Re: Game of zeroes.

July 29, 2008

Actually I do know about Social Security and how it works. It was established in the 1920's and 1930's as a retirement insurance for those who could not ensure their own retirements or were left destitute in their old age due to illness, no family to look after them, etc. The retirement age was set at 65, at a time where the life expectancy was barely that. The money collected from the tax was mostly spent on other things, a trend that continues to this day.

People came to think that Social Security WAS their retirement package and that they would have the same standard of living with it as they did before. Aren't they in for a surprise when they try to draw from it. The problem is that they didn't save on their own like they were supposed to. SS wasn't supposed to be their only means of retirement income, just a guaranteed minimum so they didn't die in the streets. This has lead to a heavy burden on the system. Since there is no "lock box" and there has been no investment of the monies all these years,heavy tax increases will be needed to meet its funding obligations. That will be a increasing drain on workers and taxpayers, and thus the economy.

There are plans that work much better. Even in the 1960's under Kennedy, it was realized that SS as it is was unsustainable in the long run. Options were suggested but shot down for political reasons, though Kennedy may have made some changes had he not been killed. Chile and other nations and some localities in the US invest their retirement funds in the market and have returns much greater than would have been realized just by taxation and pay as you go. Yes, the market is risky, but the more people you have invested in it, particularly if they have the attendant education, corruption is less likely. I don't mean people should pick their own stocks, but rather a full market mutual fund type of investment balanced by bonds and geared toward long term growth and income at retirement. This could be done and something like it should have been done decades ago.

As for lack of unemployment benefits compared to Europe, that is partly true. In Europe, the benefits are often so generous that people choose to not work and live on the state. Word is they can live quite well. In the US, in 2005 we spent $620 billion over 85 programs aimed at low income people. That is about $16,000 per person in poverty. A family of 3 could therefore get around $50,000 in benefits, which is well above the poverty line for them and is close to or exceeds the national average income, depending on the year who is calculating that average. No, the welfare system isn't pleasant, but it isn't supposed to be.

It does make things hard for those who actually need it to survive, though. A lot of disability is covered by SS, which is a drain on SS that it wasn't meant to handle. SS was a retirement program only. The disability benefits, which are needed, should come from a separate program. The reason it doesn't is because that would be a large program that would take direct taxes to cover. Doing so would be politically unpopular, so it is better to put it in SS.

It is a complicated issue but the fact remains that SS is soon to be insolvent. Very soon it is going to take major tax increases to meet its obligations. The US is already heavily taxed and the economy, shaky as it is, can't handle much more. Again, this could have been easily solved decades ago, but politicians being politicians, wouldn't address the problem.

In a message dated 7/28/2008 11:34:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I'll come right out and say it: your complaint about social security tax is the whine of someone that's not actually looked at the details of what that's all about, and how it is paid out (or at least supposed to be: the government has been borrowing against that fund for too long, and it will catch up with us eventually) compared to what's paid. Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 29, 2008

You would think so, but most people don't read them. Those that do don't realize that their employer pays a matching amount. That was what politicians counted on when they established withholding taxes. They knew most people wouldn't pay attention and so wouldn't notice when the taxes went up, or how much they were actually paying. Get rid of that and make people actually have to write checks for their taxes and their would be a major uproar across the country.

But you're right. People did come to think Social Security was their retirement plan and spent their money on bigger houses and cars and all that. Big surprises coming for them.

In a message dated 7/28/2008 11:58:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

All anyone has to do is look at their pay stub. It's all listed out for them in black and white. Administrator Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 29, 2008

I'll come right out and say it: your complaint about social security tax is the

whine of

someone that's not actually looked at the details of what that's all about, and

how it is

paid out (or at least supposed to be: the government has been borrowing against

that

fund for too long, and it will catch up with us eventually) compared to what's

paid. You

see, there's an upper limit to who pays the fixed percentage for social

security, but there's

also a corresponding fixed limit as to the maximum that's paid back: just

because

someone that's making a million dollars only has the first $102K used for the

amount,

doesn't mean that they get more out of social security on payout than someone

that is

paying on a total of $102K income. If you've been continuously making more than

$102K

income before retiring, and you've not been investing into 401K plans or

anything similar,

then you've been a complete idiot: you can't collect the social security that

you've been

paying into for that $102K that's taxed and have a hope of your finances making

sense,

unless (maybe) everything is paid for in full before retirement. But, you see,

the problem

with that comes up with the rising house/property values and all the assessed

taxes: even

if you start out with what you think is enough, you can be taxed right out into

the back of

a car, because it is actually quite possible for assessed property taxes to

eventually exceed

whatever the mortgage payment you had on a house, before you paid it off.

This same sort of thing applies to unemployment: there's only so much FICA you

pay in

percentage, and then at some income level, you pay nothing more into it, but, if

you're laid

off, and you've been making a lot more than the upper FICA limit, it won't help

you,

because the unemployment checks (which vary from state to state as to amount)

will be

such that you'll collect the same unemployment check as someone that makes any

amount

less than you did, that happened to max out at whatever that income/FICA limit

is. Having

been in the unemployment situation far more often and longer than I've wanted

to, and

having made decent wages compared to most (when gainfully employed: I spent 10.5

months delivering pizza out of desperation, and that was NOT gainfully employed,

but

more accurately painfully employed) and you find out you're not getting much

more

unemployment than someone working a much lower pay level job, well, it's very

frustrating. I think I'd rather pay that FICA for the extra amount, if it meant

that I'd

actually have some semblance of being able to pay my bills when I find myself

attempting

to exist with unemployment. For those in here not in the US, the US doesn't

have nearly as

much of a safety net for unemployment as many European countries do, for time,

or for

monetary value.

>

> I have mentioned on here several times that democracy is a game of zeroes:

> the side with the most zeroes after its number wins the election. This

> article makes very clear how politicians take that into account. In the

highlighted

> part, note that there is a " doughnut hole " around a large number of " high

> income voters " and that the proposed Social Security tax increases would only

> affect 3% of voters. They can afford to lose the vote of some of that 3%

> because they will surely attract more than that with the new handouts.

>

> What I find interesting is them saying that the " it is fair the middle class

> be taxed, etc. " It is interesting therefore that Social Security taxes the

> first $102,000 of annual income at 12% (6% straight from the paycheck with

the

> employer paying another 6%). If they were serious about helping the working

> poor an middle class, they would NOT tax people making under $102,000. That

> would remove a 12% drain on the economy and productivity overnight and would

> allow pay to be increased. Even a 4% pay increase would be a major boost and

> leave the company buckets of money to reinvest. It would also leave the

people

> with the option to invest on their own in 401k's and such, which is a better

> investment than SS anyway.

>

> It should also be noted that the article mentioned that most American

> workers aren't aware of how much they pay in SS and Medicare taxes, which is

often

> more than income tax. I'm sure if they knew, they'd be rather upset. But such

> is the joy of income tax withholding, the government's most brilliant idea

> to steal from the people within them even noticing.

>

> Anyway, here is the article.

>

July 29, 2008

" If they were serious about helping the working poor an middle class,

they would NOT tax people making under $102,000. That would remove a

12% drain on the economy and productivity overnight and would allow pay

to be increased. Even a 4% pay increase would be a major boost and

leave the company buckets of money to reinvest. It would also leave the

people with the option to invest on their own in 401k's and such, which

is a better investment than SS anyway. "

Most people don't invest anything. At both of my old jobs, we had 401K

accounts and were encouraged once a year to open one. Most people

were " making ends meet " and could not afford to contribute. By far, the

majority of these people who " could not make ends meet " were dual

income families with three deroom homes and two gas-gusling SUVS in

wealthy suburbs.

Interestingly, immigrants were inclined to take advantage of the 401K

opportunity. These were people who were had five or six people living

in one bedroom apartments while they got themselves on their feet.

