The Republicans are the Problem

[1robin]

You have a propensity to over exaggerate. While I can't be sure you're being totally honest as to the one single job function this guy supposedly had I will say that I see nothing wrong with what he's getting paid. I've been in plenty of federal and local court rooms and changing light bulbs in these facilities is nothing like changing the light bulb in your lamp on your nightstand. We're talking about ceiling heights of 20 to 50 feet. We're talking about using equipment that puts the person at a more significant risks to change bulbs..such as ladders and/or motorized lifts. We're talking about fixtures that are 120 and/or 240 volts. We're talking about people who do this everyday all day and in many cases in multiple facilities.

The job I had in those court rooms was much more dangerous, highly technical, and I made a fourth of what he did. I served on an aircraft flight deck (the fourth most dangerous job) and was paid even less. There is no defence for suggesting the public must pay for far higher wages for the same work they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ntaineer-dies-falling-off-church-steeple.html

Italian mountaineer dies falling off church steeple - Telegraph

I don't see the relevance

Many of the guys I know that do this work "changing light bulbs" also have to repair them such as replacing the balusters or even replacing the fixture itself. Not to mention that at any given facility there can be hundreds of lights....inside as well as outside. They also have to be compliant with fire safety rules and subject to scheduled and random inspections to make sure exit signs are illuminated at all times

Right now I am modernizing an F-15 ESTS system. That requires qualifications much higher than the people you mentioned and I get no where near 40$ hr. I do virtually every function you named above as a secondary responsability in my lab.

You can't let capitalism run completely free unchecked with no or limited regulations. That is what in essence we did with the banks years ago and it's what contributed to a collapse in our economic structure. If we fail to hold companies/corporations accountable then we pay the price.

I never suggested no regulations at all. The banks collapsed because they were mandated by regulations to give people loans who did not normally qualify for them. Mccain tried in 02 to show congress that it was heading for a melt down. The democrats told him to shove it, that there was no problem.

What's amazing is that you don't really seem to get it. I never suggested he wasn't getting paid enough. I think his pay is fine and is most likely commensurate with the job function(s) he has. You seem to be suggesting he's getting paid too much without really understanding or knowing all that he does on a daily basis. I know because I've worked in a facilities dept for fed. govt. and know exactly what the "light bulb" changer does.

I reject the idea that his pay is just. I work much harder, have higher skill requirements, and much greater responsability and am haveing to pay his salary.

Your assessment is irrational because that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting people be paid according to what it cost to live and for their particular skill set.

What skill set must a guy have to change bulbs and replace ballasts (even if his union actually allowed that). Regardless he is makeing far more than the average private sector light bulb guy. There is no justification for that. The reason this is the case is because private companies are driven by a need for efficiency and supply and demand. The governement has plenty of our money and seem to be rabidly opposed to efficiency. The greatest threat this country faces by far is run away spending in washington. It may already be too late for even a Reagan to fix and democrats are famous for their spendthrift ways.

This is pathetic and low. I'm a Dem and I work for a public school system. Right off the back you should realize I'm not making a lot money. Additionally I've gone plenty of years here without seeing one red cent of a cost of living increase in the bad economy even though the cost of living itself has increased. I have bills just like everyone else. I don't live beyond my means and it is still tough making sure I stay a float. I find that many republicans (not all) are simply out of touch with (Joe Everyman).

It probably was to widely applied. I have no doubt many democrats are responsible people. I was addressing the general mentality of democratic politians and institutions.

Like I said...We pay more to a McDonald's worker in minimum wage than we did years ago. McDonald's process and business hasn't changed. The guy on the line is flipping the burger the same way it was done years ago. Would you suggest we lower the minimum wage because the job is easy and hasn't changed or do you think the minimum wage being twice than what it used to be is justified in today's economy?

I really have no opinion on the minimum wage. I am concerned about the trillions being thrown down the tube for socialistic policies. You sound reasonable and intelligent. Surely you agree that if Democrats like Obama keep taking money away from corporations or the evil rich then they will not be able to hire. Reagan created record revenue and millions of jobs by doing exactly the opposite of what is going on now. I heard just today that the CBO reported that Obama's health care package will actualy cost 2 trillion instead of the last update of 1 trillion which was way more than what Obama said in the beginning.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There's always risk.

