Destruction of the US or not?

[AStudent]

Well what an interesting thread, with netsalt, CraziFuzzy, DeltaT giving good food for thought. Oh so much better than the bickering we are used to. So maybe I should throw a little different spice into the soup. I think the problem is credit. It changed society and how we look at what we have and what we deserve. My 26 year old nephew asked my mother 'Grandma, are you still making payments on your house?' He has no clue what it is like buying things for cash, actually saving up the money before you buy something. The whole concept of I want it now and deserve it started a generation before him and now it is so entrenched our economy would not run without it.

People now do not wish for things, they expect it. And this attitude extends to government now. We want and it should provide. If it does not we will pick someone who will promises us they will give it to us. If people had to learn restraint and save for what they wanted or for their future I bet government would be a lot simpler.

I agree....the problem with going back to having no credit is that pay has not increased with inflation. It takes two to survive now, and barely.

[CraziFuzzy]

Interesting, so you are essentially arguing the Darwinian theory of economics where the weak are purged from the ranks. Grandma and Grampa might disagree.

Grandma and Grandpa no longer contribute to society in a very meaningful manner - UNLESS they are inclined to help support a family at home. There has to be SOME net benefit to the longer life modern society has given us, to make it worth the social costs. If the working age is not lengthened, what benefit is there to the nation from the last 20-30 years of someones life? And no, I'm not saying that we legislate some manner of laws to make old people die earlier, or make them work longer - but if you get the government out of the market - and yes, lifetime, working age, and labor, are all naturally balancing markets if left to do so - then it WOULD naturally reach an equilibrium. The forced robbery of the working young, to give to the non-working elderly, has done NO good for this country. Social Security and medicare are both big parts of this problem.

Coddle a person into success.......elaborate.

Insulating someone from the negatives of failure remove the driving forces that push one to success. When that insulation comes at the cost to those who would otherwise experience further success, it is a doubly negative proposition.

[printer2]

I agree....the problem with going back to having no credit is that pay has not increased with inflation. It takes two to survive now, and barely.

Not if you lived the same as when I was a kid. Grew our own vegetables. The steak people would eat by themselves now fed our family of five. Mom still went to work cleaning peoples houses and when we were old enough to not have to be taken care of worked in the garment factory. Three channels, b/w, get on the roof to adjust the antenna, one car one phone (black), want to play hockey or football, watch for the cars on the street. New clothes, wait for Christmas. Yup, times are harder now.

[newoldtech]

Grandma and Grandpa no longer contribute to society in a very meaningful manner - UNLESS they are inclined to help support a family at home. There has to be SOME net benefit to the longer life modern society has given us, to make it worth the social costs. If the working age is not lengthened, what benefit is there to the nation from the last 20-30 years of someones life? And no, I'm not saying that we legislate some manner of laws to make old people die earlier, or make them work longer - but if you get the government out of the market - and yes, lifetime, working age, and labor, are all naturally balancing markets if left to do so - then it WOULD naturally reach an equilibrium. The forced robbery of the working young, to give to the non-working elderly, has done NO good for this country. Social Security and medicare are both big parts of this problem.


.

Your points are obviously valid. But these things all happened gradually over time. Peoples life span has increased slowly the government has paid out more over time. The solution is to gradually reverse the process. The government has to not only be involved but has to take the lead. Raise the retirement age, decrease benefits to people who are in higher income brackets. These may not be easy choices but are necessay to avoid bigger problems down the road. Entitlement reform is the elephant in the room.

[AStudent]

Not if you lived the same as when I was a kid. Grew our own vegetables. The steak people would eat by themselves now fed our family of five. Mom still went to work cleaning peoples houses and when we were old enough to not have to be taken care of worked in the garment factory. Three channels, b/w, get on the roof to adjust the antenna, one car one phone (black), want to play hockey or football, watch for the cars on the street. New clothes, wait for Christmas. Yup, times are harder now.