" It should also be noted that the article mentioned that most American

workers aren't aware of how much they pay in SS and Medicare taxes,

which is often more than income tax. I'm sure if they knew, they'd be

rather upset. But such is the joy of income tax withholding, the

government's most brilliant idea to steal from the people within them

even noticing. "

All anyone has to do is look at their pay stub. It's all listed out for

them in black and white.

Administrator

July 29, 2008

The nature of the market is risk. You can't have profit or gain without risk.

Mutual funds and like investments are available in many types. You can choose a high risk/high return fund or a low risk/low return (but safer) package, as well as a middle of the road approach. The middle of the road approach would be the one best used for the investment program.

The current mortgage crisis is a combination of government intervention to "Solve" one problem, to prevent a needed recession on the other, and corrupt private interests taking advantages in the middle. In the 1990's, there was a "crisis" of certain people not being allowed to get home mortgages because they didn't meet the safeguard standards such as the ability to make a down payment, not having enough income to cover the monthly payments, etc. To "solve" the problem, instead of investigating to see if there was any wrongdoing on the part of those few lenders, the government ordered that standards be lowered or dropped completely.

Next came the tech bubble crisis. Instead of letting it happen, the government issued more money to prevent a recession. That extra money was snapped up by lenders who then encourages risky mortgages, even though there were warnings against it even then. Then came 9/11 and the money market was eased even more to further forestall the recession. Again, more risky mortgages were made.

Now, many banks and agencies couldn't handle the risk they had taken on, so the paper began to be shuffled around between hedge funds. The hedge funds knew how risky the paper was, but they could make a profit from it if they could get it before the bottom fell out. In addition, many of the people who got hurt by the mortgage crisis were "House flippers" people who bought houses to fix them up. They took the risky loans because they hoped to turn around and sell the house very quickly. When the housing market went soft, they couldn't and so many of those people got stuck with houses and high interest mortgages they couldn't afford and so began defaulting on them.

Now, the situation wouldn't be nearly so bad if the government got out of the way and let the recession happen. They keep trying to put off a necessary part of the business cycle and when it hits, it is going to hit hard and for a long time. Japan used the same policy we did back in the 1980's when their economy tanked. more than 20 years later, their economy still hasn't recovered fully. Had they let the recession happen up front, they would be booming again, or headed for the next natural recession, only to come out stronger on the other side again.

Now I agree that safeguards are necessary. The government has a couple of agencies that handle that. The FBI is supposed to be one of them, but much of their focus is now on chasing terrorists, so white collar crime is down their list of priorities. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is supposed to regulate and investigate corporate crime regarding the markets. However, it was severely cut under Clinton and hasn't been fully restored. That is another reason this risky trading went on unchecked.

Still, the greatest problem was the government overriding the industry's own protections, which they did purely for political gain. Fortunately for them, most people don't realize this and they are getting away with it, just like they knew they would.

Losers in capitalism only lose what they chose to risk. I myself have lost money in the markets taking risky investments, but I have made money too. By the same token, my forestry business is a risk. Something could happen that could damage the trees on my land and leave me in financial trouble for a while. I also have investment property that is costing me more than I really like because it should have been sold a couple of years ago, but the market went soft because of hurricanes, so there isn't much I can do about that but wait a little longer.

Now, taxes gains is a bad idea because it removes all incentive to improve by destroying the profit motive. There are many good articles out there explaining this. What a lot of people don't understand is that all profit doesn't go straight into the owner's pockets. Profit means expansion. That means more workers can be hired and probably at better wages. It also mean investment in new plant and equipment to become more efficient. Profit also means investors will take an interest in the company which means the company can grow more. A less efficient company either adapts, gets bought up, or fails.

Printing more money if a company fails leads to inflation. We are seeing that now in the US. The government by lowering interest rates, it effectively printing more money. More money chasing the same amount or fewer goods means the money is worth less, and thus inflation. That would be bad for the overall economy. This would also take away a company's incentive to improve because if it failed, it would still get paid.

These two combined would leave us with a situation like in the former Soviet Union. Industry there was horribly inefficient and very polluting. They used more raw materials per unit of production that the West did and they had a single steel mill in Siberia that produced more pollution than the entire steel industry in the US. The net result is that when the Soviet Union fell, Russia was decades behind the West with a much lower standard of living.

Cash money is essentially a unit of consumption. One gets paid cash based on the value of their labor. They can then exchange that cash for the things they need and want. The real problem isn't the market system, but again is government. The monetary system in the West has no physical basis, meaning there is no gold or other standard. The reason for that wasn't to allow the capitalist system to grow. The period following the US Civil War was a real boom time, with busts as well, that rivaled the last 15 years. So economic expansion wasn't the issue. The problem was that the Gold standard limit government expansion. With the money supply limited by a physical entity, government could only grow so large. Without it, government could grow without limit. Indeed, you can only have a bottomless socialist system with money based only on government fiat.

The economy might not be as large as it is now if we were on some kind of gold standard, but neither would be the government. Well, it could be, but the taxes would be much, much higher than they are now.

The best thing for the economy would be to rein in government spending. They keep talking about raising taxes, but that is hogwash. They can raise the taxes all they want, but the politicians will still spend more unless forced to live within their means. If government was made to live within its limits and only take a small amount of debt or none at all, save for in emergencies, we would be better off. If, at the same time, taxes were rearranged to encourage investment instead of taking on debt, we would also be better off.

I don't expect to see this happen though. The politicians like big government and the power it gives them. They are highly unlikely to try to rein it in.

As your present mortgages crisis shows, capitalism can only keep society working if state interventions against socially unacceptable outcomes are allowed and it is not pure ruthless nothing for the competition's losers.Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 29, 2008

>

> The money collected from

> the tax was mostly spent on other things, a trend that continues

to this

> day.

Yes, that happened here too.

> that they didn't save on their own like they were supposed to.

If it had been made risk free, they would have. It is in nobody's

personal interest to make risky investments where they can lose.

Safety always goes by avoiding the worst risk, not gambling on the

best offchance.

> a full market mutual

> fund type of investment balanced by bonds and geared toward long

term growth

> and income at retirement. This could be done and something like

it should

> have been done decades ago.

It could be done if a law is passed saying this: if the market goes

up, we will pocket the gains from the market and be grateful it has

worked, but if the market goes down, the government must print the

missing money so that we haven't been conned and left with nothing.

As your present mortgages crisis shows, capitalism can only keep

society working if state interventions against socially unacceptable

outcomes are allowed and it is not pure ruthless nothing for the

competition's losers. Once that principle is passed, social security

is inevitable + every politican who says otherwise is just playing

an unsustainable game to keep the workforce meek towards some short

term business interest opf the moment.

>

> As for lack of unemployment benefits compared to Europe, that is

partly

> true. In Europe, the benefits are often so generous that people

choose to not

> work and live on the state. Word is they can live quite well.

In Britain, work programmes for gaining experience or new skills,

where you are working for benefits instead of a wage, are easy to

get onto especially if you have any type of support need, while

properly paid jobs covered by the minimum wage are oppressively

competitive to get. You want a simple job watering mushrooms? -

hmmm, what is your experience, what vocational skills are you

certified in? and that process of impressing employers and

communicating smoothly that particularly aspies suffer with.

This situation being encouraged by the state, does not fit at all

with there being a financial crisis over the cost of SS. It saves

nothing for the government, it costs it. But it fits perfectly with

a deliberate government wish to save labour costs for big businesses

by getting us all used to low pay. In tandem with it, nothing has

been done to stop all the old industrial and mass production jobs

being shut down in Europe and exported to southeast Asian sweatshops

instead, then economists turn round + tell us we have to be

competitive against the low paid sweatshop workforce.

> No, the welfare system isn't pleasant, but it isn't

> supposed to be.

Question about the morality of government. Should life ever be

unpleasant for a reason that is not your fault? If so, how do you

then argue with a bully who says he is doing it to harden you + get

you used to the inevitability of someone else doing it? You end up

with no basis to fight for any needs recognition at all.

> It is a complicated issue but the fact remains that SS is soon to

be

> insolvent. Very soon it is going to take major tax increases to

meet its

> obligations.

