Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       07-29-2014, 10:00 AM Reply   
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works, and
the America that doesn't. The America that contributes, and the America that
doesn't. It's not the haves and the have not's, it's the dos and the don'ts.
Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves,
contribute to society, and others don't. That's the divide in America.
It's not about income inequality, it's about civic irresponsibility. It's
about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in
order to win elective office. It's about a political party that loves
power more than it loves its country. That's not invective, that's truth,
and it's about time someone said it.


The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President
Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting "income inequality." He
noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have
higher incomes than others, and he say that's not just. That is the
rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it
for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is
the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a
fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends
up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats
have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of
dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and
hope. The president' premise -that you reduce income inequality by debasing
the successful -seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their
choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different
choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and
responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who
choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.
Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family
income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college - and you
are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and
pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock
and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life
is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is
determined by the course we take.


My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant
income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome,
but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went
to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and
residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice,
and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better
than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his
wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free
choices lead to different outcomes. It is not inequality Barack Obama
intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom
to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for
failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the
punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than
the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing.
Even if the other guy made a lifetime's worth of asinine and short sighted
decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while
completely ignoring inequality of effort. The simple Law of the Harvest - as
ye sow, so shall ye reap - is sometimes applied as, "The harder you work,
the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are
to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded
as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward
mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest
common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful
and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak
of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one
to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the
differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our
efforts.


It is a false philosophy to say one man's success comes about unavoidably as
the result of another man's victimization. What Obama offered was not a
solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set
of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That's what
socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two
Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln's maxim
that a house divided against itself cannot stand. "Life is ten percent
what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it."


Lou Holtz
Old    Dave (bcrider)      Join Date: Apr 2006       07-29-2014, 12:28 PM Reply   
This is true for almost everything today regardless of the country or political agenda. It's just the way society is. The bleeding hearts now have a bigger voice than the ones that actually go out and work for it. On a basic level it's the same mentality of schools or sports for kids not keeping score. You're training a society to not try and be number one or be their best. You also have banks that will damn near finance anything and everything. It's no longer the mentality of being able to buy once you have the money. A large portion of people today are financed to death. Myself at 35, I'm glad I can say that with the house, 2 vehicles, and my boat that I only have a mortgage. I do truthfully lease my Flex though it's through my works leasing company so that I can use it as a write off.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-29-2014, 1:31 PM Reply   
Lot of puppet mastering going on here. Income inequality is the bellwether of economic disaster. The right wants to turn America into the same s**thole as China. The only way that American labor can compete with impoverished labor is to become impoverished as well. The only way that American manufacturers can manufacture in the US and compete with Pacific rim countries is to pollute the environment, have lax supervision over safety, and virtual immunity from the legal ramifications of faulty products. We want to live in a modern world, but want to ship our economy overseas. Americans don't understand the concept of a leaky economy. But we know the consequences... the Fed printing and the govt borrowing. You've got to refill the bucket. And when you do it gets filtered through the influential and wealthy. The tax code is welfare for industry. There is a reason why CEO are making records amounts and workers are making less. If you buy into that crap you posted then you have demonstrated that you are a tool of the puppet masters.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       07-30-2014, 8:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Income inequality is the bellwether of economic disaster.
Damn I knew you sided with the left, but thats a load of bull**** right there!
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       07-30-2014, 8:33 AM Reply   
Lou Holtz - The multimillionaire former football coach and marble mouth ESPN talker who cheated his way to victory at Notre Dame and then walked away from a lifetime contract when the NCAA was about to slap the program with sanctions? That Lou Holtz? I'll look elsewhere for my inspiration.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-30-2014, 9:36 AM Reply   
If you are clueless about the economic realities then I'm not surprised you think that way. It only takes an elementary school math education to be able to see that you can't export over a 1/2 trillion dollars of the money in circulation each year unless you replace it, or you are going to dry up the economy. And it's apparent that you don't even understand what "income inequality" means. Not surprised because neither does Bill O'Reilly. He like you appears to believe it means we should all make the same amount of money. But he's probably not that dumb. He just knows his target audience is, and that's the kind of narrative they like to hear. And Lou is probably not that dumb either. He just knows his target audience is.

Let's make this clear... The right doesn't value hard work. They value how hard you are to replace. Americans in general are happy to undermine American job opportunities to get the cheapest possible product. All sides are clueless in this respect. The difference is that liberals have a sense that the poor need help or there will be social disaster. Meanwhile the right is trying to drive us to that disaster faster. Don't worry the competition with impoverished labor will creep up higher and higher in the middle class and your children's opportunities will diminish because "hard to replace" will become more and more replaceable.

In the meantime keep on checking your brain at the door and turning on Fox News.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       07-30-2014, 10:12 AM Reply   
Fly thanks for being so condescending!! feel like i'm arguing with my little sister. you should really get out more, there is a life outside of wakeworld.com. I can tell you haven't come up for air in a while.

turns out I did not know what income inequality means! Thank you for the education. Wikipedia does NOT agree with you that it is "the bellwether of economic disaster". Some argue that its a driver of innovation. Please, don't pull any punches in your rebutle. I need a good internet lashing to set me straight in my ways. .
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       07-30-2014, 12:45 PM Reply   
Quote:
Wikipedia does NOT agree with you that it is "the bellwether of economic disaster".
I guess that settles it then, you know cause Wikipedia is the authority.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-30-2014, 1:28 PM Reply   
When you say I should get out more I guess you don't mean wakeboarding. Because 4 or 5 times a week is all I can handle.

