Poverty is near 1960s levels again
No worries, Obama is on top of it.
"The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, "If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39123485/ns/us_news
The virtuous cycle??? :violin:
It seems the wars haven't worked out so well. The "War on Drugs" comes to mind.
Yes, there is going to be another war, but it isn't going to be a war on poverty. We don't have ANY poverty in the United States - not one poor person! Our "poor" people sit in their Section 8 rental watching Judge Judy reruns on their big screen tv while eating potato chips purchased with their SNAP card (food stamps) and occassionally chatting on their taxpayer-paid cellphone! THAT IS NOT POOR!
According to the UN, a person is in poverty when they're living on less that $1.25 per day, not when they're eating more than $1.25 worth of potato chips per day like our "poor" people do!
Although I don't agree with his policies I respect the guy. I think he is genuinely doing what he thinks will help. He hasn't ever run a business in the real world so he clearly doesn't understand how it works.
The trouble is that "the rich" EMPLOY the very people he is trying to help. The evil people that raise money and put together small businesses create jobs too.
More constraints to capital formation and more taxes are the worst things that can possibly happen right now with banks not lending money!
I am not sure what virtuous cycle he is pointing to. The last time I checked U6 unemployment was 22%. I guess that attacking the people that have the money and employ the people that don't have it hasn't exactly been virtuous. Perhaps we can aim for the first iterative cycle and worry about the subsequent ones later.
Not too long ago it occurred to me that I hadn't done enough for my children. They were raised with the work ethic (Get a job! Work hard!) but I didn't give them the tools to financial freedom. When my oldest gets her engineering degree in a couple years she'll still be on the job-mortgage-death treadmill providing there are any jobs to be had then.
So, my goal is to teach them a business so they live without debt and not be at the mercy of CEOs and stockholders with an eye on the bottom line.
I was looking at the trustee sale list and on the chopping block is a woman with a disabled vet exemption. Soon she'll be another statistic in a cycle that clearly is not so virtuous.
Teaching them to run a business is a great start toward freeing them from the cycle you speak about. Be careful that you don't spoil them of the work ethic necessary to build the capital base to make the business successful though. It is good to have a long-term goal of building a business, but it needs to be executed with care so that they don't become a statistic in that arena too...one of the businesses that fails because it is under capitalized. This is especially important in the repression right now.
A business degree post engineering school may be a good investment prior to starting a business. Much of what is learned is a waste of time, but there are some core subjects worth studying prior to putting real money in play.
Your intentions are good but your kids may benefit from having a different teacher. One who understands that shareholders are the owners of a corporation and the reason the business exists is for the bottom line. Why else would anyone start a business?
Touche Tim.
Or in my case I don't hire them to begin with.
If I had the capacity to fire him I would. What I was trying to say is that I respect him for trying to do what he thinks is right...misguided as it is. I think he means well and I also think he inherited a mess. He certainly hasn't helped much to clean up the mess.
The VAST majority of all Presidents and all congressman have never run a business and there is no indication that those who did were any better at running the country. Can you even name a President who ran a business? George W ran the Rangers and look how well that worked out for us. That is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
It is a vastly different skill set. And the incentives for success are much different.
It is worthwhile as a Mayor as that is more similar.
I agree that running a business can make it very frustrating to be president later. In a business, you can fire people who do not listen to you. As president, things can become media scandals even if you have the authority to fire someone. And then there is the issue of dealing with Congress, the judiciary, the press, the public, etc.
But I do think that the president (and all politicians and voters) should have an understanding of what makes the economy tick. Money does not grow on trees so that it can be wasted by the government.
"Or in my case I don't hire them to begin with."
There is always that, but unfortunately a majority of the nation understood executive leadership just about as well as the commander in chief does. Then again, I equally blame the GOP for putting McCain out there as the alternative. Were this a baseball game, there would be an investigation to see if gamblers had paid off the losing team to throw this game.
"If I had the capacity to fire him I would."
Little over a month and he won't be fired, but he'll have his biggest expense account removed.
"What I was trying to say is that I respect him for trying to do what he thinks is right...misguided as it is."
Suicide bombers are doing what they think is right. You have to think about things like this as an investor. You need to be ready to fire nice people and hire good people. My accountant's a douche....but he's good. Bush was the Crown Prince of Malaprops, but he broke records for gross federal revenue and months of unbroken job growth. Clinton was a philandering dirt bag, but he knew how to balance a budget (well almost, if you ignore social secuirty) and knew how to milk the dot com boom for all it was worth. Also, Clinton knew how to not so much play dumb as play "normal" and let experts take over.
What sucks about this is Obama has raw salemanship talent that rivals Clinton but he has this near sociopath need to be the smartest guy in the room at all times....and he's not. If he just got smart guys (and gals) with actual experience to tell him what to say, then went out and said it, he could sell it like water to a dying man. Instead he is convinced he already knows the answer, just because he does, and will find people that agree with him and call him smart.
