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.
Too each their own... My concern is with the notion that if we just swap figureheads (presidents) companies will suddenly start hiring Americans again and everything will end up great. It's just not going to happen, IMHO. Both parties are owned by the same special interests, and they have no intention of letting America recover from this Depression. Until the root of this evil is dealt with, nothing is going to really improve.
Balance Sheet cash equivalents did NOT increase until this administration. So why would one assume its a permanent thing? In addition, why would business HATE this admin, if both parties had the same special interests?
That's why the United States was supposed to be like Europe...with states more like individual countries. Heck, they have capitols, militias, and their own governments. But now, the Federal government has topped all of that.
Had the States been able to maintain their own sovereignty, it would have been much harder for DC to oppress and tax the hell out of us.
I'm not sure I agree entirely.
It's true that the US was to be set similar to Europe as it evolved, but I respectfully disagree with your reason why.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a very intelligent man, possibly the most intelligent leader the US as we know it will ever see. He knew the most important thing was to protect the sovereignty of the United States, regardless of how many toes he would have stepped on to do so. He knew the only way to do that would be to put as many policies in place that would indefinitely guarantee that America was the economic super power of the world. That's where the New Deal legislation came from.
While he didn't address the nitty-gritty of the Central Banking system (again, he was well aware of the **** he would step in by trying to abolish the FED, as bankers will make sure blood is shed if you try to take away the money they allegedly feel they're entitled to, after all, he was wealthy himself), with his New Deal policies, he not only put roadblocks in place that severely limited a greedy person's ability to simply offshore a fellow American's job to a country where they can hire a slave to do the work for them, and not only did he continue to make sure very few people entered our country without going through the legal process, but he also approved of and presided over THE LARGEST infrastructure expansion in US history which not only made America far more attractive to companies who wanted to transport their goods as quickly and efficiently as possible, but also drastically boosted the quality of life for most Americans by providing everyone, not just private industries or the wealthy, with access to basic amenities such as parks and libraries, he approved of the largest expansion of social programs in US history, which helped millions of Americans avoid soul-crushing poverty due to events that were not their fault, and made sure if nothing else to severely punish any individual who dared tried to circumvent any of the above for greed, which at the time radical regulatory acts such as Glass-Steagall and Minimum Wage laws.
My point? It's not so much DC oppressing and taxing the hell out of us (in a way, they are, not I disagree with your context), it's that since the FDR administration ended, every subsequent administration has slowly and steadily been reserving his New Deal policies to the point now that just about everything he passed has been repealed. Thus, now business owners can send the jobs of Americans to undeveloped/developing countries WITHOUT punishment and the government conveniently ignores the invasion of illegal aliens which allows businesses who can't outsource their labor for hire them for 10 cents on the dollar, putting more taxpaying Americans out of work and thus leading to fewer tax receipts for the communities they live in. Also, since these same folks have no jobs, they can no longer spend money at the neighborhood mom & pop establishment, and thus they close, with more jobs and tax revenue lost. In effect, the municipalities they reside in either have to cut the service they offer significantly or declare bankruptcy, either or which only worsens the quality of life for the citizens of that municipality and makes them even less attractive to potential residents and businesses (and the cycle continues).
Let's look at Germany. Germany has some of the highest taxes of any first world country. However, because they supported strong labor union organization, and make it next to impossible for any illegal immigrants to enter or employers to outsource their work, they have arguably the strongest economy right now in the midst of this depression, and have largely avoid the sovereign debt crisis facing other nations.
Now, in a way, a certain level of top-down regulation is needed to even things out across the board (thus the interstate commerce clause). While all states are sovereign per the US constitution, is it fair if Massachusetts, who was some of the best infrastructure in the country, some of the best educational institutions in the world, is one of the wealthiest states in the country and who has some of the highest taxes in the country, has to lower its standards to competing with a state like Texas that has thousands of illegals entering its border and has next to no government regulation over its economy? It eventually turns into a race to the bottom and we all eventually end up worse off.
