Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. :shrug:
Isn't that "pouring that extra amount into the economy"? There is a substantive difference between investing in wealth accumulation and starting new businesses.
Perhaps, but whatever we do there needs to be fair: We're the superpower. We cannot engage in exploitation of others, as they have been exploiting us. So tariff parity is a decent idea, but protectionism isn't.
We can start by directing all energy subsidies exclusively to creating new energy technologies that don't rely on scarce resources, which are in abundance mostly somewhere else.
I was wondering how much you think a person needs to retire, and who determines what is enough, and what they aren't entitled to have?
I think we are rapidly losing our "superpower" status, and there is nothing wrong with any country engaging in protectionism for the welfare of its own citizens. As a matter of fact, ALL countries should engage in protectionism to some degree. We seem to be the country that is routinely most willing to ignore our borders and our citizens.
We aren't exploiting anybody by developing our OWN resources, which are in abundance. There are plenty of people who would be happy to invest and start up if they knew that they weren't going to be mired in red tape and fees---and jobs would be created. Can you imagine how many jobs would be created just by a natural gas supply network (and vehicles)? Of course, if you don't get the borders under control, then those jobs may not go to the actual citizens of this country.
I would suggest that we are less likely to exploit anybody else if we are energy independent-less likely to start or stay in wars, less likely to aid corrupt dictators, and less likely to arm people who shouldn't be trusted by our government (which should know better, but does not).
we would be all out of excuses then, and self-sufficiency is a great thing.
I was wondering how much you think a person needs to retire, and who determines what is enough, and what they aren't entitled to have?
Please stick to the matter I actually raised instead of diverting off onto something else which has nothing to do what the words I actually wrote. I asked you, very specifically, "how does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the country more than pouring that extra amount into the economy?" You never answered my question; please do so. I'm patiently waiting for an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
I think we are rapidly losing our "superpower" status, and there is nothing wrong with any country engaging in protectionism for the welfare of its own citizens.
I'm not so sure we're losing our superpower status that rapidly, but I'll leave to others or your own research to explain to you why "engaging in protectionism" is hazardous to our economy. I'm most interested in you answering my question, reiterated above, before we head in other directions with our discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
We aren't exploiting anybody by developing our OWN resources, which are in abundance.
However, our prosperity for most of my life has been based on exploiting the resources of other nations, the markets of other nations, etc. The ending of such exploitation is happening rapidly - I already said that - and that's what's precipitating many of the issues we face today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
There are plenty of businesses that would be happy to invest and start up if they knew that they weren't going to be mired in red tape and fees-and jobs would be created.
Regrettably, due to long, well-established history, I read such statements as code words to claim a right to grievously exploit employees to make profit. You may not have meant it that way, but that's the way it has worked in this country over the last generation, during which economic inequality has doubled. During the last ten years alone, productivity has continued to rise sharply, despite vapid chest-beating about "being mired in red tape and fees", and yet wages have remains mostly flat. Explain why that is. I would love to see someone try to defend that inequity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
Can you imagine how many jobs would be created by a natural gas supply network and vehicles?
Or how about a wholesale adoption of new solar technology. But we cannot stomach the risk, as a nation, of such ventures, especially when so many rich people rely so much on our government subsidizing their affluence through oil subsidies.
How will the economy pay for Baby Boomer retirement without more workers?
Answer: It can't and won't - even with more workers.
The SocSec program was never set up to operate successfully.
In fact, as originally planned, it was just a means to enact a tax in the midst of a depression.
The retirement age of 65 was selected so that the majority of workers would die before receiving benefits (based on actuarial tables of the 1930s).
The program was never intended to fund retirement for the boomers.
One may speculate on the ultimate goal, but the victory of the socialists in 1930 was cemented with FICA in 1935. From that generation onward, an entrenched self interest group would FIGHT to preserve "their entitlement".
I am pessimistic and expect collapse long before SocSec goes officially "broke."
