• 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!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

Savings and investment take time. Old timers dont have that. Is this your first day? :lol:

So what you are saying is that its not only politically unfeasible it is fiscally unfeasible?
 
Speaking of nest eggs, I met with my financial advisor Tuesday. Reason being, now that the GOP got back in the driver's seat, I was worried that my retirement funds would nosedive. I don't pretend to have much smarts that way. I just remember the Bush years. Call me superstitious.

But he told me that a GOP senate under a democrat president should do very well according to historic trends. I have no idea if that is true or not but that's what he said. That made me feel a little better.

Anyways, I am just a regular guy. Far from rich but my bills are always paid on time and my belly is full and I have a nice warm home.

Doing the math, when my wife and I retire, we can expect nearly 2.7k, combined, from Social Security each month, (more if I wait until 65 to retire.) If I sold my home and combined my retirement funds with that amount, I could pull another 2k a month to that almost 2.7k of SS, giving us approximately 4.7k a month in income that would last us until we are both well over 100 years old.

That's just enough to buy myself a small home around Tarpon Springs, pay all my bills and eat steak every once in a while. That's all I need. I am happy with that.

Should one of us die before then, our annuities kick in and our life insurance would more than make up for any loss.

Granted, that's not a whole heck of a lot but dog gone it, that's being responsible for myself. I won't need anybody's welfare. I'm kind of proud of that.
 
Speaking of nest eggs, I met with my financial advisor Tuesday. Reason being, now that the GOP got back in the driver's seat, I was worried that my retirement funds would nosedive. I don't pretend to have much smarts that way. I just remember the Bush years. Call me superstitious.

But he told me that a GOP senate under a democrat president should do very well according to historic trends. I have no idea if that is true or not but that's what he said. That made me feel a little better.

Interesting, even financial advisors don't have much confidence in the intelligence average American.

Makes me wonder how I'm able to sleep at night... I'm sure I'll get over it.

Anyways, I am just a regular guy. Far from rich but my bills are always paid on time and my belly is full and I have a nice warm home.

Doing the math, when my wife and I retire, we can expect nearly 2.7k, combined, from Social Security each month, (more if I wait until 65 to retire.) If I sold my home and combined my retirement funds with that amount, I could pull another 2k a month to that almost 2.7k of SS, giving us approximately 4.7k a month in income that would last us until we are both well over 100 years old.

That's just enough to buy myself a small home around Tarpon Springs, pay all my bills and eat steak every once in a while. That's all I need. I am happy with that.

Should one of us die before then, our annuities kick in and our life insurance would more than make up for any loss.

Granted, that's not a whole heck of a lot but dog gone it, that's being responsible for myself. I won't need anybody's welfare. I'm kind of proud of that.

You'd have to live to be 115 to get nearly everything back of what you put into Social Security. Wouldn't rely on the income you get from selling your home. Not less you're expecting another real estate boom.
 
Speaking of nest eggs, I met with my financial advisor Tuesday. Reason being, now that the GOP got back in the driver's seat, I was worried that my retirement funds would nosedive. I don't pretend to have much smarts that way. I just remember the Bush years. Call me superstitious.

But he told me that a GOP senate under a democrat president should do very well according to historic trends. I have no idea if that is true or not but that's what he said. That made me feel a little better.

Anyways, I am just a regular guy. Far from rich but my bills are always paid on time and my belly is full and I have a nice warm home.

Doing the math, when my wife and I retire, we can expect nearly 2.7k, combined, from Social Security each month, (more if I wait until 65 to retire.) If I sold my home and combined my retirement funds with that amount, I could pull another 2k a month to that almost 2.7k of SS, giving us approximately 4.7k a month in income that would last us until we are both well over 100 years old.

That's just enough to buy myself a small home around Tarpon Springs, pay all my bills and eat steak every once in a while. That's all I need. I am happy with that.

Should one of us die before then, our annuities kick in and our life insurance would more than make up for any loss.

Granted, that's not a whole heck of a lot but dog gone it, that's being responsible for myself. I won't need anybody's welfare. I'm kind of proud of that.

If you have the cash, invest down South. Mexico may seem crazy, but it's where a lot of Americans go to retire for a reason. Food is cheap, life is great, and you get to walk by the beach every day if you want to. Price of a 2 floor home with all the bells and whistles? Around $40-50K
 
So, you would rather we listen to the folks who admittedly lied just get this turd passed and think we're all stupid? BTW, when Hans Gruber called Americans stupid, you're included in that. He didn't exclude anyone.