It's true that the US was to be set similar to Europe as it evolved, but I respectfully disagree with your reason why.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a very intelligent man, possibly the most intelligent leader the US as we know it will ever see. He knew the most important thing was to protect the sovereignty of the United States, regardless of how many toes he would have stepped on to do so. He knew the only way to do that would be to put as many policies in place that would indefinitely guarantee that America was the economic super power of the world. That's where the New Deal legislation came from.
While he didn't address the nitty-gritty of the Central Banking system (again, he was well aware of the **** he would step in by trying to abolish the FED, as bankers will make sure blood is shed if you try to take away the money they allegedly feel they're entitled to, after all, he was wealthy himself), with his New Deal policies, he not only put roadblocks in place that severely limited a greedy person's ability to simply offshore a fellow American's job to a country where they can hire a slave to do the work for them, and not only did he continue to make sure very few people entered our country without going through the legal process, but he also approved of and presided over THE LARGEST infrastructure expansion in US history which not only made America far more attractive to companies who wanted to transport their goods as quickly and efficiently as possible, but also drastically boosted the quality of life for most Americans by providing everyone, not just private industries or the wealthy, with access to basic amenities such as parks and libraries, he approved of the largest expansion of social programs in US history, which helped millions of Americans avoid soul-crushing poverty due to events that were not their fault, and made sure if nothing else to severely punish any individual who dared tried to circumvent any of the above for greed, which at the time radical regulatory acts such as Glass-Steagall and Minimum Wage laws.
My point? It's not so much DC oppressing and taxing the hell out of us (in a way, they are, not I disagree with your context), it's that since the FDR administration ended, every subsequent administration has slowly and steadily been reserving his New Deal policies to the point now that just about everything he passed has been repealed. Thus, now business owners can send the jobs of Americans to undeveloped/developing countries WITHOUT punishment and the government conveniently ignores the invasion of illegal aliens which allows businesses who can't outsource their labor for hire them for 10 cents on the dollar, putting more taxpaying Americans out of work and thus leading to fewer tax receipts for the communities they live in. Also, since these same folks have no jobs, they can no longer spend money at the neighborhood mom & pop establishment, and thus they close, with more jobs and tax revenue lost. In effect, the municipalities they reside in either have to cut the service they offer significantly or declare bankruptcy, either or which only worsens the quality of life for the citizens of that municipality and makes them even less attractive to potential residents and businesses (and the cycle continues).
Let's look at Germany. Germany has some of the highest taxes of any first world country. However, because they supported strong labor union organization, and make it next to impossible for any illegal immigrants to enter or employers to outsource their work, they have arguably the strongest economy right now in the midst of this depression, and have largely avoid the sovereign debt crisis facing other nations.
Now, in a way, a certain level of top-down regulation is needed to even things out across the board (thus the interstate commerce clause). While all states are sovereign per the US constitution, is it fair if Massachusetts, who was some of the best infrastructure in the country, some of the best educational institutions in the world, is one of the wealthiest states in the country and who has some of the highest taxes in the country, has to lower its standards to competing with a state like Texas that has thousands of illegals entering its border and has next to no government regulation over its economy? It eventually turns into a race to the bottom and we all eventually end up worse off.
While you bring up some great points, doing it bigger is not always better. Larger countries never seem to have a good quality of life, and are prone to the same ills we see befalling America. Smaller countries, if kept homogeneous-- and this is a key element, can have great economies and high standards of living.
What you describe with Massachusetts vs. Texas... why should a state that allows its businesses to hire illegals and lower its standard of living...profit just fine from all of that, but also be able to hang on the life preservers of other states? All states should operate fairly independently, and in essence, they could. California was once one of the most vibrant economies in the WORLD. And, you could have said that about any of the "Rust Belt states" now. States that made steel, cars, had agriculture, you name it.
