• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Signs of declining economic security

windowdressing said:
you've actually raised an interesting question ... How often have bills passed with everyone in one party voting for it and every member from the other party voting against it? I may try to google that later ...

yes, both parties play games, and Rand Paul scares the crap out of me, but what has happened to Obama, whom I'm not crazy about, is pretty unique ... but then again, as the Jackie Robinson of the presidency, we should not have expected it to be business as usual ...
Click to expand...

I don't think it is unique at all. Obama came in as a "uniter" and didn't live up to it when Obamacare was crammed down the throats of the GOP. And yes, Rand Paul is scary, but most of the Dems/Reps are scary to me.
 
TheNextEra said:
Hold on a minute, I'm not asking that pay be deemed by me at all. I'm simply pointing out that life is worth less in this society and how greed is the dominate factor. You can preach suppply and demand all you want, but if you view life less than a football game, you are part of the problem with society in general.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm going to talk about supply and demand - the OP is about the economy and economic security which has everything to do with labor and the supply and demand of and for that labor.

Maybe your comments would be better placed in one of the philosophical discussion threads where you can debate whether the actions of millions of police officers, who do valuable work but whom most people never come in contact with throughout their entire lives, is more important than the joy and excitement that Tom Brady provides to millions of fans every Sunday from September through January every year.

Tell you what - if you can prove that you pay every person who provides a service to you every day of your life the same salary/wage that your employer pays you, maybe you'd have the moral authority to judge the value of various professions. Do you insist that the guy who gives you coffee and a muffin every morning at McDonalds gets the same salary you do, or do you feel he's not as valuable as you? He might think otherwise.

Being preachy and morally superior is very easy to do.
 
windowdressing said:
you've actually raised an interesting question ... How often have bills passed with everyone in one party voting for it and every member from the other party voting against it? I may try to google that later ...

yes, both parties play games, and Rand Paul scares the crap out of me, but what has happened to Obama, whom I'm not crazy about, is pretty unique ... but then again, as the Jackie Robinson of the presidency, we should not have expected it to be business as usual ...
Click to expand...

Better question. How many bills have passed that represent a government take over of 1/6th of the nations economy, with no members of the opposing party voting in favor of it?

I'd suggest that might be a more interesting search.
 
TheNextEra said:
I don't think it is unique at all. Obama came in as a "uniter" and didn't live up to it when Obamacare was crammed down the throats of the GOP. And yes, Rand Paul is scary, but most of the Dems/Reps are scary to me.
Click to expand...

He's a Kenyan, he's a Muslim, he wasn't born here, he's not really one of us ... yeah, I guess you're right, the same was said of every president we've had ... my bad ...
 
ocean515 said:
Better question. How many bills have passed that represent a government take over of 1/6th of the nations economy, with no members of the opposing party voting in favor of it?

I'd suggest that might be a more interesting search.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you always think that your question is better?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Tell you what - if you can prove that you pay every person who provides a service to you every day of your life the same salary/wage that your employer pays you, maybe you'd have the moral authority to judge the value of various professions. Do you insist that the guy who gives you coffee and a muffin every morning at McDonalds gets the same salary you do, or do you feel he's not as valuable as you? He might think otherwise.

Being preachy and morally superior is very easy to do.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between risking your life and making a cup of coffee. There is no equivalency to that, sorry. As for being preachy and acting like they are morally superior, that is the MO of conservatives.
 
windowdressing said:
He's a Kenyan, he's a Muslim, he wasn't born here, he's not really one of us ... yeah, I guess you're right, the same was said of every president we've had ... my bad ...
Click to expand...

Not any different than Bush was AWOL, Bush was part of 9/11, and Bush lied purposely to get us into the Iraq war. Like I said, not unique.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
In high school I had a teacher that regularly discussed economics before class started, and when we discussed the future of labor in the United States he told us to expect that each of us would average about five to seven careers throughout our working careers. Gone was the job security of our parents and grandparents who had a reasonable expectation that they would work at a single employer their whole lives and enjoy the job security that came with it.

