NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a sincere question although it may sound a bit smart alecky.

Can one of the liberals on this forum explain to me how the President is responsible for a pantload of job losses, yet the unemployment rate is at the same rate as it was when Clinton was reelected?

If Bush has lost all these jobs that Kerry and his ilk keep saying he lost, then wouldn't that reflect in the unemployment rate? if the United States had indeed lost millions of jobs, wouldn't the rate go up several points?

The government (under any administration) has some pretty ludicrous standards for collecting these stats so there may be a logical reason but I can't think of one. Then again some policies of the government (again, under any administration) are totally unthinkable to me.:confused:

I am really enjoying the debate. Thanks.

This is a sincere question although it may sound a bit smart alecky.

Can one of the liberals on this forum explain to me how the President is responsible for a pantload of job losses, yet the unemployment rate is at the same rate as it was when Clinton was reelected?

If Bush has lost all these jobs that Kerry and his ilk keep saying he lost, then wouldn't that reflect in the unemployment rate? if the United States had indeed lost millions of jobs, wouldn't the rate go up several points?

The government (under any administration) has some pretty ludicrous standards for collecting these stats so there may be a logical reason but I can't think of one. Then again some policies of the government (again, under any administration) are totally unthinkable to me.:confused:

I am really enjoying the debate. Thanks.
try again, the unemployment rate is above that of clintons, by 1-2%

Bush's policies have encouraged the outsourcing of millions of jobs to Third World countries. Many jobs that could have been given to Americans are now occupied by people in India, China, etc.

Two comments- even if the unemployment rate is slightly higher, how many massive terrorist attack on US soil occurred during the Clinton administration?

At the store where I work, we have had a "now hiring" sign hanging outside the door for the last year. We never have enough help, and lots of the help we have is underqualified. Our suppliers don't have enough help, either.

I think that lots of jobs exist, but, due to a changing job market, many are not being filled.

try again, the unemployment rate is above that of clintons, by 1-2%

Try again, the rate is 5.4% the exact amount it was when Clinton was reelected.

Remarks by Governor Laurence H. Meyer
At the Charlotte Economics Club, Charlotte, North Carolina
January 16, 1997

The extraordinary achievement of 1996, of course, was reaching such low levels of unemployment and inflation at the same time. The 5.4% unemployment rate in 1996 was the lowest annual rate since 1988 and before that since 1973

5.4% wasn't so low then. Why is it now? And I ask again, if there is such a deficit in jobs under Bush, why isn't it reflected in the unemployment rate?

Two comments- even if the unemployment rate is slightly higher, how many massive terrorist attack on US soil occurred during the Clinton administration?

At the store where I work, we have had a "now hiring" sign hanging outside the door for the last year. We never have enough help, and lots of the help we have is underqualified. Our suppliers don't have enough help, either.

I think that lots of jobs exist, but, due to a changing job market, many are not being filled.
well according to the bereau of whatever does these studies that i cant remember the name for, there are far less jobs than there are people of age in the work force

Try again, the rate is 5.4% the exact amount it was when Clinton was reelected.



5.4% wasn't so low then. Why is it now? And I ask again, if there is such a deficit in jobs under Bush, why isn't it reflected in the unemployment rate?
it was low then because clinton brought it down from 7.6% from bush's dad. and after clinton left it went up to 6.4, and it DID go lower than 5.4 under clinton, in the 4's maybe 3's i believe and 1-2% is NOT a small increase

I really dislike percentages as a basis for unemployment figures.

If the population is 100,000 and 5% are unemployed, then that means 5,000 people are out of work. This is a bad thing.

If the population is 100,000,000 and 5% are unemploed, then 5,000,000 people are out of work. This is a national tragedy.

Base it on population, not on percentages. 5.4% unemployment means a lot more now than it did 10 years ago.

Perhaps it's to do with the way the unemployment figures are now reported.
They may have changed to not include people who have been unemployed for a certain length of time. Even though they're still unemployed, they're classified as 'not looking for work'. It's a common trick politicians play to manipulate figures.
Or by the fact that the working population of America has increased over the last 4 years, and so the actual number of unemployed is now higher, even though the % isn't.

Anyway, here's my post from an earlier thread on exactly the same topic:

From http://stats.bls.gov/
Click on "Get Detailed Statistics"
then "Access to Historical Data for the "A"...."
then "Table A-1..."
Check "Employed" under the Seasonally Adjusted column, go down to the bottom of the page, and hit the button:

January 2001 the number is 137790, this month its 139681.

Looks good, doesn't it?
However.....
Go back and this time check the Civilian Labor Force Level (seasonally adjusted):

January 2001 the number is 143372, this month its 147704.

So the employed sector has risen 1 891 000 but the total available workforce has risen 4 332 000 over the same time.
That means there's a deficit of 2 441 000 jobs. Or if you like, nearly 2 1/2 million more ppl entered the workforce than there were jobs created over the last 3 years.

January 2001 the number is 143372, this month its 147704.

So the employed sector has risen 1 891 000 but the total available workforce has risen 4 332 000 over the same time.
That means there's a deficit of 2 441 000 jobs. Or if you like, nearly 2 1/2 million more ppl entered the workforce than there were jobs created over the last 3 years.

So basically what your saying is that for every President the numbers are skewed.

Look this isn't a new thing. Not to mention irelevant. Bottom line is that Bush's numbers are the same as any other President. And better than most. Didn't Bush have a 3.9% in November or December of 2000? It's not the job of the President to create new jobs. It is the responsibility of the government to get out of the way and let people create their jobs. ANY action that the government takes always has a negative effect on the job market. The government cannot create wealth. It can only take it from those who earn it.

I think the main issue is not necessarily the AMOUNT of jobs available, it's the amount of GOOD PAYING jobs available. It's getting harder and harder to find a decent paying job these days which is why I haven't looked for a new one recently (I have more than an hour's commute in one direction, getting a little tired of it). With the rate of inflation it's becoming very difficult to stay above the poverty level for a lot of US families because the income from working is not keeping up. Don't tell that to the congressmen who just gave themselves a raise for the 6th year in a row, in which they'll go up to $200k (I think).

So basically what your saying is that for every President the numbers are skewed.