The argument that income inequality is the driver of innovation is not relevant to it's meaning in the context of how it's being used by Obama. While the right wing puppet masters would have you believe that it's some communist plot by saying things like... "I don't make as much as a doctor", that's not what it means. Nobody expects lessor skilled or educated people to make the same as doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc...

The context is that while the job numbers are getting better, the jobs that are coming back are of generally lessor earning. While at the same time wealth is concentrating at the top. What makes this a bellwether of pending economic disaster is that it is all happening while the Fed is printing 10's of billions per month, and the govt is borrowing and spending at record amounts. That means the govt has used up it economic clout at the same time job opportunities are diminishing.

Income inequality is an overall statistic that reveals that the highest earners are getting extremely wealthy from the Fed's expansion of the money supply and skyrocketing govt debt, while increasing numbers of average Americans are becoming more dependent on the govt. So if you hear an editorial opinion that tries to frame the issue as... Oh the horrors of an educated person making more than a laborer, then you are about to be puppet mastered.

And if you hear someone say... "Why should high earners pay more taxes?", this might be a clue. They are the one's who benefit the most from the printing of money and the govt borrowing and spending. Recognizing that income inequality has nothing to do with the difference in earning between a carpenter and a engineer is important because it means that you understand the issue. Lou Holtz apparently doesn't grasp this concept.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       07-31-2014, 6:46 AM Reply   
The big problem with focusing on inequality is that it seems to lead to strategies to bring the top down, instead of providing more opportunity to bring the bottom up. We shouldn't care how much billionaires are making, as long as life for at the opposite end of the spectrum is also getting better.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-31-2014, 7:55 AM Reply   
That's because the strategies to bring the bottom up are painful in the short run. But not focusing on inequality is like sticking your head in the sand. It's a major indicator of future economic health. It also tells you if your policies are working or not. As well as demonstrating who is benefiting the most from existing policy. While the wealthy benefit the most from policy, you see the right claiming that poor people need to pay more taxes and high earners need to pay less.

If the Fed is printing money, the govt is increasing debt, and the distribution of the money is being pushed to the top, then you should conclude that policy isn't serving all Americans equally. And you might conclude that those who are on the plus side have a obligation to pay higher taxes. That isn't class warfare. It's people contributing back more when they got the most. That's not about bringing the top down. It's about the top not getting excessively lopsided when it serves no purpose. That is protecting the general welfare, which govt is supposed to do.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       07-31-2014, 8:08 AM Reply   
IMHO, the whole idea of "income inequality" is simply more pandering to the Democrat voter base.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-31-2014, 8:20 AM Reply   
Yeah, I guess Democrats do try and be more inclusive about considering all of the factors involved in cause and effect. Whereas the Republicans are more like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. If income inequality is a real issue, then pandering takes on a whole new connotation.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       07-31-2014, 8:21 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicr View Post
I guess that settles it then, you know cause Wikipedia is the authority.
It's a peer reviewed site that tends to be free of bull****. Good enough for me. In you fact, if you want to change the definition of "income inequality" on wikipedia, go ahead. although it looks like you don't have much to add.

Why do we need "strategies" to bring the bottom up. There's a reason those folks are at the bottom. Are we supposed to redistribute wealth because these folks lack the motivation/desire to change their lives? I don't agree that it the govt's responsibility to step in and make things fair and balance for those who don't care to make things different for themselves.

In other news, jobless claims came out today. Off a 14 year low, jobless claims rose more than expected. Up 32000 to 302000. from the US LABOR DEPARTMENT Sean.

Last edited by denverd1; 07-31-2014 at 8:27 AM.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       07-31-2014, 9:09 AM Reply   
"I don't agree that it the govt's responsibility to step in and make things fair and balance for those who don't care to make things different for themselves." I agree but try telling that to a politician.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-31-2014, 9:23 AM Reply   
But what about all the people who do want make things different for themselves? You seem have drawn the conclusion that all people who find it difficult to make a decent living don't want to make things better for themselves. Did you get this from some kind of study? Or are you just drawing conclusions from a lack of knowledge? I really don't know how anyone would have a definitive knowledge about the minds of millions of Americans that are having trouble staying afloat.

However, it is possible to look at fundamental principles and draw conclusions about it's impact on the economy, job opportunities, and the ability to make a living wage. Are Conservatives thinking that everyone needs to get advanced degrees? If you have a degree and make a good living wouldn't it concern you if everyone starting doing that and competing for your wage. That would make you more replaceable and less valuable.

Are we supposed to quadruple the numbers of colleges and perhaps make higher education free? What is the plausibility of everyone seeking more education and that not cheapening the value of your skills?
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       07-31-2014, 9:44 AM Reply   
No conclusions, no studies. I am good friends with a guy who owns an employment agency. He states there isn't a problem finding a job, its finding quality people who can pass a drug test to fill those positions. Is this the case nationwide? I have no idea, but I feel like its a good representation of a larger problem. Do you have any proof that this isn't the case??

