Another letter writer, who isn't paying attention to the stock market, the
"plunging" unemployment numbers, and the "vastly" improving
deficit. This country is in the hands of financial geniuses! Sarcasm off now. We
won't know what hit us, once the full affect of obmacare and it lovely new
taxes fully kick in. Sequester ends, and all the new taxes and regulations
dictator obama desires for the country. Throw in immigration reform and the
unemployment boost that will be, along with additional welfare requirements and
increased handouts needed for the already deprived 47 percent and immigrants.
Once the stock market is no longer propped up with phony dollars, it could be a
whole new level of "fun" in our economy!
I blame it on the Day of the Dead. When more voters than people.
It started 30 years ago with Reaganomics. Get back to a middle class with
buying power and the problem would be solved.Instead we have a middle
class getting poorer by the day, corporations & CEOs getting wealthier by
the day and nobody can figure out why the economy is failing.Trickle-down
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
“Our country is headed toward economic disaster”.So,
what’s new?“Uninformed voters are to blame”.Maybe; got any suggestions on how to be “informed”?Even if you could actually be truly informed, voting is a waste of time
because of the political hoops and rules for voting that prevents the purported
evil democracy. The reason we are in such a mess regarding
government is that people as ordinary people have no effective representation in
our government(s). And it’s not the peoples fault, it’s the way the
business politicians want it. And they are not going to change it.
Actually, economic conditions are improving, though of course not as quickly as
we would like. But that's because continued stimulative efforts can't
find support in the House of Representatives.
Yep, looks like we're getting together, all right. Yeah for us!
To eliminate uniformed voters then we must get rid of foxnews. Studies show that
those who watch fox are the most uninformed of all. Better pull this weed out
from the root! Folks who claim that the President was born in Kenya
or who claim to know the Constitution (but cannot even recite the first line of
it) should be excluded from voting. If repubs want to exclude those without
drivers licenses then I will exclude the birthers and tea party.
Exactly right Ernest, even the guy who invented it, and handed it to Reagan, has
repeatedly said that it was a failure, and while some money did trickle down,
there was a torrent up to 1%. Yet the republicans still act as though it works,
with the evidence right before them. Before some clever dult says that it works
better than trickle up, it not true. When trickle up mean millions of common
folks spending money on millions of products the economy runs smoother than when
1% buy a few expensive toys stock piles money like hoarders without the
restriction of their mobile homes walls.
Ernest T. BassIt started more than 30 years ago. Ask ANY economist.Eric SamuelsenEconomic conditions may be improving (that's
debateable) but this letter is not about the economy. It's about the
national debt. The economy and the debt don't go together. The debt has
been increasing every year regardless of how well (or how badly) the economy
performs. It goes up in years when the economy is down. It goes up in years
when the economy is good. The economy isn't the problem.The
economy and the national debt are two totally different things.Granted... it's easier to make progress on cutting the debt when the
economy is good and the people are prospering. But we don't do it! And
it's almost imposible to ask the people to pay more (to decrease the
deficit) or to be more austeer (to decrease the deficit) when the economy is
down. But don't pretend that IF the economy were better the Deficit
would not be a problem. Even if the stock market were at 20,000 the the
deficit would STILL be a huge problem! And the deficit would still go up!
Does the letter writer realize that we really don't pick our elected
officials? We only vote for them after party leaders give their stamp of
approval after a terribly long and expensive vetting process. I voted for people
I knew I wasn't going to be satisfied with because I had no other option.
The presidential candidate I wanted to vote for was not on the ballet in Nevada,
so I did the best I could. I had no other choice.
I agree with the ton in many ways with this post, with the exception of the
perhaps the usage of the term "uninformed".... what does that mean.
Does it mean people who don't agree with the authors agenda? Is it people
who perhaps have other priorities in their lives.... don't have the same
issues. What is an uninformed voter. I am pretty sure most
voters are aware of those issues that are impacting them most... I would agree
that many are unaware of legislation that may impact them in ways they are
unaware of... but these usually secondary issues.To be uninformed
depends on what your agenda is. If you are a gay rights activities... they
would certainly say a conservative christian is uninformed of issues in the gay
community. Likewise, the opposite could be said for a "family values"
agenda person.... see the gay community as being uninformed.In
reality, "uninformed" is a rather pompous term, where one views their
own view as the correct informed view, and everyone else being lessor informed -
because they don't agree.Pride... its a lovely thing.
