Category: News and Views
I wouldn't normally ask a question like this, but if what my dad is saying is even slightly true, I have to say I've just gotten one hell of a wake up call.
He was talking about how in the coming year, taxes on everything will skyrocket, which will plunge the country into the depths of a depression that not even the one of the 30's could touch. Worse than that, he said that people's paychecks will be cut so much that he said he would be lucky to make even $100 with each check he gets.
And yet, I got a letter the other week saying that my SSI would go up because of the cost of living. Granted, it's a small amount, but you would think that social security would be the first to go, not three quarters of working people's paychecks.
Who's right? I really hate to say this, but if he's right, the effects would be so devastating that I'll bet most people will kill themselves. There would be no working class, no point for most people to go on existing. I'm hoping to get some answers from some levelheaded people who are more informed than I am, because to be honest, I'm scared shitless right about now.
I'm no economist, but I really don't think it's going to be that bad. I think people's taxes will go back to where they were under Bill Clinton, and that wasn't so bad.
Bob
If you study history, even in the 30's depression, people were able to live. As long as their are demand for goods and services people will trade them, and that creates wealth, and jobs, and that creates spending.
If you only earned 100 dollars and that was what people earned, goods and services will have to be adjusted so that the masses can aford them.
Think of it this way. A new Cadillac, America's top luxury car cost about 800 dollars when first produced. Today one will cost around 40 thousand and up to purchase.
This is due to more people being able to afford this price. The cost of production has gone up, because the cost of products to produce them has risen, due to the cost of producing the products to produce them going up.
I hope this helps you not be so concerned.
In other countries what causes mass proverty is the rich owning everything and controlling the government. We are blessed this is not the case.
It sounds to me like the President will fix this mess even if it is a temporary fix, with taxes for the middle class remaining the same. I wondered about social security too and about Medicare.
I sure as hell hope so, but my hopes aren't too high with that gzy in office. Right now, it seems like he's got other intentions that are more important to him than the well being of our economy such as gun control.
Basically, what's going to happen is people who work are going to get screwed. Our standard of living will decrease.
The marriage penalty will be reinstated which will hurt allot of middle class people, if that happens.
Taxes on corperations and such will go up and how do you think they're going to make up for that cost? They're going to raise the prices on goods and services and possibly reduce their number of employees.
Basically, our government has dug itself into one hell of a hole regarding our debt and deficit. It would be like one of us making $75 thousand per year but taking out credit cards in the hundreds of thousands and maxing them out. I don't really know much about economics but I do know that you can't spend more than you bring in and eventually, the piper wants to get paid. Just multiply that times trillion, you know, trillion, the biggest number one can display on a standard abacus.
Everybody is so hell bent on taxing the ritch because it sounds good and fair. I've heard reports though that doing so would only be a drop in the bucket. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen but I am saying that the idea sounds better than the reality. Notice what happens in states where taxes are lower, people move there and our economies thrive. Ok, maybe not thriving like back in the day, but we certainly haven't been hit as hard as states where taxes are higher. What else happens when taxes are raised? Those who have money take it elsewhere. Quite frankly, if I earn the money, then that's my right.
As far as how this will affect us on a daily basis, who knows. I'd get ready to start paying more where ever you go and for whatever you shop.
By the time my kiddo is an adult, I expect taxes to be so ridiculously hi that I truly believe he won't experience the quality of life that I have as an adult.
Oh, and by the way, speaking of the president, if he were so concerned about saving money, perhaps his family could have stayed home this Christmas instead of taking a 4.5 million dollar trip to Hawaii at the expense of the tax payors. Sorry but everytime the Obamas do something like that it just makes me think, "let them eat cake." And yes, I'd say that regardless of who it was.
Perhaps he could have vetoed the raise for congress and other federal employees on which he just signed off.
I'm just sayin.
I know I'll get slammed for all this because I'm in the minority around here as a conservative but there's my take on it.
Exactly, DG. We have relied on the Government too much, and they have fucked us over beyond belief.
OBama wants us to rely on him and the Government even more, though. Our SSI checks were raised. That may look wonderful to the people who receive it, but the country can't afford raising benefits. Our Government is corrupted, and the media won't portray it that way. At least, the m1mn stream media won't. So, keep hoping for SSI raises and other benefits, if you truly want the Government to continue their destruction, and if you want them to continue increasing the debt. They want more control of us, and that's what they're getting. They want us to rely on them, instead of being self-relient, but we can not rely on these crooked bastards! Things will get worse should we do so.
In quite a few ways I agree with DomesticGoddess here.
To post 1, your father is reacting like many of us in the middle class do. The rich entitled and the poor entitled really have no idea. If it were me, every program, and I do mean EVERY program (not just entitlements or the military) would be put on the table and take a lot of cuts.
