It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid WHO is telling the truth? and who is lying? and Budget cuts!!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The Republicans are lying, as usual.

Look at the record. Every time a Republican president is in office the budget balloons. It started with Ron Reagan with his huge tax cuts for the rich that increased the budget deficit more than all US governments combined in history!

He did this with the tax cuts for the rich.

Then the second Bush came along and did the same thing, huge tax cuts for the rich that, along with the illegal Iraq war sent the deficit in the stratosphere. Where was the Tea Party then?

Then along came the 2008 crash that BUSH, the Republican president started the bailout of the Banksters that is the direct cause of this present predicament, NOT OBAMA!

The Republicans deliberately blow up the deficit in order to destroy the new deal. . . . Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs primarily to placate the rich who want to privatize these functions for a profit.




posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


i hate obama care because its exactly what i am talking about and unless you have read the entire bill yet i would hold off on whats really in it.

the full effect of obama care doesnt kick in until hes out of office.

obama did exactly what a employer does and the insurance companies do they just passed the cost directly on to you and me.

i want obama care gone i want big government the hell out of business.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


dude obama has spent no money since hes been in office.

the nerve talking to me about the deficit all the republicans fault my god man

what do you think obama has done.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I tell you what, Obama care is going to become a fiasco but once again we will be stuck with it just like Medicare and Medicaid.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Remove all unconstitutional spending, ie social welfare, entitlements so forth.

Bring back the strength of the Constitution and recognize it as the ONLY and supreme law of the land.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

huh???
the gov't gives money to the hospitals, they give grants for the equipment, they give funding for the training, they fund research and the developement of drugs.....if anything, they are assuring that there are as many doctors, nurses, hospitals, ect, as possible....so, well,
huh???
if you are talking about health insurance, well, sorry, but let me describe what I see as far as that one goes.....
some of us pay outrageous premiums for insurance that pays squat and comes with such high deductables, well, we will go without care for as long as we possibly can, because we just can't afford it.....and, to tell ya the truth, for some reason, I find myself wondering, if these people aren't the same people that are working those jobs carry a little bit more danger, ya know, toxic chemicals, ect...
then, you have those people who the gov't determines to be in need, and pitch in the taxpayer's money to help them get the insurance, and well, the insurance pays most of the healthcare costs, so they have no problem getting the care they need...
then, well you have those who get very good coverage from their employer, low deductable, low co pays, or none at all......
well, umm.....excuse me, but it seems that some of us is paying out the arse, not getting much back for it, and we are just there to subsidize the healthcare of the other two groups!!!
the inflation is from the fact that ain't no one really paying for their own healthcare!! all these schemes have been set up to assure that there is at least enough people able to obtain it at an affordable price to keep the business rolling. they overcharge out the wazoo, and well, in the end, they will take whatever they can get....
$5, $10, $100, $1000, for a small pill that only cost them 50 cents!! the healthcare system is a racket, and it will continue to be a racket till the gov't programs, like medicare, medicaid, schips, ect, along with the insurance companies are out of the picture!! till then, I got a feeling even bill gates can expect to die penniless with nothing to hand down to his kids!!!



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Is like I posted earlier the littler dirty secret of the so call example of universal health care in the state of Massachusetts, the mandated health care has become so bad when it comes to deductives and out pocket expenses that most people on fix budgets can not even afford to use them, but they are stuck on been forced to pay to have the insurance.



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

who originally came up with the Mass. version???

Romney?? isn't he a republican???

gee, imagine that, the plan that the republicans hate so much, was originally, the idea of a republican.....
probably had a real close friend in the insurance industry in the state!!!

it's just a huge givaway to the insurance companies, gives them a hostage customer base, free market be danged!!!

neither party is playing with a full deck, and well, if you ask me, their primary goals are the same regardless of party, and those goals have very little to do with the well being of the common citizen of this country!



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reploy to post by neo96
 
This is a very important discussion and if you don't mind I would like to share some of my knowledge of the facts.