Look this isn't a new thing. Not to mention irelevant. Bottom line is that Bush's numbers are the same as any other President. And better than most. Didn't Bush have a 3.9% in November or December of 2000? It's not the job of the President to create new jobs. It is the responsibility of the government to get out of the way and let people create their jobs. ANY action that the government takes always has a negative effect on the job market. The government cannot create wealth. It can only take it from those who earn it.
um no, he didnt, ever 5.4 is his LOWEST. and it IS the governments job to create new jobs if none present themselves in order to keep the coutnry running.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

pretty eh? especially during clintons presidentcy

Bush wasn't President in November of 2000 Clinton was, Clinton's recession had already started and had yet to reach its lowpoint which occured after 9/11. The unemployment rate in Sept. '96 was 5.4% it is 5.4% right now.


facts are hard to argue. ;)


plenty of good paying jobs, lack of quality applicants

Bush's policies have encouraged the outsourcing of millions of jobs to Third World countries. Many jobs that could have been given to Americans are now occupied by people in India, China, etc.


false, unless of course you are speaking of the ridiculous increase in spending on education, medicare, agricultural subsidies, etc. jobs fleeing the too high tax rate and regulatory agencies, probably.

plenty of good paying jobs, lack of quality applicants



If that's true, then the government should help train and/or pay for the training of kids just coming out of High School, to prepare them for Job Market and to help ensure they can find a job and don't end up on Welfare Rolls.

um no, he didnt, ever 5.4 is his LOWEST. and it IS the governments job to create new jobs if none present themselves in order to keep the coutnry running.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

pretty eh? especially during clintons presidentcy

Chess, you're right about the unemployement rate.

However, you're wrong about creating jobs. Only business can create jobs. If you make government jobs, you're just taking more from the taxpayer, not actually getting more money and job opportunities--it's just robbing the American taxpayer.

The unemployment rate refers to what percentage of the non-working population is actively seeking work, so just because the percentage is the same, doesn't mean the total number of unemployed people is.

Unemployment rate doesn't count students, elderly, stay at home mothers, people under legal working age, and people who are unemployed by choice. The unemployment refers to the precentage of the population that is actively seeking work; were recently fired, new on the job market, and seasonal workers.

If that's true, then the government should help train and/or pay for the training of kids just coming out of High School, to prepare them for Job Market and to help ensure they can find a job and don't end up on Welfare Rolls.

Maybe the kids can take a job at McDonald's and pay for college to train them for those jobs, instead of forcing someone like me to pay their way, while they don't have to work for it.

Maybe the kids can take a job at McDonald's and pay for college to train them for those jobs, instead of forcing someone like me to pay their way, while they don't have to work for it.



Maybe if those jobs actually paid them enough to save (those jobs are typically bottom of the barrel, minimum-wage jobs) and they did'nt FIRE the employees before they could ever even hope to save enough (very high turnover rate for those jobs), then maybe they could save enough to get into college...By the way, you ARE a citizen of this nation, that's why you pay taxes. America is considered a united community by MOST of it's people. People in communities SHOULD help eachother, and we do need taxes if we don't want to slide into Anarchy and a Regional Warlord style of government. Pay your fu*king taxes and stop complaining, punk, or turn in your citizenship card for a passport...

Bush wasn't President in November of 2000 Clinton was, Clinton's recession had already started and had yet to reach its lowpoint which occured after 9/11. The unemployment rate in Sept. '96 was 5.4% it is 5.4% right now.


facts are hard to argue. ;)


plenty of good paying jobs, lack of quality applicants
and lets play ignore the fact in sept 96 it was STILL coming down from the 7+ under bush sr and in 97 and 98 was in the low and mid 4 and 3s

This is a sincere question although it may sound a bit smart alecky.

Can one of the liberals on this forum explain to me how the President is responsible for a pantload of job losses, yet the unemployment rate is at the same rate as it was when Clinton was reelected?

If Bush has lost all these jobs that Kerry and his ilk keep saying he lost, then wouldn't that reflect in the unemployment rate? if the United States had indeed lost millions of jobs, wouldn't the rate go up several points?

The government (under any administration) has some pretty ludicrous standards for collecting these stats so there may be a logical reason but I can't think of one. Then again some policies of the government (again, under any administration) are totally unthinkable to me.:confused:

I am really enjoying the debate. Thanks.

The problem is you're assuming the population of the United States is constant; that's not true. As time goes by more people join the work force (become 18 or older) than retire. So the number of people who need jobs is increasing at a rate of about 150,000 people per month. At the same time, the measuring of "unemployment" is rather sketchy. People who have all but given up on looking for jobs are not counted as unemployed. There are other small idiosyncrasies like this when counting unemployment.

Maybe if those jobs actually paid them enough to save (those jobs are typically bottom of the barrel, minimum-wage jobs) and they did'nt FIRE the employees before they could ever even hope to save enough (very high turnover rate for those jobs), then maybe they could save enough to get into college...By the way, you ARE a citizen of this nation, that's why you pay taxes. America is considered a united community by MOST of it's people. People in communities SHOULD help eachother, and we do need taxes if we don't want to slide into Anarchy and a Regional Warlord style of government. Pay your fu*king taxes and stop complaining, punk, or turn in your citizenship card for a passport...

Look pal...the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of the income tax paid in this country. That's reason to complain!!! So how much should they pay "PUNK"!?

To many people aren't paying their "fair share" and people like you want to give them more? Are you kidding me. Which gives me another topic to start a thread on. See new thread called "Personal Responsibility".

Alot of the time, unemployment numbers are actually wrong (read: correct, but in context, yes, they can be wrong).

The unemployment rate in 1995 was listed as 5.7%, but Lester Thurough researched it to be at about 14% really.

Basically, full time jobs are down and 14% of people don't have full time jobs. Wal-Mart is a big operator in this department; instead of employing one person for 40 hours a week of work, they employ two people at 20 hours each, thus avoiding paying benefits. The Bureau just says 'do you have a job now?" and the answer is yes, but is it necessarily a job that one can live off of? No, not always.

So what I meant in the first line, is yes, unemployment numbers do measure those unemployed, but it doesn't take any other factors in to effect. Thats why I don't like that stat alone, I prefer to look into others and compare. The devil is in the detail.



Ok, this was my first post, and it may not be clear cause I'm not a good explainer via text, so please keep the flaming minimal.

Maybe if those jobs actually paid them enough to save (those jobs are typically bottom of the barrel, minimum-wage jobs)

I'm a firm believer in the market setting the value of jobs, not the government. These jobs pay little because they are worth little. A monkey can do many of them. And there's usually another person right behind waiting when one opens up. And if the job really doesn't pay enough, no one will take it and the employer will eventually have to offer more. That's the free market at work.

The government mandating that such and such a job is worth $X is simply inflationary... McD's raises the cost of Big Macs to compensate, so people in the better jobs now demand more, so more prices go up and the McD's worker is right back where they started. It's a cycle.

Frankly, the government needs to stay out of these things.

Alot of the time, unemployment numbers are actually wrong (read: correct, but in context, yes, they can be wrong).

