Trump on debt...

PsyOps

Pixelated
I'm young and I'm angry because I was told hard work would be rewarded. It's not. Hard work is called "stupid"
Except for the ‘entitlement crowd’, who’s saying hard work is ‘stupid’? Tell me this… do you expect to be ‘rewarded’ for not working? You expect to get something from nothing? Do you really expect that life has some level of fairness; that others, while working their butts off, are going to hand you something to make it easier for you?

Let me ask you this… Do you consider yourself to be a failure?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Isn't that the way this world has always worked? I mean, I'm not climbing over dead carcasses in order to achieve my success; I'm simply doing my thing as I see is best for me. There is a certain level of "survival of the fittest". I have to survive and succeed first before I can even think about helping others; and this may require that I watch some sink.
Of course but this doesn't happen in a vacuum and this is why I focus on general welfare.

Policy can make the water warmer or colder. Lower the level so the ladder is harder to reach. Cause too many people to be in one end, too few in another. Add turbulence, throw in other obstacles or remove some. Policy shouldn't be made for the weakest of the weak nor strongest of the strong. That is what we have these days to the detriment of the majority. Focus policy generally, help most and the weak will be ok and the strong will still propser.
 

TheLibertonian

New Member
Except for the ‘entitlement crowd’, who’s saying hard work is ‘stupid’? Tell me this… do you expect to be ‘rewarded’ for not working? You expect to get something from nothing? Do you really expect that life has some level of fairness; that others, while working their butts off, are going to hand you something to make it easier for you?

Let me ask you this… Do you consider yourself to be a failure?
No

I see other people who work 60 hour weeks at back breaking labor and are stuck in debt, and then are told they are criminals for having the gal not to be earning more.

"Hard work" does not mean "well paid work".

I expect people who work 60 hours a week and never see their children to at the least be able to earn a living wage. It's not happening.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
No

I see other people who work 60 hour weeks at back breaking labor and are stuck in debt, and then are told they are criminals for having the gal not to be earning more.

"Hard work" does not mean "well paid work".

I expect people who work 60 hours a week and never see their children to at the least be able to earn a living wage. It's not happening.
Worse, it is not necessary. We need less and less work every year. As I've been arguing, productivity gains, efficiency gains, innovation, automation, it is less and less possible for more and more people to earn a decent income. And yet we're richer and richer.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
No

I see other people who work 60 hour weeks at back breaking labor and are stuck in debt, and then are told they are criminals for having the gal not to be earning more.

"Hard work" does not mean "well paid work".

I expect people who work 60 hours a week and never see their children to at the least be able to earn a living wage. It's not happening.
I hope your part time teaching gig isn't English or even English as a second.
 

TheLibertonian

New Member
I hope your part time teaching gig isn't English or even English as a second.
Because why?

Nice way to actually not talk about what we're talking about by the way, I do enjoy the ad hominems.

I'm using informal language, and I'm typing as someone would talk rather then formally. Is that an issue on an internet forum?
 
You're standing at the deep end watching all the drowning people, 'come on! Keep trying! Some of you can make it once there are enough dead to climb up and out over!"

That's what you advocate. People who can not over come their debt just keep on trying so some may make it on their carcasses.
Regardless of what we think should happen or would work when it comes to a mass forgiving of consumer debt (I very much disagree with you on the effects of that), sovereign debt is a completely different situation. It works differently and the effects of failing to honor it would be profoundly different. Those people that you're referring to as drowning, you'd be hanging cinder blocks around many of their necks if you threatened other nations to accept 10 cents on the dollar for the U.S. debt that they hold (or that was held by parties in their countries).

When Mr. Trump alludes to how he's handled business debt before and suggests that he'd be able to do much the same with our sovereign debt it either (1) demonstrates how clueless he is when it comes to such things (which I don't believe) or (2) is another demonstration of him - just like so many other politicians - pandering to ignorance and taking advantage of people not understanding how things work. I mean, it's mindbogglingly nonsensical.

