Politics

[Rhode Irish]

I sure am glad that this board is filled with such credible posters who have never made a bold prediction and wound up being wrong. What gives Autry, you or any other IE'er the right to call Pat or any other Romney supporter out? Now if you feel that anything that comes out of Pat's mouth is just garbage, that's fine. But to come in this thread demanding accountability shows a smugness that I, personally, don't appreciate.

You're not getting it. Nobody is demanding anything. Its a state of nature. You say something and you're wrong, it diminishes your credibility. Everyone is wrong sometimes and nobody has perfect credibility. It has nothing to do with who supported who. It has to do with stating something as fact that turned out to be wrong, and what that means for things he says in the future.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

You're not getting it. Nobody is demanding anything. Its a state of nature. You say something and you're wrong, it diminishes your credibility. Everyone is wrong sometimes and nobody has perfect credibility. It has nothing to do with who supported who. It has to do with stating something as fact that turned out to be wrong, and what that means for things he says in the future.

Pat had already lost credibility in your eyes; was it necessary for Autry to come in this thread and call him and others out?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I agree with all of this. But when one half of the political system straight up denies the mechanics of climate change, it's a very difficult conversation to have. The conversation has become so poisoned by ideologues on both sides (climate change is a hoax vs we're all selfish and dooming our children) that the nation collectively pretended the issue had gone away this election season, at least until Sandy leveled the Jersey shore and a few brave pundits suggested that hey, maybe this global warming thing is something we should talk about.

Many prominent Republicans recognized Global Warming, only to subtly back away when they realized that "their party is supposed to oppose it." Guys like Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich were all on the forefront for a bit. Isn't Cap & Trade even a Republican idea from the 1990s? I know in Ohio our Republican governor, Gov Kasich, was open about Global Warming at first.

 

[phgreek]

We are whacking credibility on folks now....Ugh. If I went back through this thread...you all are telling me you did not put forth...in any way...a distortion...rather intentional or not because you trusted said source(s)??? Are ya sure?

As for Global warming...I lean toward some of the concepts that Syria put forth...but I sure as hell am not going to fault someone who says BS on the entire thing...Just because CO2 is bad, and we do generate it doesn't mean it has a causal relationship to climatic events we have been seeing in the last 50 years...will it...I think so (my livlihood kinda depends on the fact that it does/will)...has it...can't say...(Yes I'm being simplistic, because I'm in a politics thread on a football fan site...people around us barely tolerate political sh!t)

Now on to stuff I care to talk about in here:

HR 920--The Baseline Reform Act. It seems the zero budget concept will not be accepted by Mr. Reid. BTW Zero Budget means you don't assume you need last years budget +3 or 6% (e.g. %s because I think it varies). It assumes you start at 0, and lay in budgets based on priority....you do not assume you get all of last years budget. This presumption of last years budget + some percentage is THE fundamental problem in government spending...organizations are rewarded for spending money, not saving it.

Anyway, If you want serious bipartisan discussion, I believe you get in the weeds, and get folks who own these budgets up to defend them. Mr. Obama pledged, at some prior time to go through the budget line by line...well, twist Mr. Reids arm, get this thing approved, and stop the auto-escalating budget for starters. To me, this is a win-win in that it provides some extended period of time where Ds and Rs, lead by the president, are forced to start the process of compromise...compromise we could all see benefit from. No more commissions...roll up sleves and get your a$$e$ to work. And sure, I can see breaking it up where some part of the budget gets done this way each year if they can't handle it all. Then, come out of that exercise KNOWING the tax rate increase you need...I don't know...it seems like activity that would force these guys to work together with some urgency on a regular basis, and quit the programmed spending increases.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I like Buffet's suggestion: every year there isn't a balanced budget, all members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.

Problem solved haha

Since we're just suggesting things we'd like to discuss, how about term limits? I'd like to see a ten-year cap on Representative service, and a twelve-year cap on Senator service. Or perhaps you could only serve twelve consecutive years, so you'd have to take a term off. Just a way to get rid of these career politicians.

 

[autry_denson]

Dude, this is such a garbage *** post it blows my mind. One must have accountability for firmly and openly backing his candidate of choice? Had Romney won would his supporters on this board need to be held accountable for their comments or does victory absolve the winners of this? People have wrongly picked the winners and losers of CFB games on this board... should they be held accountable and come on here and apologize or admit their inaccuracy? Since Irishpat, and many others on this board including myself, were so wrong about our predictions we have some how lost credibility? Outrageous! Rhode Irish - I'm actually surprised that you find this post to be so good. Autry - I actually neg repped you, which I NEVER do, because I find your post so appalling..