First of all conservatives like to say that stimulative spending only increases the debt and doesn't help to erradicate recessions or depressions. I know this is off the [point but it will connect the dots in a minute. I will not talk of F.D.R. I will talk of Alan Greenspan 1987. I think the callasp was called "Black Monday" and it lead to a widespread economic problems for the country and Mr. Reagan our president. What did Alan Greenspan do? He promptly bought up a whole lot of U.S. Bonds. Another words he choose a dept instrument to stimulate the economy. I know conservatives don't like to talk much about that, but it worked.

Now let me talk about Alan Greenspan again. Alan Greenspan during that same period of time told the president and congress that we needed to increase taxation for social security and to Ronald Reagan's and Alan Greenspan's credit they created what became know as the social security trust fund and it had 1.7 trillion on deposit. However Ronald Reagan who had cut corporate taxes drastically was now running a deficite on the budget and in spite of his raising payrol taxes and sales taxes he couldn't close the gap because he had given away too much to the rich.So at the advice of Alan Greenspan he borrowed money from the secial security trust fund and in it's place he gave Government I.O.U's backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The very ones that George W. bush held up on his social security bashing campaign and declared them to be "Worthless Pieces of Paper" Yes those worthless peacers of paper was what American's put aside and it had nothing to do with the budget but Ronald Reagaan and Alan Greenspan stoled those from us in order to cover their tracts so that we wouldn't know that giving tax breaks to the super rich doesn't produce a healthy econonmy or jobs.

Exxon/Mobile earned 19 billion dollars last year and didn't pay anything in taxes and got back $156,000,000.00.. General Electric didn't pay anything in taxes. Bank of America, Citi group and the list is long and non of them paid taxes. Where are the jobs?? Oh that's right in China. Why? Because China has a slave class, just like you are all going to be soon if you don't wake up. Social Security, Medicare, MEDICAID and even the new Health care program are the working man's lifeline. According to the Congressional BUdget Office what you call Obama care doesn't add a dime to the deficit actually it saves I think a trillion dollars over the next ten years. Now the congressional BUdget office you might not want to believe is non partisan but where do you think the republicans go to get their budgets scored?

One more point. If the a balanced budget was so important to conservatives then why didn't any conservative insist that George W. Bush include the cost of the Iraq War in any of his budgets. Oh you didn't know that he left out that little war expense that was supposed to be paid for by oil revenue according to Dick Cheney. Ya that little expense that cost around 20 billion a month. I am not telling you folks these things to quarel with you, I am telling you the truth because the truth is power. If you people love America you would want to be on the side of truth. Social security doesn't have a problem and it doesn't add to the deficit. It's all that you have working America, don't let the neo cons take that away from you. If there was a revenue problem with S.S. then raising the income cap would take care of that. Please get off the partisan band wagon and start looking out for your own interest. Social Security isn't a luxury it's a necessity. Healthcare isn't a luxury it's a necessity. When Dick Cheney or Bill Clinton goes to the hospital they use Government paid health insurance that we pay for. If we can foot the bill for them ,then why can't we have it too.

Peace and Blessings
Richc



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 
If private insurances were 1000 times better than medicare, which I don't believe it is, then it would only be because it cost 1000 times more than medicare.

Medicare is not fraught with fraud as a matter of fact most of it's revenue goes directly to the recipiant in the form of healthcare.. I think only around 3 to 5% of it's budget goes for administration where private insurance administative cost are around 20% and that doesn't factor the CEO bonuses.The plain fact is most of America's elderlycan't afford those private insurances that you are so proud of. Here's a little tid bit for you,When Dick Cheney went into the hospital for his heart problems, he did so on government health insurance.All these senators and congress members all have government health insurance. But I suppose they don't use it because it is 1000 times worse than private insurance. Well all except that freshman senator from Maryland or Deleware who hadn't even been sworn in yet and was wondering why he didn't have the government health insurance yet. Oh and here's irony for ya, he's a doctor.

The V.A. is government healthcare and in my occupation I work with soldiers and retired soldiers and their families and in my conversations with them I have discovered that they are glad to have it.My Dad receives medicare and I will tell you that he receives really good medical care. He had a massive heart attack a few years ago and they saved his life. There was no rationing od care, he got what he needed plain and simple.