The letter is correct. The best in case in point of low-information voting is
@2bits"It started more than 30 years ago. Ask ANY economist."The increasing trend in wealth inequality really did start in 1980
(which I suppose is more than 30 years ago but still coincides with Reagan).
Apparently the US debt situation could be improved if the economy improved.
I wondered as I counted cars in a parking lot the other day if the
economy would improve if more people bought cars that were US brands rather than
cars that are foreign brands. The majority of the cars I counted in that
parking lot, more than 60%, were from foreign based companies. Just
atl134The media and political hype of income inequality started more
recently, but fact is... it has been there all along.Income
inequality took a jump in the industrial revolution, when fewer people were
needed to do more work (because there were new machines to do the work of
several men).Income inequality also took a jump in the 1950's
when big corporations started taking over the landscape and smaller local
compaines went under.It's also happening now... because so many
jobs we used to do can now be done by robots, computers, cheeper foreign
workers, etc.It didn't start in the 80's. It's been
around as long as man. There was income inequality even in the dark ages
(remember the kings/lords and serfs)? HUGE income inequality, huh?Know your history. It didn't "Start" in the 80's. And it
isn't over today (even though we had a Democrat President, Senate, House or
Representatives, and Supreme Court for several years). I know this
Reagan hatred is a polular rhetorical story in your circles... but if you know
History and reality... you really can't in all honesty just blame this on
Reagan did not take office until 1981. So maybe wealth inequality is Carters
@2bitsA 2011 CBO study found that the top 1% of households gained about
275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and
2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of
America's income distribution.Based on the Gini coefficient,
after tax income inequality in 2009 was largest in Texas and smallest in Maine.
The ten best educated states all voted for Obama. Nine of the ten worst educated
states voted for Romney. That gives us a clue about the voting patterns of
informed vs uninformed voters.
"Since the late 1970s, the U.S. has experienced a sharp divergence in the
distribution and growth of market-based income, with gains overwhelmingly skewed
toward the very top of the income distribution and away from the bottom. This
era of widening income inequality represents a sharp break from the first three
decades following World War II, when the gains from growth were shared fairly
equally across the income distribution, even tilted somewhat favorably towards
lower-income over upper-income workers. The increasingly lopsided concentration
of income growth at the top of the distribution comes at the expense of stagnant
or falling living standards for working families. The bottom line
for policymakers: Raising top tax rates could yield large results in slowing
income inequality growth without unduly hampering economic growth. This is just
one more piece of evidence suggesting that Washington’s dominant framework
for tax reform is divorced from economic research and needs serious
reevaluation."(Economic Policy Institute)
Why bother with voters and voting. Just let the corporations and gazillionaires
run the country. What could possible go wrong?
Wow, the liberals here have just proven the letter to be true.The
economy is not doing better.We are currently have an unemployment
rate of 7.6% with a labor participation rate of 63.5%. We have not had numbers
that bad since Carter was President.Another scarry statistic is the
average number of weeks a person remains unemployed. According to the BLS, at
no time since 1967 have people taken more than about 12 weeks to fund a new job.
Since Obama took office we are now pushing 25 weeks before people find a new
job.The US is currently producing fewer new jobs than the population
growth needs to simply maintain its labor participation rates and unemployment
rates.US GDP growth through the 1980's was about 3.8%. Right
now if we get up to 2% the economists are very happy.As you see, the
low information voters think the economy is fine because the media tells them
so. However, when you actually research things you see that the economy still
is mired down and only has been painted to look like growth.
Red:I happen to remember 2008. It wasn't that long ago. The
economy was in free-fall, the housing market had tanked, the big banks were
scared out of their wits because of the gobs of real money they had invested in
fictitious speculative financial instruments (derivatives), and they were
running to Uncle Sam to bail them out. I, for one, do believe that 2013 is a lot
more rosy. We're certainly not out of the woods, but as Eric S. pointed
out, we'd be a lot closer if not for the Republicants and their misguided
addiction to trickle-down economics and austerity budgeting.I'm
not a liberal, and I don't think the Democrats have very many good answers.
But I've been around long enough and been observant enough to recognize
that the GOP's economic policies would be disastrous. Neither party is able
to concoct a sensible path to decrease the inequality that is suffocating the
economy. The Republicants believe a larger dose of the virus that caused the
illness is the cure. The Democrats want to treat the symptoms instead of the
IMO uneducated voters are a problem. And by "Uneducated" I
don't mean "they don't agree with me", or "they
didn't go to college". I mean they don't know the candidates.
