"Financial Cliff": What is Your Answer?

[townhalleditor]

Following American politics and culturalism has always been a joy to follow. I do not pretend to be an expert in the field, but certainly we can all agree that we are influenced and subject to its chaotic fray.

We are fast approaching the "Financial Cliff" where serious discussion and bold action must be taken by both parties to avert throwing the US Economy back into the toilet.

If you were going to pour new footings for the future of the US and it's economy, how would you work it to see that the rights of all are protected and the opportunity to succeed promised.

For me, the most perfect template for opportunities to succeed is, ironically, the wealthy. There are two things a child being born into the wealthy class are guaranteed: They are guaranteed access to good healthcare and they are granted access to a good education. These two things alone, springboard children of wealthy parents towards success. Though access to healthcare and access to education to not guaratee success, the two elements certainly provide the opportunity for success, which is what should be promised to all American citizens.

Napoleon Bonaparte had it right when he created the University sytem in France because he understood that education can be a great equalizer when younth born into poverty wish to become greater than the lot they were dealt with at birth.

If American embraced the track that everyone, regardless of background, woudl receive a post high school education, or a the very least, skilled job training, would we find ourselves with Americans being exploited by profit driven entities such as Wal-Mart, McDonalds etc? The Big Mac may cost more, but that is a postiive side effect given the status of obesity in this nation which is cause for a different thread on the topc.

If people were guaranteed access to healthcare, they could have their ailments properly treated so they could continue to compete in the job market, instead of being disabled and going on public assistance because they didn't have proper access to heatlhcare to keep them competitive, not to mention, that banks and other corporate raiders benefit from middle classs workers who fall ill and lose their homes and other financial instruments, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

In short, there are two great equalizers that should be promised to all and that is universal healthcare and universal education. These two elements, these two promises would keep big business in check , provide greater indeph public discussion of the future of this nation, would keep an economy growing and thriving, would limit the need for credit (which is a big "No-No" for an economy that wishes to continue to grow), and woudl unite this country behind one theme and one goal: all are promised opportunity.

For those who may yell that this is socialism, that is an open debate, so can it and tell me how else you would promise access to the opportunity for success in this nation if you were born into poverty or are an immigrant to this nation.

[TW]

Interesting argument. I'd point out that just being born rich doesn't mean success. It just means you'll always have money, as long as there's enough. That's one of the reasons that some wealthy people don't want to part with a nickel of what they have. Their offspring isn't any better than the deadbeat. Just a deadbeat who has money to spend.

I agree that education can be an equalizer. Yet, as I look around at people, I realize that not everyone has the ability to go on to college. In other words, we tend to want to believe that everyone should have a college education, but if that happens, who does the other tasks necessary for a civilization to flourish? How do you help the student that just can't grasp it in the educational field, but has the ability to do other things, like repair cars, and other tasks?

We need to start by evaluation of "what we consider education." It's not as clear cut as it was back in Napoleon's day. In that era, there were fewer things for people to aspire to. But there sure were a lot of tasks where limited education was a help, that's for sure.

Somebody told me that cash registers in stores show the change coming to people from the cash they pay, so they know they're getting the right change. I kind of laughed, and told him that the real reason they added that to the programming was because the clerks didn't know how to make change, and it took them forever writing the information down, and counting the change. The store owners could have cared less for the customers, it was them that was losing money by people getting "too much change."

Think about that for a moment. The real reason cash registers show the change due. Yet, because they didn't want to admit they couldn't hire people educated enough to properly make change, store owners put the reasoning off on the customers.

Of course the person I was talking to said; "You're wrong! It's because people complained that they didn't get enough change back! How many complained that they got too much?"

I laughed. "Yeah! People will really complain when you hand them free money! How many are that dumb?"

The fact is, at the end of the day, tills were constantly coming up short because of the problem. That was the obvious fact. People were catching the mistakes against them, and getting the right change. But, they didn't see that, all they saw was the industry saying they were doing it for the good of the people, so they didn't get short changed. People bought it. Why? They said it was for them.

Facts are facts. Over half the working force in the US needs nothing more than a generally broad education, and an understanding of math that allows them to maintain their own finances. The problem is, about half the "educated people" can't even do that, because they're "book smart," and reality ignorant.

I had a cousin. Good rest is soul, he died less than three years ago. He was brilliant. He was a computer genius. He taught for a while at Northwestern University, but found being a professor boring. He worked with a guy named Cray in developing the super computer concepts. He went to work with IBM, and was totally in control of the entire Standard Oil account. He told them what they needed, where they needed it, and they wrote out checks to cover the cost. He never had one person disagree with him.

How good was he? IBM gave him an office in their high-rise in Chicago, and paid all the utilities, where he and secretary worked. He was so important to them that when he decided to leave IBM, the stock actually fell, because he was that important.

