Politics

[GoIrish41]

Interesting report on NPR regarding Texas construction industry.

Construction Booming In Texas, But Many Workers Pay Dearly : NPR

Heard that this morning on the way to work. I think that is how any business that is not properly regulated would be. That's why it always amazes me when people talk about too many cumbersome regulations holding back the economy.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Let's hope that battling Terminators pays pretty well.

The cool thing is if robots performed every job then haircuts would be $.25 and houses would cost about $20,000 to build. Oil changes would be a dollar + the oil.

You really wouldn't need a very large salary to survive at whatever you would be doing (robot programmer?)

 

[Ndaccountant]

Heard that this morning on the way to work. I think that is how any business that is not properly regulated would be. That's why it always amazes me when people talk about too many cumbersome regulations holding back the economy.

Not all regulations are bad, but some are illadvised. The problem is that all too often once something is in place, it is very difficult to reverse. There is no doubt in my mind that our economy is being held back by some regulations that protect us from ourselves (which would be just fine with me) and by regulations that make no sense.

 

[connor_in]

hey now, let's not get too crazy.

We will be fine. We should embrace the opportunity to capitalize on ability to provide something that makes the world more efficient. Sure, the jobs of today will be gone and that is okay. We just need to make sure that we provide the incentives for people to continue to expand their skill set.

I for, am really looking forward to the day when flying cars become the norm. I hate the airlines.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r1SCu9yiBlo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[connor_in]

A lot of people want to move to a simpler tax code, but I believe we haven't done it, because it would elimnate a whole industry of middle class jobs.

Agree or disagree?

Disagree...I don't think that it hasn't changed due to the tax accountant/IRS lobby. I think it is more the lack of inertia in anything governmental. Both sides can argue the minutiae of the code and stand up for/argue against any little thing. Also, there is the fear of doing something big with it and then waiting to find the unexpected consequences that come along. (see last major governmental change and all the things that are currently shaking out from it...now apply that to what is essentially their income - taxpayer money...scary if your a congressman huh?)

 

[connor_in]

MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry Says Kids Belong To The State - Investors.com

Didn't know where else to put this....
Been seeing items on this for a few days now...what do you all think?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry Says Kids Belong To The State - Investors.com

Didn't know where else to put this....
Been seeing items on this for a few days now...what do you all think?

I'd be more concerned about MSNBC's delerium if anyone actually watched it. They think getting more and more ridiculous is the answer to low ratings, when the exact opposite is true.

 

[DSully1995]

I'd be more concerned about MSNBC's delerium if anyone actually watched it. They think getting more and more ridiculous is the answer to low ratings, when the exact opposite is true.

Works for one news channel haha

 

[GoIrish41]

Not all regulations are bad, but some are illadvised. The problem is that all too often once something is in place, it is very difficult to reverse. There is no doubt in my mind that our economy is being held back by some regulations that protect us from ourselves (which would be just fine with me) and by regulations that make no sense.

Well, we could continue to regulate to protect us from ourselves, or more precisely to protect innocent people from the greedy dealings of corporations that put profits over people. As you read this, the BP trial is taking place that was "allegedly" caused by BP cutting corners on safety and ignore risk to the environment to produce more and more oil. How many people died as a result of that greed? How many miles of coastline were ravaged?

Corporations will always try to cut corners on safety, pay as little as possible, push workers to extremes, etc., if it means they can make more money. Regulations are put into place to protect people from the extremes that these entities are willing to go to in order to make a buck.

Today, anyone who is paying attention can hear politicians talking about getting rid of or cutting back drastically on things like the Environmental Protection Agency just at the time when we are facing a crisis caused by carbon emmisons. They want to cut back on food inspectors and air traffic control, and numerous other regulations that are in place to keep people safe. I think it is also fair to point out that those regulations are typically not the result of any keen political forsight. They are usually reactionary to corporations doing something that made people say, "ya know, there ought to be a law against that."

Are some of these regulations slowing the economy? Maybe, but I don't want to return to the guilded age when the robber barons ignored the well-being of citizens and took advantage of their workers just to gain personal wealth. Some will talk about letting market forces drive everything about the economy -- that usually ends up being good for a very few at the expense of most everyone else. I'm willing to put up with a few ill-advised regulations in order to have the thousands of regulations that keep me and my family safe and secure.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Well, we could continue to regulate to protect us from ourselves, or more precisely to protect innocent people from the greedy dealings of corporations that put profits over people. As you read this, the BP trial is taking place that was "allegedly" caused by BP cutting corners on safety and ignore risk to the environment to produce more and more oil. How many people died as a result of that greed? How many miles of coastline were ravaged?