The unemployment rate in 1995 was listed as 5.7%, but Lester Thurough researched it to be at about 14% really.

Basically, full time jobs are down and 14% of people don't have full time jobs. Wal-Mart is a big operator in this department; instead of employing one person for 40 hours a week of work, they employ two people at 20 hours each, thus avoiding paying benefits. The Bureau just says 'do you have a job now?" and the answer is yes, but is it necessarily a job that one can live off of? No, not always.

So what I meant in the first line, is yes, unemployment numbers do measure those unemployed, but it doesn't take any other factors in to effect. Thats why I don't like that stat alone, I prefer to look into others and compare. The devil is in the detail.



Ok, this was my first post, and it may not be clear cause I'm not a good explainer via text, so please keep the flaming minimal.
well we have to go on what we have unless some one does the in depth research for every month of ever year

Maybe if those jobs actually paid them enough to save (those jobs are typically bottom of the barrel, minimum-wage jobs) and they did'nt FIRE the employees before they could ever even hope to save enough (very high turnover rate for those jobs), then maybe they could save enough to get into college...By the way, you ARE a citizen of this nation, that's why you pay taxes. America is considered a united community by MOST of it's people. People in communities SHOULD help eachother, and we do need taxes if we don't want to slide into Anarchy and a Regional Warlord style of government. Pay your fu*king taxes and stop complaining, punk, or turn in your citizenship card for a passport...

Oh yeah, that's going to sway me to your side.

Look, I've worked since I was 14, in some fashion or another, and I saved for college. Got through with part-time jobs.

Just because someone didn't prepare, doesn't make me responsible for putting someone who thinks they "deserve" a free ride through school.

We are a Federal Republic, designed to protect the individual against the predations of foreign interests, as well as domestic predations. What right does someone have to force me to pay for someone else's way through college?

I'm doing okay as far as making a living goes--what right does anyone have to anything I bring in? It's not my job to support anyone not of my choosing.

This is a sincere question although it may sound a bit smart alecky.

Can one of the liberals on this forum explain to me how the President is responsible for a pantload of job losses, yet the unemployment rate is at the same rate as it was when Clinton was reelected?

If Bush has lost all these jobs that Kerry and his ilk keep saying he lost, then wouldn't that reflect in the unemployment rate? if the United States had indeed lost millions of jobs, wouldn't the rate go up several points?

The government (under any administration) has some pretty ludicrous standards for collecting these stats so there may be a logical reason but I can't think of one. Then again some policies of the government (again, under any administration) are totally unthinkable to me.:confused:

I am really enjoying the debate. Thanks.
Under Clinton's watch, 22 MILLION jobs were created. Under Bush's watch, 900,000 jobs have DISAPPEARED.

Pretty straightforward?

try again, the unemployment rate is above that of clintons, by 1-2%
When Clinton took office on Jan. 1, 1993, the unemployment rate was 7.3%, and when he left office on Dec. 31, 2000, the unemployment rate was 3.9%

Unemployment under Clinton, dropped throughout his Presidency.

When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 3.9%, and after 3 years and 8 months, the unemployment is now at 5.4%, after going as high as 6.3%. So unemployment under Bush went up 2.4% and has now dropped to the current 5.4%.

When Clinton took office on Jan. 1, 1993, the unemployment rate was 7.3%, and when he left office on Dec. 31, 2000, the unemployment rate was 3.9%

Unemployment under Clinton, dropped throughout his Presidency.

When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 3.9%, and after 3 years and 8 months, the unemployment is now at 5.4%, after going as high as 6.3%. So unemployment under Bush went up 2.4% and has now dropped to the current 5.4%.
i am going by the link i provided

i am going by the link i provided
Ummm I was supporting you. :D

It's difficult to explain the behaviour of the US economy because it's a very complex thing. However it's free and capitalist enough that neither Clinton, nor Bush, have any power to dictate how many jobs are going to be created or lost.

Many things happened at the start of Clinton's administration that went on to accelerate the economy and require more jobs, including NAFTA. Truth is that nobody to this day knows exactly how that period of growth came to be or why it lasted so long. What's very certain is that a capitalist economy can't sustain such levels for long, which is what happened towards the end of Clinton's government.

Of course, having run hot for so long means that the economy will now require a longer time to cool down. Plus, the US has been bleeding money like crazy in trade deficit for several years now. This doesn't mean the US is becoming a dump, but jobs and wealth creation will shift, precisely increasing the amount of less well paid jobs. Eventually this will help the trade deficit because people in the US will have less money to buy foreign things.

The US also has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, even now, so it's possible that it will still go up somewhat, even if Kerry is elected. I would give the economy another year or two to level out and start growing constantly again.

Look pal...the top 50% of income earners pay 98% of the income tax paid in this country. That's reason to complain!!! So how much should they pay "PUNK"!?

To many people aren't paying their "fair share" and people like you want to give them more? Are you kidding me. Which gives me another topic to start a thread on. See new thread called "Personal Responsibility".




You know WHY the top 50% of income earners pay most of the taxes? Because THEY HAVE THE MONEY. And guess what, "pal", there is such a thing as a "Victim of Circumstance"...When you are born into this world you have NO CLUE what you are being born into, you have ZERO CONTROL over who your parents are, what they act like, how good THEIR jobs are, how well they are treated, and how good they are AS PARENTS.


If you're born below the poverty line? Sucks for you, you got NO inheritence to start your life with, almost NO support system to help find you a job, you're fighting against vague market forces which you have NO control over, and you probably WILL NOT have enough money to get a proper education in college or vocational school. You are effectively stuck below the poverty line until you are AT LEAST 30-40 years old, IF you ever get out from under it, AT ALL.


YOU have a responsibility to help the next generation succeed, so this country, and this Constitutional Republic can SURVIVE, without becoming some sort of Dictatorship or chain of Anarchial Warlord-Ruled States!


The top earners, meaning, those making A MILLION dollars or more? They should be paying 90% into the tax chest each year.(which is exactly what they paid in the 50's and early 60's) and those making TEN MILLION dollars or more? They should pay 99% into the chest.


And if they refuse? They DONT support this country, and they should be EXILED. There's no room in this country for whining richies who OWE IT ALL to the United States and it's hardworking laborers who PUT THEM WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.


You and your ilk are nothing but WHINERS. Those people below the poverty line are'nt whining, as you like to make them out to be doing, they are surviving and scraping and working HARD, and they DESERVE our help, and if you can't see that, you are nothing but conniving, whining, WEASEL... SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT.