Peace and Blessings
Richc



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 
I have read the entire bill. Time is the great unveiler of the truth so time will tell if it's going to cost tax payers alot of money. But we already pay taxes and much of it goes to support three wars and tax breaks for the rich, why shouldn't we get something for our hard earned money?

The C.B.O.. Congressional Budget Office a non partisan auditing arm of the government. The vary place where both dems and repubs go to get their budgetary bills scored, says that the Affordable healthcare bill will not add to the budget and will save around a trillion dollars over the next ten years. As I said, time is the great unveiler of the truth, we shall see.

But look at what the healthcare bill will buy you.

A family of four earning $30,000.00 per year can get insurance for only six hundred dollars per year. That's only $50.00 per month

A family of four earniong 66,000.00 per year will pay more, they will pay $6100.00 per year but that same insurance in a real world setting would cost $12,000.00 per year.

Here's another real world setting for ya. My wife had a complete knee joint replacement surgury which cost $100,000.00. If I didn't have good insurance I would hasve gladly paid $6100.00 as apposed to $100,000.00.

This bill is not as good as it could have been but there is still good to be had here. It can mean the difference between losing everything you've ever worked for or not. For those who say this bill was a sellout, I'm not going to argue that point, but you don't throw everthing away just because you didn't get everything you wanted.

Peace and Blessings
Richc



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


98.1% of all Massachussettes resident are insured according to the Massachussettes Division of Healthcare and policy. That leaves 1.9% uninsured,. Where is this most people in Mass that your referring to?

Peace and Blessings
Richc



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by richc
 


Insurance coverage rates are highly irrelevant to the dynamics of healthcare, really.

It doesn't do healthcare coverage much good when 98% are insured but with such high deductibles or low cost-shares that only 60% can actually afford to -get- healthcare.

Personally, I like the HSA model - it's a tax-deferred savings account coupled with a high-deductible insurance plan. Different medical expenses are paid out of the account, but you still have the insurance company backing you for major expenses like surgeries or accidents.

Honestly, that's what insurance is about - it's not so much about whether or not you can afford your regular medical exams (though many pay for it because it usually ends up catching problems when they are cheaper to fix rather than when they are more expensive), it's about "what happens if my kid breaks his/her arm? Or I have a heart attack?

Of course, one of the major cost factors influencing insurance these days is the fixation with medications and surgeries. Bypass surgery, for example, has long-term success rates that are no different from treatment in the form of lifestyle therapies. In most cases - even where it is applied - it is unnecessary. However - people tend to demand a surgery to fix their problem, and an insurance plan that covers it.

Then you have end-of-life services that start getting pretty silly. We really need to work out a better system. Hospitalizing someone who is 89 years old and repeatedly bringing him/her back from the brink of death seems ... silly. And expensive, for what it ends up netting.



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by richc
 


We are talking about people that are already insured by mandate, the ones that can not afford to used their mandated insurance due to unregulated fees, out of pocket expenses and deductibles, that is where the insurance companies are going to get you, and prior to the propaganda to push the health care reform Massachusetts were asking for a bailout for their over budget universal health care because it was getting to expensive for the state to support it.

Tell me where in the health care bill will "guarantee' the cost that you already has posted and where in the health care bill tells what 'regulations' will be enforced, don't you know that the ones that redacted that bill were the health care insurance themselves? just like anything in this nation that favors corporate America our politicians are nothing but their whores in congress.

The bill is a fiasco and will be felt very soon after the mandate is enforced or else.

The news that were never given priority tells the realities of Massachusetts' health care version.

As Obama pushes universal health care, is Massachusetts' version collapsing?

www.examiner.com...

OPINION JULY 7, 2010 The Massachusetts Health-Care 'Train Wreck'
The future of ObamaCare is unfolding here: runaway spending, price controls, even limits on care and medical licensing.


online.wsj.com...

March 06, 2011
Mass. Health care Insurance Market Continues Collapse


byrondennis.typepad.com...

The same fiasco that Massachusetts faces the entire nation will be facing very soon with Obamacare.