They get their info from TV commercials, or just vote for the guy with the best
hair, or the best one-liners, or the one who promises me the most free stuff.If you decide who you will vote for based on TV commercials... YOU are
one of the "Uneducated" voters.If you're going to be an
"Educated" voter... you're going to have to do some independent
research (not just watch TV). Talk to the candidates themselvs, or some people
who's judgement you trust (not Madison Avenue advertisers or attack add
people)."Educated" doesn't mean you agree with me...
It means you investigated and became educated about the candidates, the issues,
and their ideas. "Educated voter" in this context
doesn't mean you went to college Truthseeker... it means you investigated
the candidates (not just their party). Going to college doesn't
automatically make you any better voter than a red-neck who has researched the
To "Kent C. DeForrest" you obviously have been sucked into the liberal
propaganda machiene. Again, you are showing that the low information voter is
the one who allows disasterous policies to be put into place.The
facts are historically recessions are over and done within 18 months to 2 years.
The only recessions that have had their effects last longer than that in recent
history was the Great Depression and today's recession. Why is it that
they have lasted so long. If you look into history the recessions that were
over the quickest were met with government INACTION. In other words, the
government did nothing. They didn't add regulations, nor did they try and
spend their way to prosperity. The recessions that lasted longer have been met
by government trying to force its way out of the recession.While
McCain wouldn't have been much better than Bush, the advantage of McCain in
2004 was the simple fact that Democrats hate him and wouldn't pass
anything. With Romney, he understood business and if he listened to his
conservative supporters could have helped fix things.Now, we have
Obama, the rockstar President who is little more than a suit and teleprompter.
IMO voters how just vote for whoever will promise them the most free stuff... is
Uninformed voters rely on the biased print media.
Part of why our politicians do what they do is because they know at the end of
the day the voters will blame other people's representives and not their
own when things don't go the way they want them too.
Our problem is not just the economy or even the national debt. It is the
unfunded mandates like social security and Obamacare and all the other promises
that government cannot possibly deliver. Our main problem is that we have to
change our course and this requires some pain and suffering that we the people
and the politicians are not willing to endure right now. Kicking the can down
the road will just make it worse.
These comments amaze me and seem to show a lack of understanding of simple
economics. Reagan produced 20 million new jobs. Stimulus bills simply withdraw
money from the private sector a certain amount drops into the hands of Obama
cronies and bureaucrats, and about 80% returns to the economy. You can't
make that up with volume. A .9% growth rate each year for the past 4 years seems
to prove the point. When the majority of people receive govt handouts then the
govt will win. Reaganomics worked very well. What we have now does not.
Unless we allow the free enterprise system more free rein we will continue to
suffer. we need lower corporate taxes, less regulations and red tape, etc.
@Steve CottrellJust looking at where the home company is based has little
bearing on where the car is made anymore. First of all, virtually all of the
individual components for "American" vehicles like brakes,
transmissions, most engine parts are made in Mexico or Canada, then shipped to
the US for assembly. However, many foreign companies like Honda and Toyota make
components in Japan, but assemble them in the US. According to thestreet website
out of the top 10 cars that are assembled in the US and with the most US branded
parts 5 are foreign brands.1. Ford Expedition2. Chevy Express/GMC
Savana 3. Toyota Avalon4. GMC Acadia/Chevy Traverse/Buick Enclave5. Honda Odyssey6. Honda Crosstour7. Dodge Avenger8. Ford
F-1509. Toyota Camry10.Toyota SiennaIt just isn't
possible to tell where a car is made by the badge on the front anymore.
"The real blame for the lack of meaningful reform is the uninformed people
who vote for the politicians who do nothing."It's worse
than that. The uninformed (low information) voter will continue to vote in
politicians who will hand out massive amounts of largess... such as years and
years of disability payments, months and months of unemployment, Obamacare,
Obama-phones and you name it.
The whole Regan was brilliant and Obama is a dolt argument is ridiculous.