The issue is not entirely about being wrong about something. It is about the type of dialogue on this site. As Rhode Irish said, if he and a few others put together thoughtful arguments about why they thought Romney had a good chance to win despite the polling numbers, that promotes constructive debate. Many of the conservatives who contributed to the dialogue on the election provided some rationale for their opinions, and I can respect those opinions even if they ended up being wrong.

Others dismissed evidence-based arguments altogether, mocked the opponents, and made outlandish predictions based on ignorance or else designed to provoke. I think these posters should be held accountable – I didn’t initially name anyone in particular, but when I then see Irishpat going down the exact same road on an issue that evokes similar passion and debate (climate change), that bothers me. Again, his posts are dismissive, they are closed-minded, and they seem designed to provoke. In this case, he is derailing what could be an interesting discussion. Rather than try to engage him in debate, I think we’re better off pointing out that a few days ago he was doing the exact same thing on a different issue.

As for the general issue of accountability, I don’t think it’s a huge deal when people are wrong about a prediction, as long as they are thoughtful about it. If people are dismissive of any alternative views, completely certain about their own views, unwilling to consider complexity and nuance, and intentionally provocative, then I think they should be called out when they’re wrong.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Many prominent Republicans recognized Global Warming, only to subtly back away when they realized that "their party is supposed to oppose it." Guys like Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich were all on the forefront for a bit. Isn't Cap & Trade even a Republican idea from the 1990s? I know in Ohio our Republican governor, Gov Kasich, was open about Global Warming at first.

McCain, Pawlenty, Huckabee and many others too.

Almost Every 2012 Republican Has a Cap-and-Trade Problem - Chris Good - The Atlantic

And, yes, Cap and Trade was a republican "free market solution" to reducing emissions. Much like the health care mandate was a republican "free market solution" to expanding the health care premium base in order to cover those with pre-existing conditions, etc. These items, and others, have now been re-framed as socialism.

 

[FLDomer]

"Catching Pigs"
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who
kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.
In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
The young man said that it was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn.
"When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used
to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. "They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.
"The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come
through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.
They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so
they accept their captivity."
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism
and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental
income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy
subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we
continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths: There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living
are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living." -

 

[irishpat183]

Accountability is important. When we read Irishpat's posts about climate change, in my mind it is important to note that a few days ago he asserted with total confidence that Obama was going to lose in a landslide. I'm not saying he's full of sh*t all the time, but I'm saying that when you make erroneous, intentionally provocative statements, you should be held accountable when you're shown to be wrong. What Irishpat and others so boldly predicted a few days ago does not drift into oblivion today - it matters, b/c our reputations on an anonymous internet board are based on posts, and nothing more. So my attempts to hold people accountable are not designed simply to rub it in their faces, they are designed to make it perfectly clear that you have lost some credibility. That's it.

And I respect him more for at least acknowledging that he was wrong. I also wish that the experience of being shown to be wrong on an issue that many of you felt confident about might lead people to temper their claims on other issues, and to acknowledge the complexity of some of the issues that we've been discussing. That doesn't happen as much as it should, in my opinion.

I guess I'm just alot more hard headed than many of you. Hey, Obama won and ran a better campagin. I was wrong. Kuddos. Now let's get sh*t done in the next 4 years to better our country.

I may argue a point till it's dead(because I think that people give up what they believe in far too easily these days)....but I'll admit when I'm wrong if proven.

 

[irishpat183]

And remember when it came to this election predictions and Fox news....


We very easily could've been questioning the crediblity of Obama supporters and stations like MSNBC had Romeny won. They were all silently hoping just like the rest of us.


No matter what polls say....there are no guarantees. So to say that where I get my information from is any less credible based on the outcome isn't necessarly true. There have been things that I'm sure a Fox news has been right on the money about, which MSNBC missed (the Trayvon martin case and audio editing comes to mind)


I was just wrong on this prediction. My crystal ball was a bit cloudier than yours this time. LOL

 

[IrishJayhawk]

And remember when it came to this election predictions and Fox news....


We very easily could've been questioning the crediblity of Obama supporters and stations like MSNBC had Romeny won. They were all silently hoping just like the rest of us.