Home / News / Health and Fitness News from the Boston Globe
Bay State health insurance premiums highest in country
Rein in health costs, Massachusetts urged


www.boston.com...




edit on 22-4-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Sure - they could probably choose to buy things from abroad to try and avoid paying sales tax on it - but that's likely to be far less detrimental than the loop-holes available to them at present. Are they going to buy their paper towels and have food shipped from overseas, too?
Oh, right, yep they'll certainly contribute a fair share of taxes buying their paper towels. Just exactly how many are in that top % that will be contributing their fair share by purchasing household products and groceries?


Originally posted by Aim64C
I'll be downright honest - if my kids try and destroy themselves out of some kind of sense of debt to me, I swear to all things holy that I will beat the living hell out of them.
Good luck being able to beat the living hell out of them when you can't get up out of your own excrement and they put you out on the lawn so they don't have to smell you, since according to your next quote they do not owe you anything.


Originally posted by Aim64C
The debt children owe to their parents is to live life and to pass as good of a life on to their kids as they possibly can.
The debt children owe to their parents is not just to thrive in life, but also includes taking care of their parents when they are old, just as they were cared for when they were new. It is precisely this sort of dissociative perspective on responsibility to our parents/elders that has required our society to need social programs.



Originally posted by Aim64C
On a debt level, were my parents still around, I could never pay them back in a monetary sense for all they have done. And they wouldn't have it, either. They would rather me put $1000 dollars in the bank to cover unforseen expenses than to get that much to help them pay for medication or something. Especially if I had a family of my own.
Really? And would you have, knowing your parents NEEDED financial help for medications, or something, (groceries, utilities, anything) have put that money in the bank for your own use? Really? Come on! COME ON! lmao You go visit your parents and they don't have enough food, or they don't have hot water, or they have an infection but no money to get the antibiotics,,, hell no money to go to the doctor to get a prescription and YOU would say "sorry mom/dad, but I know you would rather I bank my cash, so I sure do hope you get better and don't mind cold bathes and losing weight." COME ON!

I call BSBSBSBSBS



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NoAngel2u
 



Oh, right, yep they'll certainly contribute a fair share of taxes buying their paper towels. Just exactly how many are in that top % that will be contributing their fair share by purchasing household products and groceries?


What is a "fair share" of taxes?

10%? 20%? 80%? Does it matter how much you make as to what is your "fair share" of taxes is?

Of course, rich people also pay for other things - cars, boats, TVs, etc. What people don't seem to understand is that we -want- them to buy things, especially the things we make. That gives us jobs - specifically, our middle-class jobs; skilled labor producing the things that the middle class buy in moderation and the wealthy buy much more freely.

It's like at the restaurant I work at - many of the waitresses look at our wealthier customers begrudging of their wealth and status.... then brag about the 30-40% tip they got. None of us would have a job if it weren't for the people who could afford to eat there.

In either case - the Fair Tax proposal resolves the inherent problems in a flat-rate sales across all economic brackets by issuing everyone a tax-prebate at the beginning of the fiscal year. In simple terms - you get the taxes you would be charged that year on sustenance at the poverty level. Anyone living above the poverty level contributes in taxes - but no one would pay more than 22% in taxes (that was at the revenue-neutral figures established a few years ago, so it may have changed). Income is not taxed - so only the money spent is taxed.

For the average person - money saved is not taxed. For the wealthy it is the same, but there is no penalty for earnings or spending. Sure - they pay sales tax - but that's flat-rate and not going to change if they spend $15,000 during the year or $300,000.


Good luck being able to beat the living hell out of them when you can't get up out of your own excrement and they put you out on the lawn so they don't have to smell you, since according to your next quote they do not owe you anything.


I'm an electronics and computer nerd - A mere nod of the head is all it would take. I spend my free time designing weapons and automated systems. It's just as realistic of a scenario as you suggest.

I am also not a fool. If I am unable to live on my own and I know my children did not inherit my hospitality, I would be fully prepared to live in a nursing home - or simply underline the meaning of -final- days, myself.


The debt children owe to their parents is not just to thrive in life, but also includes taking care of their parents when they are old, just as they were cared for when they were new.


Excuse me?