I completely agree.

My great grandfather passed away Friday, he was 88 years old and a WWII veteran, we have all spent the past four days listening and telling stories of his and our lives. The most inspirational stories to me were those told by his son....of how they had it back when he was a boy. The struggle people had back then was so intense... but they act like it wasn't so bad.

I was an 80's baby, my parents struggled, most nights it was beans or Mac n cheese with tuna for supper...we didn't have new cars or new clothes. The first house my parents ever owned they bought very cheap, and it was entirely gutted... no floors, no drywall, the plumbing was bad. We all worked on that house for years, until I was 15...my mom completed nursing school and landed a high paying job. Life became so easy and I feel that it may have spoiled me a bit....but I'll always remember the hard times, and oddly enough those were also the best times.

[Elfshadow]

Well what an interesting thread, with netsalt, CraziFuzzy, DeltaT giving good food for thought. Oh so much better than the bickering we are used to. So maybe I should throw a little different spice into the soup. I think the problem is credit. It changed society and how we look at what we have and what we deserve. My 26 year old nephew asked my mother 'Grandma, are you still making payments on your house?' He has no clue what it is like buying things for cash, actually saving up the money before you buy something. The whole concept of I want it now and deserve it started a generation before him and now it is so entrenched our economy would not run without it.

People now do not wish for things, they expect it. And this attitude extends to government now. We want and it should provide. If it does not we will pick someone who will promises us they will give it to us. If people had to learn restraint and save for what they wanted or for their future I bet government would be a lot simpler.

I don't think the problem is credit. We had credit long before we ever had these problems. The problems start when your currency is based on debt. Because our currency is backed on nothing it allows the government to inflate the money supply at will allowing them to spend as they wish. The problem with this is that it decreases the spending power on the population while also allowing bubbles due to easy credit because the banking system knows that all the money they are lending will be worth less tomorrow when the collect then today when they loan. At the same time savings are discouraged because if you don't spend it now it will not buy as much tomorrow.

The problem is not government or business but government and business working hand in hand together. The path this nation is walking is the classic path of good intentions.

[CraziFuzzy]

Your points are obviously valid. But these things all happened gradually over time. Peoples life span has increased slowly the government has paid out more over time. The solution is to gradually reverse the process. The government has to not only be involved but has to take the lead. Raise the retirement age, decrease benefits to people who are in higher income brackets. These may not be easy choices but are necessay to avoid bigger problems down the road. Entitlement reform is the elephant in the room.

I'm not even TO the point of how to fix it - I was simply talking about how/when it started. Oddly enough, the start coincided with when the legislators and presidents stopped caring about the constitution. The limits of government lined out in the constitution would have stopped ALL of these infractions had the supreme court simply done their job. You are correct, that now that we are IN this situation, it cannot be a quick fix (short of a revolution leading to a period of near anarchy before reform) - it will take time, and a concerted effort to go through every law on the books, and reevaluate it's constitutionality, and devise a definite plan towards the revocation of any laws deemed so. The first step, though, is to focus electoral forces on REAL government issues - as in how the government governs - as opposed to the minuscule social issues that blind the public from the real problem. I could care less about whether I elect a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Whig for that matter - my only concern is how they feel about the constitution, and the totality of it's adherence and defense (you know, like I and many others have sworn to uphold). The left/right lean of a given individual means nothing to me if they are going to ignore the constitution. If they were to follow the constitution, they'd realize that they don't even have the power to affect the social issues that pollute the popular debate scene.

The tea party, for all it's faults, at least tapped into a little bit of that energy - yes, it went astray quite quickly, and most tea party members were seduced back to typical party politics by those in political power - but it did show that there is SOME public force out there that realizes that the WAY we govern today is wrong. I honestly feel that if only 2-3 libertarians got elected to congress, that would be a tipping point that would start the decline of the two sided, single party system in place today - because it would start to bring in some REAL opposing voices, and not just the party mouthpieces.