Then the free-market money system will be insolvent. Money will have

to be replaced by units of consumption, that refer directly to the

quantity of goods consumed and services needed instead of being an

abstract number whose buying power can change.

July 30, 2008

" Chile and other nations and some localities in the US invest their

retirement funds in the market and have returns much greater than would

have been realized just by taxation and pay as you go. Yes, the market

is risky, but the more people you have invested in it, particularly if

they have the attendant education, corruption is less likely. I don't

mean people should pick their own stocks, but rather a full market

mutual fund type of investment balanced by bonds and geared toward long

term growth and income at retirement. This could be done and something

like it should have been done decades ago. "

This is easier said than done.

Before I get into a discussion on this, I think we need to accept one

premise: Most of the politicians out there don't real know much more

than the average person does about anything. They have a cabinet of

advisers, and they are pressured by lobbyists, and this is what puts

them a little bit in the know about things and slightly ahead of the

more dimwitted citizens, but not by much.

A typical discussion in a politician's chambers at its most

oversimplified terms would look like this:

Lobbyist: We have a problem.

Politician: What is it?

Lobbyist: We need to fund social security.

Politician: How do we do that?

Lobbyist: Well, we could take existing funds and put them in the

market. Invested properly, these funds would skyrocket in value and

accrue more interest than just sticking them in more traditional

holdings.

Politician: What are the risks?

Lobbyist: The market could go down. But if you had a good fund manager,

he could outperform the market.

Politician: I say we go for it. I'll draft the legislation for a House

and Senate Bill on the matter.

Sounds neat doesn't it?

There are just a few problems with this...

1) The investment strategy only works in good economic times. Example:

3 years ago I was informally advised to invest in Index funds by a

stock broker during a Business After Hours Chamber of Commerce meeting.

I couldn't go wrong, he said. It's an upward trending market he said.

Now for those of you who don't know what an Index Fund is, it is

essentially a fund that invests in stocks that are thought to be

representative of the ALL the stocks in the stock market. It is

believed that if the stock market goes up, so will your fund by an

identical value. Thus if the market goes up 20%, so does the worth of

my fund. Note that with most brokerage firms, these funds require a

FIVE YEAR COMMITMENT. As we know, the past year, the market has gone

down. So had I or the government invested in the type of mutual fund

you suggest , or nearly ANY mutual fund but precious metals,

energy, or Pacific Rim stock, the entire system would have LOST about

20% of its value and maybe as much as 35% in some cases.

2) According to investment strategist Bogle, there are very few

mutual fund managers who can beat the market. Generally speaking,

according to Bogle, the more a fund manager messes around with the

account, the worse of he or she does. Bogle, a very wealthy man, says

the best thing to do is take money and place it in a diversified

portfolio and leave it there long term and draw from it slowly as

though it were an annuity that paid out a little at a time.

3) On the one hand, the government knows what things like crop reports

look like and other things that will affect the market. Yet if you put

the government in a position of holding our investments, and ALSO is a

position of not using their own " insider information " to " time the

market " knowing full well the market is going to crash, it means you

have the government willfully and knowingly allowing the crash of the

market and all the public's money in it.

4) What does it tell our citizens if our government found that the only

safe investment was...say...Pacific Rim stocks like Chinese stocks and

Vietnamese stocks? And what would happen if we had loads of stocks

invested in China and we had to invade them in defense of Tiawan? The

government could hardly yank its money out of Pacific Rim stock before

the attack, because that would be using insider information, something

that is illegal for citizens to do, and it would tip off the Chinese

that something is up.

5) Let's say the government's appointed fund manager saw that there was

going to be a huge market swing and it decided to sell stocks in one

area and move it to another. Chances are, the government would have a

super-huge amount of stock. By making such a move, two things would

happen:

A) It would shake the stock market to its core, forcing all of Wall

Street's investers to readjust their portfolios, and this would

translate into global market swings.

and/or

There would be a gigantic amount of stock up for sale, forcing its

value to plummet because who in their right mind would WANT to buy it

if the government is engaging in a massive sell-off? Further, it would

fall to disproportionately low levels since there would be so much of

it out there waiting to be bought.

In essence, any time the government wanted to do a major sale, they

would render whatever they were selling worthless.

Whole companies would go belly-up, and if these companies were in

foreign countries, it could over-turn their economies, which would be

enough of an excuse for them to declare war on the US.

6) Bogle states that there ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why the average

American citizen needs an investment manger who serves as anything more

than a stock broker. He states that smart people invest by buying

everything in cash, including cars and houses if they can, financing at

minimum interest rates if the cannot, and investing in the market via

money market and mutual funds themselves. By cutting out middle-men

such as investment advisers, they save themselves trading fees and

other " loads. "

He states that the best bet would be for people to not worry about

social security, as it is so trivial as to be unimportant in terms of

the benefits people get out of it, and instead instruct themselves on

saving and investing and invest for themselves.

Bogle also states that most people are too lazy to do any of this

however.

My point: Having the government take our money NOW so that we can have

it back LATER is about the dumbest thing they ever came up with, and if

they invest our funds in the market they stand to lose it faster than I

could shred it if the money was given to me in one dollar bills. -And

this is even during an upswing in the market.

The whole proposal to invest Social Security monies in the stock market

on the part of US Senators and Representatives is hair-brained idea,

and perhaps now you can see how insanely ignorant and idiotic our

representatives are in that regard.

Administrator

July 30, 2008

" This situation being encouraged by the state, does not fit at all

with there being a financial crisis over the cost of SS. It saves

nothing for the government, it costs it. But it fits perfectly with

a deliberate government wish to save labour costs for big businesses

by getting us all used to low pay. In tandem with it, nothing has

been done to stop all the old industrial and mass production jobs

being shut down in Europe and exported to southeast Asian sweatshops

instead, then economists turn round + tell us we have to be

competitive against the low paid sweatshop workforce. "

The government is right tokeep things the way they are...to a degree.

Let's assume the government puts a tariff on goods coming in from other

countries. Now citizens have a choice: Buy domestic or buy foreign at

the same price. If quality remains the same, people will buy domestic.

People stay employed and live well. Problem solved right?

Wrong.

No one's standard of living improves when all people are doing is

circulating the same amount of money because sooner or leader the

people at the top of the chain of wealth get the most of it. Thus all

you've done by protectionist strategies is placed the country's wealth

in a few mogul citizens instead of in some other nation's gross

domestic product.

And in the meantime, the other countries will jack up trade tariffs

against your own country's products.

The only time protectionism should be used is against countries that

abuse the system, such as China at present. Other than that, the market

should stay free and open. If companies want to stay in business, then

they need to be innovative and pay low wages.

If people get paid low wages and still maintain a high standard of

living, then they need to quit with the conspicuous consumption. Fully

25% or more of the food most people buy in stores goes to waste before

they eat it in the average family.

If the government said to its citizenry: " In addition to what you are

paying now in taxes, we are going to place a 25% tax on food " people

would go ballistic. yet they think nothing of buying more than they can

eat and pitching it out.

There are hundreds of ways consumers can save money and still live

well, but most people are too lazy to do what is necessary. There is

little excuse for the majority of people to whine about the financial

predicaments they are in. They got there themselves.

The only people who SHOULD whine are those with extenuating

circumstances, such as having special needs kids, or some physical or

mental diability, or being maimed in some industrial accident or the

military. Other than that, people are earning plenty and can live on it

if they curtailed their spending and lived more efficiently.

Example of how I save money folks:

At Sportmanrt (now the Sports Authority) they had a coupon. Buy one

pair of footwear and get the second pair 50% off - and this coupon did

not exclude clearance items. So I went to the clearance rack there

where they were getting rid of boots (it was spring) and noticed that

they had a pair of boots I had wanted for a long time that had been

previously selling for $125.00 now on clearance for $19.99 (and just my

size too - the only pair there in ANY size and it was mine. How lucky

was that?). I also picked up a pair of shoes, previously $55.00, now

$25.00. With the coupon, it meant that my $19.99 pair of shoes was now

$10.00. So my total purchase price before taxes was $35.00.

