Are things really that bad?

[G27]

No argument from me, but you might consider if it were you borrowing a third of your budget each year

and not retiring any debt, how long do you think you would last? Macro thinking, maybe, but totally unsustainable,

regardless of one's economic bent.

Of course, my point isn't whether our path is unsustainable (obviously it is not), just that most of us talking about it have no idea where the point of no return is. Governments are very different from individuals or even corporations. We need to make changes, but again, many neo-fiscal conservatives (you know, the ones who never mentioned how much they hated Bush's spending, but now consider it an issue of national security) have virtually no understanding of where the line in the sand is.

I'll willfully admit that my few, very simple economics classes in college did not begin to prepare me to be able to understand the complexity of a system like ours. I thought for sure I had it figured out for a while only to realize how little I actually understand...

Edited September 11, 2012 by crimsonaudio

[Guest ThePunisher]

If the liberals could come up with some stupid name of trickle down economics during Reagan's presidency that they will never admit that actually worked, I'm curious as to what kind of name that we could apply to Obam's economic policies. Anyone want to come up with a name? Maybe something like Green Energy Economics where they get millions of dollors in government grants and loans, and then bankrupt a few months later.

Edited September 11, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, Obamanomics, for a starter?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Of course, my point isn't whether our path is unsustainable (obviously it is not), just that most of us talking about it

have no idea where the point of no return is. Governments are very different from individuals or even corporations.

We need to make changes, but again, many neo-fiscal conservatives (you know, the ones who never mentioned how

much they hated Bush's spending, but now consider it an issue of national security) have virtually no understanding

of where the line in the sand is.

I'll willfully admit that my few, very simple economics classes in college did not begin to prepare me to be able to understand the complexity of a system like ours. I thought for sure I had it figured out for a while only to realize how little I actually understand...

I understand what you're saying. I also know the more complicated economists make these things sound, the answer

usually still boils down to the simple basic principles. Fancy folks like Keynes may have come up with some great

innovative theories, but when his ideas were put into practice, those innovative theories eventually bankrupted us.

Our problem is not one of economics, but one of political manipulation of economics. Our government is destroying

what economy we have. The more the government grows, the less the economy can survive. Regulations add

bureacracy, bureacracy adds government employment, where it takes two or three private jobs to pay for the

government job. Add that to what's already in place in the government. How many people need to be working and

duplicated in every town? Look at the Post Office. They're finally beginning to realize their end game, as we speak.

If we get rid of a lot of regulations and redundant government employees all over this country, and allowed the economy

to be unleashed, we wouldn't need to tax the way we do. Government does everything it does very inefficiently.

What's that old joke about how many workers it takes to screw in a light bulb?

What did James Carville say? "It's the economy, stupid!" No, it's more like "It's the government, stupid!"

Shrink the damned thing and neuter it before it consumes us.

[quietguy]

I understand what you're saying. I also know the more complicated economists make these things sound, the answer

usually still boils down to the simple basic principles. Fancy folks like Keynes may have come up with some great

innovative theories, but when his ideas were put into practice, those innovative theories eventually bankrupted us.

Our problem is not one of economics, but one of political manipulation of economics. Our government is destroying

what economy we have. The more the government grows, the less the economy can survive. Regulations add

bureacracy, bureacracy adds government employment, where it takes two or three private jobs to pay for the

government job. Add that to what's already in place in the government. How many people need to be working and

duplicated in every town? Look at the Post Office. They're finally beginning to realize their end game, as we speak.

If we get rid of a lot of regulations and redundant government employees all over this country, and allowed the economy

to be unleashed, we wouldn't need to tax the way we do. Government does everything it does very inefficiently.

What's that old joke about how many workers it takes to screw in a light bulb?

What did James Carville say? "It's the economy, stupid!" No, it's more like "It's the government, stupid!"

Shrink the damned thing and neuter it before it consumes us.