This has been a problem for generations now, and while Bush increased entitlements spending in 2003 more than many democrats did, and while some of Obama's initiatives look to be extremely expensive, this is not specific to a single President.
The problem is, that a few token millin dollars here or there basically won't make a difference. We have to both whack spending and raise taxes, both. Not either or, not the same tired old liberal vs. conservative debates, but actual sense.
My major challenge to what DomesticGoddess said is the foundation of economic theory on which it's based. The so-called triple-down Reaganomics only worked in a pre-globalist economy. Now we live in a world where there are corporations who are richer than some nations. The rich never really benefit the local middle class, but they do benefit the global economy. Countries who need to increase their global presence lower taxes on the rich, because they are the ones with the capital fortitude to spend it on the global stage.
Truth be told, it is the middle class who bears the economic load, and potentially provides the economic benefits to local economies.
Those who want to reduce taxation on the wealthiest are 100% behind a more globalist, less national-sovereignty agenda. This is not class warfare: it's whether you want to invest in world conomy or local economies. People who wish to reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans are clearly interested in the UN and international economies supporting global corporations who have no real national sovereignty, no patriotism and no loyalty to their home country where they are incorporated.
Now, this does not mean the rich are like this: that just happens to be where the rich tend to spend their money. And so would you, if you were immediately tasked to manage multiple millions of dollars' worth of assets.
Reducing taxation on the middle class instead bolsters local governments, local economies and local communities. Ironically, reducing taxes on the middle class is the most American of ideals, considering the way this nation is structured. Middle class people pay local taxes for your schools, your roads and your local infrastructure. Middle class shop at the local businesses, run for office in local governments, volunteer as first responders in your local government and nongovernmental agencies. In other words, middle class is what it means to be America.
Ironically, while the left is fooling around on the one end, the so-called America First party on the Right has such a hopelessly globalist agenda as evidenced by reducing taxation on the wealthiest 1% of American citizens, so that they can continue to invest in China, Afghanistan, and, yes, create jobs. For people who want us to fund their campaigns against us.
Battle lines have been drawn, perhaps, but not where some would have you believe.
And again, I'm not saying the rich themselves are investing deliberately in treasonous fashions, but that the global corporations they happen to patronize are more than willing and ready to compromise our sovereignty for next quarter's profits and sell whatever national security interest to the next gen Bin Laden if necessary to do it. Global corps are as Americans as frogs are fish: maybe they were born in the water, but transformed long ago.
Frankly, people like DomesticGoddess make far more of an impact in America, as an American, as an economic and social contributor / stabilizer, than does people making 5 million dollars a year, because all stable economies and societies owe their stability to a healthy and vital middle class. You can even read about this in Chapter Two of Robinson Crusoe where the father adjures the son on the merits of the "Middle station of life."
This is not a liberal or conservative stance, though it is admittedly nationalist and fiscally responsible.
Meh, a lot of this is fear-mongering on both sides in order to distract from a few shades of truth. One of these truths is that our politicians, liberal and conservative alike, are more focused on winning than they are the welfare of their constituency, because power is more important than lives.
Another truth is that taxes will change, but this isn't the worst thing. It's not like we're going to be plummeted into another Dust Bowl. If anything, if we leap from the fiscal cliff it may mobilize the silent majority of this country into action - maybe, just maybe, it will lead to some accountability from our great leaders on all fronts.
It's not going to be pretty, but ugly isn't fatal.
4.5 million dollar trip? Must have been a hell of a trip.
You have to remember he and his wife spend their personal money when they travel except for security.
Guess they can afford it.
Hi all,
I'm not exactly sure where I'm coming down on this issue, but I think the main idea that i can take from all your posts is that a lot of what's going on is politically fueled, and probably is more hype than truth. I guess that makes sense. My mom basically told my dad to shut up about it, because worrying wouldn't change anything, so I'm guessing she's taking all this as seriously as you might take a comedian.
As for SSI, I only brought that up because it didn't make any sense that they would be increasing benefits if they were screwing the working class over, not because I agree that they should be raised. I could really care less if they are, because it's a lot more important to me that people's jobs remain stable. If they took social security away tomorrow, I would give it up in a heartbeat to see everyone else around me continue to be successful.
Leo, good points as usual. Like I said, economics really isn't my thing so thanks for putting it into that perspective. Honestly, globalism scares me but I'm going to shut up about that before I start to look like an idiot.
As for the President's vacation, yes, while they do pay for their vacation, the tax payers foot the bill for the seccurity detail, Airforce 1, etc. I just did a google search to make sure I wasn't talking out of my head earlier when I posted that statement and I came across several articles which confirm what I said about tax payers footing the bill. I don't begrudge the man a vacation but I do think it's a bit of a slap in the face when he's telling all of us that we need to tighten our financial belts but he and his family run around the world like royalty. That isn't the topic at hand though so sorry for sort of high jacking the topic. I now return you to the regularly scheduled topic which is already in progress.