I'd rather not use labels like conservative or dems. I have no idea what they're thinking.

no i don't think more schools are the answer. How does a more educated population dilute the value of one's skillset? And before you go off an economic diatribe, i do understand how the economics of it all works. More people with same or better skills = less money to garner those skills as someone will do the same job for less. But there are thousands of other reasons that play into the equation that we've decided to ignore.

Who would build things if we're all walking around with doctorates? Immigrants?

Last edited by denverd1; 07-31-2014 at 9:49 AM.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-31-2014, 10:14 AM Reply   
First irony WRT to not wanting to use labels.... You started this thread making a point about Democrats. Also how do you address the question of how more educated people dilute the value of one's skill set without talking about economics? I've already answered your question by stating your value is based on how hard you are to replace, not how hard you work. Let's be realistic. I'd talked about various issues regarding factors that drive our economy, and rather than address these things it's translates to you as a diatribe. Second irony is calling my posts a diatribe after you address the issues by posting a real diatribe from Lou, rather than trying to frame a discussion around the 1000's of actual reasons as you say that are driving the state of our economy. Of course if you did then you'd come off as a Progressive.

BTW, Tell your little sister that she has my respect in having to argue with you and coming off sounding like me.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       07-31-2014, 10:28 AM Reply   
lol. Ok. we're done here. why do you take EVERYTHING as an attack to you and your beliefs??? I didn't think we could have a conversation as adults. Just thought I'd give it a try. Thanks for addressing the question I asked: "do you have any proof this isn't the case?" Classic democrat.

BTW i'm not attacking dems (except the question dodging part), just posted one man's point of view. And diatribes aren't bad, they're just long. nothing wrong with them. conservatives spend their money on things, dems spend them on votes. It's easy to see where this is all headed.

you win, John. You win the internet. just another notch in the belt, i'm sure.

Last edited by denverd1; 07-31-2014 at 10:36 AM.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       07-31-2014, 11:11 AM Reply   
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-31-2014, 11:39 AM Reply   
You want proof that the problem with our economy isn't with lazy people when we both agree that there is no real data on it? Well perhaps the fact that the govt has spent $16T it doesn't have and poor people don't have any of that money is a starter.

This discussion is not an attack on me. I have a job, no debt except a mortgage that I plan to have paid off in one year, and a credit score over 800. By the time my job skills are outsourced to impoverished labor I will be long retired. Rather than an attack I see it as refusing to look at the real issues that involve some self blame and self sacrifice, yet choosing to blame the easy targets. That's what the opinion piece you posted did. It's the kind of rhetoric I see coming from the Right without an ounce of pragmatism WRT economic realities. Being pragmatic in today's political environment necessitates being a bit of an apathist. But yes I do enjoy engaging in the sport of ridiculing willful ignorance. Guilty as charged. But how is that worse than letting it go unchallenged?

Thanks for letting me know that there is no money involved in Conservative politics. I would have never known.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       07-31-2014, 1:21 PM Reply   
I present real data from my local area. you offer none.

$16T in economic stimulus, foreign aid, defense and $1 billion dollar website designed to make everyone's care more expensive. And you're saying a better use of it would've been welfare???
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       07-31-2014, 2:36 PM Reply   
"It's a peer reviewed site that tends to be free of bull****. Good enough for me. In you fact, if you want to change the definition of "income inequality" on wikipedia, go ahead. although it looks like you don't have much to add."

You are right, I don't have much to add as far as you are concerned, because you seem to be one of the many conservatives who live in a bubble. I don't know what you do for a living, and don't care, but kiss the ground each day and thank your lucky stars that you are doing well. Because someday you may find yourself in your 50s and get the rug pulled out from under you, all in the name of pleasing the stock holders who own a piece of your company.The average, well paying blue and white class jobs are disappearing fast, and there is nothing there to replace them.

Again keep on living the dream, you might want to pull your head out of the sand, to watch the middle class go bye, bye.
Old    Jason Buffalow (buffalow)      Join Date: Apr 2002       07-31-2014, 2:43 PM Reply   
Hey Nacho - Prepare unemployment to start growing in exponential numbers. As minimum wage increases, employers will be forced to raise prices or have less employees do more. Since the general public will not pay more for a cheeseburger or an air conditioner, jobs will suffer. It also means as the rates got to $10 to $12 in a few years, my choice of employing and training at the bottom of my scale changes. Am I going to hire a high school student that currently makes $8-9 (now 9) or pay a college educated person who can not find a job now or that $10 position?Am I gong to hire a college student for $10/hr or a 40 year old that is now unemployed because his position is now dried up due to his currently employer being forced to give medical that they can not afford as a business. Or do we as business owners move out of country or closes our business to avoid this nonsense?

That all being said, there are many things I agree with Mr. Holtz. I am a self made person that worked my butt off to get were I got and set up an very nice life and retirement for my family. I am of a very small percentage in the united states. I can stop work today at 43 and be done and never look back, but I don't because that's not how I am built. I am built to push and drive my business every day and take care of the 40 people and their families that work with me.

I sure wish I had answers and solutions. Both parties and the system are broken. I am not saying min. wage does not need to increase or that having medical is a bad thing, but something else has to give for that to happen and the government is not chipping in on the deal. I don't want them to chip into my business and I also want them to minimize their greedy hands in my business. I forget the stat but small/medium business make up for a very large chunk of our country's income. How 'bout this? for all companies under say $50 million a year in gross sales - no income taxes for 2 years to be paid, BUT that money has to go into employees, vehicles, equipment and business growth. They have tried similar things with vehicles and weird tax things, but never for the small business that is employing the bulk of those affected.

