If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Nearly 76% of Americans in the recovering economy are now living paycheck to paycheck   (townhall.com) divider line 149
    More: Ironic, Americans, Greg McBride, David Limbaugh, unexpected events  
•       •       •

1360 clicks; posted to Business » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 03:23:33 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And please provide me an example where I used the term "common sense". It's really strange you picked that term. I really find it annoying and grating when people use that term and I try not to use it myself. I file it under the same heading as using "everyone knows".


For me, it's the phrase "so what you're saying."  The Internet has taught me that any post beginning with "so what you're saying" can be skipped, and nothing of value is lost.

/back to lurking
 
kab
2013-06-25 03:36:38 PM  

xaks: Like losing my job?


Yes, we get it.  You run the bootstrap factory.
 
2013-06-25 03:39:00 PM  

xaks: Have fun being short-sighted and poor while my childless prick ass with spending money takes his wife out to dinner at a nice hibachi grill.


Oooh.  A hibachi dinner.  You must have tens of dollars.
 
2013-06-25 03:48:03 PM  

xaks: But, yea, I'm a prick for making smart financial decisions with my life and my families' future.


You live in Florida.  How smart can your decisions be?
 
2013-06-25 03:49:42 PM  

Elandriel: xaks:  words

Now look at what you said, look at what I said, and realize the only difference between us is that I have kids and therefore a different kind of expense.  You're preaching to the choir here, but claiming some kind of superiority because you don't have children.  We both lost jobs, we both lost wages, we both got completely screwed because politics is about scoring one agianst the other guy instead of working to help everyone.

We are the goddamn same except for my kids!  And you're attacking me for saying I am whining about it.  No, I am 'whining' about the economy, the job force, the tax policy, the government's failure to protect consumers, the ever-increasing expense of everything without a correlating increase in compensation, with the kids as an additional expense of top of it which makes it difficult to add a second income into the equation.

You are a very confusing person who has for whatever reason decided to latch on my kids as the sole reason for my financial woes, glossing over just about everything else I've said.


Actually, sparky, I made a generic post about not having kids if you can't afford them.

Your name is nowhere in my post. Nor are you referenced directly.

YOU are apparently the fragile, beautiful snowflake what latched on to me. Cause apparently people that choose to spend their money on things like food, socializing, celebrating, instead of having kids we can't afford to take care of makes us pricks.

You're actually the one that decided that I was talking to you, specifically, directly. So, apparently, I'm the bad guy when you can't afford your crotchfruit but attack me?

imokwiththis.jpg

As you said, we're the same except for the decision to have expensive kiddies that are a long, long, LONG term attachment of time and money. We talked about this and chose not to. You apparently did not, and now can't afford kid care.

But I'm the prick.

*shrug
 
2013-06-25 04:04:24 PM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus complains about thread-shiaters and then proceeds to shiat all over the thread himself with argumentative posts defending his derp.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:47 PM  

xaks: Actually, sparky, I made a generic post about not having kids if you can't afford them.

Your name is nowhere in my post. Nor are you referenced directly.


Excellent point!  I was one of two posters who mentioned childcare in the entire thread, so you could have very well been responding to GIMC-P, whose post about childcare was two sentences long and was otherwise vague in regards to her existing circumstances.  Your logic, sound as Gibraltar, has swayed me.  I relent!  I concede.  I especially like the part where you knew how my wife and I didn't talk about anything regarding kids (which is totally accurate, I'm impressed), and just jumped right into the ole baby-making sack and popped out a couple fart machines.

Well played sir.  +1 internets.  Tip o' the hat.
 
2013-06-25 04:17:54 PM  
Well this thread went down the biatchfest shiatter in a hurry.
 
2013-06-25 04:30:41 PM  

Elandriel: I especially like the part where you knew how my wife and I didn't talk about anything regarding kids (which is totally accurate, I'm impressed), and just jumped right into the ole baby-making sack and popped out a couple fart machines.


You're in a thread talking about how you are having trouble affording child care.

That tells me you can't afford them.

But hey, enjoy your fart machines.
 
2013-06-25 04:41:56 PM  

nmemkha: The Stealth Hippopotamus complains about thread-shiaters and then proceeds to shiat all over the thread himself with argumentative posts defending his derp.


Don't worry, his solution to that problem is also tax cuts to help the oil industry, because there's no politics there.
 
2013-06-25 04:45:03 PM  

Ethertap: You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.


Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.
 