I'm not so sure it's as far off-topic as you say. After all, this 4.5 million, which though I didn't research it this time did sound like reasonable costs for logistics and security, is a slap in the face. Not only because they went, but because if they hadn't gone we wouldn't notice the difference in the budget.
Budgets are sort of like that anyway: that 4.5 million was already accounted for and budgeted for from last year's bookkeeping, or whatever the government does that passes for what you or I would consider bookkeeping. And your response only serves to illustrate well how serious this is: 4.5 million is more than many of us will ever see, and yet it's like giving the repo man a five dollar bill and asking for mercy on a $40,000 debt. The real problem is we didn't get into this overnight. Policies both left and right have led us here over many decades.
Entitlements, multinational corporate welfare subsidies, logistics / deployment / fuel costs for two wars which made Bin Laden extremely happy (his idea being to cause us to financially stretch ourselves thin), and so much else in pork barrel spending and special interests lobbying.
Part of the problem is that our legislators are elected by district, and no matter the ideology, they stay elected by supporting government funding to local programs. Pork barrel is much like regulation: It's considered too much until it benefits you and your area.
This is one major flaw and weakness in our Constitution which the Founders could not have predicted: this representative spending for local areas from the Federal government. And yet some of it is actually necessary for roads and the like.
The Democrats are famous for many large-scale entitlements and similar domestic spending, but don't forget: We had a Republican house and Senate from 1994 to 2008 and for two Presidential terms we had both the legislative and executive branches run by that party. We saw expenditures go through the roof in ways many would never have predicted. I was a young man in 1994 and so reasonably optimistic about the newly elected, even if I didn't share their religious fervor.
However, this laboratory experiment is useless unless we are unabashedly honest about its results, to scientific proporthions. They failed. Sorry, I'm not a new-age outcome-based educator and just can't grade on a curve. That's an F. What it proves, though, is this spending problem is not a partisan issue: both parties at different times have had control and both have equally spent, both have brought up the same two tired old arguments.
By traditional definitions, members of both parties have got to be clinically insane, since insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.
I don't have any answers, but perhaps Miss M is right: we should go over the Fiscal Cliff, and thereby cause some form of drastic restructuring.
I also don't see why Social Security recipients get more from the government, but that is not technically their fault. It's ours for having elected officials who appointed people to run government bureaucracies without any real checks and balances like the SSA and IRS. The organizations are not wrong, but there are always problems when there are no checks and balances. In my opinion, the Tea Party went rong by not inventing anything new but returning to the same tired old argument from the right, just as many on the Green Party have basically opted for most of the tired old arguments on the Left. It's a real problem, it's not the end of the world, and it's not one that listening to any talking heads will solve. But I do agree with some who say we should take only real answers from our politicians, and when they fail, no excuses, they don't get re-elected.
The problems start occurring when things drop to one-issue politics, religion, ideology and the like. I told my daughter this year when she asked, that I treat election season like a job interview, and guess who is doing the damned interviewing. They're not your leaders, they're your employees. You're paying their damned way and you know it. Would you tolerate these tired old answers and excuses from employees working for you? If we treat them like people that are working for us, rather than like our overlords, gods, vicars, religious superiors, nannies, baby-butt-wipers, who cares what, they'll have to start acting it or be gone. I stop listening as soon as their speech drops into the rhythm of preaching and diatribe. I'm gone. "Talk turkey, son, or leave."
It all comes down to the government wanting you to rely on them as much as possible. That's why they raise benefits, to make you think you should depend on them.
My uncle is a fairly informed man in politics and economics, and I give him a lot of credit for educating me. The economics professor I had talked a lot of random nonsense, that seemed intellegent yet irrelevant. Anyway, my uncle informed me that there is going to be a 2 percent increase in the Social Security tax, and I believe that the raise may be linked to the raise in SSI benefits. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
If handicapped people farted around on the job like Washington does on their jobs, no disabled person would be employed.
If the economy crashes, there are a select few people at the top who know exactly how to benefit. And the thing we all seem to have forgotten is that the real wealth lies in natural resources. So we have to ask ourselves, are there people at the top manufacturing an economy collapse? If so, what will they replace it with?
A one world currency is not as far away as you might think, in my view.
M is right though, ugly is not the same as fatal.
You all have also forgotten about our recent recession. This was caused by banking and several rich people using the system to benefit themselves. Some got away with it, a couple were put in jail a short time as tokens I'd say, but were not stripped of the money they gained?
Correct me if I'm wrong on that as well.
Even then prices of houses and such things dropped, because they needed to be sold.
Stuff is inflated more then it should be, and when money's low, prices go down to match it.
What do we mean by saying "if the economy crashes"? We've already had a recession. If it happens, it'll just be similar to what's already going on.