Guess what? This genius. This man who who was so brilliant. He couldn't balance a check book, and had to hire an accountant to actually give him an allowance from his wages, in cash, because he'd max out credit cards, and make overdrafts, and fail to pay bills.

In reality, he was a dead beat. He didn't pay bills, and that's what they call you when you don't. Imagine this. At one time, he had over $500,000 in payroll checks sitting in his office desk, and he was threatened with arrest over a $15.00 check he wrote, and didn't have enough money in the bank to cover it!

My point? Education doesn't necessarily equate to common sense, nor does it create success. Like stated in the original post, it does help though, in some cases.

Society is what gives people direction. If you're raised in a society of wealth, and education, your chances of succeeding are better, even if you go through school failing. It's the peers you have that create opportunities more than anything else.

That's what we need to do. We need to engineer society upwards. That means integration of all the minority societies and white society into one, and help each other reach higher goals, and treat those who choose a route of lesser goals than being President of a chain of banks, with respect, and dignity. We need to get rid of these social structures that pretty much doom someone from the start.

So, we start by giving people back their dignity, and part of dignity is being able to be healthy, so they can move forward.

Obamacare is kind of like the cash register. People are trying to convince people it's for deadbeats. The fact is, the people in health care making the big bucks, and the insurance companies, want us to believe differently than what it is. They're the ones that have the problem, and it's called greed.

[happypacker]

I have said this for years and TW you have written here so very much in what is have seen.
Lets also look at it this way, not everyone can be the rich person, somebody needs to do the hard work and also buy what they make or sell. they are the MAJORITY and the 1% rich can never make up for the working majority and there money. they need us, and it is to the betterment of the whole that the working majority can payn they every day bills , like mortage, food, and utility bills. that is a must for all to survive. but the GREED comes in and the dumb filthy rich want to destroy that and make them richer, and the middle poor.
It is a little like the thought of when the Germans wanted to remove all but the elite. the blond and blue eyed. as each group got destroyed the others felt i will do nothing, it does not affect me, until they come for you. then it is to late.

[nick20]

the fiscal cliff is not a cliff at all. going back to clinton rates on everything is really not a big deal. the tax foundation has all the years dating back to 1913 on thier website so you can look at what the raters were in say 1925 and see what they were adjusted for inflation. in order to hit the top rate of 91% in Eisenhowers time, you had to be a millionaire, anmd there were years where there were dozens of tax bracketss, every extra 2000, brought yoiu into a new tax bracket. frankly i dont see it going back to clintion era rates as a big deal, in fact they should have expired as scheduled in 2010. right now, the top tax rate will be 39.6, the estate taxes will cover more families on the margins, and divends will be treated as income for the richest people, so 39.6 plus i think 3.8 to cover the ACA law.in reality, taxes are lower now, effectively, then they have been so before the great Deptression. Normally federal taxes are between 18-21, and the state takes 12 on average, so a combined 30-33 percent. right now its 15 and 9 respectives or 24 percent. so the states and feds are getting 6-9% less than normal. The Ss reform in 1983 was designed to tax 90% of wages, currently, the cap of 113700 covers 83%. bringing it up to 90% would requirte 7% increase or an addition 8000. so the cap would come in at 121700. i do not believe the caop should be eklliminated but rather pegged to inflation, so as it goes up, so does the cap. we also need to creates jobs for people ages 50+ who still have productive years left, but who are more expensive to hire. bringing back some of the New Deal work programs would help. Goodness knows our infrastructure neeeds the attention.

[townhalleditor]

I think we need to broaden how we define, "education."

I don't think it necessarily requires a student to be sitting in a chair listening to an instructor and then later being tested on how well the student regurgitates what was said aloud.

[TW]

Education does need to be revamped. I totally agree.

Think of this. I have a son in the Army. He's serving in Afghanistan. He's a Combat Medic.

He's posted on a COP (pronounce it just like the police officer's job), and he's so good at his work that they don't even have a Physicians Assistant (PA), or Physician at his post, despite the fact it's one of the two most active points of engagement against the Taliban in all of Afghanistan. He has four Combat Medics working under his command.

During the course of a day's work, saving lives of our soldiers, those of other nations who are our friends, and even the enemy who is wounded, he actually performs actions that saves lives. In fact, he has such a high rating of success, and ability, that they're giving him a second field promotion in less than six months.

In addition to that, he's already earned so many honors that when he gets home, he'll have three complete rows of boards on his chest, from one deployment.

Now, over the last few months of his deployment, he's also going around to develop aid stations at COPs that will be turned over to the ANA (Afghan National Army), when the US leaves, and he's teaching Afghans how to man them, and care for their own people.

It's a dangerous job, and it's one that not too many people would do.

Education. He has a college degree. Majors in Political Science, and European Marketing. He also has a major in Spanish.