I honestly believe this country is due for a revolution. I believe it will come int he form of social media until it catches a storm. I could easily see people voting for no incumbents just cause or because they saw it on FB and actually having an affect on who will be in office. Will that fix it, heck no, there will be other problems, but it might be a start. Other parties that have grown, may finally have an impact.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-01-2014, 6:30 AM Reply   
No, I'm not suggesting that welfare should be increased. What I'm saying is that that you can't fix govt spending by cutting help to the poor or implementing policy that targets the poor without making things worse in society or the economy. I don't offer solutions to the problem, but instead want people to look at the factors that are causing the problems. We are trading job opportunities for Americans so we can buy from impoverished labor. We have a net deficit in trade relations, which means that the economy will dry up if money isn't injected from somewhere. The obvious answer would be to address that economic deficit, but there are all kinds of problems with that. Once you dig yourself into a hole it's not easy to get out. We are addicted to consumption.

If you give poor people welfare and every penny they spend stays in the economy it's going to filter up through the middle class and wealthy, and create more jobs. Everyone benefits when the money stays in circulation in the economy. But if you ship the money to overseas manufacturing then the money that doesn't leave the economy goes to corp profits and low wage retail jobs. This isn't a sustainable economic model unless you have infinite ability to borrow and spend.

While the govt was hyping bailing out the financial institutions it never was telling the public that transportation infrastructure was in dismal shape and the national highway fund was on the verge of running dry. Instead of paying back investors in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae maybe they should have been creating jobs by funding the transportation trust fund. Even while the transportation fund is running dry and Congress can't agree on a fix, the Fed Reserve is printing money and buying mortgage securities. Now tell me that isn't for the benefit of the wealthy. Why would the Fed buy mortgage securities? Apparently they can't be sold anywhere else so that means the Fed is paying more than market value. IOW it's giving money to investors.

Lastly, I'm afraid that you can't avoid thinking that allowing foreign manufacturers to compete against domestic manufacturers while at the same time imposing more expensive requirements domestically isn't a good idea. So do we want to lower our standards, or demand that countries that export to us meet higher standards or face tariffs, or just continue with the status quo?