No matter what polls say....there are no guarantees. So to say that where I get my information from is any less credible based on the outcome isn't necessarly true. There have been things that I'm sure a Fox news has been right on the money about, which MSNBC missed (the Trayvon martin case and audio editing comes to mind)


I was just wrong on this prediction. My crystal ball was a bit cloudier than yours this time. LOL

But, we're not. Because MSNBC and Obama supporters were relying on math.

Nate Silver gave Romney a 9% chance of winning...there are no guarantees. As I've said, there would have had to have been a systematic bias in the polling for that 9% to be correct. Math triumphs over Dick Morris' gut. Not that weird.

 

[phgreek]

I like Buffet's suggestion: every year there isn't a balanced budget, all members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.

Problem solved haha

Since we're just suggesting things we'd like to discuss, how about term limits? I'd like to see a ten-year cap on Representative service, and a twelve-year cap on Senator service. Or perhaps you could only serve twelve consecutive years, so you'd have to take a term off. Just a way to get rid of these career politicians.

I like Buffet's idea...congress would be really funny in the short term. I still think HR 920 is a nice way to transition to functional congress and executive branch when it comes to budget...since my Harry Reid voodoo doll did not work. I don't like a ton of legislation, however when it comes to budget issues, I'd prefer one, for starters, and then I'd prefer a vigorous, thorough process that was more inclusive each year...The CBO is not intended to be the defacto producers of budgets...somehow for the last 3 years...they have been.

Yes I think term limits need to be put in place. I like 12 years max. I also think post service benefits for congress need to be severely curtailed, and that Congress needs the same healthcare we all will need to navigate.

 

[Irish#1]

What's hurt the GOP more than anything is the ever increasing population that is lower class. I don't remember the state (Florida maybe?) they mentioned, but they said the Hispanic population there had grown by over 500,000 in the last five years or so. The lower class that is looking for their share is growing. The GOP needs to make some major changes to embrace them or they will be losing the elections for a long time.

We all know there are a lot of areas that need attention, but if the President and Congress would really take a very long and hard look at the operating expenses of this country and I'm talking about micro-managing expenses (no more $75 hammers, $5,000 toilets, eliminating travel, etc.) at all agencies I think you would see a lot of problems solved.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What's hurt the GOP more than anything is the ever increasing population that is lower class. I don't remember the state (Florida maybe?) they mentioned, but they said the Hispanic population there had grown by over 500,000 in the last five years or so. The lower class that is looking for their share is growing. The GOP needs to make some major changes to embrace them or they will be losing the elections for a long time.

We all know there are a lot of areas that need attention, but if the President and Congress would really take a very long and hard look at the operating expenses of this country and I'm talking about micro-managing expenses (no more $75 hammers, $5,000 toilets, eliminating travel, etc.) at all agencies I think you would see a lot of problems solved.

It's not whether they're lower class or not. It's the immigration issue. The tea party influence forced even moderate republicans to the far right (McCain was one of the first, and possibly the biggest flops). Self deportation did not play well, which gave Obama a 50 point margin among Hispanics.

 

[Bubba]

What's hurt the GOP more than anything is the ever increasing population that is lower class. I don't remember the state (Florida maybe?) they mentioned, but they said the Hispanic population there had grown by over 500,000 in the last five years or so. The lower class that is looking for their share is growing. The GOP needs to make some major changes to embrace them or they will be losing the elections for a long time.

We all know there are a lot of areas that need attention, but if the President and Congress would really take a very long and hard look at the operating expenses of this country and I'm talking about micro-managing expenses (no more $75 hammers, $5,000 toilets, eliminating travel, etc.) at all agencies I think you would see a lot of problems solved.

A major problem within the budget process is that just about every department (both civilian and military governmental agencies) are rewarded for spending all of the money they are budgeted. If an organization manages their money correctly and actually saves our country money, the left-over money is taken from them and used elsewhere, or they are forced to use it for things that we would consider unnecessary. Then, your budget for the next year is REDUCED because you did not use all of your funding last year. So, there is no incentive to spend less.

IMO that needs to change. We need to be rewarding agencies for reducing spending. I'm not sure how to do that, but we should never reduce someone's budget because they managed last year successfully. We should be reducing budgets for the unnecessary stuff.

And, I agree with you that we need to be spending our money more wisely. Wal-Mart gets the best price for everything they bring into their building because they have the clout to do so. I'm pretty sure our government could have similar results if we started negotiating with the vendors that we buy from.