Corporations will always try to cut corners on safety, pay as little as possible, push workers to extremes, etc., if it means they can make more money. Regulations are put into place to protect people from the extremes that these entities are willing to go to in order to make a buck.

Today, anyone who is paying attention can hear politicians talking about getting rid of or cutting back drastically on things like the Environmental Protection Agency just at the time when we are facing a crisis caused by carbon emmisons. They want to cut back on food inspectors and air traffic control, and numerous other regulations that are in place to keep people safe. I think it is also fair to point out that those regulations are typically not the result of any keen political forsight. They are usually reactionary to corporations doing something that made people say, "ya know, there ought to be a law against that."

Are some of these regulations slowing the economy? Maybe, but I don't want to return to the guilded age when the robber barons ignored the well-being of citizens and took advantage of their workers just to gain personal wealth. Some will talk about letting market forces drive everything about the economy -- that usually ends up being good for a very few at the expense of most everyone else. I'm willing to put up with a few ill-advised regulations in order to have the thousands of regulations that keep me and my family safe and secure.

First, I think it is very wrong to say every corporation is willing to cut corners. That is so far from the truth. The overwhelming majority of corporations do not do that. In fact, my company's (fortune 50) performance related pay is based on saftey metrics first, where even if you blow past your P&L targets, if saftey isn't met, you are going to feel it in your pay. Additionally, we are not alone in that structure. Many of our peer organizations due the same. The vast majority of organizations due not risk saftey. You will always find instances that show a company did, but please remember you will not hear in the news about the factory in Georgia that went 1 year without an injury or the factory in Michigan that is 75% safer than it was 10 years ago. Those things happen every day and you should recognize that.

Next, saftey regulations for the most part are okay. There are some that may be over burdensom, but most are proper. You bring up the EPA. The EPA has been actively passing regulations (some would argue without the required authority to due so) that have been crippling power plants, especially east of the Mississippi.

One of the new regs (MACT) is complete non-sense and will cost billions in annual compliance. The EPA estimat of the cost of compliance for utility companies was off by at least a factor of 3 based on their annual reports. Of course, this get passed along to the consumer and the Chicago Trib reported that this will cause Chicagoarea electricity bills to go up $107 to $178 per year and raise annual costs for Chicago Public Schools by $2.7 million, $3.3 million for the Metropolitan Water District, and $5.4 million for Chicago’s city government. Outside of costs to the consumer, the rule limits possible energy sources and is going to cause countless power generators to retire across the country.

Well, there must some health benefit then, right? Well, not so much, as the Forbes article breaksdown.

Please do not get me wrong, the EPA has it's place and does some good things. The issue isn't the EPA per se, it is when the EPA becomes activists. The regulations can produce benefits that are abstract at best yet cost time and money that prevents businesses from focusing in on expansion.

Big Costs, Illusory Benefits: Why Congress Should Nix The Utility MACT - Forbes


GAO estimate may lowball effects of EPA coal regulations | The Daily Caller

http://www.instituteforenergyresear...04/June-12-EPA-powerplant-shutdown-update.pdf

 

[chicago51]

MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry Says Kids Belong To The State - Investors.com

Didn't know where else to put this....
Been seeing items on this for a few days now...what do you all think?

I watch MSNBC but I am not a fan of Melissa Harris-Perry. For one her show she is too "Devil's advocate" with every dam thing.

As as that ad goes I get what she is trying to say but it really does send the wrong kind of message.

There are many hosts on MSNBC that love them or hate them do have a high level of intelligence and education but I don't think MHP is one of them.

 

[chicago51]

Not all regulations are bad, but some are illadvised. The problem is that all too often once something is in place, it is very difficult to reverse. There is no doubt in my mind that our economy is being held back by some regulations that protect us from ourselves (which would be just fine with me) and by regulations that make no sense.

In terms of regulations I think we can agree that certain regulations are necessary to protect consumers and there are certain times that government has overstepped its bounds. Some regulations make it hard for new competion to enter the market and are a product of corporate lobylist in DC.

As I mentioned I think we all agree government over steps at time. My advise to folks would be if you can to get involved in a local party chapter rather it be Democrat or Republican. Both parties to a large extent are bought and paid for; largely because of lack of participation. To my right wing friends: if you think government really is too big then I really do encourage you particapate even if its on a limited basis in a local Republican party chapter. Getting mad, hording a bunch of AK 47s, and sitting out the process only allows the Republican party to be further brought by corporations.