Please stick to the matter I actually raised instead of diverting off onto something else which has nothing to do what the words I actually wrote. I asked you, very specifically, "how does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the country more than pouring that extra amount into the economy?" You never answered my question; please do so. I'm patiently waiting for an answer.
I'm not so sure we're losing our superpower status that rapidly, but I'll leave to others or your own research to explain to you why "engaging in protectionism" is hazardous to our economy. I'm most interested in you answering my question, reiterated above, before we head in other directions with our discussion.
However, our prosperity for most of my life has been based on exploiting the resources of other nations, the markets of other nations, etc. The ending of such exploitation is happening rapidly - I already said that - and that's what's precipitating many of the issues we face today.
Regrettably, due to long, well-established history, I read such statements as code words to claim a right to grievously exploit employees to make profit. You may not have meant it that way, but that's the way it has worked in this country over the last generation, during which economic inequality has doubled. During the last ten years alone, productivity has continued to rise sharply, despite vapid chest-beating about "being mired in red tape and fees", and yet wages have remains mostly flat. Explain why that is. I would love to see someone try to defend that inequity.
Or how about a wholesale adoption of new solar technology. But we cannot stomach the risk, as a nation, of such ventures, especially when so many rich people rely so much on our government subsidizing their affluence through oil subsidies.
here is your original quote:"Surely saving enough to keep yourself off public assistance when you're old is in the country's interest, but how does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the country?".
that is the statement I was addressing. Saving is good-money saved not only allows you not to "need the system" but may also allow your children or relatives to not "need the system", or allow them to live their dream, start their own business, create a company, etc. Being able to pay for your own schooling also keeps teachers employed.
I think we have done the "solar thing"-and while it may work in certain areas (like florida) there are areas where it is a less practical technology. I am not for limiting any technology which makes us energy independent, however. (although I am not for subsidizing it)
I guess we approach this from different angles, as I see american workers exploited and discarded, and you see other countries being exploited. At one time, a worker was able to have one job and keep it their entire life, and be able to support their family.
If you are saying that the federal reserve and their disgraceful debt monetization are hurting other countries-well, I am in agreement with that, as forcing inflation with a reserve currency doesn't benefit workers in ANY country-but that isn't the fault or the will of american citizens either. Americans don't want to see their currency debased, either.
if you ever tried to start your own business, you might understand red tape, zoning regulations/restrictions, impact fees, inspections, and other unnecessary hoops that people need to jump through just to be net contributors to the economy.
the problem is, as I have said before, too many workers and not enough jobs-and NOBODY is addressing that and, in fact, are actually looking at going the other direction on the issue, by finding ways to get more workers into the country without increasing the job market or our manufacturing.
the two biggest recent issues have been obamacare (a net loss for workers), and illegal immigration "reform" (which is going to be another net loss for workers).
we have lost literally millions of jobs here and somebody really ought to be thinking about that. Tariffs, education, and product labeling are about the only way we can get americans to go back to work, and buying american goods-and that certainly isn't exploiting anybody.
Last edited by floridasandy; 05-05-2013 at 03:10 PM..
here is your original quote:"Surely saving enough to keep yourself off public assistance when you're old is in the country's interest, but how does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the country?".
Where is your answer to the question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
that is the statement I was addressing.
No it isn't. Let's try it again: How does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
I guess we approach this from different angles, as I see american workers exploited and discarded, and you see other countries being exploited.
Both are happening: One is micro- the other is macro-. Regardless, you still didn't answer my question, and until you do, we cannot really continue with the discussion except to nitpick trivialities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
I think we have done the "solar thing"-and while it may work in certain areas (like florida) there are areas where it is a less practical technology. I am not for limiting any technology which makes us energy independent, however. (although I am not for subsidizing it)
We're subsidizing energy sources that keep our nation dependent on scarce resources, propagating a system that essentially transfers excessive wealth to a few. Why is that good, and investing in new technology, that could end up being a new industry we can dominate, bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
if you ever tried to start your own business, you might understand red tape, zoning regulations/restrictions, impact fees, inspections, and other unnecessary hoops that people need to jump through just to be net contributors to the economy.