The banks are not the government, though they're both tied together. It isn't so much about dependence but about misinformation. It works best for governing bodies - and I mean the banks, corporation sand media moreso than I mean the US government.
Our nation exists, as it has for decades before a lot of us were born, on pillars of anxiety, consumerism, and otherness. It's much easier to cow a society that's focused on individual political ideals than a society that's focused on problem-solution.
We are still in recession.
That is exactly my point. Life goes on.
Jobs are short now, people have been and will be laid off, so that companies can hire workers for less. Just a few years back the stock exchange closed for a day, that means the econmy crashed, or America's did.
Remember our auto industry was basicly bankrupt?
We are now in world recession sort of as well.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time following this discussion. I never watch the news, since it's too depressing, and politics go hand in hand with that, so I never made much effort to understand them.
No, losing luxuries like internet, TV, and, you know, eating 3 square meals a day would certainly not be fatal, there are plenty of people in third world countries and on the streets who can attest to that. In those cases, though, it's usually all they've ever known, or mental illness and/or drug addiction makes them numb to these facts. Where I was coming from when I said most people would probably kill themselves in that situation is because people are much more materialistic nowadays than they were in the 30's. I'm not saying that's what I would do, I'm simply pointing out that most people can't live without their gadgets, and even I would feel the emptiness in a life without a computer or phone. There was less choice, less sophistication, and a smaller population. This made food rations possible, helped people not want for what they couldn't have, and the idea of family was much more concrete then than it is now. Now, the lines would be drawn--survival of the fittest, as my dad said if push comes to shove, the first thing he's doing is kicking my grandma out who lives with us, to decrease the financial burden.
This is the perspective I'm trying to understand things from: a practical, not a political, standpoint. If prices simply adjusted to reflect hard economic times, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. If people only made $100 a month, and this is purely for the sake of argument, as we're not communists, half of that would be spent on food, the other on gas to get to and from the jobs people would desperately cling to. That leaves no room for anything else, really. That's the world my dad described as being upon us in just a few short months, and that's what I'm trying to figure out how likely that it to happen. The thought of that is what's scaring me, not someone's hidden political agenda. So if someone wouldn't mind putting this into plain terms for me so I can try to understand how soon or not at all this will happen, I'd really appreciate it.
I'm not badmouthing the discussion that's going on so far, I'm just a little lost in the proceedings.
OK. Here goes. My sources for this are studying both economics and political science.
The probability of a $100 per month paycheck is, zero. This wouldn't work. The government will simply borrow more. There are plenty of countries willing to lend. The government is paying for a lot of junk we don't need. Fixing this would be impossible. I quote the always wise, politically minded humor columnist Dave Berry:
"An ordinary worm-like taxpayer like you could never be elected to Congress. First, the only way to get into Congress is to have a big pile of money. And the best way to do this is to already be a member of Congress."
The Republicans "want" to fix things, but they get in and ... spend even more money. The Democrats renounce the Republicans for destroying things, and they come in and increase our debt by... spending money. They are pretty popular, and they know that we can always borrow. They will eventually fix the fiscal cliff, don't worry.
Here is what you need to be afraid about. You need to be afraid of the day China decides it wants its money back. Because China is perfectly willing to lend and lend and lend. But eventually, China, the land of high profits at the expense of the population could stop, and demand that we pay them back. And that will be bad indeed.
If people ended up with $100 a month, there would be a revolt. No one would stand for that, and there would be those that refused to pay. The government wouldn't want this, and trust me, they know it would happen.
One last comment. There will not be a 1-world currency, without having a 1-world country. Look at the European Union. Give it a couple years, and Germany might give up and leave. Because Germany right now is paying a lot of debts for Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. You can't, can't, can't, zero percent chance, can't, have a unified monetary policy (one currency) without having a unified fiscal policy (spending). It doesn't work. Maybe for a little while, but eventually it will collapse.
The best thing anyone can do to prepare for impending disasterous situations is to shed ideology, learn skills, and remain completely open to reinventing oneself.
A microcosm of this happened with someone I knew who had been in the software business for 15 years, lost his position, and kiddos the software industry is so glutted right now that unless you are an absolute star you will not get in. So, he's diving somewhere now. He went to the Divers' Institute up here in Seattle as a way to retrain. Granted, that means he had some nest egg, aka, unlike yours truly he had not bred or had any dependents and so had saved up.
My mission has always been to learn as many non-job-specific skills as possible. Take leadership roles at work where you can, volunteer outside of your work hours in a place that will train and enhance you, refuse to believe things or get stuck in any form of ideology of any kind. Because truth be told, a financial collapse or a natural disaster is a disaster for you when it is unexpected and you didn't have the speicific skills to prepare for it.
Meaning, in Katrina, there were horders who lost all their hordes and their weapons beneath feet of water. There were entitlements users scooting across the pavement on their butts waiting for someone to come along and pick their wittle selves up.