There's zero risk in an interest-bearing savings account

 

[Penumbra]

There's zero risk in an interest-bearing savings account

There's risk.

-True inflation can rise more quickly than interest, meaning your total purchasing power of invested money can decrease in purchasing power. Hyperinflation can wipe out virtually 100% of the value.

-The whole investment, to begin with, is an investment in the promise that the U.S. can handle its money and debt well. The money itself has no intrinsic value or utility; it's a symbol that has value because most of us agree it has value.

-There's the indirect risk of low returns. Since we're talking pensions or retirement savings, putting money away that doesn't grow, can result in the risk of not being financially independent for a very long time.

So while an interest-bearing savings account is less volatile than, say, putting money in equities, there is still certainly risk. In the very worst economic scenarios, cash/savings is one of the last places I'd want to have most of my net worth stored, if I desired to preserve it.

 

[tytlyf]

Why do you think I am a woman? Must every troll be a woman. I am in no way agreeing with you. By the way you are now wrong two more times. So you claim you proved me wrong by saying I never provided proof. Then you make two bogus claims and provided no proof. Amazing. You are entertaining anyway. Your original claim that tea party people were racists was not backed up and so by your standards you are wrong.

That's fine. Just spin away and ignore what others have been trying to tell you. If I said the Tea Party is racist, it's because they are. You can see the racism in their signs and words used on the internet. YOU said that the racist signs were from liberals, not Tea members. YOU never backed up your statement. Everyone knows that tea party affiliates are racist, white and old. I can look at a photo to determine this fact. Or I can visit the fox comment section to talk with tea party supporters after they continue to post their racist remarks regarding the president.

 

[Sunstone]

It's amusing how a conservative will resent anyone making $20 or $40 dollars an hour. They just can't stand to see such "high" wages, and think everyone should be working for peanuts -- except for the uber rich. If you dare criticize to a conservative the fact that almost all the gains in worker productivity over the past thirty or forty years have gone to the uber rich and almost none of the gains in worker productivity have gone to the rest of us -- if you dare imply there's something wrong with that -- a conservative will say you're starting a class war. Conservatives are all for the uber rich making way more money than they need. They just don't want the middle class making more than the folks in China.

 

[Skeptisch]

The Republicans are the Problem! - Not quite!

[youtube]Ln6VGCB8f_c[/youtube]
US Debt Crisis - Perfectly Explained - YouTube

 

[1robin]

It's amusing how a conservative will resent anyone making $20 or $40 dollars an hour. They just can't stand to see such "high" wages, and think everyone should be working for peanuts -- except for the uber rich.

How did you warp what I said to this? I have nothing against everyone making as much as they can within reason. I have the right and obligation to point out the injustice of a government employee making way more than a secular one for the same job (and a extremely easy and simple one) especially since I have to pay his salary. If you can't see the fact that the government has spent our money at such a rate as to endanger our existence and needs to be reigned in I can understand why we are in the shape we are in. If you have to distort my claims to make your position seem more valid have you really accomplished anything?

If you dare criticize to a conservative the fact that almost all the gains in worker productivity over the past thirty or forty years have gone to the uber rich and almost none of the gains in worker productivity have gone to the rest of us -- if you dare imply there's something wrong with that -- a conservative will say you're starting a class war. Conservatives are all for the uber rich making way more money than they need. They just don't want the middle class making more than the folks in China.

This is a ridiculous and highly inaccurate claim. I am not rich, don't know anyone who is and have no love for them. However sucking them dry in order to pass out goodies to buy votes hurts the country (including the middle class). Your statements here are as opposite to the conservative position as they could possibly be.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I have nothing against everyone making as much as they can within reason....

Within reason?
Does this imply that you support a wage cap on middle class incomes?

 

[1robin]

Within reason?
Does this imply that you support a wage cap on middle class incomes?