Tell ya what, I'll pass on that. :lamo

One last thing, did you here Hans admit that Massachussetts ripped off the Federal government? "Rip off", are his exact words.

In other words, you can't find anywhere in the bill where it is appointing death panels???

Got it
 
I just hope this Medical Device tax stuff can be ironed out. This is my key concern with Obamacare. I know that many others are worried about it. I know we cant fix everything with Obamacare but we need to make the Medical Device tax a priority in my opinion.

Can I get a hell yeah?
 
Just as I thought, you don't understand the BLS data. What that chart shows is well over a million discouraged workers each month in 2010 and more months in later years all over a millions which even basic math tells you is much higher than 700,000. Those people aren't counted as unemployed but certainly are unemployed
Why do you say they "certainly are unemployed?" Ever since the introduction of the Labor Force concept in the 1930's, actually looking for work has always been the main definition of unemployed. So what definition of unemployed are you using and where does it come from?
 
So, you would rather we listen to the folks who admittedly lied just get this turd passed and think we're all stupid? BTW, when Hans Gruber called Americans stupid, you're included in that. He didn't exclude anyone.

Tell ya what, I'll pass on that. :lamo

One last thing, did you here Hans admit that Massachussetts ripped off the Federal government? "Rip off", are his exact words.

Not only did he say that about Massachusetts, he actually was proud of it.
 
I actually believe just the opposite. The Democrats are slightly less terrible than the Republicans.

Not to mention that dems just don't show up for midterms. The general will tell the tale and all this repub gloating will turn to tears and they will definitely repeatedly say "the voting electorate is soooo stupid."

Dems don't show up for midterms? I guess it was Republican voters who overwhelmingly replaced the Republican Congressional reps and Republican Senators with anti-war Democrats in the 2006 midterms.
 
So anyway, back to Gruber.

He counted on Democratic voters being stupid. I wonder who else who was engaged during his meetings in the White House and in the hallowed halls of the Democratically-controlled Congress shared his opinion, and giggled along with him?
 
In other words, you can't find anywhere in the bill where it is appointing death panels???

Got it

Well, not anymore, because after the Democrats got busted, they removed that part from the bill. :lamo

Why are you defending someone who looks down upon you with such contempt? Are you hoping for the, "good communist", effect?
 
So anyway, back to Gruber.

He counted on Democratic voters being stupid. I wonder who else who was engaged during his meetings in the White House and in the hallowed halls of the Democratically-controlled Congress shared his opinion, and giggled along with him?

That's a long list, I'm sure.
 
LOL... I particuarly like how you use totals instead of end results because if you looked at results you fail more than miserably. So you sweep in that golden economy Clinton handed off to Bush and credit Bush with that. Why don't you like to observe trends Conservative? huh? Why not look at where is started vs where it ended under Bush? I wonder why? Because he tanked our economy. That's why.

Golden economy? Bush inherited a recession according to NBER. So apparently that is golden to you. You want to blame Bush for tanking our economy ignoring the Democrat Congress and the failure of Obama to offer anything of value while as Senator in that Congress. You voted for incompetence and flowery rhetoric and elected failure.
 
Explain "politically feasible"... because it sure as hell looks like a conservative way of being Politically Correct in calling the electorate too stupid to know better.

The architect of Obamacare always called the electorate stupid. He apparently was right with the 41% that still support Obama
 
Here's the U-6 charted out so that everyone can see the trends... TRENDS. That thing you can't stand:

View attachment 67175869

link to easier to read blown up version.

Oh look at that. Bush drove up the U-6 numbers to the horrific levels and it's been declining every since the economy rebounded after Bush disappeared from office. Go freegin' figure. Learn to read Conservative.

Here's one more up to date. Enjoy Con.

View attachment 67175870

LOL, discouraged workers are still higher than any number Bush ever had and when you get to record levels you better decline. You simply don't have a clue and nothing Obama has done is going to change your mind. Ideology trumps reality and that is sad. Again you pointed to the 700,000 jobs lost and claimed it was monthly and I actually gave you the monthly discouraged workers which were higher than any number Bush ever generated but those are ignored.
 
Oh look Conservative... Here's that GDP you were crowing about...

View attachment 67175872

Pretty amazing what comes to light when you put date trends into the equation ain't it Con?

time for you to disappear right after you throw a slew of personal insults. THAT... is your trend.