 

[Buster Bluth]

In terms of regulations I think we can agree that certain regulations are necessary to protect consumers and there are certain times that government has overstepped its bounds. Some regulations make it hard for new competion to enter the market and are a product of corporate lobylist in DC.

Show me a market in which the government's ties to corporations hasn't led to a situation in which the huge corporations control said market?

Specifically, I question if "some" is used correctly and if it should instead be "most."

As I mentioned I think we all agree government over steps at time. My advise to folks would be if you can to get involved in a local party chapter rather it be Democrat or Republican. Both parties to a large extent are bought and paid for; largely because of lack of participation. To my right wing friends: if you think government really is too big then I really do encourage you particapate even if its on a limited basis in a local Republican party chapter. Getting mad, hording a bunch of AK 47s, and sitting out the process only allows the Republican party to be further brought by corporations.

Agreed.

 

[GoIrish41]

I watch MSNBC but I am not a fan of Melissa Harris-Perry. For one her show she is too "Devil's advocate" with every dam thing.

As as that ad goes I get what she is trying to say but it really does send the wrong kind of message.

There are many hosts on MSNBC that love them or hate them do have a high level of intelligence and education but I don't think MHP is one of them.

I'm not a big fan of MHP either, but that article is totally misleading. In the commercial, she was making the same point Hillary Clinton made when she wrote the book "it takes a village," that it takes more than a mom and dad to raise a child, that the entire community that child grows up in is part of the growing up experience. The first paragraph made it sound like the government owns children. Stupid.

 

[GoIrish41]

First, I think it is very wrong to say every corporation is willing to cut corners. That is so far from the truth. The overwhelming majority of corporations do not do that. In fact, my company's (fortune 50) performance related pay is based on saftey metrics first, where even if you blow past your P&L targets, if saftey isn't met, you are going to feel it in your pay. Additionally, we are not alone in that structure. Many of our peer organizations due the same. The vast majority of organizations due not risk saftey. You will always find instances that show a company did, but please remember you will not hear in the news about the factory in Georgia that went 1 year without an injury or the factory in Michigan that is 75% safer than it was 10 years ago. Those things happen every day and you should recognize that.

Maybe, maybe not. But would they do it if there were not regulations that kept them in check? What was the bank and insurance industry;s role in the financial collapse in 08? That wasn't just some isolated incident at one institution. That is an example of an entire industry -- a system of interconnected industries really -- that was out to make money despite the enormous risk to the economy or the people a collapse would affect. There are numerous instances throughout this country's history of corporations taking advantage or in some other way screwing people to get ahead. I'm not sure what company you work for, but if nobody was watching, are you confident they wouldn't shave a few corners off to get a leg up on the competition? A big company like yours probably weilds some political influence -- do they use it to make things better for their workers or do they use it to position themselves to ensure they make more money? I don't know, of course, because I don't know where you work or what they do, but that has been a recurring theme in the the history of capitalism in this country.

 

[chicago51]

I'm not a big fan of MHP either, but that article is totally misleading. In the commercial, she was making the same point Hillary Clinton made when she wrote the book "it takes a village," that it takes more than a mom and dad to raise a child, that the entire community that child grows up in is part of the growing up experience. The first paragraph made it sound like the government owns children. Stupid.

Oh those that criticize the ad are taking it out of context. I get what she is trying to say. Basically we as a society should give a crap that we are providing quality education to our kids. Yes individual families do matter as many on here have pointed out on here but the point of that ad is that socio-economic factors do play a role in how well a child learns.

 

[chicago51]

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Overview | The White House

Wondering what folks think of the Obama budget. It does have entitlement cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

I know full well this is dead on arrival. If the House GOP leadership doesn't crush it for higher revenues coming from tax loopholes, then Harry Reid is sure to kill it for cutting Social Security.

Personally I have mixed feelings about the budget as there is a lot I like but some things I don't and not just Social Security cuts.

I will say it is probably the best attempt by anyone from either party at a compromise at this point. If both sides hate it then it has to be considered a compromise.

 

[EddytoNow]

President Obama got elected with promises that he would not be cutting Social Security or Medicare. He ought to keep those promises. As a taxpayer, who has been paying into Social Security for over 40 years, I find it troubling that as I approach retirement the benefits I paid for could be reduced or (if Paul Ryan has his way) eliminated. **** right I will be mad if that happens.