I understand all that but it doesn't excuse giving you Carte Blanche to exploit others, disregard the costs you incur on society, or otherwise trample whatever you want, just so you can personally, and individually, get ahead. Small business owners that are going to run clean businesses that employ American workers that they pay a fair wage deserve to have primacy over those small business owners that are going to run dirty businesses that will employ undocumented aliens that they pay unfair wages. What you call red tape is the most efficient means of differentiating between the two before the damage is done. You may feel aggrieved that you have to endure the cost of doing business due to the corruption of others. Life isn't fair. Why should I have to pay for police and prisons, given that I don't commit crimes? That's life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
the problem is, as I have said before, too many workers and not enough jobs-and NOBODY is addressing that
"... the conclusion of the Economic Policy Institute, that with the passage of the American Jobs Act “real GDP growth for 2012 would have been 1.4 percentage points higher, bringing growth to 3.4 percent relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast.”
and, in fact, are actually looking at going the other direction on the issue, by finding ways to get more workers into the country without increasing the job market or our manufacturing.
"(Republican) Lamar Smith ... wants to bring 500,000 “guest workers”, really indentured servants, to work in the fields and then to be shipped back to Mexico when farmers no longer need them."
the two biggest recent issues have been obamacare (a net loss for workers),
False. A net-win for those less fortunate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
and illegal immigration "reform" (which is going to be another net loss for workers).
"(Republican) Lamar Smith ... wants to bring 500,000 “guest workers”, really indentured servants, to work in the fields and then to be shipped back to Mexico when farmers no longer need them."
"... the conclusion of the Economic Policy Institute, that with the passage of the American Jobs Act “real GDP growth for 2012 would have been 1.4 percentage points higher, bringing growth to 3.4 percent relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast.”
How is the title of this topic an illegal immigration one to begin with? I realize that illegal immigraton has been brought up within the different posts but it appears the focus is about saving for retirement.
Just one thing though about what was brought up. Why the need for 500,000 new visas for farm workers when we already have the H-2A visas in place for unlimited agricultural workers? The growers/farmers are already sidestepping that because they can make more profit by hiring illegal workers instead. How will the new visas change that?
No it isn't. Let's try it again: How does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the country?
Both are happening: One is micro- the other is macro-. Regardless, you still didn't answer my question, and until you do, we cannot really continue with the discussion except to nitpick trivialities.
We're subsidizing energy sources that keep our nation dependent on scarce resources, propagating a system that essentially transfers excessive wealth to a few. Why is that good, and investing in new technology, that could end up being a new industry we can dominate, bad?
I understand all that but it doesn't excuse giving you Carte Blanche to exploit others, disregard the costs you incur on society, or otherwise trample whatever you want, just so you can personally, and individually, get ahead. Small business owners that are going to run clean businesses that employ American workers that they pay a fair wage deserve to have primacy over those small business owners that are going to run dirty businesses that will employ undocumented aliens that they pay unfair wages. What you call red tape is the most efficient means of differentiating between the two before the damage is done. You may feel aggrieved that you have to endure the cost of doing business due to the corruption of others. Life isn't fair. Why should I have to pay for police and prisons, given that I don't commit crimes? That's life.
"... the conclusion of the Economic Policy Institute, that with the passage of the American Jobs Act “real GDP growth for 2012 would have been 1.4 percentage points higher, bringing growth to 3.4 percent relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast.”
"(Republican) Lamar Smith ... wants to bring 500,000 “guest workers”, really indentured servants, to work in the fields and then to be shipped back to Mexico when farmers no longer need them."
"(Republican) Lamar Smith ... wants to bring 500,000 “guest workers”, really indentured servants, to work in the fields and then to be shipped back to Mexico when farmers no longer need them."