 

[DSully1995]

And remember when it came to this election predictions and Fox news....


We very easily could've been questioning the crediblity of Obama supporters and stations like MSNBC had Romeny won. They were all silently hoping just like the rest of us.


No matter what polls say....there are no guarantees. So to say that where I get my information from is any less credible based on the outcome isn't necessarly true. There have been things that I'm sure a Fox news has been right on the money about, which MSNBC missed (the Trayvon martin case and audio editing comes to mind)


I was just wrong on this prediction. My crystal ball was a bit cloudier than yours this time. LOL

Uhh, kinda is, although I let your gut off easy time, in 2016, ill jujst go with Nate

 

[irishpat183]

But, we're not. Because MSNBC and Obama supporters were relying on math.

Nate Silver gave Romney a 9% chance of winning...there are no guarantees. As I've said, there would have had to have been a systematic bias in the polling for that 9% to be correct. Math triumphs over Dick Morris' gut. Not that weird.

There is no "math" that accounts for how people are going to vote. You can ASSUME they're going to vote a certain way, but in the end, it comes down to the voters.


I'm sure I could dig up some "math" from the left when Bush was elected how he was going to lose......

 

[Patulski]

The smoking gun of America is that once American capitalists found out they could manufacture products and outsource customer service for less $$ in totalitarian countries like China, the middle class and poor in America were fooked. Combine that with technological advances that further eroded jobs, and you've got a huge problem.

There is this delusion that through education, America is going to collectively raise the IQ's of traditional blue collar types, who will morph into high IQ job creators. It's not going to happen.

We have a choice:

1.) Limit capitalist who want to have all the protections of American might-both the American military and the treasury- while sending jobs overseas. And secondly, break up monopolies in banking, retail and entertainment while bringing ownership back to the local level.

2.) Or accept that we're going to have an increasingly large welfare state, because outsourcing jobs overseas and technological replacement of workers is the death knell to the middle class and the poor. Combine that with national monopolies that shut out small business at a local level, and you have little opportunity for the poor and middle class to save money and then go from the working class to the ownership class.

I prefer choice #1, because working and ownership is the bedrock of personal and family pride.

 

[irishpat183]

The smoking gun of America is that once American capitalists found out they could manufacture products and outsource customer service for less $$ in totalitarian countries like China, the middle class and poor in America were fooked. Combine that with technological advances that further eroded jobs, and you've got a huge problem.

There is this delusion that through education, America is going to collectively raise the IQ's of traditional blue collar types, who will morph into high IQ job creators. It's not going to happen.

We have a choice:

1.) Limit capitalist who want to have all the protections of American might-both the American military and the treasury- while sending jobs overseas. And secondly, break up monopolies in banking, retail and entertainment while bringing ownership back to the local level.

2.) Or accept that we're going to have an increasingly large welfare state, because outsourcing jobs overseas and technological replacement of workers is the death knell to the middle class and the poor. Combine that with national monopolies that shut out small business at a local level, and you have little opportunity for the poor and middle class to save money and then go from the working class to the ownership class.

I prefer choice #1, because working and ownership is the bedrock of personal and family pride.

Problem is, our government really doesn't agree with #1. The more dependents, the more votes...which keeps them in power.


And I also blame the lack of manufacturing jobs/production on the new age attitude that "everyone should/can go to college". We're more concerned with everyone just getting a participation medal, than telling some kids that college just might not be an option.

We'd rather send a kid to college to major in Modern art history and then watch him Occupy something, than tell him he might be a better fit in a factory somewhere where you can make a good living...but you'll have to work hard.

You wanna increase American production, while there are many ways that will help, one is being able to be honest with kids about college. It's not for everyone. And shouldn't be.

 

[irishff1014]

Problem is, our government really doesn't agree with #1. The more dependents, the more votes...which keeps them in power.


And I also blame the lack of manufacturing jobs/production on the new age attitude that "everyone should/can go to college". We're more concerned with everyone just getting a participation medal, than telling some kids that college just might not be an option.

We'd rather send a kid to college to major in Modern art history and then watch him Occupy something, than tell him he might be a better fit in a factory somewhere where you can make a good living...but you'll have to work hard.

You wanna increase American production, while there are many ways that will help, one is being able to be honest with kids about college. It's not for everyone. And shouldn't be.