I have to agree with you, about 95%. In a capitalist society, the government should be independent of the economy, and largely was prior to FDR and especially LBJ. A lot of our problems arise when the government decides that they need to be "x" percentage of GDP. Add in changes to GDP calculations, and the problem magnifies. Make the acceptable ratio of debt relative to GDP, and the situation becomes even worse.

When a company gets to the size of a small to medium size government, you introduce the same inefficiencies that plague government beauracracies. This is especially true when you introduce an element of union labor. to say that the private sector is more efficient isn't true anymore as a blanket statement. That is really one of the key issues in our economy in my humble opinion. Most of the publicly traded companies are no longer worth investing in, and most of us aren't in a position to participate private equity.

Here is where I disagree the most with your post, but I view the Post Office as an essential and Constitutionally established entity. Do I agree that postal carrier should make $85,000 a year, and receive the benefits they do, heck no. But they are one of the only Constitutionally created and/or authorized governmental departments, and they have been relegated to quasi-governmental agency status. To put the Postal Service at a lower standing than the DoE, DHHS, DoI, etc should be unconstitional.

Edited September 11, 2012 by quietguy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have to agree with you, about 95%. In a capitalist society, the government should be independent of the economy, and largely was prior to FDR and especially LBJ. A lot of our problems arise when the government decides that they need to be "x" percentage of GDP. Add in changes to GDP calculations, and the problem magnifies. Make the acceptable ratio of debt relative to GDP, and the situation becomes even worse.

When a company gets to the size of a small to medium size government, you introduce the same inefficiencies that plague government beauracracies. This is especially true when you introduce an element of union labor. to say that the private sector is more efficient isn't true anymore as a blanket statement. That is really one of the key issues in our economy in my humble opinion. Most of the publicly traded companies are no longer worth investing in, and most of us aren't in a position to participate private equity.

Here is where I disagree the most with your post, but I view the Post Office as an essential and Constitutionally established entity. Do I agree that postal carrier should make $85,000 a year, and receive the benefits they do, heck no. But they are one of the only Constitutionally created and/or authorized governmental departments, and they have been relegated to quasi-governmental agency status. To put the Postal Service at a lower standing than the DoE, DHHS, DoI, etc should be unconstitional.

It was too easy to use the Post Office as an example since they are finally admitting their problems, but you get the point.

A private company will always be more efficiently run as long as there is the requirement for a profit. The union thing is a deterrent to the company making a profit, and, yes, the union is a drag on efficiency, but the discussion of unions and their grip on companies is fodder for an additional thread. All I'll say about unions is that they serve only to exist and the one stuck in the middle is the employee. Disclaimer: I'm a member of one of the two oldest unions in the country. Be glad to explain if anyone is that bored.

Governments and companies have different reasons for their existence. Governments, like ours, is the US Constitution, and it has limitations which have been all but reduced to toilet paper for politicians to clean themselves and pass laws that restrict us, regulate and/or restrict groups, business and individuals to the point that we have the mess we are currently in. Businesses' reason for existence is to produce something that people want, make a profit, and pay a dividend to a shareholder or return a profit for an owner. In order to make a profit they have to be able to produce whatever good or service they provide at a price that will sustain their business and make a profit( make it worthwhile to be in the business).

One is a mandate, the other is required for the first to be able to function. Now, if you want your cake and eat it, too, you should look to a different form of government, like a monarchy, or some variety of communism or other banana republic dictatorship. But your cake might not taste too good. Might even be "cake or death".

The difference with a large company you might mention is that all the employees are being paid by the revenue generated by sales of whatever the company provides. Those people or other companies who buy goods from the company do so voluntarily. It's not the same deal with the government. It's mandatory playing and paying to the government. That's one of the main reasons our Founders placed so many restrictions on the size and scope of the US government. It's too bad we allowed a lot of politicians change that, all in the hope and dreams that the new and improved government would answer all our needs. Fantasy! It's also called tyranny. Long term creeping tyranny, just like our gun laws, and our prescription drug laws.

