Go to THE ECCLESIASTE
- Add a comment
- Go to THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO HELP SOCIAL SECURITY
writerofdarkness
there was a lot of conservative input in the 1880's and 1890's
and the 1920's too.
it was conservative input that brought about the Great Depression.
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 11, 2005 at 5:46 AM
| link to this | reply
painter, good to see you have so much conservative input!
posted by
WriterofLight
on April 10, 2005 at 8:56 PM
| link to this | reply
yes folks -- let's all head to the stock market
it looks very attractive doesn't it? --
there's not much to hold it up --
it needs all your (not my) money - then the rich folks will get richer off of your investments.
then when reality sets in, all the common people who thought it was such a great thing will suddenly discover they have nothing.
lots of programs were enacted under FDR to correct the excesses and problems that caused the Great Depression. Savings and Loan Regulation, bank regulation -- regs of S&L's were lifted and now we have no s & L's -- there's a push to deregulate banks -- EP mentions the SEC -- could be to cater to influential folks, our present lawmakers will disband many of those regs -- and then . . .
few people realize how fragile our economy is -- a sneeze in the right place and 1929 will look like a church picnic and the Great Depression will be eclipsed by a disaster of many times greater proportions.
then these damn conservatives will yearn for the good old days of the New Deal and the Great Society.
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 10, 2005 at 6:37 AM
| link to this | reply
who pays social security?
for every $1 employee pays
employer pays $1
then gov pays 2$ to match the total -- that's what I remember learning in high school.
looks like jethro didn't learn much in hs.
his argument has holes in it.
in essence, he says, like I've said before, that employees have a choice between low wages, not benefits and bad working conditions and being laid off because the employer cannot afford to provide workers with the same benefits that the employer has.
actually every time a conservatives talk i get more liberal -- more radical -- and this is an excellent of a conservative pushing me further to the left.
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 10, 2005 at 6:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Empty
You do not make a compelling argument. There were multiple factors in the depression. Many of which 'created' the SEC, the security exchanges commision act of 1934 - Still in effect today.
Yes it was tough, and its as tough now.
So I stand by my post. Handouts (thanks JanesOp..) should be a temporary situation, not a mainstay. The mainstay is known as communism. -
posted by
Entrepreneur_Maker
on April 9, 2005 at 10:16 AM
| link to this | reply
I rarely get a chance to check in on Blogit anymore as I am currently in China (painter you must be so jealous you can't share in the communist paradise. This year they let the people keep their heat on all the way until February 28th!!), however this post was so chock full of ignorance that I had to take a moment to opine.
-Businesses do not "match" the Social Security contributions of individuals in the sense that you imply. Businesses, at least those who stay in business, do not pay for anything themselves. When your ilk advocate for cumbersome regulations on businesses those costs are passed on to consumers. When the cost of employing somebody goes up in any way (Social Security taxes included) the likelihood of that person being employed there is lowered correspondingly. Hence the cost is passed on.
-You would also do well to investigate an economic phenomenon that goes by the name of "inflation".
- Now that you have ignored the clear, cutting logic of your critics under the guise of "you weren't there man, you can't talk about the Great Depression!" am I to gather that you are indeed one of its survivors?
posted by
jethro
on April 9, 2005 at 9:57 AM
| link to this | reply
both of you!!!!
I wish those people who lived through the Great Depression were here and you could speak with them.
They could tell you all about that "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" type of stuff.
When the deck is stacked against the average person, as it was then and as it is now -- when a good 80% of the population is a hair's breadth away from living on the streets -- don't you think the role of the government is to assure against starvation and other effects of poverty?
what you are advocating is "Laissez-faire" -- or government stays out of things. That was the policy until 1932, after this policy brought on the greatest financial crisis in history.
what you advocate may sound loftily principled, but at its root is something that can hurt the average citizen.
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 7, 2005 at 7:07 AM
| link to this | reply
E Maker has a very valid point --
we have become far too dependent on the govt for handouts. We cannot seem to fend for ourselves any more. I think EM has discovered, judging from his or her title, that people are empowered when they work for themselves, or at the very least, save for themselves and save for their future.
When you encourage someone to go out and earn their own money, they will value what they earn. When you go and give hand outs, people don't value those handouts as much (I speak in generalizations); rather, they expect more. . . and more. . . and more . . . never satisfied.
Govt handouts should be a temporary program, a safety net, to help folks in desperate times. And nothing more.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on April 6, 2005 at 4:53 PM
| link to this | reply
entrepreneur maker
a lot of people didn't depend on government before 1932
a lot of people lost all their savings.
because they depended on the banks and the stock market.
oh yes a lot of people started their own businesses back then
selling apples on the street corners.
if you weren't there you have no right to criticize the programs enacted to correct the gross injustice done to the American People at that time.
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 6, 2005 at 8:30 AM
| link to this | reply
heres the answer about SSecurity.
QUIT counting on the GOverment for your retirement. QUit worrying about 'someone' else providing your living.
Start a 401K, get a financial planner to advise you on how to retire at an age you want and with the amount of money you want.
Start your own business - build it up.
Quit your damn whining.
posted by
Entrepreneur_Maker
on April 6, 2005 at 5:42 AM
| link to this | reply
READ THE CONSERVTIVE COMMENTS HERE
YOU SEE THE ALTERNATIVES THEY OFFER?
Either low wage jobs with no benefits.
or no jobs at all.
hey!! that's what conseratives offered in the 1800's!!!
and the 1900 clear through 1929.
now what happened in 1929?
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 6, 2005 at 5:40 AM
| link to this | reply
If you continue to raise wages (i.e. increase the minimum) . . .
corporations will continue to bleed jobs to places like China, Mexico and India where people are thrilled to be making $200/month or so.
EHP, there's one thing you and I probably agree on and that is corporate greed. There's no need to send business out of country when said business are already operating well into the green. Greed has gotten out of hand, and in the end too many people are affected.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on April 5, 2005 at 7:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Most people in America are employed by small businesses
so how are the they supposed to find the extra money to pay people more wages plus find money for all the extra ss increases? Most likely they would lay people off. Then more people are in the unemployment line and you're blaming Bush for a loss of jobs and ss crisis.
Oh, that's right, liberals in Congress say there is no crisis and Bush is making it up for political gain. Well, if there is no crisis, then why raise wages to fix something that doesn't need fixing?
Sean Gray
posted by
itisdone
on April 5, 2005 at 3:13 AM
| link to this | reply
I've seen short-sightedness work the other way as well
The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific (the "Rock Island Line" of musical lore) went out of business largely because the unions struck for higher wages when the railroad was already going broke. Instead of getting raised, nearly all of the workers lost their jobs.
Too often, higher pay for the workers doesn't result in workers doing their part to increase revenues to pay for the higher wages.
And then there are the folks like me who aren't in unions, who work for non-profits or otherwise aren't in positions to bargain for or demand higher wages.
posted by
WriterofLight
on April 4, 2005 at 8:18 PM
| link to this | reply
who?
not that it won't be there
just not 100%
maybe 70%
or 80%
but not 100
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 4, 2005 at 3:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Since I contributed the max this year to SSI and know it won't be there when I want to withdrawl I would love to propose who I would cut off the dole.
posted by
the-loanlady
on April 4, 2005 at 2:12 PM
| link to this | reply