You do make some good points Irishpat. Look at all the Line guys that probably didn't go to college but went stright to teh work force and then take an apprenticship through the company they work for and make very good money. It happens like that A LOT in the electrical field, HVAC, Plumbing, and others mostly construction related. I see good and bad to having a degree and i see the good and bad to not having a degree. IMO this country values college degrees way to high.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The smoking gun of America is that once American capitalists found out they could manufacture products and outsource customer service for less $$ in totalitarian countries like China, the middle class and poor in America were fooked. Combine that with technological advances that further eroded jobs, and you've got a huge problem.

There is this delusion that through education, America is going to collectively raise the IQ's of traditional blue collar types, who will morph into high IQ job creators. It's not going to happen.

We have a choice:

1.) Limit capitalist who want to have all the protections of American might-both the American military and the treasury- while sending jobs overseas. And secondly, break up monopolies in banking, retail and entertainment while bringing ownership back to the local level.

2.) Or accept that we're going to have an increasingly large welfare state, because outsourcing jobs overseas and technological replacement of workers is the death knell to the middle class and the poor. Combine that with national monopolies that shut out small business at a local level, and you have little opportunity for the poor and middle class to save money and then go from the working class to the ownership class.

I prefer choice #1, because working and ownership is the bedrock of personal and family pride.

I lol'd.

Protectionism is the killer of economic opportunity. No one ever said that capitalism wouldn't have its growing pains. I have never understood how people think they can choose to not live in reality. Capitalism isn't hurting Americans, corporatism is.

Ironically, Romney suggested a method of leveling the playing field for small businesses. Did he get your vote?

 

[Buster Bluth]

IMO this country values college degrees way to high.

And yet I remember everyone saying the GOP was backward when they said that not everyone needs to go to college.

Sending everyone to college is just a handout to the ****** educational system in this country.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The smoking gun of America is that once American capitalists found out they could manufacture products and outsource customer service for less $$ in totalitarian countries like China, the middle class and poor in America were fooked. Combine that with technological advances that further eroded jobs, and you've got a huge problem.

You act like the poor and middle class haven't seen any benefit from globalization. The average family who does their grocery shopping at Wal-Mart saves something like $1,500 annually. That's a huge boon to the lower class, and it doesn't cost the Treasurey a dime. Because Apple manufactures its products in China, most Americans today can afford to walk around with a Wi-Fi enabled supercomputer in their pockets.

1.) Limit capitalist who want to have all the protections of American might-both the American military and the treasury- while sending jobs overseas.

How do you propose we do that? The US has spent the last 60 years preaching the benefits of the "Washington Consensus"-- that by opening up one's economy and promoting (classically) liberal policies, wealth is sure to follow. And it's worked. The average human today is far healthier and wealthier than at any other point in history. To suddenly start restricting the free movement of capital would be both hypocritical, since we've benefited tremendously from globalism, and would subject us to retaliatory protectionism.

And in any case, this type of thing is explicitly prohibited by the WTO (another organization the US had a huge hand in creating).

And secondly, break up monopolies in banking, retail and entertainment while bringing ownership back to the local level.

Agree whole-heartedly with this. Anti-trust regulation is among the most important responsibilities of the Federal government, and for the last couple decades, they've done a really sh!tty job. But as for "bringing ownership back to the local level", I don't think there's any way to promote that in a manner that's consistent with our constitution.

2.) Or accept that we're going to have an increasingly large welfare state, because outsourcing jobs overseas and technological replacement of workers is the death knell to the middle class and the poor. Combine that with national monopolies that shut out small business at a local level, and you have little opportunity for the poor and middle class to save money and then go from the working class to the ownership class.

Acceptance is necessary either way. The welfare state isn't going anyway, and outsourcing/ technology aren't the uniformly negative factors you portray them to be. For better or for worse, we're transitioning into a service-based economy from a manufacturing-based one (and have been for quite some time); there's no way to reverse that.

You clearly don't think improving the educational system in this country is the key to sustained prosperity and power, so I'm curious what you think the alternative is. If a robot could do your job better than you can, you either need to acquire some new skills are prepare for long-term unemployment. A law prohibiting automation may help the low-skilled worker, but in the end everyone loses because it's just government-mandated inefficiency. If such policies worked, we would have lost the Cold War.

 

[irishff1014]

And yet I remember everyone saying the GOP was backward when they said that not everyone needs to go to college.

Sending everyone to college is just a handout to the ****** educational system in this country.

I don't disrespect anyone that has a college degree. Most that have it have spent alot of money and time into it. I don't wat people to think i am bashing them because i am not. Nor did i ever say that.