Why would China or the U.K. or Brazil or various other nations sell us back U.S. Treasuries at a steep discount? We aren't going to default on them, that would do far too much damage to our own economy. And if they have any concerns they can sell those Treasuries to others. China could at this very moment be slowly selling off some of its holdings just to be safe on the off chance that Mr. Trump is elected President and actually moves forward with some of his crazy suggestions. (I doubt that's happening, btw; I don't think China is yet too worried about that.) Just openly talking about these kinds of things - suggesting that we'd ever take such actions, not honor the full faith and credit of the U.S. - could end up costing us in the form of increased borrowing costs. (If anyone thinks there's any chance we'd do some of these suggested things, then they well might sell our Treasuries pushing down the market price for them and pushing up the effective interest rate paid on them which does the same with regard to the new Treasuries that we are constantly issuing.) If we care about out debt situation, we shouldn't even be suggesting that we might do something crazy like this. Again, it just wouldn't work. And if we actually tried to make it work we'd be doing great damage to ourselves. When it comes to our debt, wrecking our economy is about the worst thing we can do - that could cause our debt to start growing again as fast as (or faster than) it did in 2009 and 2010.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
No

I see other people who work 60 hour weeks at back breaking labor and are stuck in debt, and then are told they are criminals for having the gal not to be earning more.

"Hard work" does not mean "well paid work".

I expect people who work 60 hours a week and never see their children to at the least be able to earn a living wage. It's not happening.
You seem to think there are guarantees in life. Look at Steve jobs. The guy worked pretty hard to create a phenomenal product; then got cancer and died – too young. I bet you’d take the life of the guy who is still alive breaking his back to make ends meet than Steve Job’s?

My dad, when he worked in general contracting, worked 60+ hours a week, I still got to see him, we still had food on our table, we still had Christmas, he took me to my sporting events, he taught me music, and he even managed some time to sit down and talk to me about my day before going to bed. He still lived payday-to-payday, was proud and happy to have what he had, and blessed his kids some very valuable lessons. The only lesson you seem to have learned is that none of it is worth it.

If you don’t consider yourself a failure, perhaps you ought to stop thinking like one.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Except for the ‘entitlement crowd’, who’s saying hard work is ‘stupid’? Tell me this… do you expect to be ‘rewarded’ for not working? You expect to get something from nothing? Do you really expect that life has some level of fairness; that others, while working their butts off, are going to hand you something to make it easier for you?

Let me ask you this… Do you consider yourself to be a failure?
I think a lot of young people do expect to be rewarded for not working. I was going to say "young people today" but it's probably always been that way, although kids these days seem much more entitled than when I was in my 20s. When I was a kid, if I wanted spending money or cool clothes or something outside my mom's budget, I had to work and earn the money for it. Therefore, once I graduated high school and moved into adulthood, working wasn't a foreign experience for me and getting a job was typically a matter of asking for one. Parents these days want their kids to be children and play instead of work, so they hand them cash and stuff for free and the kid never learns how to earn anything.

Anyway, I do know personally a number of young people who are ambitious and industrious, and are doing just fine. Everyone has an uncertain future to some extent, but most of them overcome their fear and move forward with life.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
No

I see other people who work 60 hour weeks at back breaking labor and are stuck in debt, and then are told they are criminals for having the gal not to be earning more.

"Hard work" does not mean "well paid work".

I expect people who work 60 hours a week and never see their children to at the least be able to earn a living wage. It's not happening.
You're not hanging out with the right crowd if that's all you see. Perhaps that's the problem: the people you surround yourself with.
 
Larry first thing, payback every last dime that has been take from SS all the money "borrowed" should be in there earning interest and Bush ,LBJ and Reagan(I think Clinton but not sure) and others never should have touched it.
That money does get paid back whenever the Social Security program needs it, which to some extent it does now. Social Security takes in less now through taxes than it pays out in benefits (plus there are relatively small administrative costs), so it relies on interest from the general treasury on the savings that it has accumulated. At some point in the not too distant future it will, in effect, be withdrawing principal as well - the annual interest that it gets won't be enough to make up the annual deficit. Really, most of the savings that it has (in the form of special issue U.S. Treasury securities) represents the interest that it's been paid over the years rather than the accumulation of annual surpluses.

If by touched it you mean that under those administrations annual surpluses were invested in U.S. securities, then yes - that happened under President Clinton and Bush II as well. But that wasn't because those administrations somehow choice to do that. That's what the law has always required. To the extent there were surpluses for Social Security, they were required to be invested in securities backed by the U.S. government - in effect, loaned to the general fund (or something along those lines).
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Because why?

Nice way to actually not talk about what we're talking about by the way, I do enjoy the ad hominems.

I'm using informal language, and I'm typing as someone would talk rather then formally. Is that an issue on an internet forum?
It is difficult for me to read the various forms of "informal language". I am an old school type of guy, ebonics, rap and other informal languages don't necessarily have a direct to English ( or even American, if you will) conversion. Your informal approach here may very well crossover into other aspects of life.
 