But then:
There were the emigrants. People who migrated from there to Texas, the Carolinas, or out west even as far west and north as we are in Oregon. They were the survivors because they did what migrants always do: Dig their own niche, make a new life for themselves.
I know some up here who opened restaurants or stores or did similar things that they had never done in their old life back home. In order to do this, you have to first be self-sufficient, and second, be flexible enough to reinvent yourself. People stuck on ideologies like religion and entitlements have far more trouble with this.
I also have heard of the 2% increase in the Social Security taxes and that will come from your payroll tax, from which you get no refund at the end of the year. The SSI cost of living increase is no doubt part of where that's going, but in all honesty, it's the gross mismanagement of the Social Security Trust Fund or whatever the government word for that is, which causes this. Social Security's funds get "borrowed" from for all sorts of other places. Really half-ass sloppy bookkeeping anyone with a Business 101 course would know they ought not, because the moneys are still allocated Social Security rather than rebudgeted elsewhere, and that payroll tax only goes to the Social Security fund.
It's a culmination of a terrible situation that's taken decades for us to fuck up, and now we got us a game of Janga blocks from hell.
To the one who says this is international? You're right. Those of us working for international corps are not safe either. The fiat currencies around the world have a lot of problems, and they stem from the ways we do banking.
One-world currency? I seriously doubt it. Would you, as one who managed assets and net worth in the U.S., wish to inherit the liability that is Mexico? I didn't think so, and that is one example. Look at the tenuous situation that is the European Union. Currency combinations only happen because of ease of trade and similar economic interests. I'm about to upset our pseudo-Greek friend I'm sure of it, but Greece has probably found itself onto the one-way express train out of the European Union. After that, in my prediction, will go the next least profitable nations state, and at best what will be left is a few of the most highly-invested most affluent nations with a currency alliance.
The fantasy that is the global currency idea poses some real challenges. Remember that currency is just an expression of the net worth of the nation in question. So if you are combining let's say, the U.S. and Mexico, you are combining the U.S. economy with Mexico's economy. Same goes with the liabilities, which are many in Mexico, and each nation's ability to exceed expenditure with deposit. It's more complex than that but that's about the size of it. Greece got into the European Union while it was doing better, and it's part of the Mediterranean states that are good for tourism and other local economies. However, as you've seen by recent events, no union is going to keep a weak link dragging it down. There are a ton of countries around the globe that nobody wants to combine currency with: nobody would touch with a ten-foot pole. I can't see s reasoned way to how a global economy would ever occur. I understand it's part of many ideologies and religions. But I don't see it holding sway in sound economic principles.
forget about it I say.
Even in the third world countries there are people with.
Here we've got to many resources, so it is something you'll never see in your life time.
Read about Europe. Things got bad, but never failed. They simply have to much land and resources.
I'm sorry, but for real? You believe that a failure is impossible? No no no! It is completely possible for the economy to fail. Too many resources, you say? But management of them is the question. We've got both natural and human resources, but it would be pretty darn hard for us to use them if they were managed incorrectly. If you, for example, had to go get your own gasoline to run a car. Or if you were going to build a computer, could you? I know I couldn't, and given an economic crash, it would be quite easy not to have any. You couldn't drill for and refine oil with your bare hands and a shovel, and I couldn't assemble a car from the junk in my garage. So the question is, will we need to? Because right now we don't someone else gets our oil and builds our cars, and we pay them with money, which we get for doing what we can do. Without that, we would be pretty unhappy. I can program; that is my main job. That wouldn't be very useful. Right now, I design sites and program for money, and then spend that money. Given an economic crash, problems would ensue.
Right, that's what I was trying to say, but you put it a bit more eloquently. Most of us would be shit out of luck. having said that, Leo, you do make valid points, as usual. I suppose the equivalent of making the best out of this situation would be to leave the country. Of course, not everyone can just pick up and do that, and an economic collapse here would be felt just about anywhere you'd go, but it's all about how bad you want to make it, and how much your life is worth to you.
I personally can do many thing, but i understand what you mean. I can repair a car, and go get the gas if it is made. Build a computer, if I've got parts.
Build shelter, grow food, that sort of thing.
I have made it my business to learn about many things, but again, the economy has failed. Life went on.
I think people ignore it, but it happens. Read my post above.
Japan's economy failed. America's industry went bankrupt, Europes economy failed. Look a Russia. Life goes on.
I keep forgetting to point this out, so i'll say it now while I'm thinking of it. I actually have plans to move in with my boyfriend, which should come to fruition soon. I guess that's why I'm more concerned on a personal level, because I have no idea how this will affect us. My family, well, I don't want to see them fail, but I see this as a situation like the song Busted, by Ray Charles. Or maybe it was Johnny Cash who wrote it first, I'm not sure. They both did good versions of it. Anyway, it seems to me like everybody's going to be scrambling for help, but no one will be able to offer it, because they're dead set on keeping themselves alive.