I'm not going to go as hardcore as Samarika, but I'll try to put this in perspective:

You live in a society, it is that society that has helped everyone decide that a 'dollar' means anything, or that you can do anything by having lots of those 'dollars.' Without that society, it'd have to be goats and exchange would be based on balancing out how much less hassle it would be to give you something for the goats vs. just hitting you on the head and taking them. To support that system takes money. It's what you give back to the society that set up the system that allowed you to get all that money in the first place.

Now, we tried the whole "stay out of business'" way thing before, though we tend to act like we haven't. Short version, didn't work. Exploitation, crashes, massive divide, riots etc. Didn't work. The invisible hand does not exist, or if it does it's favorite place to lead things is off a cliff.

So a society has to do it's best to make sure that it provides a base for all of it's members to succeed enough that there are consumers (in capatilist societies) to keep the whole thing running. The more you say "Fuck 'em" the less you have to feed the system. Once that divide is uncrossable growth and personal motivation become irrelivant (unless personal motivation also involves a gun). What's lost is that every person helped on their feet then becomes a consumer-those little neccisaties for you to get all those riches you so believe you deserve. Society is thus helping itself out when it helps out it's least fortunate. And in order to do that it sometimes takes money, money you pay to support the society that made a little green rectangular piece of paper mean anything to anyone.

It's difficult to explain the behaviour of the US economy because it's a very complex thing. However it's free and capitalist enough that neither Clinton, nor Bush, have any power to dictate how many jobs are going to be created or lost.

Many things happened at the start of Clinton's administration that went on to accelerate the economy and require more jobs, including NAFTA. Truth is that nobody to this day knows exactly how that period of growth came to be or why it lasted so long. What's very certain is that a capitalist economy can't sustain such levels for long, which is what happened towards the end of Clinton's government.

Of course, having run hot for so long means that the economy will now require a longer time to cool down. Plus, the US has been bleeding money like crazy in trade deficit for several years now. This doesn't mean the US is becoming a dump, but jobs and wealth creation will shift, precisely increasing the amount of less well paid jobs. Eventually this will help the trade deficit because people in the US will have less money to buy foreign things.

The US also has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, even now, so it's possible that it will still go up somewhat, even if Kerry is elected. I would give the economy another year or two to level out and start growing constantly again.
When Bush invested $700 Billion worth of "tax cuts", it was supposed to create 6 Million jobs. It hasn't happened.

Also don't let the 5.4% unemployment rate fool you. Consider the following:

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_economy.htm

Unemployment data have improved since hitting a high of 6.3 percent last June. June's number was 5.6 percent, virtually unchanged this year. However, economists say that if we added underemployed workers or those who have stopped looking for work out of disillusionment to the picture, then the unemployment rate would be closer to 10 percent.

The graphs also paint a fairly accurate account of the Bush/Clinton years.

So true, CToaN. I love how so many people who have "made it" whether through their own genius, the virtue of their birth or blind luck all have the temerity to act as though they made it without any help from the society that surrounds them, and the stability that society provides. The government provides social stability, and the taxes we pay help the government do that job. It's as simple as that--taxes are the dues we pay to live in an advanced society.

You know WHY the top 50% of income earners pay most of the taxes? Because THEY HAVE THE MONEY. And guess what, "pal", there is such a thing as a "Victim of Circumstance"...When you are born into this world you have NO CLUE what you are being born into, you have ZERO CONTROL over who your parents are, what they act like, how good THEIR jobs are, how well they are treated, and how good they are AS PARENTS.


If you're born below the poverty line? Sucks for you, you got NO inheritence to start your life with, almost NO support system to help find you a job, you're fighting against vague market forces which you have NO control over, and you probably WILL NOT have enough money to get a proper education in college or vocational school. You are effectively stuck below the poverty line until you are AT LEAST 30-40 years old, IF you ever get out from under it, AT ALL.


YOU have a responsibility to help the next generation succeed, so this country, and this Constitutional Republic can SURVIVE, without becoming some sort of Dictatorship or chain of Anarchial Warlord-Ruled States!


The top earners, meaning, those making A MILLION dollars or more? They should be paying 90% into the tax chest each year.(which is exactly what they paid in the 50's and early 60's) and those making TEN MILLION dollars or more? They should pay 99% into the chest.


And if they refuse? They DONT support this country, and they should be EXILED. There's no room in this country for whining richies who OWE IT ALL to the United States and it's hardworking laborers who PUT THEM WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.


You and your ilk are nothing but WHINERS. Those people below the poverty line are'nt whining, as you like to make them out to be doing, they are surviving and scraping and working HARD, and they DESERVE our help, and if you can't see that, you are nothing but conniving, whining, WEASEL... SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT.

Victim mentality panther piss.

And by the way, I am one of the people working poor out there. My car died yesterday and I have no way to get to work. The hurricanes cost me a ton of work time so things arent all that rosy for me. But enough whining. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO GET ME OUT OF A POSITION THAT I PUT MYSELF INTO.

Your right we can't know when we are born what will happen to us when we become adults. But the truly great thing about being in America, is that we can do and make anything of ourselves if we choose to and pay the price to achieve it. It really is that simple.

We live in the easiest country in the world. You know where it's hard? Malaysia, Sudan, Mexico. It's hard over there. In America...it's easy. Which is why there are so many people that want to come here. People are not out there saying "If I can only get to Saskatchewan, then everything will be okay." (No offense to residents in Canada) No they are coming to America.

And this line that if your born in poverty your screwed. Totally untrue. How many rags to riches stories are there in this country? Too many to count.

Knowledge, Discipline and Will are all that's needed to become successful in this country. Anything to the contrary is rubbish.

Victim mentality panther piss.

And by the way, I am one of the people working poor out there. My car died yesterday and I have no way to get to work. The hurricanes cost me a ton of work time so things arent all that rosy for me. But enough whining. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO GET ME OUT OF A POSITION THAT I PUT MYSELF INTO.

Your right we can't know when we are born what will happen to us when we become adults. But the truly great thing about being in America, is that we can do and make anything of ourselves if we choose to and pay the price to achieve it. It really is that simple.

We live in the easiest country in the world. You know where it's hard? Malaysia, Sudan, Mexico. It's hard over there. In America...it's easy. Which is why there are so many people that want to come here. People are not out there saying "If I can only get to Saskatchewan, then everything will be okay." (No offense to residents in Canada) No they are coming to America.

And this line that if your born in poverty your screwed. Totally untrue. How many rags to riches stories are there in this country? Too many to count.

Knowledge, Discipline and Will are all that's needed to become successful in this country. Anything to the contrary is rubbish.



If you don't like paying taxes, then you can ship out with the rest of the richies and whiners...What country would you like to go to? Pick well, because you ain't coming back here...

(I wish...)

If you don't like paying taxes, then you can ship out with the rest of the richies and whiners...What country would you like to go to? Pick well, because you ain't coming back here...