2013-06-25 04:47:03 PM  

xaks: Elandriel: I especially like the part where you knew how my wife and I didn't talk about anything regarding kids (which is totally accurate, I'm impressed), and just jumped right into the ole baby-making sack and popped out a couple fart machines.

You're in a thread talking about how you are having trouble affording child care.

That tells me you can't afford them.

But hey, enjoy your fart machines.


The entire premise of your post was laying out groundwork to state the reason I "can't afford them" is because I didn't plan for them.  That's what I take issue with.

And no, I can't afford child care.  That is different from I can't afford children.  I am struggling because my wife can't get a job because any wages she would make would be eclipsed by the cost of child care.  I am struggling because my high paying job doesn't exist anymore and my low paying job isn't increasing the pay at a rate keeping up with inflation and the expanding COL in this area.  But not because of kids...they are just preventing my wife from having a job of her own.  Here, a refresher:

Elandriel: I do agree that serious relief is needed for the lower and middle classes - I live paycheck to paycheck because I have two children and life in the Twin Cities, where cost of childcare is something like the 4th highest in the country. My wife actually can't afford to get a job right now because putting 2 kids in M-F 7-5 daycare would far outweigh whatever meager wages she could get, having been out of the workforce for years. So I struggle along, making what I can and just watching everything get way more expensive without a matching rise in compensation.


But, by all means -- continue to make it up as you go along.
 
2013-06-25 04:50:40 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.


What I got from that guy's post was that she would watch the kids during the day while I worked, and I would watch them in the evening while she worked.  It makes a certain kind of sense, but comes at the cost of spending time together as a family.  It's something we have been discussing for a while now though, we figure even if it's just a part timer for 4 hours a night twice a week, it's better than nothing.
 
2013-06-25 05:33:16 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Oh I understand the correlation between the two subjects. However most (not all) Business Tab threads don't go full derp. Its been a place where we could have a somewhat reasonable debate without having to hear from the hacks about how one party wants to starve people and bomb brown people for oil. This thread took a bee line to the sub basement.


Maybe more and more people are getting sick of (or becoming aware of) the ever increasing wage/wealth gap? The sheeple are waking up.
 
2013-06-25 05:50:31 PM  

KFBR392: sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?

The point is more that, if you're really living paycheck to paycheck...maybe you shouldn't be purchasing a HDTV, which is a luxury item (not a necessity). Yes, a decent 40"+ HDTV can be had for around $500 (or less if pick a house brand).

But that doesn't include the TV service to go with it. And what typically happens is that people who decide to get the HDTV then bundle in highspeed internet and a DVR; suddenly a cable bill that could have been $30-$40 a month is now $150+/month.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Most people have no idea how to live within their means they're so busy trying to keep up with the Joneses. If that's the case, please shoot yourself now because you will only become a drag on society later.
 
2013-06-25 05:51:02 PM  

Elandriel: To take care of the people.


Government provides a system of laws which is designed to protect individual rights and property, along with settling disputes in the marketplace.
Please find something, anything that has ever been written in the annals of US history that alludes to the role of government being to 'Take care of people'

jst3p: Maybe more and more people are getting sick of (or becoming aware of) the ever increasing wage/wealth gap? The sheeple are waking up.


I hate to break it to you but knocking down the 1% isn't going to make you or anyone else richer.
 
2013-06-25 05:59:24 PM  

o5iiawah: jst3p: Maybe more and more people are getting sick of (or becoming aware of) the ever increasing wage/wealth gap? The sheeple are waking up.

I hate to break it to you but knocking down the 1% isn't going to make you or anyone else richer.


I am willing to bet you vote GoP. I say this because you appear to be ignorant of history and lack fundimental math skills.

dont-tread-on.me
 
2013-06-25 06:01:42 PM  

o5iiawah: Elandriel: To take care of the people.

Government provides a system of laws which is designed to protect individual rights and property, along with settling disputes in the marketplace.
Please find something, anything that has ever been written in the annals of US history that alludes to the role of government being to 'Take care of people'


The preamble to the constitution would like to have a word.

We The People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unless I'm misreading things like promote the general welfare, etc.  Maybe we should rewrite it to state something like "promote the corporate welfare and screw the lil' man".
 
2013-06-25 06:28:53 PM  
the only thing that is trickling down is poo.
 
2013-06-25 06:33:06 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Ethertap: You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.

Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.


He mentioned 7-5 daycare. Thats why is suggested his wife works NIGHTS. Not days. Nights, as in after he gets home from work. You're the one who needs to brush up your reading comprehension.
 