When that private company is regulated into submission by the EPA and the rest of the agencies, you get your internal bureaucracy, but the company still has to turn a profit, or let employees go, or cut some other expense.

Since we pay income taxes, and that's another sore subject worthy of it's own thread, how can it be worthwhile to place additional burden on a company that pays employees who pays taxes, by excessive regulation? That union thing alone, is well regulated and costs dearly, employee and employer plus the consumer. Then add layers of the same thing through federal, state and local versions of the same burdensome garbage. I think I will stop here because it will only raise my blood pressure.

Don't smack that company around too hard, like the Democrats did at their convention because someone has some pretty large bills to pay. It helps you pay for that all-consuming government you like.

Edited September 11, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I hope this doesn't rub some of you the wrong way, but I thought it was an interesting way to put into perspective

the OP's question of "Are things really that bad?".

Another fine American Thinker piece.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I hope this doesn't rub some of you the wrong way, but I thought it was an interesting way to put into perspective

the OP's question of "Are things really that bad?".

Another fine American Thinker piece.

Thanks, Great read.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

To the OP: Enjoy it while it lasts! Just some evidence of the decline you aren't seeing, yet.

[Caster]

I didn't say the economy is great or couldn't use improvement. Just said it's good compared to the right's gloom and doom predictions. Also not saying it's as good as the left claims either.

Seems all one hears now is four more years of O and we'll look like Mexico. Yeah, I'm not convinced.

Gonna take a long time to get from this

to this

PPpfffffttt!

There's multi million dollar homes in mexico too. YOur first image is nice, but all you have to do is go to the other side of town. Every country has nice homes. That proves nothing.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Caster

[Chucktshoes]

PPpfffffttt!

There's multi million dollar homes in mexico too. YOur first image is nice, but all you have to do is go to the other side of town. Every country has nice homes. That proves nothing.

Hey! I grew up in one of those.

Oh, wait, nvm.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hey! I grew up in one of those.

Oh, wait, nvm.

You'll survive then. Good thing, eh?

[strickj]

I did too.

PPpfffffttt!

There's multi million dollar homes in mexico too. YOur first image is nice, but all you have to do is go to the other side of town. Every country has nice homes. That proves nothing.

I 'googdid "average American home" and "average Mexican home" for the pics.

Average Americans live in nice homes. Average Mexicans live in cardboard and adobe. Big difference in quality of living, no? http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/overall.htm

Gonna take a long damn time for average Americana to reach 3rd world like the doomers are predicting.

[Caster]

I did too.

I 'googdid "average American home" and "average Mexican home" for the pics.

Average Americans live in nice homes. Average Mexicans live in cardboard and adobe. Big difference in quality of living, no? http://www.realestat...ook/overall.htm

Gonna take a long damn time for average Americana to reach 3rd world like the doomers are predicting.

Possibly.

THen again, if there is a way to do massive foreclosures on people who still owe for their homes, most people would be super screwed in a collapse. Fortunately for those, there's no logical way to do that.....I think.

THank God ours is paid for.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I did too.

I 'googdid "average American home" and "average Mexican home" for the pics.

Average Americans live in nice homes. Average Mexicans live in cardboard and adobe. Big difference in quality of living, no? http://www.realestat...ook/overall.htm

Gonna take a long damn time for average Americana to reach 3rd world like the doomers are predicting.

If you think it's the house you live in that makes a difference, good for you, but when something happens and the lights

go out, if you think we all won't be reduced to the same level, you're living in a dream, strickj.

Ahh, you might one day figure it out.

[BigK]

If the liberals could come up with some stupid name of trickle down economics during Reagan's presidency that they will never admit that actually worked, I'm curious as to what kind of name that we could apply to Obam's economic policies. Anyone want to come up with a name?

I saw a bumper sticker that "Obamonomics...Trickle Up Poverty"...I'm going with that one.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I saw a bumper sticker that "Obamonomics...Trickle Up Poverty"...I'm going with that one.

That's a good one.