[DeltaT]

The destruction of the family safety net was inevitable with industrialization, this could be viewed as good or bad but the result is the same, when societies move from a family centered system (agricultural or otherwise) to a more centralized system the emphasis is shifted to the entity providing the "bread". Business had the opportunity to provide this safety net for their employees and the better ones did for many years but since most businesses are in business to make money (nothing wrong with that) they are not easily convinced to provide these services to employees. Hence we have a void, large companies realize this and depend on the government to provide this safety net, because social unrest is not good for business. The problem comes in when this safety net is not funded according to the benefits derived from its existence.

What a load of.......well,..............truth. Corporations as we know most of them today do define what you speak of. And some to a few large corporations do run our government to the disbenefit of our country, our family and our communities.

But that is a failure of our Federal, State and local governments which are there to represent us, the people and not to benefit a few large coporations at the expense of the people.

As a small businessman I noticed that my costs were going through the roof about 20 or so years ago. Making money was still fairly simple but keeping it was impossible due to fees, taxes and other made up categories as presented to me by the State, local and Federal government each year. And I found I had absolutely no protection against them.

Yet while I was and am being nickled and dimed to death some large corporations were and are expanding their wealth and power on my back and money. The tax code in itself gives exemptions to large corporations while taxing small business into vapor. And that is still true.

I have found the biggest enemy I have to my business is the Federal Government, The Washington State Government and some local governments. You would think the economy is my biggest problem. It isn't. It's the hands that are continually in my pocket run by special interest groups who now and have been running these governments.

And there is one common factor in all these governments......and you can figure that part out yourself. If you can't then I sure can't get you to see it.

More later.

[energy star]

How is google doing it? New, great company to work for.
(Netsalts post)

[DeltaT]

How is google doing it? New, great company to work for.
(Netsalts post)

You mean breaking the family and also having a negative effect on this country?

[sayya2daupay]

Grandma and Grandpa no longer contribute to society in a very meaningful manner - UNLESS they are inclined to help support a family at home. There has to be SOME net benefit to the longer life modern society has given us, to make it worth the social costs. If the working age is not lengthened, what benefit is there to the nation from the last 20-30 years of someones life? And no, I'm not saying that we legislate some manner of laws to make old people die earlier, or make them work longer - but if you get the government out of the market - and yes, lifetime, working age, and labor, are all naturally balancing markets if left to do so - then it WOULD naturally reach an equilibrium. The forced robbery of the working young, to give to the non-working elderly, has done NO good for this country. Social Security and medicare are both big parts of this problem.


Insulating someone from the negatives of failure remove the driving forces that push one to success. When that insulation comes at the cost to those who would otherwise experience further success, it is a doubly negative proposition.

Spoken like someone in midst of their most profitable working years. Your opinions will change as your body ages. We are alot longer old than we are young. Taking care of the old and sick is what we are supposed to do.....soon it will be our turn to be old and sick. Pretty lame man to disrespect the old people, pretty lame. Our nursing homes are not bankrupting this country, its the refusal of the ultra rich to pay taxesand the politicians supporting them. Its the made up wars and defense contracts . Its the franchises and walmarts and the lack of factories that had bankrupted us. We will always be able to take care of our old and infirm.

[energy star]

You mean breaking the family and also having a negative effect on this country?

Don't think so. They care about the employees. Negative effect? You need to grow, things are always changing and always will. Seems like half of you wanna go churn butter or clip sheep. We are growing as a country, and must be willing to adjust. Term limits throughout will change that. And all you in Arizona, stop voting McCain in.

[DeltaT]

Don't think so. They care about the employees. Negative effect? You need to grow, things are always changing and always will. Seems like half of you wanna go churn butter or clip sheep. We are growing as a country, and must be willing to adjust. Term limits throughout will change that. And all you in Arizona, stop voting McCain in.

So what you are saying is every corporation, company takes care of their employees?