Over all savings: $180.00 - 35.00 = $145.00. That $145.00 can buy

183.54 pounds of chicken legs and thighs on sale at .79 cents a pound

when chicken normally sells for $1.19 to $1.39 a pound.

I am one of these folks who seldom pays full price for anything. A down

winter jacket selling for $180.00 I bought on clearance in the spring

for $20.00. My leather jacket, originally selling for $245.00 I bought

for $99.00 on sale (not on clearance).

Unless someone is making minimum wage, there is no reason why people

can't stretch a buck.

But people are people. they want an easy life, which means living a

needlessly expensive and wasteful lifestyle.

" Question about the morality of government. Should life ever be

unpleasant for a reason that is not your fault? "

Absolutely not. This is why the government should sever all benefits

for able bodied people. Then the only entities people could blame for

their financial failures at the end of their lives would be themselves.

" If so, how do you then argue with a bully who says he is doing it to

harden you + get you used to the inevitability of someone else doing

it? You end up with no basis to fight for any needs recognition at all. "

Your premise is faulty. The government is not a bully. The government

is composed of elected officials which ignorant peopleput there, ergo

the people -your neighbors- are the bullies. The whole situation you

are in right this minute Maurice is the firect result of people's

ignorance and voting idiots into office.

The US citizenry is about to destroy the country by electing Obama into

office. You watch. You Europeans think he is the best thing since

sliced bread. People in the US LOVE him! He's so charismatic.

But in my state, there is a federal corruption investigation going on

which leads directly to our governor, and in is postulated that Obama

is directly involved and since the official accepting bribes for favors

worked with Obama on a number of deals, it seems Obama is involved. For

what purpose, we don't know. Obama hasn't voted on 50% of the issues up

for vote in the Senate, and voted " Present or neutral " on over a

hundred of them. He voted firm " Yes " to leaving babies who survived

abortion to starve to death on tables, unfed and unwatered.

As a presidential campaigner, he once stated he would invade Pakistan

to find Al Quida, and so with two other wars going on, and possibly a

third of Bush bombs Iran, it would make Obama the biggest war-monger

since Hitler.

This man keeps talking about " change " and talks about what we need, but

he seldom votes to pass the legislation that supports the change he is

advocating. But the ONE THING that got him elected Senator in the past

and which WILL get him elected to the presidency, is his promise to

take from the rich and give to the poor while cutting " big government. "

THAT promise he came through on.

Illinois slashed Chicago's public transportation because the state cut

its funds. So now we have an increased amount of traffic jams and

pollution.

Illinois slashed its budget for State Parks, and so now our parks are

overgrown fields with closed buildings. Restrooms have overflowing

toilets.

Taxes got jacked up everywhere in Illinois, and so spending is down,

thereby sending tens of thousands of people into the unemployment

lines, but unemployment benefit criteria have been tightened so people

don't get as much as they used to or for as long.

This is what Obama has in store for the country, and people are just

foolish enough to buy into it. They are rallying around him like crazed

maniacs, and demographically speaking, these are the people who bought

big and financed large on low salaries and are now about to benefit

from government baillouts to prevent foreclosures on their properties.

In other words, the nitwits who are in Obama's court were too foolish

to control their own finances, got the nation into the biggest mortgage

crisis in recent history, and now Obama is going to help them out of by

taxing the responsible people who DIDN'T get themselves in trouble.

It makes me sick that yours truly busted his ass to save money, invest

wisely, etc., only to have to bail out a bunch of morons who are going

to elect someone who is only going to tax me more and plunge the

country into a further crisis.

Administrator

July 30, 2008

Just wanted to add something...

The proposal that the government has about people putting their

social security into the stock market and controlling their own

investment is also absurd. It will plunge the country into finnacial

chaos.

Here's why:

1) Bogle studied the shareholders in the mutual funds his firm issues

and discovered that the majority of investors seldom outperform the

market. The reason for this is because investers buy late and sell

late. They see a fund go up...wait until they see it continue to go

up, buy into the funds with a 3 to five year commitment and sizable

charge for early withdraws, and then lose their interest and

principle when the market tanks.

Example of a winner: Me.

I invested in an energy fund and saw my principle yield a 300%

increase in share price plus a 10 % interest gain in 5 years. This

means that if I bought a one dollar share, it is now worth $4.10.

With the recent market fall, I have lost 25% of that share value,

which means that the share is worth $3.00 now plus my ten cents.

But the majority of funds out there have gained only about 25% value

and have lost 30% of their value in 5 years time, which means not

only have other investors lost share value, but they have lost

principle as well.

2) When a fund. Like mine, is doing very well, the fund companies

close it to new investors so that if the fund crashes, the company

does not go belly-up. Thus the majority of people looking for

the " big-winners " have no recourse but to invest in the remaining

funds, the majority of which are losers.

So...imagine being 5 years away from retirement and people investing

in the market during a downswing only to find out that their return

is LESS than the money they put into it.

3) If depositers had the option of moving their money at will, the

result would be " market timing " which causes a huge fund expense

ration which would further flatten returns or erase them.

4) The government is correct when they say that over the long term

depositors will do better with a fund investment portfolio instead of

social security, because social security is so screwed up ANYONE

could do it, but during a downturn in the market, you would have so

many people losing money that there would be an enormous decrease in

wealth and a huge increase in poor that the government would have to

help out, and the only conceivable way to do this would be to raise

taxes or increase the debt.

I could go on, but in essence, I think the best thing to do would be

to fully fund social security or else eliminate it, and allow people

to determine their own destiny via IRAs WITHOUT the promise of a

bailout if they wind up poor at the end of their lives.

Administrator

July 30, 2008

> Thus all

> you've done by protectionist strategies is placed the country's

wealth

> in a few mogul citizens instead of in some other nation's gross

> domestic product.

Yes, but you can have home industry without having protectionism. We

always used to. There is resource security in a country having home

industry, not having its supplies of essential goods depend on the

political situation in a distant country with a ground down

workforce who have giood reason to turn angry at any moment of

opportunity.

> If companies want to stay in business, then

> they need to be innovative and pay low wages.

Including to themselves, i.e. the company bosses? You will need an

interventionist law to make that ever happen.

>

> If people get paid low wages and still maintain a high standard of

> living, then they need to quit with the conspicuous consumption.

How do you stop the wages getting as low as in the 1840s? Too low

for the workforce to subsist properly, hurting their physical health

+ taking away their social opportunities?

>

> If the government said to its citizenry: " In addition to what you

are

> paying now in taxes, we are going to place a 25% tax on food "

people

> would go ballistic.

It would be really good to do that, if you could think up a system

for refunding the tax to the folks who have eaten up all their

greens!

> I am one of these folks who seldom pays full price for anything.

Yes. If you buy things at the moments of best opportunity it's

surprising how much over time you can get. But it can feel annoying

and excluding from economic justice if you have to wait a long time

for an opportunity. I wanted a new secondary-weight coat, for when

it's rainy but not cold, waist length and not as heavy as a winter

coat. The coats I had weren't quite right, either too much wait or

too little rain protection, but I got by with them for years and

didn't buy the coat I needed because the need wasn't worth the

prices of them. Until one lovely day completely unexpected I found

the perfect coat I needed in a slash-price bargain store in

Dunfermline High Street. So how do I feel now I have had the coat

for a few years? Yes I feel smart for finding the bargain, but I

don't congratulate myself on the moral worthiness of waiting for it.

I might not have found it, and I still feel anger about the product

not being easily available all the time so I could get it much

sooner and never have to make do without it when it is so worth

having. Nothing needless in this.

> This is why the government should sever all benefits

> for able bodied people.