(I wish...)


:headbang:

Paying taxes is fine. For defense, to mediate disputes between the states, and other Constitutionally defined tasks that the government needs to accomplish. But to take from one person to pay the expenses of another person. Not acceptable.

Let me guess...you too were educated in a government school.

:headbang:

Paying taxes is fine. For defense, to mediate disputes between the states, and other Constitutionally defined tasks that the government needs to accomplish. But to take from one person to pay the expenses of another person. Not acceptable.

Let me guess...you too were educated in a government school.



Yes, I was, but I DO realize that the government is not infallible...In fact, far from it, which is why I don't believe in the Death Penalty, Drug Laws, or restricting Freedom of Speech for "security" reasons whatsoever.


I do agree that a Free Market is essential, but I also think that Capitalism should be harnessed for the good of society, letting it make tons of profits, then taxing as much of those profits as is reasonable in order to run the country and make it better.


I DO agree that our taxes are highly misspent, largely due to Corporations corrupting our government. I think we need to slash the budget to ribbons, then get some eggheads and idea men together to make a better one, and make better programs.


I am NOT a Socialist, if that's how you're trying to paint me..

I really dislike percentages as a basis for unemployment figures.

If the population is 100,000 and 5% are unemployed, then that means 5,000 people are out of work. This is a bad thing.

If the population is 100,000,000 and 5% are unemploed, then 5,000,000 people are out of work. This is a national tragedy.

Base it on population, not on percentages. 5.4% unemployment means a lot more now than it did 10 years ago.
95% employed is far from a tragedy, in any environment. Europe is teetering at 10% - 20% unemployment yet we hear nothing.

Unemployment is not always bad. People who are without work are available to be hired. If there was nobody looking for work where would someone go if they wanted to hire somebody?

There is also the unemployed who deserve to be so. Everyone here, at one time or another, has worked with people who just were incompetent. Poor work ethic, employed above their ability level, poor skills, etc. Unemployemt for them can be a wake-up call to the need to improve.

Also consider the seasonal unemployed. Construction naturally slows in the winter months. Same for farming. It is a natural extension for most of these people to receive unemployemt each year.

There is the dot-bomb employees - people who worked for lame dot-com enterprises like photounderwear.com. Their bad for picking an employer like that.

Last, but not least, is the union workers who's union demands became so overbearing that it became cheaper for the company to assume the HUGE costs to build a whole new factory overseas, ship materials there and ship the finished product back - than it was to keep their local factory open. The blame falls on the employer when it is actually the union who priced the labor grossly uncompetitive - in spite of Americans high productivity.

I think the main issue is not necessarily the AMOUNT of jobs available, it's the amount of GOOD PAYING jobs available. It's getting harder and harder to find a decent paying job these days which is why I haven't looked for a new one recently (I have more than an hour's commute in one direction, getting a little tired of it). With the rate of inflation it's becoming very difficult to stay above the poverty level for a lot of US families because the income from working is not keeping up. Don't tell that to the congressmen who just gave themselves a raise for the 6th year in a row, in which they'll go up to $200k (I think).
And what evidence do you have, beyond your own narrow observation, that this is the case? Statistics, survey, source.

Or did you say that just because it sounds good?

(and congreessmen are grossly underpaid compared to businessmen with similar responsibilities)

(and congreessmen are grossly underpaid compared to businessmen with similar responsibilities)




Either that or the businessmen are overpaid...

If that's true, then the government should help train and/or pay for the training of kids just coming out of High School, to prepare them for Job Market and to help ensure they can find a job and don't end up on Welfare Rolls.


What, you don't think 13 years of free education is enough?

Your case might not be completely ridiculous if it weren't for the fact that roughly 25% of people don't even finish taking advantage of the FREE education they are already given! (school dropouts) In fact, the people who need it most are the ones most likely to dropout! It is foolish to think that people who never even finished the first 13 years would want extended education options!

Better would be to fix the current system and end the monopoly of the public education system. Give parents a choice of what school their children should attend. Give schools the ability to remove disruptive students.

What, you don't think 13 years of free education is enough?

Your case might not be completely ridiculous if it weren't for the fact that roughly 25% of people don't even finish taking advantage of the FREE education they are already given! (school dropouts) In fact, the people who need it most are the ones most likely to dropout! It is foolish to think that people who never even finished the first 13 years would want extended education options!

Better would be to fix the current system and end the monopoly of the public education system. Give parents a choice of what school their children should attend. Give schools the ability to remove disruptive students.
removing disruptive students is not fair for the student or right for the school, the schools will just start dumping any students they dont like, despite what hey do. thats what happened to the private school iw ent to, they got a new principle and she expelled half a dozen students that could be problematic so there would be no problems. so the students dotn get an education there, what if all schools jsut kicked htem out? thousands and rthousands if not millions of students without the ability to go to school

think before you suggest

removing disruptive students is not fair for the student or right for the school, the schools will just start dumping any students they dont like, despite what hey do. thats what happened to the private school iw ent to, they got a new principle and she expelled half a dozen students that could be problematic so there would be no problems. so the students dotn get an education there, what if all schools jsut kicked htem out? thousands and rthousands if not millions of students without the ability to go to school

think before you suggest

I think quite often. If you wish to insult me you will first have to raise yourself to my level.

Retaining disruptive students is far more unfair to the students who's education is disrupted due to classroom interruptions or violence.

Disruptive students removed from a school have options. Their parents can deal with the problem, they can attend another school and try not being disruptive, or they can home school.

Schools will have choices just as the students who attend them. Universities already have this option (a student who is violent or disruptive in a classroom is removed) There is no reason primary education should be denied this tool.

What, you don't think 13 years of free education is enough?

Your case might not be completely ridiculous if it weren't for the fact that roughly 25% of people don't even finish taking advantage of the FREE education they are already given! (school dropouts) In fact, the people who need it most are the ones most likely to dropout! It is foolish to think that people who never even finished the first 13 years would want extended education options!

Better would be to fix the current system and end the monopoly of the public education system. Give parents a choice of what school their children should attend. Give schools the ability to remove disruptive students.




Oh, so because 25% of students drop out, suddenly the rest of them have forfeited their right to advanced education? Plus, have you ever stopped to think that MAYBE we should change the curriculum a bit in the 13 year school-cycle? Maybe they could get vocational training while STILL IN school. Your so-called logic is faulty at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst, and this sentence:


"I think quite often. If you wish to insult me you will first have to raise yourself to my level."


...Proves that you are an arrogant as*.