"I think he means well and I also think he inherited a mess. He certainly hasn't helped much to clean up the mess."
That "inherited" argument has less and less steam as time goes by - especially with people who understand that it's really Congress that has a greater impact on the economy. Don't worry though. When a conservative congress gets elected, they'll get it put back together just in time for Obama to take credit for it. :roll:
Tim,
Who do you believe will make up this new conservative congress? What are some of the ideas that you've heard to make you so confident?
There are some Repub views that I like but overall I am truly disgusted with the party.
I for one don't see this approach as the best way of solving issues. Way to easy to manipulate public opinion in times of crisis for good or bad. In the mean time many are hurt so that a political party can look good.
The underlying problem with our political system is Gerrymandering. Too many states allow politicians to determine the boundaries of their districts. The result has been that politicians from both parties draw strange boundaries designed only to get them re-elected by reducing the number of voters of the opposing party in their districts.
The consequence of Gerrymandering has been that a politician only needs to pander to his own primary in order to win. Since primaries are typically attended by people in the extreme wings of their own parties (aka stupid people), we have politicians who have to promise to do dumb things in order to get elected.
The net result is that we have a lousy government. That's not going to change without the underlying cause, Gerrymandering, being eliminated.
You simply have no basis for saying that. It is a guess. Because so few Presidents ever have run a business, we don't know if really would be better if they had. As a matter of fact, Bush is the biggest reason we are in this mess and he did have business experience. So that goes against your argument.
Of course, no one thinks the situation today is ideal but look at the results overall. Where have all these leaders with no business experience gotten us. Well over the past couple hundred years we went from nothing to the most powerful, most successful, richest country in the world. not bad. In fact, most would say we still are.
I think you misunderstood the phrase incentives for success. Not making the citizens successful.
I was trying to make the point that the incentives for a businesss owner and those of a politician are much different. A business owner can have a much narrower focus. He can make very "politically unpopular" choices in order to maximize profits in the short term. He doesn't have to be elected by the masses and he can enrich himself in a very short period of time. If those business decisions end up costing the business problems years down the line, who cares, he has made his money and may even be gone.
A politician doesn't have the same incentives. He cannot enrich himself (legally) by making certain decisions. He does have to worry about making unpopular political decisions. He does have checks and balances that CEO's don't. He does have to keep people safe.
And despite what all you guys claim. (You want the gov't out of your business and to let you keep your money). When the going gets tough, you cry for the gov'ts help and you complain it isn't doing enough. If the oil spill hits you, you want help. If unemployment hits you, you want help. If a flood hits your town, you want help. If your mortgage is underwater, you want help.
I don't see anybody turning down gov't assistance when your a$$ is in trouble. No one says "No that is ok, I'll handle it on my own". You want the govt out of your business only until you need personally help.
And quit exaggerating the confiscating of your income. Income rates are historically low and you know it. People did just fine in the 90's with these tax rates and they will do fine now with them. People act like a few extra percent is a big deal.
Anyone is free to give up their citizenship and go somewhere else if you think you can no longer be successful in the US because your marginal rate goes up 3%.
Ask your dad and your grandpa what the top tax rates were when they were your age. Did that stop them or this country from being successful?
My taxes are too high is the worst crybaby bs. The highest tax countries have produced the most wealth over time. Which 2 states produce the mist wealth and the most wealthy people in the US? The 2 highest tax ones do.
High tax rates have never stopped the people of this country from being successful. And yours are historically low so quit complaining.
Of course, a smarter and more experienced politician is probably better... and of course waste sucks. But let's not pretend that businesses big and small don't waste tons of money. Look at any large business and you'll be able to identify lots of examples of waste. To expect govt not to be wasteful too is unrealistic. Very successful and experienced business people make horrible business decisions all the time and run companies into the ground.
If anyone thinks they can do the job better than the people in charge you should run for office or go work for them. But they don't do they? Because it is a next to impossible job for not that much money. It is much easier to expect someone else to do it and then sit back and ***** about how they do it. Businesses are much easier to run than govt is.
Eric, IMO a president that has business experience is more likely to have learned fiscal responsibility and have developed some management skills. Obama is a great example of someone that has no management skills and clearly fiscally challenged.
Many business leaders are forced into situations where quick decisions are required. A business owner that took as long as Obama or some other presidents that I can name to make decisions would be eaten for lunch. As it is Obama is not taking very seriously on the world stage.
No basis? Are you freaking kidding me? Have you looked at the debt clock lately? Just because there is a lack of presidents that have run businesses PROFITABLY doesn’t mean that hiring one to do the job is a bad idea. Anyone that has run a profitable business will understand that you can’t spend money you don’t have when there isn’t a crisis to necessitate said spending.
