State of the Union!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Miscue


I'm a fan of: You have to work for a living, and if you aren't doing well you screwed up somewhere. And it's not the government's responsibility to reward you for this.

I've known several people who come from very poor families. They sign up for the military. They are provided with food, shelter, a salary, and free health-care. They receive retirement after working long enough. They benefit from the G.I. Bill and can pursue higher education. In exchange they serve their country.

Now, what is everyone else's excuse? This is just one example of opportunities available to every healthy American. If you're too old now, and did not take advantage of such things earlier in life... then you screwed up. And I see no reason to reward you for it.

As if the rich don't steal from government coffers all the time. PLEASE!!! And THAT happens no matter which party is in office.

I make a good living. I'm in the highest tax bracket. I get paid ONLY by what I produce. I'm not one of the fools, however, that there isn't some luck involved. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. The additude, "You are down on your luck. What EXACTLY DID YOU DO?" doesn't ALWAYS apply.

A STRONG middle class is a STRONG country. Disparity of wealth will be our downfall.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Lohman446
The danger of trickle down economics...

Here it is folks, what if companies reinvest in making themselves more effiecent (better equipment makes the same amount or more of goods with less workers). This is in fact what has happened. American manufacturing is not necessarily down as far as the jobless rate in that sector would indicate. The fact is though, we have come to a point, where we produce more with fewer workers. It was something few could have seen coming, but I think the backfiring of trickle down economics, the help the economy received in building, creating that machine, does not overcome the harm done by the loss of jobs to that machine.

This is why Mars is such a great goal, we have a goal taht will help invention and keep it, for a time, away from manufacturing (to some degree) - just my two cents.

Let me bring this out and defend it with a few simple examples. How many people does it take to paint cars for the big three anymore - a couple to oversee equipment. Even though we now produce more cars than we did in the 60's and 70's - when we could barely meet demand, the big three employ less people per vehicle produced (I don't know the exact numbers). Yes this has to do with other things, but automation is a big part of it.

Think of research assistants, how many low level research jobs have research databases like Westlaw cost - or similar.

We are killing off some low level jobs with automation, advances in technology. The purpose of American education had alays been to produce trainable employees for manufacturing at least in the recent past. We no longer have this focus.

The downside of trickle down (though not entirely attributable to it) is that, while companies did invest that extra money, the invested it to increase productivity, which is not always a good thing.

[Rooster]

"A STRONG middle class is a STRONG country. Disparity of wealth will be our downfall."

A strong middle class is indeed important. However, disparity of wealth will not cuase the downfall of anything. If the rich are super-rich, and the poor really arn't that poor, it doesn't matter how much disparity there is. The poor won't revolt, they are being treated better than they deserve. Only when you get a majority of straving, destitute people do you have a problem. The fact is there will always be poor. There will always be the very poor. There is no way to stop that, even with redistrabution of wealth to the undeserving.

[Restola]

Originally posted by Lohman446
We are killing off some low level jobs with automation, advances in technology. The purpose of American education had alays been to produce trainable employees for manufacturing at least in the recent past. We no longer have this focus.

And the invention of snow plows put street shovelers out of buisness.

Your point is refuted by hundreds of years of technological innovation. The system works, even with advances in technology. The implications of turning your fears into policy are laughable.

[Lohman446]

Where did I suggest basing policy solely on this.. it should be a consideration, to not consider all the outcomes of ones actions, at least consider, is idiotic. Does that mean that you have to act on thos considerations, no, but to ignore the effects of your actions and policies or to proclaim that that these effects are bogus is not intelligence

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Oh, that makes sense. Thanks Albino.

And another liberal sees the light!