Where the hell have you all been the past 50 years? I've only been here the past 22. Now it's -my- job to take care of -your- retirement? Relying on social security? Letting your government run out of control? Setting your children up to get smacked in the face with -your- debt and -your- failure to plan?

No. If I decide to take care of you in your old age - it's an honor bestowed upon you. It is no debt of mine. Nor am I so conceited as to expect my children to bear my burdens and atone for my lacking.


Really? And would you have, knowing your parents NEEDED financial help for medications, or something, (groceries, utilities, anything) have put that money in the bank for your own use? Really? Come on! COME ON! lmao You go visit your parents and they don't have enough food, or they don't have hot water, or they have an infection but no money to get the antibiotics,,, hell no money to go to the doctor to get a prescription and YOU would say "sorry mom/dad, but I know you would rather I bank my cash, so I sure do hope you get better and don't mind cold bathes and losing weight." COME ON!


At that point, they'd be living with me, or my brothers.

However, if it came down to: "Mom, Dad, I've got a thousand dollars or so to help out with the costs for mom's chemo and surgeries" - my parents wouldn't have it.

I know that from personal experience. I came back from active duty with a $20K sign-on bonus and offered to help - with all kinds of things. Dad wouldn't have it (and mom was dead by then). He wasn't in dire need - but money was getting tight.

In about a week, it will be one year since he died.

Don't underestimate how powerful and absolute my logical mindset can be. I am selectively emotional (and over-emotional when I am). But it simply doesn't make sense to get illogical over issues of monetary practicality. If my parents can't afford to live where they are - the answer is simple; bring them under the household I can afford.

Unless I'm crapping gold bricks and can subsidize their living without jeopardizing myself.

And that's the point. If I was well-seated financially, my parents would probably accept financial help. But they would not expect it or try to debt me on it. My grandparents wouldn't hear it when my parents suggested helping them move into the nursing home they wanted to move into, because they saw it as taking too much away from their children and grandchildren.

And in my case - the only debt I -can- repay to my parents is to support my younger brothers and raise my children to the best of my ability, and be there for their kids - life-providing.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
the thing is though, those rich people, more than likely, ain't gonna eat at more than three resturants per day. so, well, there's so few in number really, they ain't gonna keep that many resturants open, are they???
and well, they don't need a half dozen tvs, 20 cars, a hundred microwaves, 500 can openers, ect. just because they have a few million, doesn't mean that they spend a few million. most of their money is taken off the table, invested in stocks, bonds, whatever....
so well, that's money that reallly isn't creating jobs as much as it is just sitting there looking pretty, creating wealth for them!!
if the wealth was spread around a little more evenly, well, then the middle class, and even the poor, can have a microwave, a car, visit a restuarant now and then, and buy a new coffee maker when the old one craps out of life! having a strong middle class just as, if not more important, than keeping the elite class happy, since the middle class is more likely to let their money keep flowing in main street.
and I am sorry, I have worked for small businesses all my life, in my defination, none of my bosses were "rich". They were well off, but by the time the paid the cost incurred producing the products, paid their employees, heck, my husband's boss and his wife worked for free just about last year!!! which is why he is unemployed this year!!!
as far as I can see, there really isn't much job creation going on that doesn't involve a massive sum of taxpayer money, either through given through tax credits and grants and such, or outrageously priced gov't contracts.

oh, and by the way, the customers buying the product that I print are college kids, not reallly that rich either....

ford was wise enough to pay his employees a wage that would enable them to buy the product that they were producing. we lost the game when we discarded this wisdom for more profits for the the shareholders.....