"... the conclusion of the Economic Policy Institute, that with the passage of the American Jobs Act “real GDP growth for 2012 would have been 1.4 percentage points higher, bringing growth to 3.4 percent relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast.”
Regardless, don't forget the original discussion: Let's try it again: How does saving for retirement beyond that level benefit the country?
the original answer is simple-you don't become a burden to others. who are you to determine how much money someone is allowed to "earn"? I don't want to live in a country that has a mentality like that, and most people don't. now if you are saying some of the rich are crooks and aren't entitled, then convict them in court and take away their assets-otherwise that's not how america rolls.
look at zimbabwe, those " in charge" determined that the farmers were not entitled to "the spoils" so they killed them and stole their farms, and then they starved, and so did those citizens who worked for the farmers (those who weren't killed outright, that is).
poetic justice, on some tragic level for all involved.
the Chinese have heavily invested in solar energy, and it hasn't worked for them either. we certainly have thrown taxpayer money at it, with no luck, and some actual stealing involved. I don't see you commenting on natural gas stations and development, where we could see some real progress, some decent paying jobs, and a whole new energy industry. We could have natural gas crisscrossing the country, and jobs there as well.
You don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and you can keep many energy independent programs going-and I even favor coal and nuclear energy, if that is what it takes to stop the excuses for the wars. I favor solar energy, as I said before as well, but NOT subsidized, because we saw how that can be mishandled.-but if some business wants to build a solar plant, let them.
as far as oil, people have been talking about peak oil for 30+ years and we haven't even done much exploration in the US, because we seem to want to go overseas to get our oil.
did you even know that mexico's unemployment rate is actually lower than ours? maybe we should be going into mexico for work, instead of them coming here.
Don't be silly or disengenuous in your remarks. There is no shortage of jobs which American workers would take if given the chance. Illegal immigrants are working in the USA, millions upon millions of them. They're not sitting around doing nothing. Harshly punnish the enablers ... the employers who are breaking the law by hiring illegal aliens ... and we'll find out just how many Americans want to do the work the illegals are doing. Dry-up the source of income and security for the illegals and they'll mostly return home. That's the quickest "fix" for a huge portion of the illegal alien problem.
Agree 100% with this. You wouldn't even need a border patrol or fence if you were willing to fine employers who hire them out of existence! We'd save trillions putting the burden where it properly belongs. Of course, good luck convincing any Republican to agree to that.
I was wondering how much you think a person needs to retire, and who determines what is enough, and what they aren't entitled to have?
I think we are rapidly losing our "superpower" status, and there is nothing wrong with any country engaging in protectionism for the welfare of its own citizens. As a matter of fact, ALL countries should engage in protectionism to some degree. We seem to be the country that is routinely most willing to ignore our borders and our citizens.
We aren't exploiting anybody by developing our OWN resources, which are in abundance. There are plenty of people who would be happy to invest and start up if they knew that they weren't going to be mired in red tape and fees---and jobs would be created. Can you imagine how many jobs would be created just by a natural gas supply network (and vehicles)? Of course, if you don't get the borders under control, then those jobs may not go to the actual citizens of this country.
I would suggest that we are less likely to exploit anybody else if we are energy independent-less likely to start or stay in wars, less likely to aid corrupt dictators, and less likely to arm people who shouldn't be trusted by our government (which should know better, but does not).
we would be all out of excuses then, and self-sufficiency is a great thing.
Absolutely correct!
And merely being a superpower shouldn't imply any responsibility to "police the world;" all it seems to have gotten us is a huge tax burden and terrorism. When we become the #2 economy in the world--2016, before Obama even leaves office--we certainly won't think it's okay for China to be sending troops all around the world. By The Time Obama Leaves Office, U.S. No Longer No. 1 - Forbes
This brings me to the ONE point where Libertarian Platform is dead wrong--they believe in "Free Trade" on a worldwide basis, the way it is currently practiced. This ignores two crucial problems: that other nations are smart enough to "stack the deck" with things like currency manipulation, and that American workers have (or had) a high standard of living, while American business has to bear the cost of Big Government taxation as well as regulation.