Here's a twist on a financial crash that few people talk about, even in the survivalist community:
Technically, you have skills that would be marketable in a different economy than you realize. Let's say you, like me, know how to smoke cure meat, and have the patience to do it. That's useless to me now as a marketable skill because the whole smoked meat market is flooded with great product at cheap prices I could not offer.
My physical stamina pays nothing in today's market. But when we had to move, I'm pretty reasonably certain that I could hump a pack pretty well to move things from place to place, especially if guided by a more frail human who might not be able to hump as much but whose eyesight at that point would be marketable to me. That means dippity shit to me now, except in the rare event when I help someone move. Given the right circumstances, that would become immediately useful.
What is marketable right now, my ability to do softwware development for government / global corp contractors in a proprietary environment, while very precarious, actually does for now pay the bills. That skill set will be completely useless if that demand goes away.
In reality, everyone actually has skills they will be able to apply and use in a collapsed situation, since humans work best when working together under some sort of economy be it barter or fiat currencies. Any of you good with little kids? That would suddenly become in huge demand! I can see a hundred uses for guide dog handlers, since dogs as guards and other utilities would cease to be pets and become working animals again, and you all have the education and experience to manage those situations. It's all in being adaptable and not remaining tied to what we currently call vocation. After all, part of a collapse or disaster is its unknowable effects. People who plan for earthquakes die in floods, and those planning for nuclear war can't get up and move when it's time. And none of us can plan for it all. To that end, I do think we will survive. Our current system may not survive the way it is, but that may or may not be a bad thing. Although I described extreme circumstances, in reality thinking that way prepares you to manage the little things that screw up and take your own ownership and use your own skill set, and enhance what you know within your own environment now, not wait for some impending disaster to suddenly spring into action.
I think what forereel is trying to get at is that, in the form of life going on, people will adapt. We will work with less, but we won't go suddenly from having everything to nothing. The change won't be there altogether when you wake up one morning - prices will fluctuate, wages will fluctuate, and there'll be some annoying crap to go through.
And those without dependents will suffer the least as a consequence. One reason why birthrates decline during economically difficult times.
Exactly M.
Next, Why worry about something you have no control over? Will you live your life in a box, because "maybe one day X and Y will happen?"
You mikght get old and die a peaceful death first, and you'll have never lived, or you might get hit by a bus, and you'll have never lived.
Live! Move in with your borfriend. Do the best you can with what you have.
Enjoy today, because tomorrows not promised, but prepare for tomorrow some, so just in case you get to it you'll be ready also.
Save some money, spend wisely, get some wishes, and build some safeguards in to your life as best you can.
Life goes on, and if it doesn't it won't matter much will it?
This is sounding a lot like end of the world, rather than economic crash. You said that we should live today because tomorrow's not promised? But in the economy, tomorrow is determined by today, yesterday, and all the years before those. We could fix things in the economy, but if the world was coming to an end, that seems unfixable. Economic crashes can be prevented. Many have. Many others haven't. Life would go on, and many would go under. Given an economic crash that made our government think, many on social security benefits would be out. Many disabled who, for one reason or another, have not learned many skills but only use their SSI incomes would go under. Forereel, you said you could get gasoline for a car. Could you make gasoline for a car? Given an economic crash, you wouldn't be able to buy much gasoline. People wouldn't want money. They would want something you had. You have skills that people need, you've got gasoline. You don't, you can go to the oil fields and refine your own petrolium. And how much gasoline do you envision? If the government upped taxes so much, companies wouldn't be making much gasoline. You'd require people with oil machinery, people who could use it, refiners, transporters, and all the other people they'd want to bring in. That would get the government's attention. Even without a government (if possible), you would need a lot of stuff to get all these people working. Could you? And if you could, could others?
This justifiable reason for dreading an economic crash makes de job of demystifying the fiscal cliff even more critical. An economic slump is quite possible. An economic crash is not. It is quite probable that our economy will take a slide in the near future, but we won't be starting an anarchical drop. You won't need to refine your own petrolium. You may find it harder to obtain, but we aren't crashing down just yet.
I can not make the gas, no, but I'd not require a car either.
I understand about economics, but in the posters position what can she do about it except take personal percutions?
Yes, we must live for today, make some previsions for tomorrow, and that is all we can do.
If she were a bank, or something, then she must worry because economy is her business.
I have many skills that can be used when money is low, like growing my own food, building and fixing my shelter, cutting my own hair.
I'm fit, so walking, not using an auto is no problem for me at all.