and well, I've never made even $9 an hour........ya know what, I would venture to say there is no way in heck someone in my income range could have saved enough to retire on!!!
I know of other families who well, ya dad worked, mom worked once the kids were old enough, and well, they spent most of their lives subsidizing their income with gov't handouts of one sort or another! obviously, they didn't manage to save for their retirement either, or they wouldn't still be living on those handouts!
and well, even dropping social security isn't gonna help that much, since those seniors will still need that money from somewhere, and well, the economy just doesn't have it flowing for them to have it! If they don't get it through social security, well, they won't retire, they won't be voluteers in our schools, our libraries, our hospitals, or watching the grandkids so mom can be off working...they will be employees!!! competing for what few jobs there are with the new grads!!
and it's really isn't no secret that the republicans sabotaged the economy just so they could sit there and tell us just how bad off social secuirty and our gov't finances are now!!! I betcha ten to one, obama isn't gonna bring any troops home till it is obvious that the republicans will be in office, and he will then lay his own landmine!!!
he'll end the wars, the troops will come home, and well, leave the republicans with the biggest unemployment problem this country has ever seen!! you really want to add would be retirees to that, well, go ahead...
might as well add half of the healthcare staff also, since without medicaid and medicare, about half of their customers will vanish, or well, they just won't get paid for their services!
whatever floats you boat, we are screwed if we do or we don't.....



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 



the thing is though, those rich people, more than likely, ain't gonna eat at more than three resturants per day. so, well, there's so few in number really, they ain't gonna keep that many resturants open, are they???
and well, they don't need a half dozen tvs, 20 cars, a hundred microwaves, 500 can openers, ect. just because they have a few million, doesn't mean that they spend a few million. most of their money is taken off the table, invested in stocks, bonds, whatever....


Rich people tend to buy the more expensive cars, the more expensive phones, the high-end stuff. They end up paying the development, tooling, and line-setup costs that allow prices to drop to the range that other people can afford.

While they do invest in stocks, there are limited stocks out there. New stocks only appear when new companies are started - companies that employ people. People only sell stocks when they are looking to liquidate - which means they are looking to buy something with cash (it may be other stocks - but most -real- stock investors don't play this sell-and-buy stocks in millisecond time-blocks nonsense). That may be a house, or it may be anything, really.

For those that don't buy stocks, they tend to invest in long-term bank accounts that place assets in the bank that are used to subsidize loans made by the bank. Loans people take out. Now - loans are not necessarily a bad thing; expecting someone to save up enough to buy a house in cash is just kind of silly. They are also a useful tool - if I have $25,000 dollars in the bank, I might be able to buy a car flat-out. But only be left with $2,000 in the bank - which may only be a couple months of living expenses, if that. Rather - I could put down $5,000 on a loan, so that I don't demolish my savings. In that respect - a loan is a service. It may cost me an extra $2000 to use that service - but it is a service when used wisely.

Most rich people, however, buy into businesses in one way or another (as venture capital, stocks, bonds, etc) - those businesses have some pretty serious hardware they need to buy to set up shop. Even light industry can run up the bill at tens of millions of dollars to set up - sandblasting equipment, three-phase power systems, hydraulics, bringing in skilled labor to run and/or train; building/property purchase/rental (personally, I like the idea of building a new building for a new industrial operation, but many rent out of necessity and zoning complications). That doesn't even begin to touch the logistical concerns such as accounting, payroll, and inventory systems.

Someone has to build the machines businesses use. Someone has to maintain them (either employees at that business, or more often - service technicians for the manufacturer), someone has to operate and/or monitor them. At a place I used to work, we had some heavily automated machining processes that -did- cut down on some of the manpower requirements, but really just made the process faster, more accurate, and safer as the person who would normally be manually operating a machine was now playing programmer and monitor.


so well, that's money that reallly isn't creating jobs as much as it is just sitting there looking pretty, creating wealth for them!!


Only if you're incapable of thinking past the end of your nose.


if the wealth was spread around a little more evenly, well, then the middle class, and even the poor, can have a microwave, a car, visit a restuarant now and then, and buy a new coffee maker when the old one craps out of life!


I'm not going to disagree with you... but ask you: "How do you think wealth should be 'spread around more evenly?'"

What constitutes an "even" spread?

Am I somehow in the wrong or a criminal for wanting to have more than my part of the 'even' spread?


having a strong middle class just as, if not more important, than keeping the elite class happy, since the middle class is more likely to let their money keep flowing in main street.
and I am sorry, I have worked for small businesses all my life, in my defination, none of my bosses were "rich". They were well off, but by the time the paid the cost incurred producing the products, paid their employees, heck, my husband's boss and his wife worked for free just about last year!!! which is why he is unemployed this year!!!