Context and circumstances are everything. Regan experienced massive pent up
demand in the markets, and Obama experienced massive lack of demand in the
markets. Polar opposites. Once released Regan took that demand and
productivity and changed the economy forever basically unleashing corporate
power and the ability to concentrate economic power and wealth. Obama 30 or so
years later is facing the result of the activity. Obama is not unique, Bush
faced it also, he just tried to avoid it's consequences by unleashing his
own little rivulets of wealth with tax policies. Didn't work too well
though. While the distraction Bush created was humping along the real dynamics
of the economy that Regan created were still gobbling up everything in site
until there was nothing left and they had to create fantasy and lies to
continue. Then...whoops, down it comes. Now it's broken,
really broken, structurally and morally. Some have it all and the rest have
little with a mote between the two. We can build a bridge across the mote, but
not by standing around and praising the castle.
Redshirt... sometimes you are just so fun. If you do a search of
US recessions you will find more than a dozen times that not only were some of
these recessions over in less than 18 months, but that many times we were right
back into the next recession in less than 18 months. We in fact, as a country,
have been in recessions not less than 50 times since we were a brand new
bouncing country.I have no idea where some of these things come
from.... statements like "The only recessions that have had their effects
last longer than that in recent history was the Great Depression and
today's recession", a statement that is easily proven wrong in about 30
seconds spent with google.But is sounds good... and the whole
notion that despite there being in a global recession, the US through our super
powers should fix all that ails the global economy... we should just tell our
trading partners to buy more... right? Political rhetoric versus
reality are very often not even closely related. The US economy does not
operate in isolation.
To "UtahBlueDevil" you claim to be able to prove me wrong, but the data
again is in my favor.The average time that a recession has taken to
resolve itself since 1945 has been 10 months. Between about 1900 and 1945 the
average was 18 to 22 months. According to the National Bureau of Economic
Research the average recession is over with in 22 months. So again, where is
your data saying otherwise? If the recessions like the 1920 recession were over
in less than 2 years with the government backing off. The Great Depression and
current Recession still lingering around for much longer than 2 years, and we
have had government trying everything possible to "fix" things.Google supports my statement. The recessions that have lasted the longest
have had the most government interference in trying to pull out of it.If you have proof, give it because so far History only validates me.
RedShirt, it doesn't take much research either to look at the causes of
recorded recessions and see things like, normal business cycle, opec oil shock,
monetary policy, and then there's 2007 global credit collapse. An economy
built on credit and financial markets has a global collapse from which most
nations haven't recovered yet. There's nothing in any of our life
time to compare this recession to. Additionally, for much of
America there isn't anything to recover to. The financial collapse wiped
out the last vestiges of the old "manufacturing" middle class. I'm
not talking specifically about manufacturing but rather a kind of job where
someone could go to after high school work and support a family. That's
why the banks are making record profits and the stock market has recovered yet
123% of all wage increases over the past 2 years have gone to the top 1%.
Bailouts and productivity gains.Amazon just announced 7000 new jobs.
All of them are administrative and call center jobs. How many of those jobs do
you think will support a family?
"So again, where is your data saying otherwise? "Really
simple. You just look at the end data of one recession, and the beginning data
of the next recession. No fancy analysis needed. Other factors in comments
like the one used also ignore a lot of the attributes of the recession itself...
such as percents of unemployment, length of recession, hit to the gdp of the
county. While the last recession did hit a lot of people hard,
starting officially December of 2007, it was not the longest, lasting 1 year, 6
months is just about normal... longest was the great depression at over 3 years,
7 months or the Panic of 1873 which lasted over 5 years. It wasn't the
deepest with GDP going down down only 5.1%... when there were 7 where the US
economy lost over 20%... and a few over 30%. If you take selective
time boxes, look at only select data points, you can shape most any event into
the worst yet... but it isn't an accurate representation of what really is
going on. This last recession looks like child's play compared to those in
the 1800s and early 1900s.
To "pragmatistferlife" and "UtahBlueDevil" ummm....I think that
you have lost the argument. We were discussing the average time for recessions
to be over and done with, and the simple fact that the more a government gets
involved with trying to pull the nation out, the longer it takes.Only 2 of the 4 indicators of a recession have rebounded. GDP and possibly
sales, employment levels and incomes have not.If the recession was
truely over, why is it that the true unemployment (U6) is hovering around 14%?
In the previous recessions, unemployment numbers quickly returned to
pre-recession levels, why haven't we seen that here? What is the
difference?Just look at the Panic of 1973. When that occured, the
government decided to take action to push it to get over quickly. Thanks to
government action, they removed silver as a backing to US currency, furthering
the panic started by a drop in silver prices. The government then put into
place all sorts of protectionist tarrifs that gave us another period of flat
growth that lasted until 1897. So, thanks for helping to prove my point.
Government action only prolongs recessions.