Thatcher tried something close to it 20 years ago. Benefits were

made conditional on a defined level of active jobsearch effort that

you could never prove unless you always got letters back from

employers, which in fact you rarely got, and otherwise it was

totally in the jobcentre's power to judge you. Instead of everyone

getting jobs, the job market got extremely harsh at the same time. I

remember a jobcentre refusing to enter me for some displayed

vacancies on ground that my experience was not recent enough, only a

few months after my last job had ended. Severing benefits allows

that type of blatant oppression to happen. That's why there ever was

a fight to create benefits. If the system had worked without them,

for everyone, in the nineteenth century, there would never have been

any workforce militancy and union movement.

Then the only entities people could blame for

> their financial failures at the end of their lives would be

themselves.

.... would be the employers who blacklisted them and agreed not to

employ them if they disapproved of their politics. If they were seen

as social rebels, maybe for reasons not their faults, like me

pushing for recognition of school oppression because without it I

don't get my record + opportunities judged accurately or fairly.

>

> " If so, how do you then argue with a bully who says he is doing it

to

> harden you + get you used to the inevitability of someone else

doing

> it? You end up with no basis to fight for any needs recognition at

all. "

>

> Your premise is faulty. The government is not a bully.

See above on Thatcher.

The government

> is composed of elected officials which ignorant people put there,

ergo

> the people -your neighbors- are the bullies.

Every party has converged into nearly the same policies. People

would like more choice.

> He voted firm " Yes " to leaving babies who survived

> abortion to starve to death on tables, unfed and unwatered.

Yes it's important to make that known. Few election choices are as

neat as it seems. See, government is a bully if every possbile

government we are offered supports something evil. If I was in

America faced with a choice between voting for this baby atrocity or

for continuing the Middle East wars open-endedly, I could morally

make neither choice and would have to withhold my vote from the

major parties completely. Then you might accuse me of shirking

responsibility and being to blame for whichever bad government I got.

> Illinois slashed Chicago's public transportation because the state

cut

> its funds. So now we have an increased amount of traffic jams and

> pollution.

>

> Illinois slashed its budget for State Parks, and so now our parks

are

> overgrown fields with closed buildings. Restrooms have overflowing

> toilets.

But if those things were consequences of helping the poor, the right

moral choice is to endure them. It's another aspect of getting by

instead of chasing luxuiry at others' cost.

>

> Taxes got jacked up everywhere in Illinois, and so spending is

down,

> thereby sending tens of thousands of people into the unemployment

> lines, but unemployment benefit criteria have been tightened so

people

> don't get as much as they used to or for as long.

Again, if this resulted from helping the poor, then there seems to

be no other choice than to oscillate between helping the poor and

helping the unemployed, dealing with each as the need to arises from

dealing with the other.

> It makes me sick that yours truly busted his ass to save money,

invest

> wisely, etc.,

You can still feel good that by doing that you protected yourself

against whatever way events turned. You never do it conditionally on

what a future government policy will be, that was one of the future

unknowns you were looking out for.

July 30, 2008

it is a very common thing for humanity. People get a little scared and they look for someone to take control and make it all right. There have been countless examples of this throughout human history. The US very nearly fell to dictatorship during the Great Depression even.

Of course, things usually end up worse than they were to start with because the programs the new man offered end up collapsing the economy and bankrupting the government.

I agree that it is sickening and on your points about Obama. I guess ifit's packaged and promoted right, Americans will "buy" just aboutanything.KimGet fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 30, 2008

I'm not sure what con-con means, but you are bang on about the politicians. The Founders intended for politicians to be part time, to get their work done in the summer and then go home in the winter and live under the laws they have passed. I really doubt they meant for the Congress to be a year round job with the politicians insulated from their own laws. This holds at federal and state levels.

That they pander to their special interests is nothing new either. It has pretty much always been that way. Looking back as far as Rome even, the Senate belonged to the very wealthy and the masses suffered for it. A few times reforms were attempted. If the Consul or Emperor was popular enough, he could get some things through and the economy would flourish. However, when he died, or was assassinated, things went right back to the way they were before.

Such scandals are common in Democracies and Monarchies and everything in between.

What I would like to see it serious term limits imposed. That would be a maximum of 2 terms in each the House and the Senate, which would be a total of 16 years of office. States could do their own thing, but it should be pretty much the same.

I would also limit "working time" to the 6 months around summer. They can't hold work over to the next year and any time over the limit would be met with pay deductions equal to one week of pay per day over.

To make the work go easier, I would limit each Congressman to 2 bills per year and eliminate riders (items tucked into bills that are totally unrelated to the host bill itself) and certain other things. Chief amongst these would be to remove cameras from the Congressional buildings. That would prevent the morons from bloviating and grandstanding for the cameras. There are enough reporters there to cover the stories.

Campaigns would be reformed by limiting campaigning to 6 weeks before the election ONLY. This would spare the country from the eternal spectacle of politicians campaigning when they should be working. The existing campaign finance laws would be scrapped in favor of: No foreign donations and taking them even through back channels will result in withdrawal from the election or forfeiture of office plus banishment from politics for life, and full disclosure of every last penny the politician takes. It doesn't matter who gives it or how much. Whatever the politician takes will be public record and people can see who they belong to.

There are other things too, but that's just a start.

Anyone for Con-Con?KimGet fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 30, 2008

FDR just inherited the problem. It had been building up for some time before that and there had been warnings about it. There were also many factors involved as well, but I won't go into all of them.

The main factor was investors buying stocks on margins. What that means is that they might put down as little as 10% on the value of the stocks to buy them. This was a widespread practice. When the economy got shaky, banks and investment houses tried to collect their money. Lo and behold, these investors didn't have it. This cause the stock market crash which in turn caused banks to fail.

Sounds familiar? It should. That's not too different from what is going on now. Instead of stocks, there was hedging and speculation in the mortgage market. When the bottom started to go, the money wasn't there to cover the notes and things began to fall apart.

Now in my opinion, the government should have let this go into a recession and not bailed anyone out. It would have hurt, yes, but it would have taught some lessons to the investors and others that Uncle Sam wouldn't bail them out the next time they were in trouble. If banks began to fail, small depositors are insured, as are the smart ones with more money who have many small accounts instead of big ones over the $100,000 insured limit. Most people would be alright, once they found new banks, which you can bet would arise very quickly, but the big shots who caused the trouble would get a bloody nose.

Now, FDR also made some major mistakes. The first was to listen to Maynard Keynes. He was a very left wing type who believed in the government "priming the pump" of the economy and such. FDR followed many of his ideas such as crushing taxes (up to 90% in some cases), wage and price controls, and other things. They persisted in this for a few years and things became worse. It was only when they removed these policies that the economy began to recover. At least FDR had the courage to admit he had been wrong about that, something that isn't widely reported.

The problem was that WWII coincided with this recover. Most people think that it was the military spending that brought the US out of the Depression. It wasn't. The military spending was a major drain on the economy. High taxes and rations of staple products such as foodstuffs, clothes and gas, are not conducive to economic growth. The economy managed to grow inspite of the war spending, not because of it. The strong manufacturing base that was created helped, but much of that disappeared after the war because it was no longer needed and it went back to prewar levels.

The economy would have recovered just fine without the war. Unfortunately a lot of people believe that the government spending was what turned things around. Never mind the high taxes, massive borrowing and the big deficits that were run up.

Ah, thank you F.D.R.KimGet fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 30, 2008

You've got the idea. Their records would be held up for inspection much more so than they are today, including how much they overspent on the budget, how much they spent on pork projects, etc. Granted there are people who wouldn't care or would be benefiting in some way from this, but that can't be helped. That why there are term limits to kick them out after a while.

I took a look at that link you posted. I'll have visit that again when I have more time.

As for the reporters, most of them should be out of industry anyway. They aught to be getting that message what with newspapers and newsmagazines failing and such.