Why would you think that? Wages should be and are driven by supply and demand as they are in the private sector (except when the government steps in). That is a system that self regulates and balances efficiency with desire and is in effect perpetually self regulating. When the runaway government gets involved and throws out balance and self regulation and instead imposes invalid wage standards because they can just take more of our money if needed then everything gets screwed up. They also step in and apparently arbitrarily decide who to bail out or irrationally regulate in the private sector there by disrupting the private sectors self regulation and causing calamity. For example the banks should have never been required to circumvent the self regulating policy of risk and return by making them artificially adopt more risk. This caused a banking melt down. Then to compound things instead of self regulation correcting the problem by eliminating it the government stepped in and retained and fed the problem. This stuff is economics 101 and is obvious to everyone except politicians. How is it you justify our being required to pay someone far more for doing the same simple job we have to just because they work for the government? How could you justify requiring employers to pay more than is healthy for them to do so for wages. If you had a two man operation why is it good or justified for you to be forced to pay more in taxes, wages, and for unnecessary regulations than your business could support and remain on a solid foundation? The scariest words in English: "I am from the government and I am here to help". If it isn't broke the government will fix it until it is.

 

[idea]

Your charts show divorce rates skyrocketing prior to 1980, and then staying fairly flat and going downward after that.

The debt, however, began skyrocketing in 1980.

Thanks for the other graphs, I think it takes a few years before effects show up, it is nice to see some of the trends on their way back down though.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

There's risk.

-True inflation can rise more quickly than interest, meaning your total purchasing power of invested money can decrease in purchasing power. Hyperinflation can wipe out virtually 100% of the value.

-The whole investment, to begin with, is an investment in the promise that the U.S. can handle its money and debt well. The money itself has no intrinsic value or utility; it's a symbol that has value because most of us agree it has value.

-There's the indirect risk of low returns. Since we're talking pensions or retirement savings, putting money away that doesn't grow, can result in the risk of not being financially independent for a very long time.

So while an interest-bearing savings account is less volatile than, say, putting money in equities, there is still certainly risk. In the very worst economic scenarios, cash/savings is one of the last places I'd want to have most of my net worth stored, if I desired to preserve it.

The risk isn't comparable to losing it all, as with volatile investing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I never suggested no regulations at all. The banks collapsed because they were mandated by regulations to give people loans who did not normally qualify for them.

And I believe it's more to do with how the banks themselves were doing business and the massive amounts of commissions they were making off of selling loans.

[youtube]ZtbB2RI90hA[/youtube]
Chase Pushed Minorities Into Subprime Loans - Former Banker - YouTube

Mccain tried in 02 to show congress that it was heading for a melt down. The democrats told him to shove it, that there was no problem.

Reference please....

I reject the idea that his pay is just. I work much harder, have higher skill requirements, and much greater responsability and am haveing to pay his salary.

Who cares what you reject....As I've said...being some one who worked in the federal government for many years as well as a contractor for the govt...I'm well aware as to what facilities workers do. I worked in facilities for a number of years. At $40 an hour as well as his official job responsibilities That doesn't seem out of line.

What skill set must a guy have to change bulbs and replace ballasts (even if his union actually allowed that).

A lot obviously. Again, you don't really seem to be familiar with all that he actually does but are content on griping about what you get paid as appose to what he's making. Did it ever occur to you to voice your concerns with your supervisor so that he can break down the pay scale for you? Many of these guys are certified electricians. Two co-workers of mine are and when they contract they charge $40 to $65 an hour.

Surely you agree that if Democrats like Obama keep taking money away from corporations or the evil rich then they will not be able to hire.

Again, you love to over exaggerate considering companies are actually hiring and making money. Many companies have been reporting quarterly record highs in revenue. When have you eve opened the news paper to the employment section since Obama's been in office only to be greeted with a large ad that said ("NO JOBS!")..? Never.....because some one is always hiring. Many companies/corporations are making plenty of money.

Reagan created record revenue and millions of jobs by doing exactly the opposite of what is going on now.