The middle class is gone because they let their money flow into loan payments while the American worker became stagnant, wanting to do the same job we did back in the '60s and get paid more for it as the rest of the world continued to progress and modernize.

Twenty years ago, China couldn't touch our metallurgical industries or our silicon industries (computer/microchips). Now, they can. Granted - they are not as dirt-cheap as other industries in China, and we can actually compete with their price-point for goods that demand higher levels of quality - but that will eventually change, as well. India is rapidly industrializing. Taiwan and Mexico already dominate the silicon industry.

If we want to remain on top we have to be among the pioneers of industry. We can't be sitting here acting like we have the corner market on engine blocks and bed frames. We don't, anymore.


oh, and by the way, the customers buying the product that I print are college kids, not reallly that rich either....


Your industry doesn't target that segment of the market. It's like saying flipping burgers isn't a job sustained by the wealthy. Not really inaccurate - but McDonald's doesn't really cater to the wealthy (although the price of various combo meals has gone up considerably...)


ford was wise enough to pay his employees a wage that would enable them to buy the product that they were producing. we lost the game when we discarded this wisdom for more profits for the the shareholders.....


That was as much of a marketing gimmick as anything. They were pioneering the entire automobile industry - the more automobiles out there, the more demand there would be for supporting services (like fuel stations) and the more practical the automobile would become.

It was also the pinnacle of engineering technology on the market at the time. It would be like working at the first place to make transistor radios or at IBM around the birth of the microprocessor.


and well, I've never made even $9 an hour........ya know what, I would venture to say there is no way in heck someone in my income range could have saved enough to retire on!!!


And this is my problem because...?

I can put away quite a bit in savings working $8.50/hr. Granted - I don't try to support a family with that, but I have found ways to live within my means. Namely - room mates and dividing up a number of the living expenses among a few incomes.

Of course, I don't plan to work $8.50 an hour for the rest of my life and attempt to retire. That'd be pretty silly. I'd do something like learn a trade... welding is pretty easy - and a pretty big demand for that around here - easily $12-15 an hour depending upon where you are working and what you are doing (aluminum welding tends to pay a bit more than steel, but it also depends upon whether you are journeyman or not). Having computer skills helps - knowing where the damned start button is and knowing how to browse directories puts you above average in most categories.

Of course, I've also not done anything stupid and gotten some girl pregnant before I had the means to pay for the consequences, either. That also places me 'above' the average (or at least outside of it). If you're some idiot still flipping burgers while trying to pay for a family with two kids... you've pretty well screwed yourself.

Not really my problem. A lack of foresight on your part does not constitute a debt on mine.


If they don't get it through social security, well, they won't retire, they won't be voluteers in our schools, our libraries, our hospitals, or watching the grandkids so mom can be off working...they will be employees!!! competing for what few jobs there are with the new grads!!


I'm not sure where you're pulling the "get rid of social security" from. However, the fact remains that social security will be supported, in the future, at a ratio of three workers to one retiree. That means to support one senior at an annual income of $20,000 (which will barely be above the poverty level in ten years... if it isn't below it already, I forgot where it was) - the average social-security deduction from each worker would have to be about $6,400 annually.

That won't even begin to touch the other people receiving social security in the form of death benefits, disability, etc.

We really need to take a look at how we are going to accomplish the goal of providing some kind of retirement supplement via social security while spending a more practical amount on each retiree.

And come to terms with the fact that social security was never intended to be a stand-alone retirement plan, but a retirement supplement. The social security fund was never backed with any kind of real currency, it was just numbers scribbled down on paper, and is thus effectively a burden shouldered by the working population - as there is no 'trust fund.'


and it's really isn't no secret that the republicans sabotaged the economy just so they could sit there and tell us just how bad off social secuirty and our gov't finances are now!!!


No, I wouldn't call that a secret. I'd call that a conspiracy theory. And a rather poor one at that, the product of a simple mind with a political bias and a personality disorder.


he'll end the wars, the troops will come home, and well, leave the republicans with the biggest unemployment problem this country has ever seen!! you really want to add would be retirees to that, well, go ahead...