Regarding MHP, she says what needs to be said. We are all responsible for the children growing up in our neighborhoods. If we don't help to educate them, we will pay the price when they are jobless and over-crowding our prisons. Don't cut funding for education on an annual basis and then complain that the youth of today are out of control.

The main problem in this country is wealth-disparity. The middle class used to be able to dream of joining the upper-class some day or at least maintaining a minimum standard of living that allowed them to own a home and support a family. That dream is fading fast as poverty-stricken numbers rise and off-shore bank accounts swell.

There are plenty of areas that can be cut in the federal budget without cutting programs that help the poor and the sick.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...As a taxpayer, who has been paying into Social Security for over 40 years, I find it troubling that as I approach retirement the benefits I paid for could be reduced...

What you paid in to the system went to other people, not you. They're gone.

Then, the benefits you receive (if you receive them) will be paid for by other people.

It's the circle of life. Or a pyramid scheme of life. It's a ponzi carousel -- it goes up and down, and around. Harness good, block bad.

 

[phgreek]

What you paid in to the system went to other people, not you. They're gone.

Then, the benefits you receive (if you receive them) will be paid for by other people.

It's the circle of life. Or a pyramid scheme of life. It's a ponzi carousel -- it goes up and down, and around. Harness good, block bad.

...it is that, and some of those dollars were "repurposed"...

 

[EddytoNow]

What you paid in to the system went to other people, not you. They're gone.

Then, the benefits you receive (if you receive them) will be paid for by other people.

It's the circle of life. Or a pyramid scheme of life. It's a ponzi carousel -- it goes up and down, and around. Harness good, block bad.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that my generation is screwed, but Social Security has been sending me a statement every year telling me what my monthly benefit will be when I retire. A lie is a lie is a lie, and we have been lied to big time. Of course, that's what politicians are best at. They are the most dishonorable people on this planet. There isn't a politican with integrity in the whole bunch. They can be divided into two groups: Group One = The Selfish and Greedy. Group Two = The More Selfish and More Greedy.

 

[chicago51]

President Obama got elected with promises that he would not be cutting Social Security or Medicare. He ought to keep those promises. As a taxpayer, who has been paying into Social Security for over 40 years, I find it troubling that as I approach retirement the benefits I paid for could be reduced or (if Paul Ryan has his way) eliminated. **** right I will be mad if that happens.

Regarding MHP, she says what needs to be said. We are all responsible for the children growing up in our neighborhoods. If we don't help to educate them, we will pay the price when they are jobless and over-crowding our prisons. Don't cut funding for education on an annual basis and then complain that the youth of today are out of control.

The main problem in this country is wealth-disparity. The middle class used to be able to dream of joining the upper-class some day or at least maintaining a minimum standard of living that allowed them to own a home and support a family. That dream is fading fast as poverty-stricken numbers rise and off-shore bank accounts swell.

There are plenty of areas that can be cut in the federal budget without cutting programs that help the poor and the sick.

Good post.

I personally am rooting against a grand bargain. We should just keep going to somebody wins control of both Congress and the White House.

 

[GoIrish41]

President Obama got elected with promises that he would not be cutting Social Security or Medicare. He ought to keep those promises. As a taxpayer, who has been paying into Social Security for over 40 years, I find it troubling that as I approach retirement the benefits I paid for could be reduced or (if Paul Ryan has his way) eliminated. **** right I will be mad if that happens.

Regarding MHP, she says what needs to be said. We are all responsible for the children growing up in our neighborhoods. If we don't help to educate them, we will pay the price when they are jobless and over-crowding our prisons. Don't cut funding for education on an annual basis and then complain that the youth of today are out of control.

The main problem in this country is wealth-disparity. The middle class used to be able to dream of joining the upper-class some day or at least maintaining a minimum standard of living that allowed them to own a home and support a family. That dream is fading fast as poverty-stricken numbers rise and off-shore bank accounts swell.

There are plenty of areas that can be cut in the federal budget without cutting programs that help the poor and the sick.

I agree with everything you said in this e-mail. reps.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Maybe, maybe not. But would they do it if there were not regulations that kept them in check? What was the bank and insurance industry;s role in the financial collapse in 08? That wasn't just some isolated incident at one institution. That is an example of an entire industry -- a system of interconnected industries really -- that was out to make money despite the enormous risk to the economy or the people a collapse would affect. There are numerous instances throughout this country's history of corporations taking advantage or in some other way screwing people to get ahead. I'm not sure what company you work for, but if nobody was watching, are you confident they wouldn't shave a few corners off to get a leg up on the competition? A big company like yours probably weilds some political influence -- do they use it to make things better for their workers or do they use it to position themselves to ensure they make more money? I don't know, of course, because I don't know where you work or what they do, but that has been a recurring theme in the the history of capitalism in this country.