It is amazing what all that govt. spending will do to GDP, raise the debt and not create full time jobs. Thank you Obama. Guess your base is indeed stupid
 
Why do you say they "certainly are unemployed?" Ever since the introduction of the Labor Force concept in the 1930's, actually looking for work has always been the main definition of unemployed. So what definition of unemployed are you using and where does it come from?


I am sure you understand the definition but the reality is discouraged workers go in and out of the labor force depending on economic conditions but for others here is the definition

Discouraged worker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I am sure you understand the definition but the reality is discouraged workers go in and out of the labor force depending on economic conditions but for others here is the definition

Discouraged worker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I know perfectly well what a Discouraged Worker is. What I'm asking is by what rationale are you saying they "certainly are unemployed?" What definition of Unemployed are you using that someone who is not available for work and cannot be hired (because he's not doing anything at all to find a job) is unemployed? And what makes them unemployed moreso than all other Marginally attached?
 
Interesting, even financial advisors don't have much confidence in the intelligence average American.

Makes me wonder how I'm able to sleep at night... I'm sure I'll get over it.



You'd have to live to be 115 to get nearly everything back of what you put into Social Security. Wouldn't rely on the income you get from selling your home. Not less you're expecting another real estate boom.

Keeping in mind how my father-in-law's retirement funds were almost depleted on the advice of a financial advisor, rest assured I am keep him at arm's length and not putting any significant weight into what I am being told by him.

In regard to living to 115 to get my SS investments back, that would depend on how much I have put in, how old I am now and when I decide to retire. Unless you know those factors, it would be hard to make that claim as an absolute. But I hear what you're saying.

Regarding my home, there's a lot of truth in that. Worst case scenario, unless the nation goes belly up and my home is deemed worthless, I should be able to get at least 200k from it, after I am finished paying it off, which will be about 3 years from now. Best case scenario, 230k or there abouts, by the time I reach retirement. My neighbor's house, which is about the same as mine was just appraised by the city at 220k. (But he has a new roof and driveway.) City appraisals around here always are always lower than the market appraisal value. So he shouldn't have any problem getting 220-240k if he decides to sell at this point in time. I don't live in a mansion. But it's comfortable.

Thank you for your reply. Have a GREAT Friday!!!
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know perfectly well what a Discouraged Worker is. What I'm asking is by what rationale are you saying they "certainly are unemployed?" What definition of Unemployed are you using that someone who is not available for work and cannot be hired (because he's not doing anything at all to find a job) is unemployed? And what makes them unemployed moreso than all other Marginally attached?

The fact that they move in and out of the category means that they actually do want a job but are unable to get one so they become discouraged and stop looking until the economy gets better. Did you ever answer the question as to whether or not more discouraged workers affect the officially released unemployment rate?
 
The Department of Education makes Americans stupid and the Democrats leverage that to pass stupid bills.
 
The fact that they move in and out of the category means that they actually do want a job but are unable to get one so they become discouraged and stop looking until the economy gets better.
All you're saying is that because they move out of the definition of unemployed they are "certainly unemployed" all the time. But all marginally attached, and also groups like students move in and out as well.

The point is that while they are not looking for a job, they are no more available for work than someone who doesn't want a job. When they are looking then they are unemployed.

Did you ever answer the question as to whether or not more discouraged workers affect the officially released unemployment rate?
Since the unemployment rate is unemployed/(employed + unemployed) then no, of course discouraged workers do not affect the unemployment rate. If you're going to claim that they do because they're no longer in the equation, that's true for anyone who leaves the labor force.

And if you really think it's important, follow the U-4 measure (Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization) It moves in the same direction as the official rate (U3)
 
All you're saying is that because they move out of the definition of unemployed they are "certainly unemployed" all the time. But all marginally attached, and also groups like students move in and out as well.

The point is that while they are not looking for a job, they are no more available for work than someone who doesn't want a job. When they are looking then they are unemployed.


Since the unemployment rate is unemployed/(employed + unemployed) then no, of course discouraged workers do not affect the unemployment rate. If you're going to claim that they do because they're no longer in the equation, that's true for anyone who leaves the labor force.

And if you really think it's important, follow the U-4 measure (Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization) It moves in the same direction as the official rate (U3)

Really? discouraged workers don't affect the officially released unemployment rate? The more discouraged workers the lower the unemployment number and the lower the OFFICIALLY released rate. The U-6 rate remains high, the labor force hasn't kept up with population growth, and the number of part time workers looking for full time jobs remains high. In the most important demographics the unemployment numbers remain extremely high and African Americans are suffering as well. The electorate sees it, why can't you?
 
Back
Top Bottom