[Oh Shoot]

I saw a bumper sticker that "Obamonomics...Trickle Up Poverty"...I'm going with that one.

Michael Savage's book:

- OS

[piercedan]

If you think it's the house you live in that makes a difference, good for you, but when something happens and the lights

go out, if you think we all won't be reduced to the same level, you're living in a dream, strickj.

Ahh, you might one day figure it out.

You are right. If your water doesn't run and your toilets don't flush, and if you're starving, the look of your house is irrelevant.

[strickj]

Whatevs. Y'all completely missed the point.

Americana can afford a 150k house and new Suburbans today.... tomorrow Americans' will not be able to afford toilet water because the economy is bad.

The end is near! Total collapse! Ahh....

[sbroomheadsr]

I am I better off than 4 years ago? Well, as for as income goes, yes. I got my 2% raise each year with some bonuses. As far as outgo, hell no, I ain't better off...

Gasoline - twice the price

Food - 10%(-+) each year for the last 4 years

And for my assets...

IRA down to 1/2 of its original value

Value of my home down 15%(-+)

[Caster]

As far as being better off than I was 4 years ago? Technically, yes but that's in no way shape form or fashion the result of kenyan ghetto trash we got for a prez. We got our Toyota paid off and cleared out a credit card we ran up [yeah we knew it was stupid when we did it]

Never had mortgage from day one. Never will.

All we have has been paid for by my feeble aching back, not some lousy ______ in the white house.

BUT, are WE better off, HECK NO. My father made more[in a year] in the 80's under Reagan than I did the last three years combined. He was punching a clock too. Not some cushy desk job.

[Oh Shoot]

My retirement income went down from comfy to yikes in the last four years.

So now just today, Bernanke starts pumping $40billion more funny money per month into "the economy". Which ironically only benefits the artificially valued stock market, you know, those nasty Wall Street evil bastards that BHO hates.

Inflation started instantly with crude jumping up. Reflects in almost instant jump in food prices too. Not to mention the delayed hit from the drought still to come. Of course, food and fuel don't count in the government inflation index. I try to explain that to my stupid wallet.

Interest rates will stay pegged out low, which screws old farts like me -- or I could throw the stash into the phoney baloney market bubble where it will undoubtedly be vaporized at some point.

Of course the low interest rates benefits home buyers, the few that don't have to borrow any money, 'cause the banks ain't lending to much of anyone who needs it.

And Obama is widening his lead.

Things are just swell.

- OS

Edited September 14, 2012 by OhShoot

[enfield]

What's not going on around here, and hasn't for the last 3 years, is significant new construction. Sure toilets, kitchen cabinets, rugs and flooring sell for remodel jobs, but 2/0 copper wire is not selling like it used to. No 2/0 = no new foundation-built homes. I recall that, year before last, the local paper reported that there had been exactly one building permit issued in the county during the year for a new home.

It's an effect of the lack of good jobs in the area.

Just the view from Lowe's Home Improvement and Cornfield County.

Edited September 14, 2012 by enfield

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My retirement income went down from comfy to yikes in the last four years.

So now just today, Bernanke starts pumping $40billion more funny money per month into "the economy". Which ironically only benefits the artificially valued stock market, you know, those nasty Wall Street evil bastards that BHO hates.

Inflation started instantly with crude jumping up. Reflects in almost instant jump in food prices too. Not to mention the delayed hit from the drought still to come. Of course, food and fuel don't count in the government inflation index. I try to explain that to my stupid wallet.

Interest rates will stay pegged out low, which screws old farts like me -- or I could throw the stash into the phoney baloney market bubble where it will undoubtedly be vaporized at some point.

Of course the low interest rates benefits home buyers, the few that don't have to borrow any money, 'cause the banks ain't lending to much of anyone who needs it.

And Obama is widening his lead.

Things are just swell.

- OS

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed that. I heard he is considering additional QE's, also.

One of those things that will cost on both ends. When that money gets reeled back in, if we get to that

point, it will hurt there, also.