That would be sweet! And if they could only be allowed to present their voting records (bills accepted or rejected), committiees they worked on, bills they initiated etc... and viable solutions. No rhetoric, no bs, no pointing fingers!Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 30, 2008

The CCC, WPA and others. That was a two-edged sword really. On the one hand it put people to work rather than just let them sit around being paid to do nothing. On the other hand, they were paid a flat rate and they learned that they didn't have to work hard since they couldn't be fired from the program. Some bad work habits were learned from that. Not everyone was badly affected mind you, but some were.

I was thinking about the job programs he created. Many came to rely onthese but most of the jobs were never meant to be long term solutions tounemployment.KimGet fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 30, 2008

> It makes me sick that yours truly busted his ass to save money, invest

> wisely, etc., only to have to bail out a bunch of morons who are going

> to elect someone who is only going to tax me more and plunge the

> country into a further crisis.

I agree that it is sickening and on your points about Obama. I guess if

it's packaged and promoted right, Americans will " buy " just about

anything.

Kim

July 30, 2008

What angers me the most is the inability of our elected officals here in

Illinois, County and State, to pass a BALANCED BUDGET! We the taxpayer

do not have the option of spending more than we earn (without dire

consequences) but for the second year in a row, our " leaders " , who are

being PAID to figure out how best to spend our money, haven't done their

jobs. Priorities are out of whack and the system is being abused.

Oversight is minimal and admistration has their heads up their butts.

Everyone is busy pointing fingers and then recommending a relative for

hire.

Anyone for Con-Con?

Kim

>

> Again, if this resulted from helping the poor, then there seems to

> be no other choice than to oscillate between helping the poor and

> helping the unemployed, dealing with each as the need to arises from

> dealing with the other.

July 30, 2008

> Of course, things usually end up worse than they were to start with

because

> the programs the new man offered end up collapsing the economy and

bankrupting

> the government.

Ah, thank you F.D.R.

Kim

July 30, 2008

>> I'm not sure what con-con means, but you are bang on about the politicians.

This site gives a good background on the Illinois Constitution and what the Constiutional Convention (or Con Con) would entail.

http://www.lwvil.org/ConCon_%20StudyGuide.pdf

> What I would like to see it serious term limits imposed. That would be a > maximum of 2 terms in each the House and the Senate, which would be a total of > 16 years of office. States could do their own thing, but it should be pretty > much the same.

I understand that most people become more adept at their jobs with years of experience but I perfer to vote against incumbents. Shorter terms as you suggest may be a solution but they will never pass that type legislation. Job protection is what they have and they'll never give that up willingly.

> Campaigns would be reformed by limiting campaigning to 6 weeks before the > election ONLY. This would spare the country from the eternal spectacle of > politicians campaigning when they should be working.

That would be sweet! And if they could only be allowed to present their voting records (bills accepted or rejected), committiees they worked on, bills they initiated etc... and viable solutions. No rhetoric, no bs, no pointing fingers!

The existing campaign finance > laws would be scrapped in favor of: No foreign donations and taking them > even through back channels will result in withdrawal from the election or > forfeiture of office plus banishment from politics for life, and full disclosure of > every last penny the politician takes. It doesn't matter who gives it or how > much. Whatever the politician takes will be public record and people can see > who they belong to.

You'll put reporters out of a job, hahaha.

Kim

July 30, 2008

>

> FDR just inherited the problem. It had been building up for some time

before

> that and there had been warnings about it. There were also many

factors

> involved as well, but I won't go into all of them.

I was thinking about the job programs he created. Many came to rely on

these but most of the jobs were never meant to be long term solutions to

unemployment.

Kim

July 30, 2008

The thing it, it isn't that Americans won't do certain jobs, its that illegals will do the job cheaper. Not only will they work for less, but the employers don't have to file for taxes, Social Security and all the rest. I'm sure you've read the articles on the major busts. They generally aren't in the fields, but meat packing plants and things like that. There was one kosher meat plant where a large number were arrested. Since this was a company that had been in business for decades, you know that all those people fired to hire the illegals were long time American employees.

That's really the problem. Unscrupulous companies are simply hiring illegals because they are cheaper than legal American laborers. It is rightly being called the modern day slavery. These people aren't owned outright, but it is wage slavery and it displaces citizens workers.

Tom is right. If we slammed the border shut, kicked out all the illegals we could and viciously punished those who hired them, then more Americans would be getting jobs.

Unfortunately, nothing is going to happen. The border will remain open, the illegals will be granted amnesty and given voter IDs with Democrat voting sheets. This will happen before the 2010 census so that congressional districts can be redrawn and even new ones made. This will be done with an eye toward giving the Democrats a lock on power.

In a message dated 7/30/2008 2:52:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

There is no way to stop that from happening. But it can be offset by booting out the 12 million illegal aliens in the US and the many illegal aliens in yours. That opens up loads of new job opportunities and it negates our taxes having to pay for their benefits. Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

July 30, 2008

Maurice said:

"Yes, but you can have home industry without having protectionism. We always used to. There is resource security in a country having home industry, not having its supplies of essential goods depend on the political situation in a distant country with a ground down workforce who have giood reason to turn angry at any moment of opportunity."

Tom replies:

And that's what those other countries have now. The next step in the economic process will be for them to become like our countries, with workers seeing huge profits their companies are making and demanding higher wages. They will be given those wages, but at the expense of competitiveness because the companies will have to jack up the price of their products. This will make OUR companies more competitive because our wages and expenses will be closer to theirs.

Finally, the worker's demands for high wages will causes prices to go up so high that the product pricing will price the products out of the market, as we have done with our products.

"Including to themselves, i.e. the company bosses? You will need an interventionist law to make that ever happen."

The bosses would have to take pay cuts also. Otherwise, they will find themselves completely unemployed, and because other companies would be in the same boat, they could not find employment elsewhere. No laws are needed.

"How do you stop the wages getting as low as in the 1840s? Too low for the workforce to subsist properly, hurting their physical health + taking away their social opportunities?"

There is no way to stop that from happening. But it can be offset by booting out the 12 million illegal aliens in the US and the many illegal aliens in yours. That opens up loads of new job opportunities and it negates our taxes having to pay for their benefits.

Whenever I go to Canada, I see white people filling fry boxes at Mcs and WHITE garbage men, and WHITE landscapers, and WHITE janitors scrubbing toilets. And I don't see THEM whining about what demeaning jobs they have. I don't see THEM complaining that they are barely making enough to survive. I only see that sort of complaint going on in the US.

"It would be really good to do that, if you could think up a system for refunding the tax to the folks who have eaten up all their greens!"

Let the people eat up all their greens first and then I will think of a refund strategy. As long as people waste food and consume beyond their means, I will assume that they can afford it and can spend this way without needing public assistance. If they don't look poor, they aren't poor.

If people in the US were truly hurting, every cassino would be out of business, no money would be contributed to lotteries, no money would be spent on beer, cigarettes, pot, cocaine, heroin, snack foods, restaurants, beer, wine, alcohol, sports cars, sports games, amusement parks, lawn services, au pairs, maids, computer games, internet, cable, satellite TV, mobile phones, and a whole array of other recreational items and activities. When people stop frilling their money away on that crap, I will believe they are poor. Until then, if people spend their money on that crap and still whine that they cannot make ends meet, I will cheerfully turn a deaf ear to them.

"But it can feel annoying and excluding from economic justice if you have to wait a long time for an opportunity."

It is precisely that attitude though that has caused the economic meltdown that we are seeing now. "I want it NOW!" That is what the consumer says. It is an entitlement sort of credo which is ridiculous. Just because someone is born into the world doesn't mean that the world owes them anything. Like any animal, the human being earns its right to survive by determnining its own destiny. Those who cannot do this die. What is merciful is that humans have a moral conscious, so those who survive tend to give out some of their own earnings to help the less fortunate.

But why should they?

If Bill Gates elected to hoard all of his money instead of giving it away, that is his right. He earned it, and he is rich because other people were foolish enough to buy his products at the price he sold them for.

Don't get me wrong, I have chosen to give my time and efforts and sometimes my money to support autistics. I do this of my own free will despite the fact that the majority of the population, some members of this forum included, are too stingy with their own time, effort, and money to do the same.