Why are you associating my comments as pro Bush? I didn’t like Bush either. How can it be “against†my “argument� Who ever said anything about Bush? Bush inherited wealth. I am talking about hiring a REAL businessman that has built wealth and run businesses profitably on his own.
The most would include me as well. I am not saying that the world is coming to an end like many of the other Chicken Littles on BP. I AM saying that we can do MUCH better and that we will no longer be the richest and most powerful nation if we continue on the path of fiscal irresponsibility promulgated by those that think the gov-mint should solve everyone’s problems at all times. More on that below...
A politician doesn't have the same incentives. He cannot enrich himself (legally) by making certain decisions. He does have to worry about making unpopular political decisions. He does have checks and balances that CEO's don't. He does have to keep people safe.
I agree with this. This is the PROBLEM with the system as-is. Politicians have to pander to voters to get elected during the next cycle and those that make the most promises about distributing “rich†people’s money are the most popular. The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money to spend.
This is easily the most comical passage in your post and possibly on BP the last month. There are other strong competitors so perhaps we should have a runoff to see which wins.
How could you possibly know what “we guys†all claim? I haven’t cried about anything other than someone CONFISCATING my income to spread it around. The trouble with liberals is that they always think someone else can do a better job of spending my money than I can. I don’t want the government to help with anything in my name.
The simple fact that you lump me in with others shows how shallow your argument is. When have you ever seen me on here campaigning for more spending or more of anything except for border security, enforcing our laws, and protecting us from bad people via defense spending?
See above…I haven’t asked the government to help me with anything buddy.
Hah! Income taxes may be marginally lower than they have been, but inflation tax, tax on inflation tax, and hundreds of other miscellaneous taxes are still taking from the productive sector of society and giving it to a bloated organization in an attempt to engineer everyone’s life for them.
Yeap…and we are also allowed to exercise free speech, press, etc. and call out people that want the government to take from the productive sector of society and give what they take away to others. Those that are doing the taking are also free to move to bankrupt states like Kali and most of the northeast and pay 2-3X in taxes to make up for all of the social engineering they deem necessary to make things right.
I am not sure how successful my dad or grandpa were, but the government confiscating a larger share of their earnings sure didn’t help them any.
High tax rates have never stopped the people of this country from being successful. And yours are historically low so quit complaining.
Okay..fine…The old I’m rubber and you’re glue stance. I’m not saying that it will stop people from being successful either. I am glad you are good at rebutting points that I don’t make.
Can you provide us with some data to show that the highest taxed countries are the wealthiest? Something that maps ALL (not just income) taxes levied in those countries to GDP per capita. I am sure we would all enjoy this data.
The government would be EXTRORDINARILY easy to run if we eliminated about 90% of it. The reason for the complexity is because it takes in too much income and tries to do too many things for too many people…very few of which it does well.
And yeah…I will continue to ***** about things as long as there are people like you that think that much of my income should be distributed to someone else and that the status quo is good enough.
Some of the wealthiest countries in the world have a very high amount of oil / gas per capita. They will be wealthy regardless of their tax rates.
There are some other wealthy countries in Northern Europe with high taxes. They generally score much better than us at education.
By many measures, among the large diversified economies of the world, we are the wealthiest after considering prices. (GDP per capital at PPP.)
I am not sure if any of this matters because we are trying to see how we can become better. There is always room to improve even if we are already very wealthy. Reducing government waste is a good way to get started. Why is this not obvious?
Yes, there is going to be another war, but it isn't going to be a war on poverty. We don't have ANY poverty in the United States - not one poor person! Our "poor" people sit in their Section 8 rental watching Judge Judy reruns on their big screen tv while eating potato chips purchased with their SNAP card (food stamps) and occassionally chatting on their taxpayer-paid cellphone! THAT IS NOT POOR!
According to the UN, a person is in poverty when they're living on less that $1.25 per day, not when they're eating more than $1.25 worth of potato chips per day like our "poor" people do!
Mike, so funny. I did a showing today to a section 8 prospect who wanted to make sure the closet was big enough for her shoe collection, she had 2 cell phones, a car, an expensive hair weave, fancy clothers and told me the 1200 sq ft home was not big enough for her and her daughter. Yeah I know what you mean.
The people begging at freeway off ramps make more than $1.25 a day!
Just read a story about the pres and Queen Michelle's trip to Maine. Apparently there wasn't enough room on the plane for Bo The Dog and Bo's handler (102K salary) so they had to fly separately on their own jet.
Couldn't the dog and dogsitter have stayed home and saved the taxpayers a few bucks? It's this kind of spending (and Michelle's trips) that get the peasants riled up.
As for politicians getting themselves elected, Meg Whitman just broke the record, spending 119 million of her "own money" proving that she's not bought off by special interest groups. Swamp land anyone?