Both economic structures and circumstances were different. The inflation of the 80s was high. It was dealt with when the federal reserve raised interest rates. When inflation dropped then they lowered rates then we had a massive economic recovery. That's so different than it was back in 2006-2007. Interest rates were already low heading into the recession. The banks were doing some shady dirty business and making tens or millions off of bad loans and they knew it. They had plenty of Republican and Democrats in their pockets.....still do.

Mitt Romney
Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

I heard just today that the CBO reported that Obama's health care package will actualy cost 2 trillion instead of the last update of 1 trillion which was way more than what Obama said in the beginning.

I can't say that his plan it to total answer to the healthcare situation in this country but suprisingly it really isn't all that original since it seems to stem from by-partisan ideas and earlier iterations of such a plan were being backed by republicans way before Obama made it part of his platform.

'Obamacare' very similar to GOP plan | NewsChief.com

In 1993, when he was still hatching his master plan that won him a speakership, Gingrich appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and said: "I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance."


American Conservative magazine senior editor Daniel McCarthy discussed just that with Politifact.com.


"I don't imagine Ed Feulner would be complaining at all if a Republican president or a Republican Congress had passed a plan that deviated from the Heritage blueprint to the same degree that Obama's bill has," McCarthy told Politifact. "


:sad:

 

[Penumbra]

The risk isn't comparable to losing it all, as with volatile investing.

Depends how one invests. Serious inflation can really wipe away value in a bank account under the worst scenarios. Personally, I would never have enough risk tolerance to keep much value in cash.

Most scenarios of "losing it all" in the market occur due to investor mistakes. The U.S. market has never lost it all; people lose it all because they invest in a market top, and then get mad during a market bottom and take all their money out, and then the market goes up and they put money back in, and then it goes down and they get scared again, etc. It's a matter of not understanding the businesses behind the stocks.

Any scenario where the S&P 500 actually "loses it all" would render U.S. currency irrelevant, since there would be no economy.

 

[Copernicus]

Depends how one invests. Serious inflation can really wipe away value in a bank account under the worst scenarios. Personally, I would never have enough risk tolerance to keep much value in cash.

Most scenarios of "losing it all" in the market occur due to investor mistakes. The U.S. market has never lost it all; people lose it all because they invest in a market top, and then get mad during a market bottom and take all their money out, and then the market goes up and they put money back in, and then it goes down and they get scared again, etc. It's a matter of not understanding the businesses behind the stocks.

Any scenario where the S&P 500 actually "loses it all" would render U.S. currency irrelevant, since there would be no economy.

Penumbra, I think that the biggest danger in any serious recession is deflation of the currency, not inflation. Currency did not become worthless during the Great Depression. People tended to hoard it rather than spend it. Generally speaking, you want modest inflation to drive circulation of money. If people think that the value of the currency is eroding, they tend to spend it or invest in places where they get a higher return.

 

[Penumbra]

Penumbra, I think that the biggest danger in any serious recession is deflation of the currency, not inflation. Currency did not become worthless during the Great Depression. People tended to hoard it rather than spend it. Generally speaking, you want modest inflation to drive circulation of money. If people think that the value of the currency is eroding, they tend to spend it or invest in places where they get a higher return.

Hyperinflation occurs usually not due to recessions, but rather due to wars, revolutions, regime changes, etc.

Regular inflation occurs for numerous reasons; often economic growth, and often if a government doesn't value its currency very well. "True" inflation often significantly exceeds reported inflation in multiple areas. For example, the cost of college tuition has increased faster than inflation in recent decades, so for any family for which that is a big savings item, that's a major factor.

Modest inflation is fine. But if interest rates in the account don't match or exceed real inflation, value is eroding. It can occur slowly, or potentially quickly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Modest inflation is fine.

I don't buy it. Sure, sure...we're used to it, & even like the gains (albeit phantom) we accrue. But even modest inflation distorts markets in dysfunctional ways.
It causes more speculative buying, increases effective tax rates, & depends upon growth to avoid catastrophe. At some point, to depend upon continuous
economic growth is unsustainable. And money supply growth without economic growth is stealthy theft of wealth by gov't.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't buy it. Sure, sure...we're used to it, & even like the gains (albeit phantom) we accrue. But even modest inflation distorts markets in dysfunctional ways.
It causes more speculative buying, increases effective tax rates, & depends upon growth to avoid catastrophe. At some point, to depend upon continuous
economic growth is unsustainable. And money supply growth without economic growth is stealthy theft of wealth by gov't.