Those discussions took place in 1999. To act as if this trend is something that has happened over the last few years, rather than the last three or four decades, is foolish.

As for the article, I am not surprised at all of the findings. With the emphasis on capital over the recent decades, labor is no longer that important when companies can have laborers in developing nations build their products at a fraction of the price of their American counterparts. Along with the prevalence of robotics, the manpower necessary to manufacture goods is drastically less than what was needed in post World War II America.

In order to better compete in the global market education is now the key to prosperity. Now no longer does a college degree guarantee success, but in order to do well one must have a post-undergraduate work. Unfortunately, this means that blue collar workers of the future will become something of a perpetual underclass with little chance of upward mobility. It is sad, but that is capitalism for you.
Click to expand...


The problem we run into is that the TYPE of education is far more important that just getting a college degree.While jobs increasingly require a college degree as a prerequisite, the truth is most of them don't actually need the education that was gathered in college, it is just a litmus test to see if the person is educable and can stick with something to completion. The jobs that make no use of your skill set are the ones with little or no job security.

In the long run, if you want a reasonably stable job get a college degree in computing and augment it with a laundry list of professional certifications.

Also, the idea of robotics replacing the American blue collar isn't entirely true. The blue collar jobs still exist, but they have migrated away from factory jobs and into services. You can't outsource plumbing and electrical work, or construction, or auto repairs. Those jobs still exist in the country because they physically have to be located in the country. What we have failed to do is prepare students for these jobs as we used to in high school. Bring back shop class and auto shop. Give students the option of a practical skill in school rather than the standard curriculum. Prep students to be electricians, plumbers and auto mechanics.

Moreover, decrease college funding for the wholly useless degrees that can not translate into gainful employment and push more towards the engineering disciplines. We as a country have lost sight of what makes a country truly prosperous. The Sciences are great, and contribute greatly to society, but the real engine of a strong economy is engineers. They are the practical arm of science, the builders and the inventors. Focus heavily on engineering and prosperity comes with it.

My modest proposal for years has been to take the Department of Energy, Department of Education and NASA and just role them into a new Department called "Department of Technological Advancement", this department would be focused on the advancement of education and implementations in the technological disciplines in the non-defense industries.
 
TheNextEra said:
And while I hated much of what he did, he was right.
Click to expand...

No he was wrong, not to mention highly hypocritical considering he expanded government on behalf of his financial backers.

The problem is accountability and transparency and lack of this. We should only have the government we need, no more, no less. The issue in many countries is that government has no accountability or transparency, so it can grow out of control because there is money in government. Politicians become rich when in office and after office if they play their cards right.. and that is wrong.

A good example is the US military. It is beyond bloated and its procurement waste is catastrophic.. because there is very little transparency or accountability. For example this one..

Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests

If there's a home of the Abrams, it's politically important Ohio. The nation's only tank plant is in Lima. So it's no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol's Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. They said their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics
Click to expand...

So here we have a situation where the military (aka the government) does not want the extra tanks, but the elected politicians force it through because of basically financial bribes. Not pork-barrel politics.. yea right!

Another example was a plane or helicopter that the US airforce said no to over a decade ago, but because it was made in a GOP Senators home state, he pushed for the billions wasted on the program. Only recently the program was finally cancelled.

It is this kind of abuse by elected politicians that is the problem, not "government". Government is just the tool of politicians, and in a corrupt political climate like the US, waste and nepotism is the number one problem and is always blamed on the "government" and not on the elected officials.

The continuing revolving door between elected officials to lobbyist for industry to management in industry is causing 90% of the waste and problems in government.

For example, bad regulation. In most cases they are put in place to protect a local politicians political/financial allies. Why do you think that the healthcare insurance industry fought for decades against opening up the market? Because they steadily funneled campaign money to local politicians who then blocked any liberalization of the market.

And the reason I am not putting elected politicians in the "government" box is simple. There are millions of hard working people in "government" and they should not all be blamed for some elected officials corruption. And yes there are some lazy bastards in "government" as well.. just as there is in the private sector.
 