2013-06-25 06:48:58 PM  

Ethertap: Crotchrocket Slim: Ethertap: You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.

Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.

He mentioned 7-5 daycare. Thats why is suggested his wife works NIGHTS. Not days. Nights, as in after he gets home from work. You're the one who needs to brush up your reading comprehension.


That's assuming the wife could get a Wal-Mart or fast food job that had a regular schedule. They don't do that anymore, now they'll work you 8pm-2am one day, Noon-4pm the next, 6pm-8pm that same day, then maybe another 4 hours the next night, then an afternoon...you get the point.
 
2013-06-25 07:55:47 PM  

InmanRoshi: I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.


This.  Most folks who live paycheck to paycheck are not good with saving money, and feel they "need" a cel phone, or a TV, or whatever else with a recurring monthly subscription because our culture demands it.  Many people that make more money (middle class) still live paycheck to paycheck, they just buy a newer phone, a better TV, subscribe to more premium channels, go out to dinner, all instead of reducing costs  and saving.

/frequently guilty myself, but trying to break the bad habits
 
2013-06-25 07:56:43 PM  
Is it too late for me to blame those with better foresight and/or intelligence for my own situation in life yet?
 
2013-06-25 08:20:41 PM  
Weird. I'm actually saving money for the first time since 2001.


Got a new job a year ago, now I have savings, two used cars, a new computer and tablet and I'm going on vacation in a month. So...*shrugs*
 
2013-06-25 10:12:19 PM  
Well, I think I have the answer. Instead of "big screen TV" as a barometer for poor people not being poor, let's use "custom tires and wheels on their SUV".
 
2013-06-25 10:29:24 PM  

buzzcut73: Ethertap: Crotchrocket Slim: Ethertap: You could try what my parents did when my sister and I were young, which is Dad worked days and Mom worked nights.  I don't know the job market in the Twin Cities area, but many walmarts and fast food places (as soul suckingly awful as they are) are now either 24/7 or open until 12 or 2 am, which could be an option for night work.

Elandriel already addressed this: whatever pittance they'd pay her would not be enough to cover child care. Reading comprehension kids.

He mentioned 7-5 daycare. Thats why is suggested his wife works NIGHTS. Not days. Nights, as in after he gets home from work. You're the one who needs to brush up your reading comprehension.

That's assuming the wife could get a Wal-Mart or fast food job that had a regular schedule. They don't do that anymore, now they'll work you 8pm-2am one day, Noon-4pm the next, 6pm-8pm that same day, then maybe another 4 hours the next night, then an afternoon...you get the point.


As I've found out twice in the last year, farking THIS.

Once you've gotten to a certain level of either professionalism, or experience, or income, or *insert thing here*, 'lower than that' jobs won't even look at you, regardless. You're "overqualified". You'll leave as soon as a 'real' job opens up.

I can't tell you how many times I've gotten the 'OQ' tag while looking for work, and it pisses me off like little other can. I mean, really? You'll leave the position unfilled because you're afraid I'll leave too fast? It doesn't matter that I could easily have truthfully told them, "Look, I understand. I'm not planning on leaving for at least a year. I know you're looking for a young kid that won't biatch about the hours and workload but still has some experience. I'll take it, and give you ample time at the back end to find a replacement AND I'll stick around and get him up to speed for at least a month!"

Don't matter. They see a 50k+ salary for the last decade and 15+ years experience, you can not even waste time applying for a 'sub-40K with matching 401' job.
 
2013-06-25 11:33:41 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: InmanRoshi: I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.

This.  Most folks who live paycheck to paycheck are not good with saving money, and feel they "need" a cel phone, or a TV, or whatever else with a recurring monthly subscription because our culture demands it.  Many people that make more money (middle class) still live paycheck to paycheck, they just buy a newer phone, a better TV, subscribe to more premium channels, go out to dinner, all instead of reducing costs  and saving.

/frequently guilty myself, but trying to break the bad habits


Well I could just accept my lot in life and ditch the phone and internet ($70/mo) and never look for a better job because nobody would be able to contact me.

I mean, look, there's some lovely filth over here!
 
2013-06-25 11:55:13 PM  
i have always lived paycheck to paycheck

guess i'm ahead of my time
 
2013-06-26 02:26:43 AM  

cman: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I was hoping for a reasoned discussion on how is not the time for increase the cost of living on the middle and lower classes, maybe help them out with a Federal Tax holiday or a decrease in federal taxes on fuel.
But is see the derp squad has migrated from the Politics Tab over to the Business Tab.

It's a damn shame

What are you talking about? Business and politics have gone hand in hand since the recorded time of history


The Merchants:

The bottom rung of feudal Japanese society was occupied by merchants, both traveling traders and shop-keepers.

Merchants were ostracized as "parasites" who profited from the labor of the more productive peasant and artisan classes. Not only did merchants live in a separate section of each city, but the higher classes were forbidden to mix with them except on business.

Nonetheless, many merchant families were able to amass large fortunes. As their economic power grew, the restrictions against them weakened.


We need to bring back this kind of thinking (before the system was bought).

Capitalists are parasites, not providers.
 
2013-06-26 02:53:13 AM  

chimp_ninja: Also, is this a sign of the economy, or a sign that Americans are particularly stupid about saving money? The Census tracks household saving rates, and America's has been low (2.7% in 2008, not much different from 2000-2007), while several countries in Europe with crappier economies were much higher (Italy 8.6%, Spain 6.1%).


That metric is also skewed by the rich.  They are the ones that save anything (because they have more to spend, and because saving doesn't make them more money.

Christ, didn't anyone read the citigroup memos?

The rich are being perfectly rational. As their wealth/income ratios have been rising, and as
we highlighted earlier, the latest SCF data suggests wealth/income has grown even larger,
why should they not consume from their wealth rather than just their income? The more rich
people there are in an economy, and the more affluent they feel (as they do right now), the
more likely we believe an economy will be to experience falling savings rates. When your
wealth has soared, the need to save diminishes. Rational, but apparently a conundrum and an
accident waiting to happen, according to the perma-bears. Not to us.


But go ahead, blame the poors for the actions of the rich.  Again.  And again and again.
 
2013-06-26 03:09:34 AM  

Macular Degenerate: Meanwhile, consumer spending is surging. I guess that all comes from 1%-ers spending $70,000 each on dog massages and ruby-encrusted dildos.


A good chunk of it is, yes.

Plu-ton-o-my.


It's never been so expensive to be rich...

Another new data point we have is the CLEW (Cost of Living Extremely Well) Index from
Forbes Magazine for 2005 (in our original Plutonomy note back in October, we didn't have
the latest data point for the year 2005).

CLEWI is an inflation index of the cost of luxury goods. It measures such things as the cost
of suite at the Four Seasons in New York (up 15% year on year) and a kilo of Imperial
Beluga caviar (at US$6840, up 40% year on year). In 2005, the CLEW Index rose 4%, while
US CPI rose at 3.6%. Luxury goods still have relative pricing power. The 0.4% gap might
not sound all that impressive, but bear in mind that a stronger US dollar, probably helped
check this inflation rate (many luxury goods come from Europe, but the CLEWI is a
measure in dollars). At any rate, the year to year fortunes of the CLEWI versus the CPI are
less relevant. The long-term chart says it all (Figure 4). The most recent data point just
confirms that in the search for pricing power, we'd rather be in luxury goods, than low end
consumer businesses
 
2013-06-26 06:07:16 AM  

chimp_ninja: The Stealth Hippopotamus: So we should limit the power of the government with a balance budget amendment and then limit taxation.

Yeah, that would be great in times of recession or war.  We need more bullets.  Better cut schools and medicine.

The Government being able to incur debt when it needs to is a feature, not a bug.  Our current Government abuses that, but it hasn't always.


A balanced budget system is a terrible idea - it basically tells the government that they have to exacerbate the highs and lows of the private markets - every boom they have to spend more money or cut tax, causing the boom to get bigger, and every bust they have to cut back spending or raise taxes, making the bust worse.

The thing that needs to happen is for people to be just as hard (or even harder) on government spending and pushing for improved tax efficiency when the economy is going well, rather than just letting politicians freely indulge in all their expensive pet projects when things are good, and for most people to only pay attention when the economy is bad.
 
2013-06-26 06:35:51 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-26 07:29:05 AM  

HeadLever: Satanic_Hamster: How, exactly, will cutting government spending spur economic growth?

In the long run, it should help to save on the interest payments to the national debt, which will help to reduce the taxpayer liability (and subsequently, taxes).  Typically, this is a good way to help spur economic growth.


You're referring to how to pay for the spending.  That has nothing to do with the question.

You do realize the government can spend money without going into debt, right. 

But under your logic, if we then decrease government spending to zero, the economy will go to infinity, right?
 
2013-06-26 08:10:56 AM  

jst3p: I am willing to bet you vote GoP. I say this because you appear to be ignorant of history and lack fundimental math skills.


I vote for people who uphold free and fair markets and generally leave the people alone unless one of them breaks the laws.  Your cute picture illustrates the public revolting over the government aristocracy and complicit bankers/landholders who partnered with them.  Why do you have a problem with someone who earns a good living based on having skills or creating an idea that people want?

Oh, and "Basic math" is a cute way of telling me you have no idea how taxation works and that when you just decide to soak someone for what they've earned, they'll leave and go somewhere else that would welcome them with open arms.

Elandriel: Unless I'm misreading things like promote the general welfare, etc.


Actually you are misreading things.  I'm going to take a wild guess that you havent read the Federalist papers or any of Madison's letters on the language of the Constitution

The "General welfare" is something  which is supposed to benefit all and be paid for by all and in the course of providing general welfare, Congress is authorized to carry out the 18 enumerated powers in article 1, section 8.  A uniform system of laws where all can compete fairly in the marketplace is general welfare. A military which protects all shores and all states is general welfare. A patent system which protects even the smallest inventor from the largest corporation is general welfare.

Taking something away from someone who lawfully earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it is not general welfare.
 
2013-06-26 08:17:35 AM  

morlinge: Nemo's Brother: The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.

Erhhh Detroit is failing because Michigan is failing, and because of the loss of the manufacturing and specifically the car industry. So I don't know what you are talking about. But that's okay, because you don't seem to either.


but but..I thought unions protected people...a historically union city like Detroit must really be thriving
 
2013-06-26 08:39:48 AM  

Tommy Moo: This is misleading. Not having half a freaking year's salary in your savings/checking account isn't "living paycheck to paycheck." For those of us with reasonably good job security, we often judge that it is worth taking our savings and using it to pay down debt early. Any time my checking account gets over $5k, I make a double payment on my mortgage.


Exactly.  I feel like my wife and I are quite financially secure, with a good bit of money in our retirement accounts and no debt other than what's left on our ~15 year mortgage and a few very low interest student loans.  But we'd be paycheck to paycheck by their definition because we don't have six month's salary socked away at 0.75% interest.

I'm not saying we don't save anything.  We have a about a month's (take home) pay in a savings account linked to our checking so that we can have instant access, and a few month's take-home in an online savings account that pays that 0.75% interest but takes a week or so to get at.

However, if we got to the point where we had over six month's pay sitting in a savings account I'd be thinking really hard about whether there was a smarter place to park that cash.
 
2013-06-26 08:41:58 AM  

morlinge: Nemo's Brother: The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.

Erhhh Detroit is failing because Michigan is failing, and because of the loss of the manufacturing and specifically the car industry. So I don't know what you are talking about. But that's okay, because you don't seem to either.


Cars are still being manufactured in the world. More now than ever before. So why did Detroit lose some of this base?  Could it be that unions stunted quality and wages and benefits have become ridiculously high?
 
2013-06-26 08:42:27 AM  

Parkanzky: However, if we got to the point where we had over six month's pay sitting in a savings account I'd be thinking really hard about whether there was a smarter place to park that cash.


And "park that cash" is a bit punny here, since I seem to blow our cash on a new car every time I scrape some money into a bit of a heap.

/Loves cars.
//Needs help.
 
2013-06-26 08:51:40 AM  

Nemo's Brother: morlinge: Nemo's Brother: The liberals tried to battle the war on poverty. Detroit was their frontline.  They failed.

Erhhh Detroit is failing because Michigan is failing, and because of the loss of the manufacturing and specifically the car industry. So I don't know what you are talking about. But that's okay, because you don't seem to either.

Cars are still being manufactured in the world. More now than ever before. So why did Detroit lose some of this base?  Could it be that unions stunted quality and wages and benefits have become ridiculously high?


I live in Michigan and the blight here is not a decline in Michigan dragging on Detroit.  The pain here revolved around the automotive and the pharmaceutical industries.  So it was more Detroit dragging the state down.

Big pharma cut a ton of professional jobs in Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo and Holland.  That would have probably only significantly impacted the immediate areas of the closings without too much ripple, but the auto industry was also imploding at the same time.  The big three closed plants all over the place (I lived in Lansing when GM closed the assembly plant there).  That was crushing to Michigan.

However, Detroit has been an armpit for years.  My family lived there 45 years ago and always talked really fondly of the place, but it's been in serious decline since the 70's.
 
2013-06-26 08:53:05 AM  
Anybody who thinks that the economy has been recovering is an idiot.
 
2013-06-26 08:55:24 AM  

sigdiamond2000: EvilEgg: have big screen TVs

You can buy a "big screen TV" for less than the combined price of the license plate and driver's license renewal for that new car nowadays.

We can all stop using "big screen TVs" as some sort of barometer for poor people not being poor, okay?


And when the poor people are all eating caviar and foie gras while flying around in their Lear Jets, we'll stop using that as a barometer, too, and continue to whine about how bad they have it.
 
2013-06-26 09:00:28 AM  

chimp_ninja: The Stealth Hippopotamus: So we should limit the power of the government with a balance budget amendment and then limit taxation.

Yeah, that would be great in times of recession or war.


Our national sovereignty hasn't been challenged since the War of 1812. Wars of aggression, to build and maintain the empire, are a big part of why our economy is in the mess it's in. Cutting military spending, and the taxes needed to pay for it, by 90% would be the best thing we could do for the economy.
 
2013-06-26 09:04:34 AM  

Elandriel: o5iiawah: Elandriel: To take care of the people.

Government provides a system of laws which is designed to protect individual rights and property, along with settling disputes in the marketplace.
Please find something, anything that has ever been written in the annals of US history that alludes to the role of government being to 'Take care of people'

The preamble to the constitution would like to have a word.

We The People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unless I'm misreading things like promote the general welfare, etc.  Maybe we should rewrite it to state something like "promote the corporate welfare and screw the lil' man".


Actually, you are misreading "promote the general welfare." It's understandable, tho; you probably went to public school. You probably think that "the press" refers to newspapers, too.
 
2013-06-26 09:05:02 AM  

DrPainMD: Anybody who thinks that the economy has been recovering is an idiot.


I don't think it's as simple as grunting "Economy good!" or "Economy bad!"  There are definitely some aspects of the economy that have improved recently.  I work for a global consumer products company and I have been keeping an eye on the revenues and I think it provides an interesting perspective on the relative condition of various world economies.  Seeing the rate of revenue growth for various product categories in places like Russia, India, China, Korea, Japan, the EU and North America may not tell the whole story but it does provide some insight into how consumers are feeling in those locales.
 
2013-06-26 09:06:51 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: How, exactly, will cutting government spending spur economic growth?


At this point, all it can do is make the inevitable crash and Great Depression II a little less severe.
 
2013-06-26 10:04:34 AM  

InmanRoshi: I know doctors making $300k a year who live paycheck to paycheck.  This isn't just an issue of condensed poverty, but also an issue of a culture  unsustainable consumption in our society.


Yes.  My friend called me from Floria.  He's a pediatric surgeon.
... asking me for financial advice on how to keep his 3 cars and boat...
never mind all the rest of the waste
 
2013-06-26 10:23:05 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: You do realize the government can spend money without going into debt, right.


Correct, but cutting spending with keeping everything else constant will decrease the deficit/debt over what it would have been, thereby decreasing the interest cost and taxpayer liability.  That was my point.
 
2013-06-26 02:37:15 PM  

Diogenes: Just yesterday I got a corporate email blast - "We beat expectations once again!  Earnings at all time high!"  Then went to a team meeting where we were told we can't buy new equipment, travel for classes, hire new staff (despite measurable increases in workload), or expect raises.  It's been like this since 2000 (we did an astounding job at weathering the recession - earnings never dipped).  And all along we're told, "Consider yourself lucky you have a job."

This is not a whine, it's a fact.  And I am certainly not alone in this experience.

While I like the idea of a tax holiday for consumers or a decrease on federal taxes for fuel, I seriously doubt Townhall would suggest such specific and direct reliefs.  Look at their 'concluding' paragraph.  Cut government spending = reduce corporate and business taxes, to free them to generate wealth.  Except they're not.  How much longer are we expected to buy this lie?  How much more wealth must be concentrated at the top before it trickles down?  Is there some threshold?  Is it like bursting a dam?

I'm not taking issue you with you, Stealth Hippopotamus.  It's Townhall and the same tired subtext (which is admittedly less obvious this time).  Blame government, and blame the middle class for not being able to consistently do more with less while being denied the means to advance up the ladder of opportunity.


Could be worse, as you could be in science research and have your funding cut continually for the past 8 years.
 
Displayed 49 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report