on the wealthy will solve the problem and I'm tired of the Republicans pretending that cutting a few liberal programs will solve the problem. It is going to take taxes on everyone but the poor and spending reductions in all areas to balance the budget, but no one has the guts to say it. If we won't face the truth and let them manipulate us into right and left arguments, we'll never solve the problem.
Lyle
 
Well said, Lyle!

One other thing that has not been mentioned thus far WRT how people vote is that far too often candidates and parties bundle cultural issues together with economic issues. I would probably vote for Republican economic policies at least part of the time if that were not the case.

Warren
 
The trouble is today's biased news reports, which are slanted both ways, so when you see the truth you can't recognize it. I wish there was some way to get unbiased journalism where you could believe the numbers. I'm a liberal and think Bob Reich is correct; his explanation seems to fit the situation as I see it. But I don't know that for sure.
 
On the bundling of issues in politics, yes they do bundle. There are two mainstream agendas in U.S. politics, Democrat and Republican. Each group bundles their agenda, or goals, with the critical topics of the time. This is done to accomplish the things that most people would never agree to. Weather that be liberal or conservative.
The hot topics like economy, gay marriage, health care, housing, 2nd amendment rights, etc..., are used to pool voters into a voting block. The media uses these voting blocks to sell their product and potentially effect their agenda. I would call them the third party as they have about as much control even if it isn't actual authority.
We, the people, are driven to have discussions like this that don't really get anyone anywhere because the topics we are discussing are all about perspective. It is as futile as arguing religion.
I think the real point in all this, is that our time would be better spent discussing how to control our elected government the way we want rather than how they (the parties) want. Everyone is selling us the idea that we must focus on these certain topics because 'that is what is important'.
This has gone on for so long that we are now at a point where people are arguing social politics when the country is on the brink of economic collapse. There is one thing for certain we can all agree on. If the economy completely dumps, none of us will have anything and there will be no money or social benefits to be given by the government. All I would ask anyone on this upcoming election is are you willing to potentially piss it all down the tube to win politically.
The center is probably 75% of this country and the the 25% is dividing us. Very frustrating! Sorry for the long post.
 
wesocec,

I think you got every bit of that right. On the bright side I think many more citizens are now willing to do as you suggest and take a pass on the social issues until the economic issues are adequately addressed. At least I hope that is the case.

Harper
 
Harper,
I am starting to see it too. I hope it is enough. Maybe we can get to a place where most people realize that everything good comes through sacrifice. I am probably hoping for to much!

Cecil
 
With all due respect, I think what you say makes sense from an academic perspective but is sort of unrealistic. In "real life" social and economic issues are inextricably related. On what social issues should we "take a pass?" What "sacrifices" are we willing to make now? I dare say we are all willing to do those things right now that affect others . ... those that affect us, well maybe way down the line in twenty or thirty years. . Which one of us will work four days instead of five so someone else won't get laid off?. Which one of us will buy American when it's cheaper at Walmart? Which one of the "well off" will willingly pay a little more in taxes so our country can pay it's bills. Which one of us will demand that we stop spending so much for wars fought by someone elses children and bases around the world that we don't need and can't afford. Who among us will demand we lower the speed limit to help get us off foreign oil? You're right about one thing for sure. If this boat goes down, we all, rich and poor and middle class, young and old, sick and healthy, right,left, and center, will all go with it.

MartyP
 
On what social issues should we "take a pass?"
Click to expand...
I have a HUGE list. Where would you like me to start?

Shall we begin w/ welfare, food stamps etc? How about drug "treatment" programs?

I dare say we are all willing to do those things right now that affect others . ... those that affect us, well maybe way down the line in twenty or thirty years.
Click to expand...

Like the coming insolvency of Social Security? So how about I no longer contribute so in 20 yrs I can use my money on myself & my family? Or paying less in taxes overall, so I can do the same?