 

[irishpat183]

And yet I remember everyone saying the GOP was backward when they said that not everyone needs to go to college.

Sending everyone to college is just a handout to the ****** educational system in this country.

Exactly. The world can't be full of bookworms and intellectuals. We need worker bees as well.


While I value my degree and it has opened some doors....There are people that would be better served to just enter the workforce or hit up a tech school

 

[peoriairish]

Exactly. The world can't be full of bookworms and intellectuals. We need worker bees as well.


While I value my degree and it has opened some doors....There are people that would be better served to just enter the workforce or hit up a tech school

^This.

On another note, I've been trying to find a decent answer somewhere for months, but am unable to find it, but y'all might seem like you could help.

When the debt ceiling was under question of being raised a few months ago, Newsroom took it upon themselves to attack the right wing and try to say that it was wrong to not raise the ceiling otherwise it would put the countries economy in great harm. The reason I ask, is that I think I heard yesterday, they are looking to do that, or borrow more, or something here soon and I wanted to know if it really will hurt us if it is not raised.

I personally do not want the country to borrow more, or allow itself to borrow more, but if it needs to be, then go for it. I'm just not well versed on the economic fallout of the whole thing.

Thanks y'all.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Exactly. The world can't be full of bookworms and intellectuals. We need worker bees as well.


While I value my degree and it has opened some doors....There are people that would be better served to just enter the workforce or hit up a tech school

 

[tadman95]

Problem is, our government really doesn't agree with #1. The more dependents, the more votes...which keeps them in power.


And I also blame the lack of manufacturing jobs/production on the new age attitude that "everyone should/can go to college". We're more concerned with everyone just getting a participation medal, than telling some kids that college just might not be an option.

You can blame that if you want but it's not true. These jobs were moved because it was/is cheaper to manufacture overseas. This retraining/education was a big justification for passing the NAFTA/GATT agreements so our citizens could step up to better jobs. What a crock.

You act like the poor and middle class haven't seen any benefit from globalization. The average family who does their grocery shopping at Wal-Mart saves something like $1,500 annually. That's a huge boon to the lower class, and it doesn't cost the Treasurey a dime. Because Apple manufactures its products in China, most Americans today can afford to walk around with a Wi-Fi enabled supercomputer in their pockets.

While true I think you're leaving the other side of the equation out. The jobs (mainly manufacturing) that were lost were $10 -$20/hr jobs that were replaced with lower paying service jobs. Lower prices don't mean much when you have less to spend in accordance.

The corporations passed some of the savings along to consumers but kept the majority to boost profits. The devaluation of the Peso in the late 90's was a boon to corporations and very little was passed thru.

 

[pkt77242]

^This.

On another note, I've been trying to find a decent answer somewhere for months, but am unable to find it, but y'all might seem like you could help.

When the debt ceiling was under question of being raised a few months ago, Newsroom took it upon themselves to attack the right wing and try to say that it was wrong to not raise the ceiling otherwise it would put the countries economy in great harm. The reason I ask, is that I think I heard yesterday, they are looking to do that, or borrow more, or something here soon and I wanted to know if it really will hurt us if it is not raised.

I personally do not want the country to borrow more, or allow itself to borrow more, but if it needs to be, then go for it. I'm just not well versed on the economic fallout of the whole thing.

Thanks y'all.

I am at work so I will put this succinctly. We would be fooked. We would either default on our debt payments and/or we would have to lay off a good chunk of government employees and stop paying government contracts. Other countries and our own citizens would lose faith in the government. Pretty much a total meltdown. It would also probably send the country into a deep depression

 

[pkt77242]

Problem is, our government really doesn't agree with #1. The more dependents, the more votes...which keeps them in power.


And I also blame the lack of manufacturing jobs/production on the new age attitude that "everyone should/can go to college". We're more concerned with everyone just getting a participation medal, than telling some kids that college just might not be an option.

We'd rather send a kid to college to major in Modern art history and then watch him Occupy something, than tell him he might be a better fit in a factory somewhere where you can make a good living...but you'll have to work hard.

You wanna increase American production, while there are many ways that will help, one is being able to be honest with kids about college. It's not for everyone. And shouldn't be.

The whole more dependents the more votes is completely wrong. Many of the citizens vote against their own best economic interest. The south disproportionately benefits from the federal government vs what it puts in (I am looking at you Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi etc). Broad generalizations like that are just patently false.