The answer to that question has always been the status quo, and mitigate the economic damage with increased govt debt and fed monetary expansion. Now is that sustainable? You want to motivate people to work? Then let them see their friends get jobs that pay decent, will train them, offer more meaningful work, and give them a clear path to contributing to society. The lazy people aren't visionaries but they can work hard and should be able to make a living wage. The visionaries will still have the luxuries and plenty of disposable income, while the less gifted will at least have the essentials and the ability to retire at an old age. That is income inequality as it should be.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       08-01-2014, 11:47 AM Reply   
I think I have a quick personal story that would sum this whole thing up. A few years ago I was laid off from a very good paying job. I was making close to 6 figures, had my car paid for by the company, my cell phone and a lot of expenses. basically I was riding the gravy train. When I was laid off along with 300 other sales reps I was devastated. I live in a town of about 70,000 and every job I went for was less then half of what I was used to making. I did however get a decent severance from the company and had managed to save a little money to. So I thought to myself, ya know..I've been in sales all my life, I have some great ideas and marketing skills and I have some pretty good relationships with many of the business owners already. So i started a company called [http://www.quickclickmobile.com got out of bed every morning did my due diligence on who I wanted to target that day and here I am a few years later with nearly 100 clients paying me monthly for my services. I think the point nacho is trying to make is the fact that I could have chosen to take a lower paying job and settle. I could have also laid around and pointed fingers at the company, at the government or anyone else I could put the blame on for me not having a job. The reality is we all make choices that lead us to the place we are at today. Nacho went into the restaurant business his friend became a Doctor. I started a marketing business someones else might become an electrician. If we do nothing we become nothing and we have nothing. My brother has a fitness center and a block away is the mission. One day I went into the corner store to buy a soda on the way home from an appointment, there were at least 6-7 homeless guys in there but what amazed me was how able bodied many of them were. Then I heard someone say hey Dan is that you? I looked and saw I guy I went to school with. i said yeah how's it going Greg without even thinking he replies with food stamp in hand as he laughed, ha ha good man Im on the Obama plan. I asked him what the Obama plan was (because honestly I didn't know) He said just taking it easy. As I drove off I realized the scripture that says A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest and poverty will come on you like a thief and scarcity like an armed man. Or Thessalonians 3:10 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat. The problem is they did not know about food stamps when they wrote that. So the moral of this story is although I understand not everyone is milking the system, there are so many that are it's draining society. And while I am all for giving a hand up, I am not for promoting laziness. Consistent planning and hard work will almost always go rewarded. Nobody likes a moocher for long. It's not the zombies that are going to do us in, it's the freaking moochers created by an administration that is run by a man who as far as i can tell has never had a real job before. Most people know I lean right with my political views but at this point I say throw them all out. I'm tired of the political game on both sides and the people end up loosing every time. No job equals low or no self esteem. Nothing feels better then a good hard days work getting many things accomplished. Remember, at the end of the day it is not about anything else but the choices I make today. I will become what i consistently do. If I consistently procrastinate I will not get much accomplished. If I settle for a minimum wage job it was my choice to make that amount of money doing that type of work. We still live in the greatest country ever and anyone can still become whatever they dream to be if they only plan their work and then work that plan.
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       08-01-2014, 12:30 PM Reply   
Our economy and standard of living has outpaced the rest of the planet for so long now that most of us have no clue of the effect of it.
Most "poor" in our country have no idea what poverty is really like. Likewise, most moderate income families have no idea how well off we are. Our incomes are out of whack with the rest of the world, and it has become proportionally very expensive to employ in the US. Enter... Globalization.
Globalization is a reality. There's nothing you can do about it. Companies, both privately owned and publicly traded are virtually forced to participate in "globalization". If you are not adapting to it, your competition will and for the future of your company, you MUST do the same.
Technological advancements have expanded the landscape of "jobs" that can be outsourced at an exponential pace. I've witnessed this at my own company. There are simply very few industries or functions that can't be done for 1/4 or less of the cost here in the states. Manufacturing, Technical Support, Software Development, Engineering, Finance, Medical.... Unless you are a barber or own a tire shop.... it's coming.
But what can be done about it?
Putting additional government "protectionist" trade controls in place, a.) won't happen because of the influence of said employers and b.) wouldn't work anyway because of the truly global nature of the economy. Global companies employ globally and sell globally. Yes, we are currently the largest "consumers" in terms of dollars spent, but that's changing quickly. While our economy continues to stumble and incomes stagnate (or actually decline when you factor "real" inflation), other developing nations are filling in the consumerist gap. We're only a few years away from being knocked off that perch. China and India are coming on strong. Plenty of educated, willing and able workers at a fraction of the cost of a US equivalent.
Artificial wage controls won't work either and will have the exact opposite effect. You give a burger flipper $15/hr, that means you have to give his manager an equivalent bump, etc. McD's (as a global company) still has to perform financially. Any company only has two choices. Increase revenue, or reduce expenses. So they either raise prices, which makes their burgers unaffordable, or they cut costs like, automate the order takers job (which will probably happen anyway), thereby causing MORE unemployment, resulting in MORE people on gov't assistance.
Now the flip side to this is, the more people there are who rely on assistance for some, most, or all of their income, the more people are needed to administer these benefits (until the whole system can be automated... then they can be replaced too). The more administrators, the more bureaucrats. The more bureaucrats, the bigger the govt. So I guess that's where the jobs are going to be. And I believe it holds statistically, that people on assistance typically vote for bureaucrats in favor of increasing those benefits. More bureaucrats means more regulations, more laws, more rules. The bigger the govt the more need for tax revenues because the government doesn't actually earn revenue it can only collect and distribute it from others. Increase tax burdens on corporations (and some individuals), and they'll simply relocate to more tax friendly countries. Take a close look at most "US" based corporations these days and you'll find that a significant portion of their balance sheet is held/kept in the countries outside the US where they have subsidiaries. That money is earned overseas, and stays overseas because it's already tax prohibitive to repatriate that money back home. I think Apple was ding'd publicly for this recently if i recall although they were doing nothing illegal. What's left is the middle income earners (or what's left of them) and small business owners who don't have the influence or wherewithal to reduce their tax and regulatory burden. The result is long-term economic malaise at best, or eventual breakdown and collapse at worst.
What's going to turn the corner on this? I have no idea. It's kinda scary actually. Until it becomes economical again to hire workers here, it's not going to change. You'll always have the wealthy CEO's, 1%'ers, etc, and they can protect themselves thru the same globalization (outsourcing their money). Most of us cannot.
I know most of this is not directly related to the OP, except to say that the rhetoric from the administration is that you are poor because the rich don't play fair, and while that's not 100% untrue, redistributive policies won't change it, but likely make it worse. But then again, that may be entirely by design. If they increase the population who is dependent on the gov't for help, while convincing them that it's someone else's fault, they're simply securing and growing their own industry (i.e. expanding the government). BOTH sides of the isle do this. There was as much bureaucratic growh under Bush as under Obama.

Last edited by snyder; 08-01-2014 at 12:36 PM.
Old    James Proctor (allzway)      Join Date: Feb 2014       08-01-2014, 1:25 PM Reply   
There is no substitute for hard work and dedication....except government welfare it seems.

While Fly has a point that the middle class is shrinking and I believe it is mostly due to the lack of middle class manufacturing jobs that paid a decent wage and allowed unskilled and lesser educated folks to make a nice living. Government regulation or excess taxing is generally what forced those jobs to foreign countries...and of course greed, but greed isn't limited to corporations.... we all look to buy the least expensive whatever it is we are purchasing??

We also should keep in mind that not everyone is management material and not everyone can be educated into a good paying job... you still need lesser skilled decent paying jobs. I don't know all the answers, but keeping these jobs in the US should have been a priority from our government...whom has totally dropped the ball from both sides of the political aisle.

Where Fly did miss the boat is that this is not a republican, or democrat or conservative/liberal debate... and anyone that truly thinks anyone in our government is out to help you is full of horse ***** or that the path to correction is to simply to tax the evil rich people until prosperity for all returns is truly clueless.

There are not enough rich people in the world to just tax and make things all better. You do have to give the liberals credit for demonizing working hard and earning a good living which gives them voting power among a braid dead lazy society. Just like others mentioned, if you have not seen the abuse of welfare, then you should probably step outside of your gated community and see the real world for a change.