Last edited:

PsyOps

Pixelated
I think a lot of young people do expect to be rewarded for not working. I was going to say "young people today" but it's probably always been that way, although kids these days seem much more entitled than when I was in my 20s. When I was a kid, if I wanted spending money or cool clothes or something outside my mom's budget, I had to work and earn the money for it. Therefore, once I graduated high school and moved into adulthood, working wasn't a foreign experience for me and getting a job was typically a matter of asking for one. Parents these days want their kids to be children and play instead of work, so they hand them cash and stuff for free and the kid never learns how to earn anything.

Anyway, I do know personally a number of young people who are ambitious and industrious, and are doing just fine. Everyone has an uncertain future to some extent, but most of them overcome their fear and move forward with life.
Most kids today (I’d say kids up to about the age of 30) don’t even know what hand-me-downs are. Parents will put themselves in debt to make sure their kid had the coolest Nikes or the best cell phone. For Christmas/birthdays, we got what we needed (socks, clothes, etc…); rarely anything we really wanted. My bicycle was pieced together from parts I scrounged from people’s trash and dumps and such. This sounds sad to some; but this taught me invaluable mechanical skills. When I was in Jr High, I woke up at 3am to deliver newspapers, my dad was working as a general contractor, his company hired me over the summer to help some of the carpenters, roofers, and other workers. I learned how to lay shingles, measure lumber, use electric tools, and swing a hammer. I had to dig ditches, mix concrete by hand, and carry shingles up to a roof on a ladder. It was HARD-ASS work. Then I’d go home and mow lawns in the evening. I never really had summer vacations per se.

So, for me, it’s hard to understand this “I worked hard and was rewarded nothing” mentality. I was never expected to be ‘rewarded’ anything except a paycheck. This thinking carried me through my entire life.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
That money does get paid back whenever the Social Security program needs it, which to some extent it does now. Social Security takes in less now through taxes than it pays out in benefits (plus there are relatively small administrative costs), so it relies on interest from the general treasury on the savings that it has accumulated. At some point in the not too distant future it will, in effect, be withdrawing principal as well - the annual interest that it gets won't be enough to make up the annual deficit. Really, most of the savings that it has (in the form of special issue U.S. Treasury securities) represents the interest that it's been paid over the years rather than the accumulation of annual surpluses.

If by touched it you mean that under those administrations annual surpluses were invested in U.S. securities, then yes - that happened under President Clinton and Bush II as well. But that wasn't because those administrations somehow choice to do that. That's what the law has always required. To the extent there were surpluses for Social Security, they were required to be invested in securities backed by the U.S. government - in effect, loaned to the general fund (or something along those lines).
Maybe I've misunderstood all along, weren't quite a few of the transfers from social security supposed loans to other programs?
 
There's one big problem with Social Security that no one will ever address, because it aint politically correct. Women in the US, on average, live much longer than men (source wiki/everywhere). Women, on average, enter the workforce later than men and retire earlier than men (source department of labor, women's bureau). So if the ages for eligibility were to be truly equitable it should be based on these averages and likely the men's age would decrease while the women's significantly increase.
That's an interesting point. I don't think I have thought about that before.

As it is I don't think it would be deemed constitutional to treat men and women differently though. If you had a legal property interest in Social Security benefits - if it was more like a pension plan where you had a legal right to the money based on your having paid into it (or your employer having done so on your behalf) - then maybe they'd be able to structure the payout differently depending on your life expectancy. But that's not how Social Security works or is regarded legally - you don't have accrued property interests, you're legally just getting government benefits. So treating different sexes differently in the way that you're suggesting would violate the 14th Amendment.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
When Mr. Trump alludes to how he's handled business debt before and suggests that he'd be able to do much the same with our sovereign debt it either (1) demonstrates how clueless he is when it comes to such things (which I don't believe) or (2) is another demonstration of him - just like so many other politicians - pandering to ignorance and taking advantage of people not understanding how things work. I mean, it's mindbogglingly nonsensical.
It's about as nonsensical as his other positions (depending on the time and day), yet he is the GOP frontrunner by a mile.

This fiasco (and his supporters using his business acumen as reasoning for him to be President), the "trade deficit" that will pay for a wall as if a trade deficit is a magical bag of money just sitting around, the wanting to change libel laws so he can "sue and win lots of money" when someone "write purposely negative and horrible and false articles", the (false) idea that he can spend more on the military, cut taxes, yet leave Social Security and Medicare alone, proposing a 35% tariff on car, every truck and every part manufactured in [Ford's Mexico plant] that comes across the border.", threatening to pull out of NAFTA, not knowing what our nuclear triad is, not knowing that killing innocent family members of suspected terrorists is in direct conflict with the Geneva Convention (and not caring), the list goes on.