I would say the exact opposite. Rampant inflation is bad, but modest inflation encourages the circulation of money, which causes business growth. If the economy is overheated, then it is a good idea to reduce the money supply and cut back on fiscal spending. The reason interest rates are almost zeroed out today is that the economy is weak, and governments need to stimulate spending through monetary and fiscal policies. Many Republicans (albeit not the Tea Party types) know this, but the primary concern of the Republican Party today is to defeat Barack Obama. Bringing harm to the US economy and misery to citizens is known to work. Voters tend to blame the President when things go sour, even if he isn't the primary cause of the problem. The French call it philosophie du pire--philosophy of the worse. It is good if things get worse, because that increases the desire in the general population for change.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Depends how one invests. Serious inflation can really wipe away value in a bank account under the worst scenarios. Personally, I would never have enough risk tolerance to keep much value in cash.

Most scenarios of "losing it all" in the market occur due to investor mistakes. The U.S. market has never lost it all; people lose it all because they invest in a market top, and then get mad during a market bottom and take all their money out, and then the market goes up and they put money back in, and then it goes down and they get scared again, etc. It's a matter of not understanding the businesses behind the stocks.

Any scenario where the S&P 500 actually "loses it all" would render U.S. currency irrelevant, since there would be no economy.

Unfortunately, these doomsday scenarios are nothing as frequent as pensions being speculated into the dust.

While you are certainly correct, the event is so rare as to make no odds. Whereas speculators destroy peoples' pension funds on a daily basis. In a correct world, those funds should be ironclad and never gambled in any manner.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would say the exact opposite. Rampant inflation is bad, but modest inflation encourages the circulation of money, which causes business growth.

I'm comfortable with that too, & society copes well with it.
But it isn't necessary for a strong economy. Moreover, it raises a question....
What is to become of our quality of life if continual & eternal economic expansion is to be?
I'm concerned about resource exploitation & overpopulation.

If the economy is overheated, then it is a good idea to reduce the money supply and cut back on fiscal spending. The reason interest rates are almost zeroed out today is that the economy is weak, and governments need to stimulate spending through monetary and fiscal policies. Many Republicans (albeit not the Tea Party types) know this......

This isn't something which is known, but rather is faith based belief & practice.
It's like saying prayer will boost the economy, ie, not grounded in the scientific method.

...but the primary concern of the Republican Party today is to defeat Barack Obama. Bringing harm to the US economy and misery to citizens is known to work. Voters tend to blame the President when things go sour, even if he isn't the primary cause of the problem. The French call it philosophie du pire--philosophy of the worse. It is good if things get worse, because that increases the desire in the general population for change.

Yipes! That's too cynical even for me. I don't think they're as quite as sociopathic & Machiavellian as do you.....but we're on the same page.
I could similarly claim that Obama is wrecking the economy & curbing civil liberties in order to eek out a win, but that would be equally rash.
I blame their bone headed practices on mostly good intentions, which are a dangerous motive.....the road to Hell pavement & all that.
The funny thing about interest rates is that they aren't low in many areas. Looking at refinancing 2 commercial properties, I'm facing
between 7% & 20%. (The latter rate is from "hard money" sources for short term loans.)

 

[Penumbra]

Unfortunately, these doomsday scenarios are nothing as frequent as pensions being speculated into the dust.

While you are certainly correct, the event is so rare as to make no odds. Whereas speculators destroy peoples' pension funds on a daily basis. In a correct world, those funds should be ironclad and never gambled in any manner.

If a company internalizes the entire fund, then it's all dependent on the health of that company. Putting all eggs in one basket.

If a company invests in treasuries and other conservative investments, then returns are bad, and pension payments are smaller.

There's risk wherever you look, and there's a tradeoff between risk and returns.

Which is why I don't like pensions for my own money at all. I don't like any of the scenarios.