It appears to me as a country we are in serious decline and everyone within our government just wants to point fingers and claim victory... I think we are screwed.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-01-2014, 2:57 PM Reply   
The REAL root of most of our problems is us. We the people have become gullible and complacent in keeping government under control. It's been too easy to sit back and let our elected "representatives" run things while we are busy and distracted with whatever the liberal media feeds us as news. For a democratic republic to function, citizens must maintain an active role in all aspects of government and ACT when necessary to remove any government which ceases to serve the best interests of the nation. Apathy has replaced common sense.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       08-01-2014, 3:04 PM Reply   
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

--- Winston Churchill
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-02-2014, 8:40 AM Reply   
I agree with most everything Pound posted except the issue of minimum wage. Raising minimum wage is not the long term solution to anything. Raising it is a short term solution. Poor people need housing, transportation, health care, and food. None of those essentials are tied directly to the minimum wage. Sure, burgers at McDonalds is, but that isn't an essential. As Pound also noted there is no long term solution to any of the issues he addressed. So I question why the long term solution requirement should be applied to minimum wage.

WRT Jim's post about liberals demonizing hard work. That is an absurd claim. Liberals aren't demonizing hard work. Americans are devaluing hard work. As a result liberals are at odds with conservatives wrt policy that directly hurts the poor. How may liberals have you heard complain about poor working people getting earned income credit? Probably none, but I'm sure you've heard it from conservatives. Same with the flat tax. At what income levels do conservatives think the flat tax is going to be a benefit. Obviously not for the working poor.

Liberals don't need to "breed" liberals by pitting the poor against the rich. What exactly is that anyway? The poor turn against the rich means what? Higher tax rates for high earners? That can easily be justified in light of where the wealth is going.

Ron notes that apathy has replaced common sense. That may be true but I'm thinking that the public has never had a significant input to policy. In the Vietnam War era you had huge numbers of people who were very committed to seeing an end to the war, but the public didn't even care that their own sons were dying for nothing. They had blind trust in an evil lying treasonous President. But today the public at large has no consensus of the problems, causes, or solutions. No real lack of apathy, just a lack of clear direction. Oh I guess if as implied by Ron pointing out the liberal media being a distraction, if you listen to Fox News you'll have clear direction. I'll add.. on how to send this country down the toilet.
Old    Jason Buffalow (buffalow)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-04-2014, 8:28 AM Reply   
So with all of the smart people here at WW and business owners/employers, let's talk about possible solutions. I think we all agree hard work is required to succede and most of our core values tend to be ab out the same. So anybody have any thoughts on reform?
Old    Eric (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       08-04-2014, 9:24 AM Reply   
Hard work is required. AGREED!! So how do you get hard work? First of all, you have to reward the person who is working hard instead of their employer. I'm a sub-contractor and the only difference between being an employee and a sub is that when I work hard I get paid more. As an employee, when I worked harder someone who already had millions and even billions of dollars to begin with got paid more. Working a minimum wage job should pay better than waiting for a government check in the mail. We have to recognize that it costs a lot more to live in the USA than it does to live in China, Singapore, etc. As a result Americans will always require a higher wage just to survive. You can't expect Americans to work hard while starving or to go home after a hard days work and die of exposure because they make less per month than the lowest available rent. As a result of the higher cost of living we can't compete on a level playing field for manufacturing labor so we need to leverage the American consumer as well as the purchasing power from our European allies who also have a higher standard of living. We are the only people who can afford the crap being made in Asian countries who often pay less than 7 dollars a day to their employees. If they don't want to pay their employees higher wages then they should be paying a steep tariff to gain access to the very valuable American and European consumer. The penalty should be even higher for American companies who send jobs abroad. We can't afford to buy loyalty from greedy American corporations. Make them come up to our level instead of joining the race to the bottom. Lastly we have to recognize that supporting big business and small business is mutually exclusive ie. if you are supporting Home Depot then you are destroying the small business hardware store owner (oops, too late on that one). Pro business is either pro giant conglomerate business or pro small locally owned business. It's never both. Don't ever jump on the political bandwagon because you own a small business and a big business CEO that you admire pushes a political idea, a new law, or a specific party or candidate for office. Their goal is not to bring you to their level but rather to ensure that they remain on the top of the pile. Nobody with an extremely high level of success ever hands out free advice without a hidden agenda. It's not in their sociopathic nature. If they were normal, they would have quit before their first billion and lived the life that normal people like us all dream about. Did you dream about spending the rest of your life wakeboarding at your private lake behind a new boat every year or did you dream about continuing to go to the office to build an empire until you are dead even though you can't take any of it with you?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-04-2014, 9:41 AM Reply   
Erics's ideas strike to the heart of the problem. But as Pound noted, good luck getting Americans to pay more for cheap crap. While they stab their fellow citizens in the back, they attack those who can't make a living wage as lazy good for nothings.

I especially like Flight's comparison of himself to homeless guys hanging at the corner store. After he lost his 6 figure salary he picked himself up by his bootstraps and created a business for himself. While apparently after those homeless guys lost their 6 figure salaries they decided to hang out and become bums because it was so much easier living on the streets.
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       08-04-2014, 2:10 PM Reply   
The problem is that those are your voters as well. No I'm not suggesting that only earners be able to vote, but you can bet your ass those on welfare will show up in droves on election day!