If he applied for a job as an EMT here in the US, after he got out of the Army, he'd have to start from scratch, and learn all over again. There is absolutely no credentials that carry over to civilian life.

Adding to the problem, they need to "dumb him down" and they fear doing that, because men like him do what's necessary to save lives, not work within such tight boundaries that make them unacceptable for the job.

In other words, even if he wants to be a nurse, he has to start from square one, as if he was just coming out of high school, and the closest thing to knowing anything he had would be to popping a zit on his own face.

Soldiers keep hearing how their training in the military carries over. What a crock. What we have is a superiority complex in some areas, and the medical field is one of them. They are so self endowed with their own importance that they quite honestly don't give a rip as to what a person can do, as much as they do, as to spending years kissing butt, and making the same medical mistakes that their teachers did, because that's the way they are taught.

But it goes beyond all this. It goes to manual arts, and other areas of endeavor. We need to teach some kids how to be machinists, some to repair and develop computer systems, carpentry, auto mechanics, and just about everything that we have that exists in our world of need. If we do that, within our schools, it would take the burden off higher education, and actually create people capable of supporting themselves through an occupation.

They say that's what they want to do in Texas, but it's a crock. If they really did, why aren't they replacing the courses in history, and science, that they are eliminating, with those that teach skills?

It's all talk. Until people push politicians in the right direction, it's never going to happen.

As far as taxes, and this cliff we are on, it's words, nothing more. It's a threat that if we don't knuckle under to special interests groups, we're going to be sorry.

Screw it! If they can't iron out a fair plan, we should probably go over that cliff, but remember these two things.

1. You are not paying for my Social Security. I paid into it, and have earned the right to it.

2. Don't mess with my Medicare. I paid into it for years in advance, to earn the right to have it, and pay just as damned much for medical care as anyone else who thinks they're supporting me, for that care. You just want to believe you're helping me, but you're not. You're protecting your own future, so if you want to piss it away, go ahead, just don't think you can do that to me.

[packerconvert]

Notice how liberals do not advocate any spending cuts.

This is a financial cliff, not for the rich and not for the poor, but for the middle class; the engine of the economy. If no agreements are reached which could be a very real possibility given the lack of moderates in Congress, you will see taxarmegeddon.

Revenues need to be increased. I have advocated tax increases along the way. I would be open to a national sales tax. But there needs to be spending cuts, so at the very least, we aren't borrowing money to keep the budget rolling.

Apparently, its only the conservatives on this board that support a balanced approach of raising taxes and initiating spending cuts. All the liberals want to do is tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend and tax a little more.

[TW]

I agree with spending cuts inasmuch as I'd say don't increase budgets, and reduce staff in government jobs through not replacing people who quit, are fired, or retire. Wholesale changes, and elimination of programs that work to satisfy the need for another Cadillac for a Republican is downright stupid.

Along with that, a handle needs to be put on Medicare and Medicaid spending, more computer inclusion to insure there is left theft in the system, caps on charges, and revamp what is, and isn't acceptable under the programs.

As an example, something that's rampant, is people on Medicaid turning emergency rooms into their own personal clinics, because they won't go to a clinic. They figure they have this right, and take it. We need to adjust this, because it's one of the major draws against the program, and it's one of the biggest problems ERs face, because of the lower payments for Medicaid services.

We need to regulate insurance better, and make it not only possible, but required, for all people to be insured, so they can get medical treatment without it being on aid, or being unpaid to hospitals, physicians, and clinics. That's the excuse the industry uses to jack up prices.

We need to streamline government agencies, and in some cases, eliminate programs that are redundant. As an example, we need to quit subsidizing farmers to "not farm" on their land, and paying them twice as much as it costs for them to rent comparable land, and raise the same amount of crops. These people, by the way, are by and large Republicans, even though they screw the government worse on an individual basis than anyone on welfare and Medicaid.

We need for people to realize that if they want services, they need to pay taxes for them. We also need to realize that schools are a necessary part of society, because we need to train people to be capable of supporting themselves.

But "cut government" is such a convenient little BS comment for right wingers to make. It isn't intended to do anything constructive. It's stated as a knock against minorities and the poor, as if they're sucking up the average Republican's income. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That Christian couple down the street with six kids, who votes straight Republican tickets, is a welfare recipient. You think not? It costs $6k or more for each year of school for a kid. Do they pay a school tax of $30k to support their kids in school? Of course not. Yet, they think they're elitists SOBs, above reproach.

Get it straight. They're leeches on society. So is everyone who goes out on the highway and drives down a road that was paved due to government subsidy.

Nah! Right wingers don't get it, never will. Cut the budget. Not one damned statement ever made as to "how they are going to save money."

It's obvious that Romney was their leader. He was going to get rid of Big Bird. What a stupid statement. Roughly 6% of what's spent on NPR is government money, and think of the vast number of people who are helped by NPR, and work within public radio and television, who would be without jobs.