The notion that the market will sort itself out is a fallacy
The market has always been ruled and regulated by the government, there is no free market. The government legislates which activities can take place in a market citing public well being as the reasoning. To suggest the government should not interfere in the market is to suggest that any laws restricting sale and trade of for instance sex, or cocaine must (since they interfere with the free market) go. The market has no sense of social well being, ethics or morality. It is not a concious sentient entity full of economic or any wisdom.

As for jobs that monkeys can do. Well the monkeys cant or wont apparently, and in cases such as waitressing there's health regulations to consider. The fact is these jobs must be done by someone. If everyone sent themselves to collage and were highly competent, these jobs would still need filling and they would still be low paid. Someone has to work for those low wages and enjoy a lower standard of living so that your purchasing power remains high. Why should they? What's in it for them? No matter how hard everyone works to 'better themselves' if everyone did everything perfectly from the start to the finish of their lives, some people are still going to be poor, and in sucky jobs because someone has to those crappy jobs. To say that everyone can 'make it' is to deny reality in favour of a fantasy world where monkeys clean the streets of garbage, bring you your food in cheap dinners, and cash up your groceries and Christmas purchases at the local 'mega-chain' retailer.

Oh, so because 25% of students drop out, suddenly the rest of them have forfeited their right to advanced education? Plus, have you ever stopped to think that MAYBE we should change the curriculum a bit in the 13 year school-cycle? Maybe they could get vocational training while STILL IN school. Your so-called logic is faulty at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst, and this sentence:


"I think quite often. If you wish to insult me you will first have to raise yourself to my level."


...Proves that you are an arrogant as*.

Many states have plans that provide free college educations for people who have proven to be motivated individuals.

Besides, nothing is as illogical as increasing funding for a system that is basically run by the greedy, corrupt NEA.

Oh, so because 25% of students drop out, suddenly the rest of them have forfeited their right to advanced education? .

Lack of a High School Diploma is far more debilitating than any other educational shortcoming. Overlooking that just to provide benefits to the lucky few who don't succumb to it is narrow-minded at best.

Plus, have you ever stopped to think that MAYBE we should change the curriculum a bit in the 13 year school-cycle? Maybe they could get vocational training while STILL IN school..

What makes you think I have not? College prepatory class are overrated and leaving many students more suited to the trades ignored.

Your so-called logic is faulty at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst, and this sentence:


"I think quite often. If you wish to insult me you will first have to raise yourself to my level."


...Proves that you are an arrogant as*.

A sharp tongue does not mean you have a keen mind, quite the contrary. Insults are the weapon of the weak. I wish you good fortune is overcoming your own weakness.

And this line that if your born in poverty your screwed. Totally untrue. How many rags to riches stories are there in this country? Too many to count.

Well how many are there? Are the ranks of the "wealthy" gaining new members everyday and if they are, in what numbers? How many of them go the other way, when their stock market assets collapse?

All the stories I see, is that the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen.

The wealthiest Americans are the top 2% of the population. What was the percentage 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago?

Sure everyone has the ability to make it to the top, but how many actually suceed? It is a pipe dream, and in the majority of cases, if you don't have money to invest in large quantities then you are not going to make it to the top 2%.

While the top 2% pay a lot in taxes, it is the individuals that earn less than $200,000 that pay the majority of taxes. It should be the middle class that gets a better deal from the tax cuts, then the wealthiest 2% that squirrel away their "windfall" for a rainy day or when the stock market is going up.

BTW, there are many people in the business of wealth creation who will ultimately decide which "newcomers" will be allowed to play the "game", and which ones that they will destroy.

Sure it is okay to have your dreams, but think about where you are now. Will you get there by supporting policies that tend to reward those that already are extremely well off?

Taxes should be based on consumption, not production.

Abolishing the income tax and implementing a VAT (value-added tax) on non-basic needs items is a much fairer revenue system. I also consider the flat tax with a high baseline income to be better alternative to the current IRS loophole-fest.

Taxes should be based on consumption, not production.

Abolishing the income tax and implementing a VAT (value-added tax) on non-basic needs items is a much fairer revenue system. I also consider the flat tax with a high baseline income to be better alternative to the current IRS loophole-fest.
heres a brilliant idea, we KEEP income tax and fix the irs bullshit? do you realize how much moeny would be lost by doing away with the income tax and puttign a federal sales tax on non useful items? and if you could make a federal tax on that high enough to cover income taxes, NO ONE would buy them becuase it would cost so much

Taxes should be based on consumption, not production.

Abolishing the income tax and implementing a VAT (value-added tax) on non-basic needs items is a much fairer revenue system. I also consider the flat tax with a high baseline income to be better alternative to the current IRS loophole-fest.It's still regressive and hits those least able to pay the hardest.

I said a high baseline income. I would even accept a few brackets. And people will always buy luxury items, as long as the cost is not prohibitive.

A combined "flat"-tax and a VAT tax would be able to gather as much revenue as the current tax system.

Fixing the current tax code is not a realistic solution. Last I checked, the current IRS tax code weighs in at about 5 million words.

Fixing the current tax code is not a realistic solution. Last I checked, the current IRS tax code weighs in at about 5 million words.
which soemhow means it cant be fixed?

which soemhow means it cant be fixed?

All past attempts to "fix" the IRS has resulted in a bulkier code with more loopholes. I'd like to see you come up with a magical fix-it-all.

All past attempts to "fix" the IRS has resulted in a bulkier code with more loopholes. I'd like to see you come up with a magical fix-it-all.
The problem is that the people who have the job of making tax law are among those most likely to benefit from all the loopholes in that law--both parties here. There's no magical solution--the best I can hope for is that the people on the bottom like me don't get shit on any more than is reasonable, and a VAT virtually guarantees that I'll be drenched in the stuff, both because it's regressive and because there's no way a VAT would ever raise the kind of revenue necessary to pay for the social programs that I use regularly like funding for public transportation and the like.

And this line that if your born in poverty your screwed. Totally untrue. How many rags to riches stories are there in this country? Too many to count.


Totally true. How many rags to rags stories are there in this country? Too many to count. Next to none of our presidents came from poor families, and only a few came from the 'middle class'. Less then 20% of our CEO's come from the 'middle class' and even fewer are from the poorest group of people.

Rags to riches is a lie.

Totally true. How many rags to rags stories are there in this country? Too many to count. Next to none of our presidents came from poor families, and only a few came from the 'middle class'. Less then 20% of our CEO's come from the 'middle class' and even fewer are from the poorest group of people.

Rags to riches is a lie.

I know plenty of people who were born into lower-middle class families and now make six-figure salaries. It might not be your extremist example of dirt-poor to billionaire, but it does demonstrate the fludity of the American economic system.

