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.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5
Geez.... where to start? You are an articulate writer with an obvious strength in sentence composition, vocabulary etc. I fear that your internal self has confused those gifts for a broader intelligence, specifically in matters of economics.
Medicaid and Medicare is not economics. They are government programs. If you actually need that explained to you, it is odd you would think you know better about economics.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by jibeho
Yeah, and professional mechanics know more about fixing an engine than some random guy off the street.
Maybe some of you really are dumb. Ever consider that? I know I damn sure wouldn't entrust the economic future of a pet store to any of you, much less an entire nation.
Originally posted by Harro
There are just too many sophomoric people that opine on forums like these. A bit of modesty would go a long way. Just continue to read and listen... always listen... that's all I'll say.
edit on 13-7-2011 by Harro because: (no reason given)
It shows us that he is smart enough to understand those very basic principles that you espouse, that he is capable of deep learning. A Harvard Law Degree gives you more than information on the law and it shows us the effort that went into learning at such a high level - a level that is required to get into Harvard. He can work with his team on developing in-depth strategies to tackle the complex problem at hand.
I know with the advent of the internet (and with it Wikipedia and Google) a lot of young people have tremendous breadth of knowledge (and, by comparison to generations past, they probably do) but they often mistake this for depth. Whilst I agree those terms are easily understood I disagree that this is a "very simple" matter. To this degree, I am skeptical as to your proposed analyses and solutions.
Agree - but it is the validity, not the right, of the opinion that we are discussing.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Harro
I know with the advent of the internet (and with it Wikipedia and Google) a lot of young people have tremendous breadth of knowledge (and, by comparison to generations past, they probably do) but they often mistake this for depth. Whilst I agree those terms are easily understood I disagree that this is a "very simple" matter. To this degree, I am skeptical as to your proposed analyses and solutions.
Instead, you would rather place blind faith in the "professionals" who are wrecking the economy.
It is the validity of your opinion that I am questioning.
And that is the sum of your uninformed perspective on the issue.
Not much to discuss in that context that I couldn't learn from listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Perfectly fine... I do too. I'm not sure you question your own though.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Harro
Perfectly fine... I do too. I'm not sure you question your own though.
I question all opinions, including my own, and am more concerned with the facts in a hope to better derive at the truth. That is the difference between you, and most others in this site. Most are doing the same as I. You, on the other hand, are advocating ignorance and expecting everyone else to defer to your assessment of a President based upon your admitted ignorance.
Of course, you can now reply and lecture me on how this has nothing to do with the thread, and you can ignore the data I offer based upon my own effort to find the facts, as "opinion", and all the while keep digging that hole. Or, you could actually take the time to consider that maybe...just maybe...making an effort to understand simple principles and laws of economy has some value.
I hope you honestly don't think I'm lecturing you (this is just a discussion so we can both just relax). *I am very glad to hear you are reading*. That is not something I expected, but it warms my heart... I really hope you continue to do this til you die - stick at it!
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5
And that is the sum of your uninformed perspective on the issue.
This is your reply to my assertion that government programs are not economics. Of course, the tax schemes used to fund these programs greatly affect an economy, but even that is not economics.
In its simplest terms, economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
You don't strike me as lacking intelligence. Can you tell me how Social Security fits into that definition? How the retirement age might effect production? How Social Security taxes might effect hiring? How consumption might be effected?
This is where a less humble man would retort with an emotional idealogical argument and discount the logic.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5
You don't strike me as lacking intelligence. Can you tell me how Social Security fits into that definition? How the retirement age might effect production? How Social Security taxes might effect hiring? How consumption might be effected?
This is where a less humble man would retort with an emotional idealogical argument and discount the logic.
At best, the effect a retiree has on the economy is in terms of consumption, not production, and particularly in regards to the paltry amount doled out to the retiree from Social Security.
There are three major ways countries can change pension systems to reduce costs:
• Raise the retirement age: Lifetime benefits paid to retirees are reduced. This encourages workers to remain in the labor force longer, which means they earn more over their lifetime. The increase in lifetime income could lead workers to save less and consume more during their working years. In addition, the increased fiscal savings from reduced pension payments will have long-term positive effects on GDP growth by lowering the cost of capital and encouraging investment.
• Reduce pension benefits: To avoid a sharp reduction in income and consumption in retirement, workers would likely boost savings. Consumption would fall in the short to medium term, but investment would increase over the long term.
• Increase workers’ contribution rates: Because higher rates reduce income, households might be less motivated to work, which could depress economic activity in both the short and long term.
I will skip the "Marxist" and Humility bits.
As far as the above....you do enjoy reading and educating yourself?
Originally posted by macman
I just love hearing this asinine comparison.
Seeing that most Mechanics can actually fix an engine and almost every politician and economist can't fix the economy, I think it is high time that the mechanic got a shot at it.
Don't really see the mechanic making it worse, then what the professional elected idiot and his compatriots have brought us to.
edit on 13-7-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)