I also completely disagree that putting money in the hands of poor folks somehow trickles up to everyone else in the economy...

So how do you support those who need it without creating lifelong welfare dependents. In my opinion that's what's going on and the point of the thread. We've fallen asleep and elected a guy who's put the lazy do nothing voters in the driver's seat. I fear that we've done irreparable damage to our country
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       08-04-2014, 2:17 PM Reply   
Possible solutions: secure our borders.
Are they sick kids? Yea.
Are they citizens? No.

Next wave of dependants showing up every day.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-04-2014, 2:49 PM Reply   
Nacho, are you suggesting that poor people actually have secret offshore bank accounts where they are piling up the money? If you don't think that money goes back into the economy, where is it? Where did it go? Do they burn it to keep warm?

I have to laugh that people get all analytical about raising the minimum wage and how it will drive up prices such that minimum wage earners end up being no better off. Then when you hit them with a $1/2 dollar trade deficit draining the economy and the govt having to borrow to replace it, suddenly 1+1 doesn't equal 2 anymore. The economy is magic!
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       08-04-2014, 3:04 PM Reply   
The problem as I see it, is not solvable thru any planned action. I think unfortunately, it'll take some event on a catastrophic level. Either an economic, political, or environmental catastrophe. The reason I say this is in our current political climate, we are too divided as a nation. We may have crossed a tipping point where we can't make the hard choices necessary to make things better. We've become diametrically opposed on nearly every issue or topic. "Gridlock". One of the major polling groups did a study that tracked the ideological polarization and division in America over many decades and it's at a peak (if i can find it, i'll link it). Honestly pragmatic people in the middle are fewer and fewer. The politico-media complex has done an excellent job of sorting us out like a deck of cards and we've bought it. This little website (sorry Dave) is a perfect example. There is, at least in the non-wake section, a pretty clear list of regulars with which i could bet with almost 100% certainty which side of any given issue these people would land (myself included).

We'll either continue to spend the next few decades in economic malaise, or something big will happen that will FORCE us to change.

We came together as a nation for about a millisecond after 9/11. Just long enough to be forever saddled w/the DHS and creating excuses for our government to seek any and all information they want on you. 13+ years later and 13 yrs closer to an Orwellian state.

In the meantime, we just can't agree on crap!
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       08-04-2014, 3:26 PM Reply   
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...rties-show-it/

This is not exactly the study i was referring to, but the same conclusion. We are continuing toward a deeper and clearer divide. A house divided cannot stand... but what's next? What does it mean when the house falls?

...edit, the Pew research is linked inside the above article.

Last edited by snyder; 08-04-2014 at 3:28 PM.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       08-04-2014, 5:51 PM Reply   
"The problem as I see it, is not solvable thru any planned action. I think unfortunately, it'll take some event on a catastrophic level"
We just went through The Great Recession several years ago, which could have been catastrophic if not for the bailout, Nothing is going to change! The sky is Not falling and we are not going into another Depression. The economy is going to crawl along and Nothing is going to Fix it. China will soon have the biggest economy in the world and we will be #2!
Old    Dustin Yost (dyost)      Join Date: Jan 2007       08-04-2014, 11:44 PM Reply   
Buffalow - four easy steps to reform right here. I honestly think this would solve a lot of problems.

1) Term limits for every elected official. No more than three terms for congressmen, one for Senators. Our problems started when people began making a career out of politics. Democratic govt. is about peer representation, in the early days you farmed, banked, were a shipping merchant, etc and served your civic duty representing your peers for a few terms, eventually returning to your profession. Too many of our elected officials have never held any job outside of political staffer or elected office, I don't think many of them would cut it in the business world. You limit the number of terms they can serve and you will get talented people who will run for office out of desire to make a difference (civic duty) and then later return to their profession. In today's world these guys get in and will do ANYTHING to stay in. Most spend more time campaigning and fundraising for re-election than doing anything to represent their constituents.

2) You don't pay taxes, you don't vote. Pretty simple, you should not be allowed to vote yourself benefits from the public treasury if you are not contributing to it.

3) Employers should not have to collect taxes on behalf of the government. Too many people have no idea how much they're paying in taxes. They get used to living on their take-home pay and don't consider the true impact of the taxes your employer automatically withholds each month. Most don't even see it.... In my company's case, we don't get a paper paycheck or paystub, so you have to first be on company property, tied into our company network, log into our HR system, enter your password, navigate through five menu clicks to get to your online paystub. Easy enough for office staff, but I know the many production guys on the floor are not gonna use one of the three PCs in the factory break room to do this. Point is, make every American sit down and WRITE A CHECK to the government each month for taxes (like they do for their mortgage or electricity) and they will take a more active interest in where that large percentage of their gross salary is going.

4) Each new piece of legislature introduced should be limited to 1000 words or less. If the every-man cannot read and comprehend proposed new laws, how are they to direct their elected official on how they want to be represented? This would not only limit complication, but would force each proposed new law to be evaluated and voted upon based on it's own merits, not tacked onto the back page of a 3,000 page bill.

My humble opinion......
Old    James Proctor (allzway)      Join Date: Feb 2014       08-05-2014, 6:03 AM Reply   
Dustin... Just add.