The facts are this. As a company, we spend lots of time and money establishing a corporate culture that targets doing things the right way, which includes saftey. As managers, the only thing we can do is make sure we live the values and teach the values to those that work for us. Is it possible for someone to go rogue? Yes, it is. But there is no incentive for him to do so since the metrics used for performance are aligned with our values. I know what I would do and what my peers would do. It's like raising a kid. You hope when they encounter a certain situation that your instruction as a parent was good enough and the kid makes the right decision. As a parent, all you can do is make sure they have the tools needed to do the right thing. Same in business.

 

[irishff1014]

President Obama got elected with promises that he would not be cutting Social Security or Medicare. He ought to keep those promises. As a taxpayer, who has been paying into Social Security for over 40 years, I find it troubling that as I approach retirement the benefits I paid for could be reduced or (if Paul Ryan has his way) eliminated. **** right I will be mad if that happens.

Regarding MHP, she says what needs to be said. We are all responsible for the children growing up in our neighborhoods. If we don't help to educate them, we will pay the price when they are jobless and over-crowding our prisons. Don't cut funding for education on an annual basis and then complain that the youth of today are out of control.

The main problem in this country is wealth-disparity. The middle class used to be able to dream of joining the upper-class some day or at least maintaining a minimum standard of living that allowed them to own a home and support a family. That dream is fading fast as poverty-stricken numbers rise and off-shore bank accounts swell.

There are plenty of areas that can be cut in the federal budget without cutting programs that help the poor and the sick.

But there comes to a point if you as parent dont help teach your own kids as well the you have helped them fail. I am not talking about doing their work but helping when questions are asked. And parents that have kids not in school to work with them so that when they get to school that could be ahead of the game.

I am not for cutting money from schools that's not going to makes schools better but at the same point when a county or state has made every dept take a cut year in and year out it is only far that the schools have to take a hit.

 

[GoIrish41]

The facts are this. As a company, we spend lots of time and money establishing a corporate culture that targets doing things the right way, which includes saftey. As managers, the only thing we can do is make sure we live the values and teach the values to those that work for us. Is it possible for someone to go rogue? Yes, it is. But there is no incentive for him to do so since the metrics used for performance are aligned with our values. I know what I would do and what my peers would do. It's like raising a kid. You hope when they encounter a certain situation that your instruction as a parent was good enough and the kid makes the right decision. As a parent, all you can do is make sure they have the tools needed to do the right thing. Same in business.

Good answer. You company sounds like a good one, and I like your analogy about raising a child -- you hope it goes right but there's always that chance. I think greed is a powerful thing and a big pull to the dark side for a lot of folks. It has made a lot of good people do a lot of not so good things.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that my generation is screwed...

Actually, in terms of SS you're probably the least screwed. The sooner you start collecting the better off you'll be. It's the younger generations that will really be screwed -- they'll be the ones that actually paid into the system and will literally get nothing.

 

[Downinthebend]

I think that because of the lies that have been told about SS, we must honor any/all commitment. I'd like to see an opt out option given to anyone, with no "new" entrees into the system, with the "agreed" obligations being fulfilled.

 

[irishpat183]

Like someone else said....You can just read your statement. Right there in the print it says it's not guaranteed.

It's hilarious that people still depend on it and acting like it's an entitlement.

Do yourselves a favor. SAVE. Hopefully, our government won't start screwing us outta our personal retirement accounts....oh wait.....

 

[Black Irish]

I think that because of the lies that have been told about SS, we must honor any/all commitment. I'd like to see an opt out option given to anyone, with no "new" entrees into the system, with the "agreed" obligations being fulfilled.

This is what Paul Ryan's budget plan intended to do. The benefit pay-out was not going to change for anyone 50 and older. The changes would affect taxpayers younger than 50. But then all the special interest groups started with all the "Ryan is going to screw old people and push them off a cliff." The AARP was running these misleading scare ads with a bunch of indigent retirees telling the camera "hands off my Social Security." But no one was planning to touch their beloved Social Security, the changes would come down the road. But Heaven forbid facts get in the way of politically charged rhetoric.