I know plenty of people who were born into lower-middle class families and now make six-figure salaries. It might not be your extremist example of dirt-poor to billionaire, but it does demonstrate the fludity of the American economic system.
Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen often? No.

Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen often? No.

Obviously. But an intelligent person who is willing to put in the effort has an excellent chance.

You really don't expect everyone to climb the ladder, did you?

Obviously. But an intelligent person who is willing to put in the effort has an excellent chance.

You really don't expect everyone to climb the ladder, did you?
mm magic republican selective optimism and psychic ability

Obviously. But an intelligent person who is willing to put in the effort has an excellent chance.

You really don't expect everyone to climb the ladder, did you?
More like a very intelligent and lucky person who also happened to have parents that gave a shit and were willing to sacrifice to allow him to get a good education along with putting in the effort has a good chance.

I expect a whole lot more then do now, and those numbers would be even lower without Public Education.

More like a very intelligent and lucky person who also happened to have parents that gave a shit and were willing to sacrifice to allow him to get a good education along with putting in the effort has a good chance.

I expect a whole lot more then do now, and those numbers would be even lower without Public Education.

Well no shit. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their own offspring, not the government.

Can you elaborate on "without public education"?

I know plenty of people who were born into lower-middle class families and now make six-figure salaries. It might not be your extremist example of dirt-poor to billionaire, but it does demonstrate the fludity of the American economic system.
The only recognizable reality of "the fluidity of the American economic system", is that more dollars are going into the pockets of the wealthy while poverty continues to consume more and more families, who cannot compete.

Consider the following:

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BB4FBCBBD-1278-4421-889C-1D4B7982B9C3%7D&siteid=google&dist=google

The self-made myth

Societal support key to much wealth creation, report says

"Pro-business economic policies and tax policies are often centered on the myth of the self-made man," the report says. But the myth of "self-made" wealth "is potentially destructive to the very infrastructure that enables wealth creation."

Individuals profiled believe that they prospered in large part thanks to things beyond their individual control, such as social investments in education, research, technology and infrastructure, the report says. Or as Jim Sherblom, former CFO of Genzyme, says, "We are all standing on the shoulders of those who came before us."..............

..... Yet, where would many wealthy entrepreneurs be today without taxpayer investment in the Internet, transportation, public education, legal system, the human genome and so on?

Considering those observations, what is the Bush administration prepared to do to enhance such worthy goals if re-elected?

Just four weeks ago, the Washington Post reported the Bush administration alerted government agencies that if President Bush is reelected, there will be domestic spending cuts, including programs in homeland security, education, nutrition, Head Start, homeownership, job-training, medical research, environmental protection and science.

In Arthur Miller's play about the downfall of the American Dream, "Death of a Salesman," Willy Loman says to his son on whom he had placed much hope: "If only you had passed your math, things would have turned out different."

It is people such as yourself that buy into this mythology and try to sell it as the "American Dream", when in reality for many, it is the American Nightmare.

Consider the source. "United for a Fair Economy".

Enough with the rhetoric already. The American Dream promises nothing. Naysayers such as yourself try to sell the "American Nightmare" to everyone trying to get them addicted to government handouts. It's a Democratic tactic that the electorate has already rejected numerous times.

Well no shit. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their own offspring, not the government.

Can you elaborate on "without public education"?
If your parents are poor, and you don't have free education, what are the odds that you are going to get educated?

Consider the source. "United for a Fair Economy".

Enough with the rhetoric already. The American Dream promises nothing. Naysayers such as yourself try to sell the "American Nightmare" to everyone trying to get them addicted to government handouts. It's a Democratic tactic that the electorate has already rejected numerous times.
Then who will put the plug in the drain? Revolutions are made of these type of situations that are ignored by the wealthiest individuals that sell this shit. The fact that Americans love their guns so much, also makes revolution easier to accomplish.

Read history and you will see it time and time again. Classic example would be the French Revolution, where only 19% of the people overthrew the aristocracy. Greed is a costly commodity?

If your parents are poor, and you don't have free education, what are the odds that you are going to get educated?

Is public education going away? On the contrary, by injecting accountability into the system, I believe the quality will improve.

The Democratic congress has been tossing more and more money into that union-controlled black hole for the past three decades, it is about time someone got to the root of the problem.

Is public education going away? On the contrary, by injecting accountability into the system, I believe the quality will improve.

The Democratic congress has been tossing more and more money into that union-controlled black hole for the past three decades, it is about time someone got to the root of the problem.
You missed the point, '93 said that s/he doesn't believe in Public Education and then turns around and uses that "Rags to riches" comment to support his/her claim.

(Oh, and trust me, its not accountability, it is the beaurcracy that is the problem)

Then who will put the plug in the drain? Revolutions are made of these type of situations that are ignored by the wealthiest individuals that sell this shit. The fact that Americans love their guns so much, also makes revolution easier to accomplish.

Read history and you will see it time and time again. Classic example would be the French Revolution, where only 19% of the people overthrew the aristocracy. Greed is a costly commodity?

There's a little something called individual responsibility. After getting their free education (an education that many people voluntarily forego) I refuse to provide any more welfare with my tax dollars.

You and your rhetoric. As I've said before, the American electorate has been rejecting class-warfare politics for the past half-century. You can fantasize about your revolution, I'm busy living my American Dream.

You missed the point, '93 said that s/he doesn't believe in Public Education and then turns around and uses that "Rags to riches" comment to support his/her claim.

(Oh, and trust me, its not accountability, it is the beaurcracy that is the problem)

The problem is the teachers' union, among other things.

Well no shit. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their own offspring, not the government.
In the case of poor parenting who is the victim, the parents or the child? The child obviously, so the parents get to ruin a child's life and the child is the one with the ruined life ergo the one subject to the consequences and so the one being held to account for choices utterly outside their control. This is simply a nice way of saying that children are responsible for who their parents are, even though they have no choice.

If a society expects children to grow up and abide by societies standards, then it must as a matter of pragmatism ensure that children are given an up-bringing that facilitates and ability to abide by societies standards.

So what your phrase really means is that children stupid or irresponsible enough to be born to substandard parents, get what they deserve...great I can see many savings to made, no more policing of incest against minors, other forms of child abuse, because hey it's not up to the government to be responsible for the actions of parents, so why should the tax payer be footing the bill by providing legal and social services aimed at protecting helpless children from their own parents?

Such a suggestion ignores the foundations of society. Societies exist for the purpose of ensuring individual (and as a result collective) survival. The overall health of a society is determined by the well-being of the constituent parts, ie the individuals.

In the case of poor parenting who is the victim, the parents or the child? The child obviously, so the parents get to ruin a child's life and the child is the one with the ruined life ergo the one subject to the consequences and so the one being held to account for choices utterly outside their control. This is simply a nice way of saying that children are responsible for who their parents are, even though they have no choice.