That's really what is mindboggling to me. A country of self-proclaimed "informed" people and this guy and Hillary Clinton are the best we can come up with.

Way to go America. Give yourselves a pat on the back.
 

TheLibertonian

New Member
You seem to think there are guarantees in life. Look at Steve jobs. The guy worked pretty hard to create a phenomenal product; then got cancer and died – too young. I bet you’d take the life of the guy who is still alive breaking his back to make ends meet than Steve Job’s?

My dad, when he worked in general contracting, worked 60+ hours a week, I still got to see him, we still had food on our table, we still had Christmas, he took me to my sporting events, he taught me music, and he even managed some time to sit down and talk to me about my day before going to bed. He still lived payday-to-payday, was proud and happy to have what he had, and blessed his kids some very valuable lessons. The only lesson you seem to have learned is that none of it is worth it.

If you don’t consider yourself a failure, perhaps you ought to stop thinking like one.
Because I'm concerned about the state of our economy?

Here's the thing: Your dad, and when you grew up, was not this year.

This seems to be the underlying issue a lot of you producer-side-economist have. This is not the nineteen sixties. The cost of living has increased exponentially, whereas pay rates have increased linearly. Less and less money is in circulation in the middle class, and more is being held by fewer people, who spend it less. Money is simply not moving. When it does move, it disperses into the maw of corporate interest.

We've been chipping away at the buying power of the middle class and that is what's killing us.
 
Last edited:

TheLibertonian

New Member
It is difficult for me to read the various forms of "informal language". I am an old school type of guy, ebonics, rap and other informal languages don't necessarily have a direct to English ( or even American, if you will) conversion. Your informal approach here may very well crossover into other aspects of life.
So what was wrong with my posts. Go ahead, mister old school. Because I am not typing it out in formal essay format you can't understand it?
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
That's an interesting point. I don't think I have thought about that before.

As it is I don't think it would be deemed constitutional to treat men and women differently though. If you had a legal property interest in Social Security benefits - if it was more like a pension plan where you had a legal right to the money based on your having paid into it (or your employer having done so on your behalf) - then maybe they'd be able to structure the payout differently depending on your life expectancy. But that's not how Social Security works or is regarded legally - you don't have accrued property interests, you're legally just getting government benefits. So treating different sexes differently in the way that you're suggesting would violate the 14th Amendment.
Take Clem's thought and go one further to include survivor benefits. It was not uncommon practice for government workers to work part time gigs just to get their "40 quarters" and double dip. Two of those I knew, died at 67 and 72, their surviving spouses are in their nineties
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Most kids today (I’d say kids up to about the age of 30) don’t even know what hand-me-downs are. Parents will put themselves in debt to make sure their kid had the coolest Nikes or the best cell phone. For Christmas/birthdays, we got what we needed (socks, clothes, etc…); rarely anything we really wanted. My bicycle was pieced together from parts I scrounged from people’s trash and dumps and such. This sounds sad to some; but this taught me invaluable mechanical skills. When I was in Jr High, I woke up at 3am to deliver newspapers, my dad was working as a general contractor, his company hired me over the summer to help some of the carpenters, roofers, and other workers. I learned how to lay shingles, measure lumber, use electric tools, and swing a hammer. I had to dig ditches, mix concrete by hand, and carry shingles up to a roof on a ladder. It was HARD-ASS work. Then I’d go home and mow lawns in the evening. I never really had summer vacations per se.

So, for me, it’s hard to understand this “I worked hard and was rewarded nothing” mentality. I was never expected to be ‘rewarded’ anything except a paycheck. This thinking carried me through my entire life.
I'm 28. I remember getting socks and Reese cups for Christmas one year.

Both my parents work extremely hard in blue collar fields and while I'll forever be grateful of the skills I was taught (working on cars, building things with my hands, carpentry, etc.), I'll always remember my dad telling me NOT to follow his footsteps.

I worked in landscaping for many, many years throughout high school and after. Pay sucked, but I was always in shape and had a killer tan :lol: Went to school a year after graduating high school, took on student loan debt and got into the smart homes/home theater business, then the recession hit and no one wanted to drop that kind of money on TV's and speakers. I went to Community College, still paying off the previous student loan debt, took a class on AutoCAD and got into consulting/engineering. I've worked my way up from there to where I am now. All my student loan debt is paid off and any classes I take are paid for in full, out of my pocket. My wife is a local small business owner and we both own a home, a new car, travel, both have had 401Ks for years, and besides a car payment and mortgage (which we pay extra on both) we're debt free.

I do see many people, and many are young, that don't share the same "hard work pays off" mentality.
 
Top