What happens when things get bigger is...the politicians can hide more among the figures, and even though certain industries are buoying up the economy, this can't last forever. It is survival of the fittest.
While you bring up some great points, doing it bigger is not always better. Larger countries never seem to have a good quality of life, and are prone to the same ills we see befalling America. Smaller countries, if kept homogeneous-- and this is a key element, can have great economies and high standards of living.
What you describe with Massachusetts vs. Texas... why should a state that allows its businesses to hire illegals and lower its standard of living...profit just fine from all of that, but also be able to hang on the life preservers of other states? All states should operate fairly independently, and in essence, they could. California was once one of the most vibrant economies in the WORLD. And, you could have said that about any of the "Rust Belt states" now. States that made steel, cars, had agriculture, you name it.
What happens when things get bigger is...the politicians can hide more among the figures, and even though certain industries are buoying up the economy, this can't last forever. It is survival of the fittest.
My point was one's strength and efficiently is most important. Just because something's big doesn't automatically mean politicians, as you say, can hide behind the figure, as it depends on the processes and procedures put in place to hold the politicians accountable. A big country can very well be better if it has a strong economic base and an efficient government. Likewise, a small government can be a hell hole if it has no/a very weak economy and an inefficient government.
In the post World War II era, America was a country that had a very strong economy and was very efficient.
But, with regards to states being run independently, the fact of the matter is, the US is still one country and as a result, what happens in one state can impact everyone in every other state, whether it's negatively or positively. Although states have some sovereignty, they're still a creation of the United States. The only duties they have are those not specified in Article 1, Section 8, and none of the duties granted to the federal government through amendments or in the preamble.
In comparing Massachusetts vs. Texas, the main point I was getting at is why should Massachusetts pass a law raising the minimum wage of its workers to $10/hr when the companies in its state can simply move to Texas where they only force the companies to pay their workers $7.25/hr? Thus, Massachusetts puts off something that could have improved the quality of life of its people in the long term to simply compete with the low quality of life Texas is imposing on its people.
Of course, the Federal Government, by imposing a minimum wage at the federal level, prevents certain states from allowing their workers to only be paid, say, $3 per hour. It sets a standard for all states and levels the playing field
We just have too much labor competition now with a global economy and rampent illeagal immigration for workers in the U.S to command the wages we want.Ross Perot was right about the effects of a global economy, that wages would start to equalize to the up and comming countries.And people also forget about automation,robotics and AI taking out and ever expanding chunk of the workforce.
We just have too much labor competition now with a global economy and rampent illeagal immigration for workers in the U.S to command the wages we want.Ross Perot was right about the effects of a global economy, that wages would start to equalize to the up and comming countries.And people also forget about automation,robotics and AI taking out and ever expanding chunk of the workforce.
Yes. AI. People are ignoring this relatively less known concept right now, but in about a decade from now, people will think of off-shoring of jobs as a minor nuisance compared to job killing AI and robotics.
It is projected than in less than 15 years, computers will rival human intelligence. And in 20 or so, much, much smarter than even the most brilliant of humans (Smarter than Einsteins). At that point humans, ALL humans will become completely redundant. There will be no need for us, machines and AI will have the capacity to take over EVERY SINGLE JOB in the next 30-40 years.
The point of singularity is almost upon us, and we are about to enter the most dramatic phase of human evolution, where all humans become obsolete, at least in our present biological form.
My point was one's strength and efficiently is most important. Just because something's big doesn't automatically mean politicians, as you say, can hide behind the figure, as it depends on the processes and procedures put in place to hold the politicians accountable. A big country can very well be better if it has a strong economic base and an efficient government. Likewise, a small government can be a hell hole if it has no/a very weak economy and an inefficient government.
In the post World War II era, America was a country that had a very strong economy and was very efficient.