5) If you draw welfare from the government.... then you will work for that money. ( cleaning state/national parks, building roads... whatever.)
Old    Eric (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       08-05-2014, 6:51 AM Reply   
So you don't want to pay taxes and you hate the poor. Got it!! Now how does any of that solve any problems? We still have a national debt. We still have government expenses and a giant military budget. China is still paying factory workers $7 per day so they can take our formerly middle class jobs and drain our economy. A politician can still due a lot of damage in even a single term and with term limits, the amount of damage in their last term can be unlimited because they don't have to campaign based on the damage they have done. If you want better politicians, you need to make sure they haven't been bought and paid for by the same old puppet masters every year with bribes disguised as "campaign contributions". You have solved nothing with your suggestions. But I do understand that you think poor people are the bane of our society and need to be destroyed. You have made that abundantly clear. So maybe you can make sure poor people don't breed like rabbits by providing them with birth control and abortion services ....... crickets
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       08-05-2014, 7:05 AM Reply   
^or at least pass a drug test to able to get the handouts.

John it a matter of pennies versus dollars.

Trade deficit? currently 2.1% at a 14 year low. whats this 50% BS you keep talking about?

Buffalow - I agree with all of that
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       08-05-2014, 7:30 AM Reply   
1) we have term limits. They're called elections. See Eric Cantor for more details.
2) we tried that too, it was called a poll tax.
3) if your employer didn't route your taxes for you, we'd need 100,000 more IRS agents to track everyone down because they wouldn't pay.
4) i somewhat agree w/this one, except with the progressive lawyering up that's happened in Washington, if every single detail of legislation is not covered in pure legalese, then we'd spend more time in the courts than we already do, basically allowing the judicial branch to fill in the blanks.... for more info see ACA and SCOTUS. even though that monstrosity is well over 2000 pages, it's been challenged in court repeatedly. The latest is specifically on the lack of exact phrasing allowing for subsidies for people in the federal exchange. Where the law as written only says subsidies are available for qualifying people in state exchanges.... it's not at the supreme court yet, but is making its way there.

remove the influence of lobbyists
remove the influence of powerful corporations
roll back the regulatory climate by eliminating several "departments" that have very little oversight to the "regulations" they can add, change, enforce at a whim
listen with a critical ear to ANY news source because they have an agenda (on the left and the right)
and VOTE IN YOUR PRIMARIES!!!!
...and we MIGHT have a chance.

Yes, we need a safety net to take care of the less fortunate, and TEMPORARY help for folks in a pinch. But it should not be a re-distributive program that becomes so comfortable that you remove the incentive for individuals to be be productive.
And the federal government should be limited to ONLY the powers granted to it by the constitution. it's pretty clear there. everything else should be left to individual states. The idea there is if you don't like how your state is being run, you can either change leadership, or move to another state... vote w/your feet. If you don't like how the federal gov't is run, you can only try to change leadership... you can't really vote w/your feet.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-05-2014, 8:00 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1 View Post
^or at least pass a drug test to able to get the handouts.

John it a matter of pennies versus dollars.

Trade deficit? currently 2.1% at a 14 year low. whats this 50% BS you keep talking about?
No 50% in there. I accidentally left the trillion out of "$1/2 trillion dollars". $44B for the month of May.
Old    Eric (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       08-05-2014, 8:41 AM Reply   
Passing a drug test to obtain hand outs is a great idea until you realize that it's their children who pay for their misdeeds. I have no problem with letting a drug addict with no kids die of starvation. The problem is that they ALL have kids. Go through your list of family members, friends, or former friends who have drug problems or addictions and try to find one that doesn't have dependent children. Walk through a dingy low rent section 8 apartment building and try to find a unit without a pile of children in it. We don't let children starve in the USA. If we ever do, it'll be time to leave.
Old    James Proctor (allzway)      Join Date: Feb 2014       08-05-2014, 8:48 AM Reply   
The problem is... the kids still don't get the care they need and deserve. The drug addicts just trade welfare for drugs.
Old    Jason Buffalow (buffalow)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-05-2014, 10:57 AM Reply   
DUSTIN - I like the thinking and that includes drug testing on welfare. When I look at streets/parks/lakes, etcc, I see that if someone is drawing from the government, they need to put in some work. Not saying it has to be 40 hours.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       08-06-2014, 8:01 AM Reply   
Then the drug addicts that fail the tests should have their kids taken away(or at least checked upon) until the time they can pass a test. It won't be any cheaper, because the money you save on welfare will go right back into the system to care for kids and fostercare, but I would much rather see that than the current abuses.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       08-06-2014, 9:05 AM Reply   
"Get all the drug addicts off welfare!!!! And my lawn!!!"

The idea that a lot or even many welfare recipients are drug addicts is a fantasy created by the right wing hate machine.

Florida tried it and found that roughly 2% of welfare recipients failed a drug test. They had to reimburse the people that passed for the cost of the test so they state actually spent MORE money under that policy, not less. The law was eventually struck down as unconstitutional (what a surprise).

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...es-end-failure
Old    Nacho (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       08-06-2014, 9:22 AM Reply   
The issue with welfare IMO is that people often never get back into the system as productive tax paying citizens. Poser's friend, "on the Obama plan, just taking it easy." So drug testing doesn't work, what does?
Old    James Proctor (allzway)      Join Date: Feb 2014       08-06-2014, 11:13 AM Reply   
I wonder where folks live that don't see welfare abuse. Sounds like a nice utopian gated community.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:54 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us