Ok, I take your points. I'll be watching this thread to see where it goes, but when my boyfriend and I were discussing this last night, he basically said to me, "you're talking about an apocalypse, not a crisis." And he was right. He said that members of his church have been ranting about these very issues for years, and I should pay no mind. I'm not sure paying no mind is the answer, but living in the moment is. I'm someone who naturally does think about every action and its possible consequence, so my mind is constantly at work thinking of every situation that could come about and every possible way we could all respond to it. But I think my mind is a bit more at ease now. I'm observing all the possibilities from the sidelines, as opposed to them being an immediate threat.
One point I have to make about a blind person having marketable skills: If an employer has to have 2 people do 1 job, a totally blind person has trouble keeping the job or may not even be hired.
Thank you. My point is, if you have no power to fix it, what will worrying about it do?
Now, not being careful with your money, and how you live is not the way to live, but, if you do what you can for your personal self security, this is about all you can do.
Your boyfriend sounds like a smart man. He should make a good person to weather the storms with.
That's fine. I didn't expect you to need a car. However, no matter what, you will encounter problems. So you don't need gas. You say you can grow your own food. We'll assume that you are right and can do so only with the resources available to you. Many others, myself included, would probably have problems with it. You say you can build a shelter. Once again, we will assume you can do so to overcome whatever problems you might have, including cold, rain/snow, flooding, earthquakes, whatever. You seem to have a remarkable set of skills, and should have no problem in such a case that the world ends. Now that the U.S. government has passed a truly horrid set of laws that increases taxes and doesn't cut spending much, I believe that this is no longer a consideration.
We are not talking the world ending, we are talking money getting, or being low.
If the world ends I'll not be worried.
Let me tell you a short story.
Once apon a time people relied on nature for the day to day life. Food was grown, and can be now in a small patch. You hunted your meat, I can't hunt, but I can trap, and I have sighted family and friends that can hunt. People used what nature provided to travel, large animals, and the foot.
Of course things will change, but you can, and people do, live with little money.
Right now on indian reservations, and in some places right here in America, people still live off small farms. Wind makes the small amount of electric they use, the rest is made with fire.
It is possible my friend, and some people actually live this way by choice, not because they must.
I personally don't think my skills are remarkable at all. My skills were taught to me as a child, because we grew food all the time in our yard in the summer months. My dad tought me to fix and repair most anything, and I've fished and such things.
My uncle owned a ranch, and they pumped the water from a wail and so did his neighbors.
To build a house, they cut some trees with a hand saw, or some people had small trailers, or got lumber from the mill.
The only thing I regret know knowing how to do is sow, and I suppose if I've got nothing else but time, I'll learn this skill too.
No, my clothing won't be professional, but it will keep me dry, warm, and covered.
I'm not a doctor, nor, can I do chimistry, and I'm not sighted, so I am truly lacking in what I can do. But I can survive, and that is all we do anyway. We just do it easier, and some of us are rich, so enjoy luxury items.
Read up on the depression, and remember, we are in a recession right now, and in may places, as I've pointed out the economy has crashed. In other places greed keeps the people poor, so we are blessed her in America this is not the case.
So, who else has swallowed the dog and taken on this payroll tax increase? It'll be to the tune of $76 a month for me, and since I'm the only income in the house that amounts to a lot of groceries, maybe the cable bill (almost), or any number of other expenses. I'm not "one of the rich," not by a long shot. The real travesty is not that things will terminate, although some may fantasize about such, but that the rest of us will have to carry more and more load with less and less.
I don't know the exact figure for our household but if it's near yours, which I suspect it might be it'll definitely cut into something.
Also, I'm listening to all the ridiculous shit that was in this bill, which the senate apparently had about 3 minutes to read before passing.
Let's see, tax breaks for NASCAR, and Holliwood, to name a couple. Yeah, way to help the middle class. hmph
I wonder when we should consider filing our income tax return. Usually we file early because we get a refund but it sounds like there will be so many changes that it'll take people a whie to figure out what's what.
No the tax increase I mentioned comes straight out of your Payroll taxes, you never file for those and you don't get any child credit for those.
It is an increase back to where it was before the stimulus deal that so many complained about from Obama, and yet I fail to see how we are well enough off to pay for this shit. Like you, I'm eternally frustrated by tax breaks for Hollywood and NASCAR among other things. And, for those of us that work, remember that during this recession, a cost of living increase for the entitled is a huge cost of death decrease for the working stiffs.
I forget what the dollar amount is but the numbers I used to see in the mid 90s was for $6,000 a year in entitlements we pay out $20,000. I haven't a source on this, and hopefully someone does.
Hi all,
As you all know, we are still dealing with the sequester the linering affect of the fiscal cliff negotiations. The tax margains have increased on persons making more than $400000 and couples making $450000 per year with no agreement on riding ourselves of deductions or loopholes for them. The Library of Congress's research arm came out with a study review from 1948-2012 that indicates that the rate increase in progressive taxation on the wealthy has a limited negative affect that doesn't affect unemployment that much at all. On the other hand, if you increase taxes on the middle class persons making $30k+ to $100k that it does have a massive cut. A last note is that Corporations have over one trillion in profit and aren't spending thier hordes in wealth on creating any jobs or anything like Apple's ridiculous 137 billion sum.