PeteEU said:
No he was wrong, not to mention highly hypocritical considering he expanded government on behalf of his financial backers.

The problem is accountability and transparency and lack of this. We should only have the government we need, no more, no less. The issue in many countries is that government has no accountability or transparency, so it can grow out of control because there is money in government. Politicians become rich when in office and after office if they play their cards right.. and that is wrong.

A good example is the US military. It is beyond bloated and its procurement waste is catastrophic.. because there is very little transparency or accountability. For example this one..

Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests



So here we have a situation where the military (aka the government) does not want the extra tanks, but the elected politicians force it through because of basically financial bribes. Not pork-barrel politics.. yea right!

Another example was a plane or helicopter that the US airforce said no to over a decade ago, but because it was made in a GOP Senators home state, he pushed for the billions wasted on the program. Only recently the program was finally cancelled.

It is this kind of abuse by elected politicians that is the problem, not "government". Government is just the tool of politicians, and in a corrupt political climate like the US, waste and nepotism is the number one problem and is always blamed on the "government" and not on the elected officials.

The continuing revolving door between elected officials to lobbyist for industry to management in industry is causing 90% of the waste and problems in government.

For example, bad regulation. In most cases they are put in place to protect a local politicians political/financial allies. Why do you think that the healthcare insurance industry fought for decades against opening up the market? Because they steadily funneled campaign money to local politicians who then blocked any liberalization of the market.

And the reason I am not putting elected politicians in the "government" box is simple. There are millions of hard working people in "government" and they should not all be blamed for some elected officials corruption. And yes there are some lazy bastards in "government" as well.. just as there is in the private sector.
Click to expand...

All your examples show he was right. The government with it's size CANNOT effectively oversee it's own self, therefore is the problem. Government IS the problem.

Yes, Reagan was hypocritical in some cases, but the base idea that government is the problem was RIGHT.
 
TheNextEra said:
All your examples show he was right. The government with it's size CANNOT effectively oversee it's own self, therefore is the problem. Government IS the problem.

Yes, Reagan was hypocritical in some cases, but the base idea that government is the problem was RIGHT.
Click to expand...
<

No my point is, the overseers of government is the politicians. But in the US and some other countries, it is the politicians that are the problem and do not do their jobs and instead use government as an ATM for them and their financial backers. Hence the problem is not government but the elected politicians and the system it self.
 
j-mac said:
Was this the change you liberal progressives were waiting for? Was this the plan? All this talk, and excuse making for a failed liberal agenda of bringing all boats down in the name of "fairness" is bull****! We are NOT better off with Obama in office! We are NOT recovering under his administration, because that was never the plan. We are in decline, ushered in, and sped up by this progressive trash in the WH for the purpose of bringing this country down, because he can't stand what our place in the world was.

Don't agree with me? I couldn't care less! IF all you want to do is attack, then do us all a favor and don't post in this thread. If you want to discuss the conclusion of the AP report, then I am listening.
Click to expand...

No. We did not wish to merely rebound from the worst recession since the GD with slow, albeit steady growth. Nor did we wish for delays in the ending of stupid tax policy. And nothing but lip-service about raising wage minimums is quite possibly the worst dereliction of Obama's duty to the people who elected him, IMO.

So while I'm glad the recession is over, and things are heading north consistently, not nearly enough has been done, by a long shot.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
In high school I had a teacher that regularly discussed economics before class started, and when we discussed the future of labor in the United States he told us to expect that each of us would average about five to seven careers throughout our working careers. Gone was the job security of our parents and grandparents who had a reasonable expectation that they would work at a single employer their whole lives and enjoy the job security that came with it.

Those discussions took place in 1999. To act as if this trend is something that has happened over the last few years, rather than the last three or four decades, is foolish.

As for the article, I am not surprised at all of the findings. With the emphasis on capital over the recent decades, labor is no longer that important when companies can have laborers in developing nations build their products at a fraction of the price of their American counterparts. Along with the prevalence of robotics, the manpower necessary to manufacture goods is drastically less than what was needed in post World War II America.