If a society expects children to grow up and abide by societies standards, then it must as a matter of pragmatism ensure that children are given an up-bringing that facilitates and ability to abide by societies standards.

So what your phrase really means is that children stupid or irresponsible enough to be born to substandard parents, get what they deserve...great I can see many savings to made, no more policing of incest against minors, other forms of child abuse, because hey it's not up to the government to be responsible for the actions of parents, so why should the tax payer be footing the bill by providing legal and social services aimed at protecting helpless children from their own parents?

Such a suggestion ignores the foundations of society. Societies exist for the purpose of ensuring individual (and as a result collective) survival. The overall health of a society is determined by the well-being of the constituent parts, ie the individuals.





You hit the nail on the head right there...

In the case of poor parenting who is the victim, the parents or the child? The child obviously, so the parents get to ruin a child's life and the child is the one with the ruined life ergo the one subject to the consequences and so the one being held to account for choices utterly outside their control. This is simply a nice way of saying that children are responsible for who their parents are, even though they have no choice.

If a society expects children to grow up and abide by societies standards, then it must as a matter of pragmatism ensure that children are given an up-bringing that facilitates and ability to abide by societies standards.

So what your phrase really means is that children stupid or irresponsible enough to be born to substandard parents, get what they deserve...great I can see many savings to made, no more policing of incest against minors, other forms of child abuse, because hey it's not up to the government to be responsible for the actions of parents, so why should the tax payer be footing the bill by providing legal and social services aimed at protecting helpless children from their own parents?

Such a suggestion ignores the foundations of society. Societies exist for the purpose of ensuring individual (and as a result collective) survival. The overall health of a society is determined by the well-being of the constituent parts, ie the individuals.
Well stated. :)

I do agree that a Free Market is essential, but I also think that Capitalism should be harnessed for the good of society, letting it make tons of profits, then taxing as much of those profits as is reasonable in order to run the country and make it better.


See, there's the problem. No one will be able to agree on what is "reasonable".


I DO agree that our taxes are highly misspent, largely due to Corporations corrupting our government. I think we need to slash the budget to ribbons, then get some eggheads and idea men together to make a better one, and make better programs.


You seem to assume that the afformentioned "eggheads" won't have an agenda of their own.

Actually, when it comes to where Congress spends our tax revenues, if you want to talk about slashing the budget, there are only three real places to go, and they're all sacred and untouchable--Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and national defense. Everything else is a pittance by comparison.

Now, the first two of those are supposedly funded by payroll taxes, which means that the general revenue of the nation ought not be bothered by them, but the fact is we've been paying social security benefits out of the general fund for years and will continue to do so. Here's the political reality of Social Security and Medicare--since the baby boomer generation is the largest single voting demographic in the US and is one that stretches across party lines, don't expect to see any reduction in Social Security or Medicare benefits any time soon. Don't expect to see means-testing either (although that's the first place I'd start). If anything, benefits will increase as the boomers get older, thanks to their political clout.

And as to national defense, forget about it. We could certainly spend the money we allocate more wisely--on soldiers' benefits instead of missile defense systems that don't work for instance--but there's absolutely no support for serious reductions in the military budget. During the Democratic primaries, Dennic Kucinich nearly got laughed off the stage every time he touted his "Department of Peace." It just won't happen.

So there's two other options. We could raise taxes, or we could stop paying the interest on the national debt. The first, if done wisely, will help the economy. The second would make the world's economy have a convulsion the like of which we've never seen.

Actually, when it comes to where Congress spends our tax revenues, if you want to talk about slashing the budget, there are only three real places to go, and they're all sacred and untouchable--Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and national defense. Everything else is a pittance by comparison.

You really oughta do your own homework. Here, I did the first part for you:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html
and in excel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/27_32.xls

There are plenty of places to cut outside of military spending - Here is a hint - you don't have to cut spending by a nickel to balance the budget. Can you see how? The answer is plain to see if you look.

.[/QUOTE]



Now, the first two of those are supposedly funded by payroll taxes, which means that the general revenue of the nation ought not be bothered by them, but the fact is we've been paying social security benefits out of the general fund for years and will continue to do so. .

Wrong again. Presently there is a SS surplus, which will dry up in 2016, after which time it will begin deficit spending. The current surplus is invested in the only option allowed - treasury bills - considered among the safest investments in the world.
http://www.wfhummel.cnchost.com/financngsocialsecurity.html




Here's the political reality of Social Security and Medicare--since the baby boomer generation is the largest single voting demographic in the US and is one that stretches across party lines, don't expect to see any reduction in Social Security or Medicare benefits any time soon. .
Maybe you missed the part where the eligibility age for Xers and younger was raised to 67?


Don't expect to see means-testing either (although that's the first place I'd start). .
Social security was tax free until recently, now it is taxes on a means based system.

If anything, benefits will increase as the boomers get older, thanks to their political clout.
.

Like prescription drug benefits...


And as to national defense, forget about it. We could certainly spend the money we allocate more wisely--on soldiers' benefits instead of missile defense systems that don't work for instance--.
Most new innovations don't work on the first try. Thankfully it didn't stop people like Thomas Edison, The Wright Bros and Willaim Paseur. We just barely beat the Nazis to Atomic weapons due to their error in pursuing heavy water.


but there's absolutely no support for serious reductions in the military budget. During the Democratic primaries, Dennic Kucinich nearly got laughed off the stage every time he touted his "Department of Peace." It just won't happen.
chuckle. Dept of Peace. Lemme guess, a pipe would be their emblem. :)

[QUOTE=Incertonia
So there's two other options. We could raise taxes, or we could stop paying the interest on the national debt. The first, if done wisely, will help the economy. The second would make the world's economy have a convulsion the like of which we've never seen.[/QUOTE]
Worlds worst?? You don't get out much, do ya?

You are right, defaulting on a debt would have catastrophic concequances, however we are nowhere near that place.

The solution is one that any 5th grader in home economics could understand. When your income does not match your spending what do you do?

Duh! Reduce spending! Or at the very least stop INCREASING your spending each year!

This is something so rare in government that they actually call it a spending CUT when they don't get a spending INCREASE! However, as it is in a household budget, it is the best way to get each dept. to reduce frivilous spending.

As far as how tax cuts figure into this, well, that requires an advanced discussion on economics, particularly in money supply (ala interest rates) which would require a whole new thread - and would be helpful if all the participants had a firm grasp on US economic basics. (To which I cannot say you do or do not)

Now, in the future, please check your facts before you post them - errors like the ones I demonstrated make you look like Dan Rather.