But this is not the place. I gotto go to work (seriously, I do) now so a huge portion of my check can be redistributed to the above "worthy" causes; otherwise our entire society will "crumble". :roll:

We are a capitalist society. The more we move left, towards socialism the worst our society will become. Look at the U.S.S.R. Why work, why be productive? That's hard. Why work hard; someone ELSE will and I can reap the benefits of their hard work. :roll: We're back to M. Thatcher.
 
Here is a different spin from a conservative website http://www.businessinsider.com/the-government-is-about-to-jump-the-shark-2011-6?op=1. It took longer than 3 minutes for me to read, but it made more sense, imho.

I find it interesting that Mr. Reich begins at 1980, when he knows the ERTA Kemp-Roth tax cut was passed in 1981 and the TRA was passed in 1986. Would this have anything to do with why the economy grew?

The promises made by the government must be kept, but serious reform is needed going forward in our entitlement programs. I think it is time for Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor to get back to doing the people's business. Let's just implement a flat tax across the board, abolish the IRS, call it a day and go boating!
 
Let me clarify what I meant by sacrifice. I wasn't referring to sacrifice on a political, social, or economical level but more on a personal level. Meaning personal sacrifice in life is what usually gets you to the place you are trying to get. The idea that 'nothing is free" comes to mind. We work, we get. We get, we spend. We spend, the economy grows. I think it should be a pretty simple progression at best.
To get to the point where you are earning at the level of your desire, you sacrifice. I.E. school, taking a job that offers experience with little pay vs the job that pays more but doesn't get me the experience I need to progress. This is more the type of sacrifice I am referring. When we throw in social entitlement to this mix, it seems that there is a short circuit it this logical progression. Now, I am getting what I didn't work for. My concern shifts to ensuring this entitlement keeps coming. My comfort level is most likely better than when my performance and experience were directly in balance with my pay. So, at this point is it logical to think a person would vote for more social entitlement or more opportunity for better employment? This answer to this question is going to differ by individual prospective but the point is accurate.
Once a people starts voting themselves raises/entitlements, it seems unlikely their focus can return to doing harder work for the same or less pay. Congress is a perfect example of this.
 
I think Mom will be here shortly so, as my only post to this thread, let me repeat what some wise person said:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually we will run out of rich peoples' money... :roll:

Charlie
 
pdoe":3iqe0y7u said:
<stuff clippped>
I find it interesting that Mr. Reich begins at 1980, when he knows the ERTA Kemp-Roth tax cut was passed in 1981 and the TRA was passed in 1986. Would this have anything to do with why the economy grew?
<more stuff clipped>
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. If we assume that had something to do with the economic growth, can we then also the attribute the recession (the largest since the great depression) to the Bush II tax cuts? I don't think so. I think it's VERY hard to make a clear cut correlation between economic growth and any particular governmental policies. Economies are generally cyclic. You can pretty much pick any time in history and pick a random policy correlation the matches one's point of view.

I think the bigger issues are what do we really want/need government to do and what's the appropriate balance between compassion for others and expectations of self reliance. It's easy to look at a "lazy" person and say they should work harder etc. It's more difficult to admit that not everyone gets the same start/fair shake or even appropriate parenting and hence may not have the same odds for success. It's even more difficult to turn our backs on people who are disadvantaged for reasons clearly beyond their control - (say for example the kids of those individuals on welfare). I personally realize that I am extremely fortunate to have had good parents who put a premium on education. While I do work hard, that's mostly a reflection of what my parents taught me. Hence, I feel good about paying a higher proportion of my taxes than those who perhaps didn't have as good an upbringing or who perhaps weren't fortunate enough to have parents who could pay for college. I'm really lucky to have what I have and the be where I'm at and I'm happy to live in a country where (for now at least) we have a progressive tax rate.
 
I'm okay with a progressive tax structure, as long as it is fair. I just suggested a flat tax because it is quicker to implement, leaving more time for boating :wink:.
 
"To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Mike, am I hearing Mom's footsteps coming down the hall?
Lyle
 
Back
Top