But, with regards to states being run independently, the fact of the matter is, the US is still one country and as a result, what happens in one state can impact everyone in every other state, whether it's negatively or positively. Although states have some sovereignty, they're still a creation of the United States. The only duties they have are those not specified in Article 1, Section 8, and none of the duties granted to the federal government through amendments or in the preamble.
In comparing Massachusetts vs. Texas, the main point I was getting at is why should Massachusetts pass a law raising the minimum wage of its workers to $10/hr when the companies in its state can simply move to Texas where they only force the companies to pay their workers $7.25/hr? Thus, Massachusetts puts off something that could have improved the quality of life of its people in the long term to simply compete with the low quality of life Texas is imposing on its people.
Of course, the Federal Government, by imposing a minimum wage at the federal level, prevents certain states from allowing their workers to only be paid, say, $3 per hour. It sets a standard for all states and levels the playing field
America, decades ago, was a much different place.
People did not have government deciding every move for them.
In the 1960s, you could have a regular savings account and make good interest.
There were places to put your money.
In the 1970s, you could make $5 an hour babysitting. So any $8 an hour job, pretax is basically 1979s wages.
Minimum wage was around 1.50 an hour.
But the cost of living was so low compared to now. A cart of groceries was about $50.00.
In 1976, the average college student was getting out of college and making over $10K. Which was like $30-40K now. You got full benefits, dental, vision, stock options, even pensions, and it cost you very little. There were NO co-pays with medical care. None. You did not get a bill from the doctor.
I did technical illustration and got paid $36.00 an hour by a manufacturer. There were no computers, and everything was by hand on the board. It was fantastic work. We did exploded views and other illustrations for engineering manuals and trade shows.
The whole irony about wages and jobs and the government. People want the government to regulate business and have business help the worker. But business and the government are basically in bed together. They benefit each other. Their goal is not to benefit the average American.
Yes, we had a strong post-war economy, but war economies do nothing for America now. We don't even make our own steel anymore. The reason things haven't come to a complete halt is the huge momentum behind that once great economy. Like a huge train, it takes a long time to stop.
Ever watch Gerald Celente's forecasts on the economy?
Yes. AI. People are ignoring this relatively less known concept right now, but in about a decade from now, people will think of off-shoring of jobs as a minor nuisance compared to job killing AI and robotics.
It is projected than in less than 15 years, computers will rival human intelligence. And in 20 or so, much, much smarter than even the most brilliant of humans (Smarter than Einsteins). At that point humans, ALL humans will become completely redundant. There will be no need for us, machines and AI will have the capacity to take over EVERY SINGLE JOB in the next 30-40 years.
The point of singularity is almost upon us, and we are about to enter the most dramatic phase of human evolution, where all humans become obsolete, at least in our present biological form.
The rich elite won't. They will use AI, just as they use other tools.
Workers will become obsolete...in some ways. Many people like power, and being powerful over machines just won't give them the same rush they get being powerful over people.
Balance Sheet cash equivalents did NOT increase until this administration. So why would one assume its a permanent thing? In addition, why would business HATE this admin, if both parties had the same special interests?
Oh, please... Business loved the Bush administration, and what did we the people get? A Housing Bubble, a pile of debt, and in the end a huge loss of jobs and massive Bailouts that were all in place before Obama was even elected.
Just because business loves an administration doesn't mean the working class gets anything out of it. It should be very clear by now that what's good for business is no longer what's good for the American people. Now, I'm not advocating "punishing" business just for fun, but the assumption that if we hand over the keys to big business, they are going to do the right thing and hire Americans is just absurd. They been in complete control for decades, and we've been losing jobs steadily... and whenever big business can't get what it wants immediately, they crash the economy like a bunch of bratty economic terrorists. It's a sick joke and it's time we demand accountability both from government AND from business... especially considering how they are often one and the same these days.
Just because business loves an administration doesn't mean the working class gets anything out of it. It should be very clear by now that what's good for business is no longer what's good for the American people. .
So has the $2 trillion not spent helped the unemployed?
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.