Yet I am less likely to give my time, efforts and money to people unwilling to help themselves, or to people that got themselves into their own predicaments.

"So how do I feel now I have had the coat for a few years? Yes I feel smart for finding the bargain, but I don't congratulate myself on the moral worthiness of waiting for it."

You should. You exercised the sort of financial prudence that other people do not have. It is the reason why other people get themselves in debt and people who exercise financial prudence tend not to.

"I might not have found it, and I still feel anger about the product not being easily available all the time so I could get it much sooner and never have to make do without it when it is so worth having. Nothing needless in this."

And what if the product was never made? You can't miss what you don't have. If you go through life not wanting anything, then everything you wind up getting makes you happy.

"If the system had worked without them, for everyone, in the nineteenth century, there would never have been any workforce militancy and union movement."

Agreed. This is where unions ARE worthwhile. Unions are NOT worthwhile when economic times are flush, but they ARE useful when economic times are such that the system allows companies to exploit the worker too much.

"... would be the employers who blacklisted them and agreed not to employ them if they disapproved of their politics. If they were seen as social rebels, maybe for reasons not their faults, like me pushing for recognition of school oppression because without it I don't get my record + opportunities judged accurately or fairly."

Did you expect that you could just complain without the people receiving the complaints accepting them without trying to defend themselves? The risk you take by trying to change things will inevitable result in some kind of backlash.

Look at AFF and what they do. You complain on their forum about the radical nature of what they do and not only do you get banned, but they spread false rumors about you on the net. It has happened to you and has happened to me.

The moral of the story: If you are going to stand up for what you believe in, recognize that the people you oppose believe differently than you do and they will respond to their defense with equal or harsher measures. Know what you are willing to risk before you take the risk in other words.

Yours truly quit AI over a squabble with a bunch of board members who since took over that board. Was I frustrated with the fact that those people made it into management? Sure. But look what happened. They all got thrown off by the boards owner for trying to "steal" the board. I tried to warn the boards owner before I quit about what would happen but was ignored and ultimately banned. Turns out I was right.

Did it hurt in the interim.

You bet. But I am proud for taking my stand and don't regret any of it.

I said:

"Your premise is faulty. The government is not a bully."

You replied:

See above on Thatcher.

I say:

I don't live in the UK and so I am not fully appraised of the situation. I woud tend to think she started out with good intentions but wound up failing miserable through poor execution.

"Every party has converged into nearly the same policies. People would like more choice."

No the don't. If they did, they would unanimously vote their elected representatives out of office en masse. If you see someone elected and discover that they produce "more of the same" it is because the people who put them there see that elected official's qualities and beliefs as best representing what the people want.

In this country, more and more people want to be on the government dole, and so they are putting people into office who are going to get them there the quickest.

Folks like me, who are sick of this sort of thing...folks like me, who spent prudently and invested money, are the minority. It is folks like me who are going to wind up footing the bill for all these slackers. It's the way the system works.

"Yes it's important to make that known. Few election choices are as neat as it seems. See, government is a bully if every possbile government we are offered supports something evil."

Maurice, the government is doing what the people want. Otherwise the people would change the government. There is a segment of the population out there that wants to freely and legally murder their babies. I don't like this concept. I am morally opposed to it. But the majority of the population enthusiastically agrees that killing babies inside or outside the womb if the INTENT was to abort the baby is a good and morally sound thing to do. And so it is this popular majority who are the bullies, because they have placed peoplein power to ensure that those who kill children can do so without consequence - and if anyone protests against it, they can be cited with civil disobedience and jailed.

" If I was in America faced with a choice between voting for this baby atrocity or for continuing the Middle East wars open-endedly, I could morally make neither choice and would have to withhold my vote from the major parties completely."

I am thinking about doing the same during this upcoming election.

"Then you might accuse me of shirking responsibility and being to blame for whichever bad government I got."

Not at all. While I do believe that a person needs to exercise their right to vote or else just accept what happens to them without complaint, I also belive that there are indeed instances when NOT voting is a vote in itself.

"But if those things were consequences of helping the poor, the right moral choice is to endure them. It's another aspect of getting by instead of chasing luxuiry at others' cost."

Most of the "poor" being helped though are able bodies citizens who are perfectly capable of working. But the welfare system benefits these people by giving extra money every time they pop out a kid.

It is interesting. In this country, those people who are financial solvent have one or two kids, and have abstained from having more because they know they cannot afford them.

Yet it is not unusual to see some story on TV about some gang shooting in Chicago where a welfare mom regrets the loss of her kid...and the seven or eight brothers and sisters regret the loss too.

How it must annoy those suburban families that they have sacrificed having their own children so a bunch of people in the ghetto can churn out kids like lumber from a rolling mill.

I am unwilling to sacrifice a clean toilet for these people. If they are not going to work for a living, why should I work for their sakes?

"Again, if this resulted from helping the poor, then there seems to be no other choice than to oscillate between helping the poor and helping the unemployed, dealing with each as the need to arises from dealing with the other."

In addition to what I have said above, we ought to add to those bums the "newly poor." These are people who were denied credit because of poor credit ratings who took out loans from unethical sub-prime lenders. The people defaulted on their mortgages and are now on the street.

Basically, at one point in their lives, these people were told by ethical bankers: "You are too irresponsible and too much of a credit risk for us to lend to. Get out and shape up."

So these people said "The system is obviously prejudiced against me. It is Big Government putting restrictions on these banks too. So I am going to go elsewhere where I can get my money."

At the unethical lenders, the lenders thought "There is a sucker born every minute. This guy has demonstrated that he has no sense of saving, investing, spending, and paying bills. this is precisely the dope I am looking for. When the economy goes down, I will own his house and be filthy rich. All because he is too ignornat and possesses no self-control."

I refuse to support the newly poor either.

Of course, since I pay my taxes, I have no choice. But given that I have exercised financial prudence whereas others did not, I have every right to complain about it.

"You can still feel good that by doing that you protected yourself against whatever way events turned."

No I can't.

Here's why:

Let's say I stuff money into a retirement plan and invest wisely.

Let's say that when I retire I have $5 million dollars saved up.

Let's say that plan I have means that I can withdraw that money from my account and not have to pay taxes on it.

But let's also say that this plan REQUIRES me to draw off a certain amount of money from it per year, and let's say that the amount I must withdraw is 1%. That would mean I would have to take $50,000.00 a year out of that account - tax free - and put it somewhere where it will be taxed every year.

In ten years I will have close to half a million dollars earning around ten percent interest and that interest will put me in a higher tax bracket to pay for government programs that I will never use or need.

Meanwhile, all the people who never saved money and who never acted with any sort of fiscal responsibility get to live off my money and clamor for higher taxes to be raised against me.

It just goes to show you that people who sit on their butts and goof off all their lives have society by the ----s. In the animal world, Darwin's natural selection brutally kills off these people.

In the human world, we support them and encourage their population to grow to such an extent that they become the majority of the population and its biggest leech.

Administrator

July 30, 2008

" What angers me the most is the inability of our elected officals here

in

Illinois, County and State, to pass a BALANCED BUDGET! We the taxpayer

do not have the option of spending more than we earn (without dire

consequences) but for the second year in a row, our " leaders " , who are

being PAID to figure out how best to spend our money, haven't done their

jobs. Priorities are out of whack and the system is being abused.

Oversight is minimal and admistration has their heads up their butts.

Everyone is busy pointing fingers and then recommending a relative for

hire. "

And let's keep in mind that one of the folks who firmly and happily

approved this unbalanced budget and spending spree is BARACK OBAMA, the

man which citizens in the US are enthusiastically looking to elect as

their President.