Romeny = total right wing ignorance.

There's a reason that no standing Democrats in the House or Senate, lost their jobs, but Republicans did. Why can't you guys get the message.

[packerconvert]

You need to look at things from a different perspective other than through Obamagoggles.

Yes, there are Republicans who send their kids to school at 6k a year per child, but those Republicans are backed by their wealthier counter parts so it becomes a zero-zero sum.

Now on the other hand, for the most part, there are more rich Republicans than rich Democrats. So, when it comes time to pay taxes for education, not only are the Republicans paying to offset the cost that their poorer brethren cost society, but they also have to pay for the poor Democrats too because there are not enough rich Democrats to pay for their poor brethren and that is why you are seeing Democrats wanting the rich Republicans to pay more because Democrats can't pay the bills that they are running up on their poorer counterparts.

It really is not fair to the Democratic poor, nor the Republican rich to be influenced by a group of wealthier Democrats who can't pay for their own bills and have to borrow from Republicans to make everything socially and economically "just."

[TW]

Bull! You're trying to make us believe that the $60k income family is just like the Romney clan. What a crock.

There's no "offset." It's everyone paying for themselves, if you listen to the right.

As for today's shortfall in taxes, that was already cut in stone with advance purchases from as far back as 10 years ago, not something "new" that came up when Obama took office. Righties conveniently forget this fact. It's not prudent for them to tell, or think about, the truth.

It's like buying a home. You incur the debt on day one, but you keep paying for it month after month, until the cost goes away. If interest rates go up, and you aren't protected against it, and taxes go up, you end up making bigger payments. Yet, you don't see that in government spending? Unbelievable!

Not once have right wingers specifically stated anything they were going to effectively do, or how it would impact the people, or our way of life. Just BS like listening to Ross Perot saying; "If it's broke, we'll fix it!"

Perot, by the way, was just like Romney. A corporate raider, and a fool. And those that voted for either one were bigger fools, because they were following a clown as a hero.

[packerconvert]

Nov 25, 2012 13:57:30 GMT -5 TW said:

Bull! You're trying to make us believe that the $60k income family is just like the Romney clan. What a crock.

Obama's favorite food is Shrimp while Romney's is meatloaf. Nuff said about who is more like the middle class.

[TW]

We always aspire to eat that which we find hard to get. If you eat a lot of shrimp, because you don't need to worry about cost, the meatloaf would be an obvious delicacy because it's something you rarely are allowed to eat.

I guess Obama's desire for shrimp is a lot like my wife and I have. It's a delicacy to us, whereas meatloaf has been a constant over our lifetime, because it's what middle and lower class people eat, because they normally can't afford shrimp.

Bad one for you to bring up my friend. It points at the differences between "social classes."

And by the way. I like meatloaf, but would prefer shrimp.

[packerconvert]

Nov 25, 2012 17:11:59 GMT -5 TW said:

We always aspire to eat that which we find hard to get. If you eat a lot of shrimp, because you don't need to worry about cost, the meatloaf would be an obvious delicacy because it's something you rarely are allowed to eat.

I guess Obama's desire for shrimp is a lot like my wife and I have. It's a delicacy to us, whereas meatloaf has been a constant over our lifetime, because it's what middle and lower class people eat, because they normally can't afford shrimp.

Bad one for you to bring up my friend. It points at the differences between "social classes."

And by the way. I like meatloaf, but would prefer shrimp.

I would prefer meatloaf over shrimp any day; not because shrimp is so abundant in my life, I just think its gross.

[TW]

I was taught, as a child, that when you have food on the table, you should be thankful. In the process, I learned to love just about all kinds of food, except liver.

One of the things we ate a lot of was fish, and wild game. When you eat a lot of fish, in various ways, you learn to love sea food.

As for the liver, I have an allergic reaction to it, so can't eat it. It's similar to what happens with a shell fish allergy.

If you look at Obama's early years, living in Hawaii, where fish is more plentiful than beef, pork, and fowl, you can see his reasoning for acquiring a taste for shrimp. At one time, it was cheaper there than beef or pork, and still may well be.

[nick20]

i myself love shrimp and fish, it is likely as a result of growing up in port washington where fish and seafood are abundant. tw is right, it is something i will always eat. at resteraunts at home, whatever it is,salmon tilpia breaded or fried,if it is fish i'll eat it. i think it has a lot to do with upbringing and economic status. my folks could afford fish, and there was not a question of going hungry. i am noit by any stretch wealthy yet i know i have more. the reason the middle class bears the majority of the bordens of society, is that the poor cannot do so, and the rioch will not, even though they have the resorces to do so. at what point incidently is enough enough. take the walton family for example, between the 5 of them they have about 100 billion dollars yet at walmart they pay thier workers crap, when for a few dollars more an hour they could have a far better benefits package.