Without accounting for these two factors, Free Trade is an economic disaster--and that's exactly what we got. We ensured that the manufacturing activities that were responsible for our prosperity were driven from our country--as one NH business leader recently noted: "The only way to create wealth is to grow it, mine it, or manufacture it" (http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...late=mobileart). America wanted a better environment and imposed environmental protection laws that made it either impossible or not profitable to produce some things (leather for instance) here, but then sought to escape the economic pain of that decision by simply importing those products from other nations that were willing to pollute their water (Mexico). That's just wrong--it selfishly just moves pollution out of our sight, and throws away the economic benefits that workers in America would have had.
The other problem with Free Trade is not adjusting for the higher cost of hiring American workers. It is simply wrong to think free competition exists between two businesses when one must pay its workers twice as much as the other. American Big Business has addressed this problem by sending jobs overseas--obviously NOT a good solution. Or it uses the solution of General Motors, where excessive union demands result in a bankrupt company that was "saved" by vast infusions of taxpayer dollars, plus ripping off the investors in the original GM of 100% of their investments. Obviously American Big Business should not be able to run companies that do not earn enough to support their labor costs, while taxpayers step in to take up the slack.
The best solution is the one established by the Founding Fathers--trade levies and tariffs that make up for America's higher labor costs and high cost of doing business, while not reaching the level that poorly run companies are being subsidized by taxpayers. This was largely what we had, before the Constitution's prohibition of a federal income tax was thrown out in 1913, and withholding from workers' paychecks was instituted in 1943 (to pay for WWII). With all limits on Big Government growth now gone, we are left with government spending so large it constitutes 40% of the entire economy, and about 7 workers employed by the government for every 100 citizens.
Unfortunately, nobody in Washington cares that the working class has been destroyed by the lopsided Free Trade they authorized--nor do they care that the majority of taxpayers think we spend far too much on our Military (increasing to "an overwhelming majority" after the respondents were given the specifics of actual spending) The Center for Public Integrity: Public overwhelmingly supports large defense spending cuts. Washington politicians, both Democrat and Republican, are wealthy and perfectly happy with the America we have today--with Obama famously blurting out that he thought "The private sector is doing fine," and that the only problem was that state and local governments weren't getting enough money from the federal government.
He might as well have just said "Let them eat cake," as he happily spends not only every penny we lose in payroll withholding taxes, but also another 40 cents on every dollar.
You don't know how the jobs market works. Plain and simple.
Coming from some college kid still in school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis
I'm still waiting for you to produce an academic economic study that shows that immigration causes unemployment in the long term.
Nobody is discussing how immigration causes unemployment (intellectual dishonesty on your part), but how illegal immigration does cause unemployment to include wage decrease for low skilled citizens and immigrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis
We all agree on E-Verify, but we aren't gonna pass it on its own without fixing the mess we are in with the 11 million, and no mass deportations or attacking by attrition are not practical or humane solutions. You're not gonna get something for nothing.
Why isn't attrition "practical" or "humane"? Is deportation inhumane?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubi Panis
As for birthright citizenship, that's a Constitutional issue, and amending the Constitution requires ridiculously high level of support. There have been 10,000 proposed Constitutional amendments, but only two dozen passed the legislative hurdle. For practical purposes, that just can't be part of legislative immigration reform. Constitutional reform is another thing entirely and there isn't enough political will to even go there.
BRC is based on policy and interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Quote:
No one doubts that the Amendment (14th), as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been, and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized. If the omission or the refusal of Congress to permit certain [p704] classes of persons to be made citizens by naturalization could be allowed the effect of correspondingly restricting the classes of persons who should become citizens by birth, it would be in the power of Congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment.
Justice Gray: WKA
Don't necessarily need a Constitutional Amendment when the power lies with Congress and the Naturalization Laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
maybe we should be going into mexico for work, instead of them coming here.
Coming from some college kid still in school.