Administrator

July 31, 2008

My observation of the local labor market and the beggars are that

most of them (largely caucasian in appearance, for most of them)

seem to be of the belief that begging on a busy road/highway ramp is

better than doing such stuff " below their dignity " (my words: I've

not asked) such as janitorial work, gardening, restaurant work, or

(in the case I see nearby) wearing sandwich boards for $12/hour and

standing out on a busy road waving in people to a restaurant or

other business. I note that the sandwich board sign is continually

vacant, and I note all those expecting handouts by the road, that

are there some huge number of hours, and it occurs to me: why on

earth would they put on the pity party and stand out on the road all

day, when they can honestly earn some wage that they can point

towards with some amount of self-respect as being something they've

earned? If they can tolerate being out in the weather all that time

and not get sick, they're clearly capable of working, if they so

desire: my health is imperfect, and while I can run half-marathons

(slowly), standing outside in the weather all the time without being

able to go in wouldn't work well for me in practice, I believe.

There are many jobs around here that go unfilled, and it doesn't

seem to matter what employers do: they can't get people to work the

jobs at a rate that's commensurate with what the job

skills/education and difficulty are. I've spent many many years of

my life, formally and informally, educating myself and perfecting my

skills in my field, and there's a price affixed to that: people that

expect handouts or some ridiculous wage where there's little

requirements involved on the daily requirement of stress,

difficulty, or long-term preparation get a vote of no-confidence

from me, and I have no problem admitting it.

I have a perfect example downtown Bellevue, WA where there's an

irrational concept of entitlement: there's a union that (not sure if

they currently represent them, or just want to) has been very loudly

(illegally loud, in fact: I lived across the street downtown

Bellevue on the second floor, and with windows closed and TV up full

blast, I couldn't drown these #$)#$% out, and the police didn't do

squat: I believe in freedom of speech, sure, but not freedom to

screech!) protesting, disrupting everything, all whining about how

their janitors that make above minimum wage, work in a posh white

collar office building at night that's tightly locked down and has

no customer interaction, somehow are deserving of full medical

benefits and retirement benefits. Now, I'm certain Maurice will get

in an uproar over all this, based on his stated views already in

this thread. But, here's the thing: this type of janitorial job

doesn't even require proficiency in any language beyond being

pointed to a mop, a broom, a brush, some cleaners, and being

told " Don't mix this one with that one, or else you'll kill yourself

from nerve gas! " and as such, really requires no literacy, and

almost zero training to start (which can be done in less than a

single shift) and no training needed after that, and it isn't so

physically-demanding as a lot of assembly/processing jobs. The fact

of the whole thing is this: this is clearly a beginner's job, and

they have no real responsibilities towards long-term issues, no long-

term stress, no long-term anything, and it took no preparation. In

the practical world, with all I've stated, that job has a clear

minimum wage, part-time value to it, because that's what the market

says it's worth, and that's because that IS what it's worth: you

can't justify paying someone $20/hour for something that simple with

no real responsibility. And of course, if you paid them that much,

they'd still whine how unfair it is. But, the workers (it seems a

large number are illegal immigrants, which makes it harder for them

to bargain: if you don't legally exist on the books of a country,

you don't have much in the way of rights, and if you've not gone

through the efforts to get into a country legally, you frankly don't

deserve them, either, regardless of the countries in question: this

also applies to those moving to another country with a different

language, and being foolish enough not to make a solid effort to

master the language as much as possible, instead of expecting

everyone else to bend over for you) appear to have little to no

motivation, other than to get more money with no more risk. If they

truly want more money, they can go deliver pizza, like I did in

2004: however, that requires sufficient language fluency, a certain

amount of being able to use a computer terminal that includes

typing, and you might get the pizza place to provide you with a car,

but don't count on it: you also risk being robbed on a delivery run,

having the store robbed (while you're in it), getting into a traffic

accident, and other harmful things that exist in the kitchen area.

But, you also have a decent chance of making tips, at least in most

places (some people are always cheapskates, regardless of your

service or any other factors). Those jobs, I assure you, remain

persistently understaffed, and as long as you're sufficiently legal

for driving and criminal record, you have to be pretty bad for work

history to not be accepted. Oh, and as a driver, you can reasonably

expect to do some janitorial work, too, in an environment that's a

lot messier than any white collar office building! It also has a

lot of short-term " Get it out, NOW " stress for often long periods of

time during busy times, and your income directly depends on it. Oh,

another prerequisite for being a successful driver: you need to have

a good clue on reading maps, and being able to remember things long

enough, it's wise to be able to do consumer math without a

calculator, etc. so there's a lot more involved. Having done many

years in my younger age doing part-time janitorial work, as well as

that delivery, I DO know what's involved, and what it's worth, but

these idiots (and all the others that say, " The wage needs to be a

living wage! " for jobs that have no real requirements like it)

haven't caught on to this reality: they've apparently been

protesting as I've mentioned since 2000, and not made a single bit

of progress towards their goals: their reality checks bounced a LONG

time ago. If they wanted to truly get the attention of the people

they wish (instead of beating outsiders over the head violently with

their illegally loud protests) their most useful thing to do would

be to tell them, " We're on strike until we get our demands met! "

which would at least be (in theory, but their past actions show a

lack of comprehension of reality, as previously mentioned)

instructive in teaching them how quickly new unskilled labor can be

found to do the job. I have no hopes they'll ever make the

connection in this lifetime. Oh: as a resident across the street

from where they worked, and having them use leaf blowers at 3 a.m.,

air compressor trucks for shampooing carpets, etc. that didn't

exactly tilt things in their favor in my eyes, either.

So, with all that, I predict that forcing out all the illegal

immigrants wouldn't at all make sure all legals had jobs: it'd just

mean there'd be a whole bunch more jobs that'd remain unfilled by

anyone, due to foolish pride and the sense of entitlement for their

labors that have little market value. Besides, there needs to be

entry level jobs for those just old enough to work, that don't

require much of them, like mentioned above. It's far from

glamorous, but who said all work is supposed to be glamorous and

pleasant all the time? That's another bounced reality check I won't

attempt to cash!

>

> The thing it, it isn't that Americans won't do certain jobs, its

that

> illegals will do the job cheaper. Not only will they work for

less, but the

> employers don't have to file for taxes, Social Security and all

the rest. I'm sure

> you've read the articles on the major busts. They generally aren't

in the

> fields, but meat packing plants and things like that. There was

one kosher meat

> plant where a large number were arrested. Since this was a company

that had

> been in business for decades, you know that all those people

fired to hire the

> illegals were long time American employees.

>

> That's really the problem. Unscrupulous companies are simply

hiring illegals

> because they are cheaper than legal American laborers. It is

rightly being

> called the modern day slavery. These people aren't owned outright,

but it is

> wage slavery and it displaces citizens workers.

>

> Tom is right. If we slammed the border shut, kicked out all the

illegals we

> could and viciously punished those who hired them, then more

Americans would

> be getting jobs.

>

> Unfortunately, nothing is going to happen. The border will remain

open, the

> illegals will be granted amnesty and given voter IDs with Democrat

voting

> sheets. This will happen before the 2010 census so that

congressional districts

> can be redrawn and even new ones made. This will be done with an

eye toward

> giving the Democrats a lock on power.

>

> In a message dated 7/30/2008 2:52:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> There is no way to stop that from happening. But it can be

offset by

> booting out the 12 million illegal aliens in the US and the many

illegal aliens in

> yours. That opens up loads of new job opportunities and it

negates our taxes

> having to pay for their benefits.

>

> **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up

for

> FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

> (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

>

July 31, 2008

Having been a janitor, I agree with your job description Strict. It

can be back-breaking work, but it's mind-numbing. Personally, I found

it quite peaceful, being alone in an office, emptying trash, mopping

floors, cleaning bathrooms, vaccuuming, etc. This would have been

twenty years ago when I started that work and I was paid $7.00 an

hour. I was thrilled to get that much and I began the fortune I have

today with it....by using the money I earned to pay my tuition and

room and board at college.

I think most " self-respecting " US citizens would not want the job.

Which is said, because there is a lot of respect to be gained from

employment, even if the job ain't so hot.

Administrator

" I have a perfect example downtown Bellevue, WA where there's an