Obama doesn't have the power to end wars. No one country has the power to end a war that has started, unless they completely annihilate the enemy.

In either case - while there would be some unemployment problems - a large number would come back and look to start up their own businesses. There are plenty of venture capitalists out there who would provide the funding where it was lacking. A lot of these guys have some close ties with defense industries and quite a bit of technical knowledge with practical experience in development, as well.

Once you're in the military, you never really leave. You form some connections and 'brotherhoods' that hold a lot of expertise and power.


might as well add half of the healthcare staff also, since without medicaid and medicare, about half of their customers will vanish, or well, they just won't get paid for their services!
whatever floats you boat, we are screwed if we do or we don't.....


The economy is not a stagnant thing. It is always changing and adapting to the populations that comprise it.

I'm also not sure where you get this whole "get rid of medicare" thing, either. The fact remains that costs for it are expected to surge - there is enough fraud in the program to fund two simultaneous Apollo programs (that massive project of NASA's back in the '60s) - and we're spending ourselves a trillion dollars into the hole, alone, this year - while the grand-total of military spending only comprises about 800 billion. Even a complete elimination of all military expenses would not put the U.S. budget into the black - and we are fighting -three- wars!

Changes need to be made. Plain and simple.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


it should be spread around by a more equal pay system, ya some people should be paid more than others, but not that much more, and before anyone is paid that much more in a company, there shouldn't be anyone in the company qualifying for the gov't handouts!!

oh, ya, and as far as who builds the machines, ummm
that would be people like my husband, and like I said, his bosses aren't rich, and well, they lost money last year....
most of the small machine shops aren't doing too well...

I doubt if there's any more fraud in medicare than there is in those defense contracts, or any other aspect of the gov't, or society at that matter..and well, at least I hear about people getting nailed for that fruad!!! where's the arrests for the fraud that took place in the housing scam????
oh, it isn't fraud if it's a rich buddy of someone in office????






edit on 24-4-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


dawnstar, I think you and I are of an age to have seen a vibrant Middle Class. We grew up when there was still noblese oblige. When business ethics mattered. When it mattered to Republican business owners to share their wealth with employees and not have such a staggering gap between the lowest paid worker and the owner.

When Ronald Reagan was used to establish the idea of the rugged individual, personal greed flourished in a winner take all attitude, and winning at any cost. An authoritarian daddy state, increasingly aligned with corporate interest, would demand the politicians tow the party line unquestioningly and the populace overthrow liberal thinking.

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Grover Norquist

Thinking like the above demanded govt fingers off what remained of FDR's New Deal and what Reagan saw as a nemesis, Medicare. There was always an element of the Republican Party that wanted to do away with such things, calling it socialism/communism. With political support, citizen dollars for these programs could then flow to private business. And, yes, the way to do that was to "drown govt", in order to have no money to spend on such things. That is no conspiracy.

It took decades to get to this point. Younger people will blame us, not realizing that, unlike the old Communists proclamations of 99% voter approval, all it took was to manufacture a 50-plus-1 approval. 49% of voters did NOT share the view, quite a sizable portion, but the 1% drowned their voice. And that is no conspiracy, that was Karl Roves's plan.

We are where we are. however, and since it took decades to get to this point, it will take decades for Americans to see those Glory Days again. The world has changed since 1980, with other countries' citizens demanding a share in the globalization of capital. With citizens demanding a share in global wealth comes the concomitant growth in energy needs.

Well, will we attack our problems together as healthy adults, or will we find ourselves a broken people, broken by sick minds..."Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." GN

"Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat. We're sending a message here. It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see." also Mr. Norquist

.....oh, who is GN? According to Newt Gingrich, he is “the person who I regard as the most innovative, creative, courageous and entrepreneurial leader of the anti-tax efforts and of conservative grassroots activism in America . . . He has truly made a difference and truly changed American history.”

And more praise from Mitch McConnell: "It’s because of soldiers like Grover that the conservative movement is so vibrant today and that the liberals who thought they had taken over two years ago are on the run."

Indeed. We're all enemies now, even in our own country. Sad.







 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join