Secondly, there is no single economic modle even neoliberal economics or marxist economics that has been proven to work in not only one country but in any country for a significant period of time. For example, marxism didn't continue in Soviet Union, however, the White Knight Experiment failure of the WB lowered GDP not increased it with their reforms. This is also true with the Japanese Miracle like several Asian Tigers like Sigapore in 1997 that all came tumbling down like laissez-faire economics combined with state interventionist policies on the gulf oil spill to the housing bubble. The lesson should be that we should discern more thoroughly the lines between the state and business affairs cause as of now they are imbedded in each other like viruses infecting the host.
Lastly, I disagree with Shatter cause not all individuals on ssi have families to take care of them. For those that can that is great but folks like me have no families at all even my mom and sister are gone with a schizophrinic brother. I'd also point ou that Social Security taxes don't pay for ssi cause that is done threw the department of the Ttreasury just SS administrates SSI for them. The 2010 tax increase was meant to be temporary, yet politicians wish to rob the trust fund to shore up of harder decisions on mndatory spending of which 60% of the budget causes the real deficit even more than the bloated military. The end of the story is that whether people like it or not medicare and medicaid are being cut just slower and more secretively than we'd like to believe just nobody will let us know when or how much. BTW: its sad that politicians won't be more forward with the american people anymore.
right now, we're seeing consumer spending decrease, which combined with the astronomical costs of employers paying for Obama care is starting to lead to shorter work weeks and layoffs, with small business and retail being the most effected sectors.
Sadly, many of our jobs are retail or service industry based. Unlike in many past crunches, we don't have the factory/mass production work we once did to fall back on. Most of those jobs, along with customer service and programming have been outsourced. those are just a few examples.
thus, we've got fewer higher paying jobs, and more lower paying jobs in the pool.
I'll bet you can figure out where this is going...
Spending cuts are being made by the middle class. As a result, prices are going up, and up, and up, so places can rake in enough revenue to recover.
Our government however is not tightening up its belt, at all. We continue to increase spending. With our country over $16 trillion in the hole, and signed on to 660 trillion dollars worth of derivatives for that debt, I don't see a logical way we can fix the problem.
Particularly as we continue to bleed jobs to places in the world where people are willing to do them cheeper. Eventually all those holding our debt are going to want it payed back... How can we deliver?
some in our government are proposing that we just abolish the debt sealing all together. But, then who would lend money to us? Eventually people are going to realize that money just isn't getting payed back, and never will.
What this will mean for all of us as of now is simple.
LEss jobs, more taxes. Not as much take-home pay to inject back in to the economy.
Well said.
What would your suggestion be to solve the crisis? I don't know where you got the derivitive of 660 trillion but have heard of a 100 trillion unfunded entitlement system. Obamacare has slowed health-care costs just hasn't fully implemented health-care mandate or preventive medicine nearly enough. Fact is that private health-care has increased with expensive technology and absurd profit margains to bureaucrats in health-care insurance companies that contributes to the health-care gouge in our economy. Likewise, this is also similar to privatization of administrative costs medicare vs private health insurance that its plain to see which is more efficient in cost effectiveness in that regard.
Secondly, I agree with you Jogs are the main problem but disagree wih your perscription. Do you honestly think lowering taxes will boost the economy and for how long? The fact is that our infrastructure is ranked C- by Civil Engineers for years like my relative's friend is a civil engineer and can't find employment. Maybe put him to public-private market place to build bridges and roads and such instead of having to go to China? I'd second that research and development is top notch just need more in DARPA, NIH, STEM Cells, alternative energy, NASA, education fellowships and other things. The human genome project mapping paid back sixteen times investment than we put in under Clinton, so not all government agencies or missions are a waste or fraud at all. Much of what the government does havea vital role like national security with the military to the FDA to protect fellow americans of 'The Jungle' mentality of the turn of this past century again.
If you want to talk about the deficit amount that its being cut slowly just not nearly enough. Remember that we're in a middle of a war, so wind down time is needed and to avoid shocks to our economy that cuts must be sequential not all at one time. Much jobs are at stake with private contracters on these government functions too! Believe it or not the government does create necessary jobs that are crucial for international aid and economic development and our mission in the global economy. Even Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations must be read with Moral Sentiment along side to realize that Mr Smith believed in a regulated market place especially Corporations. I can write on this all day just think there are reasons why these programs were created just what your seeing is an imbalance in health care to military expendetures mainly that and historically low revenue. Not all taxes or progressive elements of taxation deters economic activity cause that goes against the grain of salt in economics itself called utility.