In order to better compete in the global market education is now the key to prosperity. Now no longer does a college degree guarantee success, but in order to do well one must have a post-undergraduate work. Unfortunately, this means that blue collar workers of the future will become something of a perpetual underclass with little chance of upward mobility. It is sad, but that is capitalism for you.
Click to expand...

Obama was busy in 1999. :coffeepap
 
TheNextEra said:
There is a difference between risking your life and making a cup of coffee. There is no equivalency to that, sorry. As for being preachy and acting like they are morally superior, that is the MO of conservatives.
Click to expand...

The problem, sir, is that you are attempting to put a value on life and its relative risks and then equate that to the value of your skills and ambition in the marketplace.

The two do not belong in the same dscussion.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not any different than Bush was AWOL, Bush was part of 9/11, and Bush lied purposely to get us into the Iraq war. Like I said, not unique.
Click to expand...

Oh, these are equivalents? Incompentence versus whether you're really an American? since I started posting a couple of years ago I've had an introduction to Libertarians as never before, and while I share many of their views, concerns etc., there's one subject we're far apart on and Libertarians seem to be eerily consistent on it, and that's race and racism ... you guys just don't get it or just don't care - not sure which ... that's too bad ... have a good one, gotta head out ... I'll look for your response later ...
 
TheNextEra said:
If you actual read what I was responding to, those things were false is what I was saying. Obama is not a Muslim just like Bush didn't lie to get us in Iraq.
Click to expand...

My apologies for misunderstanding the context of your post. :doh
 
windowdressing said:
Oh, these are equivalents?
Click to expand...

Those are examples of the other side accusing the other falsely of something. Again, they are different in nature, but the tactic is the same, try and discredit the opponent through lies.

The right isn't going after Obama because he is black, they are going after him because he is ideology different than they are. Same as when the left did that to Bush. Is it right to do that? Of course not, but racism is not in play for the majority.

Do you REALLY think that the right would do anything differently if Obama was white? No, they wouldn't. Race has nothing to do with this as a whole. Yes, there are some that don't like Obama because he is black, they are a minority.
 
TheNextEra said:
Those are examples of the other side accusing the other falsely of something. Again, they are different in nature, but the tactic is the same, try and discredit the opponent through lies.

The right isn't going after Obama because he is black, they are going after him because he is ideology different than they are. Same as when the left did that to Bush. Is it right to do that? Of course not, but racism is not in play for the majority.

Do you REALLY think that the right would do anything differently if Obama was white? No, they wouldn't. Race has nothing to do with this as a whole. Yes, there are some that don't like Obama because he is black, they are a minority.
Click to expand...

as I said, Libetarians and race :doh ... and Ron Paul's newsletters weren't racist ... I really do have to go ... stay in that bubble ... it's more confusing out here and not as nice ... take care ...
 
windowdressing said:
as I said, Libetarians and race :doh ... and Ron Paul's newsletters weren't racist ... I really do have to go ... stay in that bubble ... it's more confusing out here and not as nice ... take care ...
Click to expand...

Yet again, do you think the GOP would go "lock in step" with Obama on Obamacare if he were white? Do you think they would go along with all of Obama's decisions if he were white? Do you think the GOP would not smear Obama if he were white?

If you think so, I'd love to hear your reasoning on that.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yet again, do you think the GOP would go "lock in step" with Obama on Obamacare if he were white? Do you think they would go along with all of Obama's decisions if he were white? Do you think the GOP would not smear Obama if he were white?

If you think so, I'd love to hear your reasoning on that.
Click to expand...

I will say this, the rhetoric would have been different. No birther stuff. No shouting lie in congress. It would have been along the lines of what we usually see. Things have been over the top concerning Obama. So, while I agree with your that most are not racist, there has been a racist element in all lot this.
 
PeteEU said:
<

No my point is, the overseers of government is the politicians. But in the US and ALL other countries, it is the politicians that are the problem and do not do their jobs and instead use government as an ATM for them and their financial backers. Hence the problem is not government but the elected politicians and the system it self.
Click to expand...

Corrected it for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom