• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why we can kiss the US economy goodbye

That's all well and good but companies have made it very clear that they're buying education levels.

In most cases, you're simply locked out of a job if you can't meet the minimum educational level. You won't even be called for an interview.

But not all jobs require a degree, and some even state equivalent experience in lieu of a degree.

As I said before, it can be plus, but it is not needed for all jobs.

Many start in a company at a lower level, get experience, perhaps take courses, and learn from those around them, and move up.

The degree may get you in the door, but it doesn't always mean it keeps you there.
 
But not all jobs require a degree, and some even state equivalent experience in lieu of a degree.

As I said before, it can be plus, but it is not needed for all jobs.

Many start in a company at a lower level, get experience, perhaps take courses, and learn from those around them, and move up.

The degree may get you in the door, but it doesn't always mean it keeps you there.

We're talking about income inequality here.

There are plenty of jobs that don't require a degree and most of them are low paid jobs that are disappearing due to automation and outsourcing.
 
We're talking about income inequality here.

There are plenty of jobs that don't require a degree and most of them are low paid jobs that are disappearing due to automation and outsourcing.

I guess it depends on what you believe are 'low paying jobs'.

IMO, and in many others, what someone else makes has nothing to do with what 'I' make. If I am comfortable with my compensation for the work performed, aka, being paid what I think I am worth, then what someone else makes means nothing to me. Disparity as the latest negative word exists in the minds of those who worry what someone else is making, regardless of what they do to earn it.
 
Your thoughts?

More tea party lunacy, hoping for a demise that only tea party policies could bring about.

So, rightwingers think hyperinflation is just around the corner? Again!
 
Last edited:
Survival guides aside, how about the figures?

Virtually all the result of Bush misrule or other failed conservatives policies, which thankfully have been forestalled by Obama.

The fact is that the US is the largest economy in the world, and even a little growth results in a lot of wealth production (and tax revenues) over the long haul. As long as we don't lapse in the failed policies of the GOP again, the economy will recover completely. Add cheap energy, and the US economy will likely be more prosperous than ever in 10 years.
 
Quite often the same people get re-elected because the alternatives are even worse. How very sad that is.

So like I said, we like and approve of the government that we get, or at least we like and approve of it more than the alternative that is presented to us.
 
Supposedly, getting rid of those entities would totally mess up the housing market (again) but, I'm pointing out that he's nothing but a willing pawn for the financial Oligarchy.

In that case, there are a heck of a lot of conservatives who advocate messing up our housing market (again). I guess what the heck, why not, Bush and his cronies did such a fine job of screwing everything up during his 8 years in power - we all love to do whatever it is that we are good at.

People who believe he's a man of the people are tools.

I assume that you would also say the same thing about most republican candidates. People like Bush and Romney are far from being "of the people".
 
Who do you think sent the jobs overseas?

American corporations, trying to quadruple their already quadrupled profits.

Who do you think saw fit to hire illegal aliens to replace the American worker?

We pretty much either export our jobs to low paying countries, or bring their workers here. It's tit for tat, but at least when they are here they are increasing demand here and paying taxes here and not increasing our trade deficit.
Who do you think thought having our military spread all over the world fighting endless wars was a good idea?

Most recently, George Bush.
Find those people and you'll have your culprits.

So you have just demonized large US corporations, George Bush, everyone who believes in free trade, most Latin Americans, and at least half our population. Mit Romney tried a similar strategy (offending over half of our country) just before the election, it didn't seem to work.
 
That does not change the fact that you allege that income disparity has nothing to do with the size of government when the government employs tens of thousand of people that deal with policies addressing income disparity. Do you think that special loans for people with low income are not oriented toward addressing income disparity?

If I became boss of the US today, I would end all such programs, but you did make a solid point, much to my surprise (take that as a compliment).

Maybe it's not that we don't do enough to reduce disparity, we just do the wrong things. Directly rewarding people for being poor or for having low incomes certainly isn't the best way to deal with income disparity as it tends to trap people into poverty.
 
In that case, there are a heck of a lot of conservatives who advocate messing up our housing market (again). I guess what the heck, why not, Bush and his cronies did such a fine job of screwing everything up during his 8 years in power - we all love to do whatever it is that we are good at.







I assume that you would also say the same thing about most republican candidates. People like Bush and Romney are far from being "of the people".
I believe you can look at a President Clinton for allowing those loans to people who couldn't afford them [Bush actually 'tried' to stop some of that]

I'm not a Republican and it's never a good idea to 'assume'.

Why don't we address the actual people responsible for the condition we're in rather than throw around political nonsense?
 
Last edited:
So like I said, we like and approve of the government that we get, or at least we like and approve of it more than the alternative that is presented to us.

I never said that.

Picking the lesser of evils is still picking an evil.

I didn't vote for either of the main party candidates this past election. I didn't feel either one would do the job that I wanted to see happen.

I have abstained from some local elections for the same reason.... unfortunately, one could get 1 vote, and the other 2, and still they can make laws for the hundreds....
 
Have you looked at income or unemployment rates grouped by education level?

Not everyone with a bachelors degree or better is employed or employed in a great paying job but the difference is pretty stark.

There just aren't many good ways to address income inequality without the bottom half doing more to help themselves. The days of living a middle class life while pushing a button in a factory for a living are done and that is all there is to say about that. People need to accept that and do more to make themselves marketable in the post-labor economy.

While all of that is true, and I can't disagree, even if everyone received a PhD in a field with lot's of demand, we still wouldn't have enough high paying jobs for everyone who is willing to work.

Education and obtaining job skills are certainly the best solution on an individual level, we can't apply individual level solutions to aggregate problems. There is a reason that colleges teach micro and macro economics as two different subjects.
 
Your thoughts?

My thoughts? Stop blaming the seated President, regardless of his political party. No President since Franklin D. Roosevelt has had any real power over the U.S. economy.

All real power lies in the hands of those who control investment banking and major business corporations. They love it when you focus your ire on their stooges in the Executive Office. That's what those special interests think the job is all about, being a scapegoat.

If there is anything wrong with our economy, focus on them and what THEY should be doing to improve it. After all, nearly every member of Congress regardless of political party is on their payroll.

Hell, Bush Jr. was practically owned by the oil companies and Haliburton and I don't "blame" him for being a stooge. So stop blaming Obama, or any other President and focus on the real problem creators.
 
American corporations, trying to quadruple their already quadrupled profits.



We pretty much either export our jobs to low paying countries, or bring their workers here. It's tit for tat, but at least when they are here they are increasing demand here and paying taxes here and not increasing our trade deficit.


Most recently, George Bush.


So you have just demonized large US corporations, George Bush, everyone who believes in free trade, most Latin Americans, and at least half our population. Mit Romney tried a similar strategy (offending over half of our country) just before the election, it didn't seem to work.

Wrong on all accounts. answer: the Globalist Financial Oligarchy

Money pulls all strings and the rest is smoke and mirrors.
 
I guess it depends on what you believe are 'low paying jobs'.

IMO, and in many others, what someone else makes has nothing to do with what 'I' make. If I am comfortable with my compensation for the work performed, aka, being paid what I think I am worth, then what someone else makes means nothing to me. Disparity as the latest negative word exists in the minds of those who worry what someone else is making, regardless of what they do to earn it.

Like you, I could care less about income disparity on an individual bases. I look after myself, and it's not my responsibility for life to be all cherries and lollie pops for others. But, individual income disparity has nothing to do with income disparity as a nation wide issue that harms our economy and prevents our tide from rising, let alone all ships rising with the tide.

The larger the amount of income disparity, the lower the aggregate level of demand, the less that businesses sell, the lower that business profits become, the fewer jobs that are created, the less income opportunity there is for ALL of us, rich and poor. Individuals can deal with their personal income disparity themselves, but aggregate income disparity is a national economic issue that needs to be dealt with on a national policy bases.
 
People profiting by acting as if they can predict the future with all sorts of fire and brimstone.
This has been going on since recorded history.
 
I believe you can look at a President Clinton for allowing those loans to people who couldn't afford them [Bush actually 'tried' to stop some of that]...

Thats not historically accurate.

The vast majority of the loans that defaulted were made between 2002 and 2006, and were not even made by commercial banks, they were made by non-bank entities. Exactly who was president then?

It amazes me that conservatives bash Obama for not taking blame for the recession that started under Bush, then conservatives try to pass on that blame to Clinton.
 
Like you, I could care less about income disparity on an individual bases. I look after myself, and it's not my responsibility for life to be all cherries and lollie pops for others. But, individual income disparity has nothing to do with income disparity as a nation wide issue that harms our economy and prevents our tide from rising, let alone all ships rising with the tide.

The larger the amount of income disparity, the lower the aggregate level of demand, the less that businesses sell, the lower that business profits become, the fewer jobs that are created, the less income opportunity there is for ALL of us, rich and poor. Individuals can deal with their personal income disparity themselves, but aggregate income disparity is a national economic issue that needs to be dealt with on a national policy bases.

I disagree.

IF the income as a whole was a limited pool, where because someone else got 2 parts of it, you could only have one, you may have a point.

However, income is not a limited pool. For each skill learned, your personal value in the employment pool increases. No one (government) can give you that value, you have to create your worth yourself. It is a constantly changing, shifting source, not just limited to what is here in the US, if you want it to reach beyond those borders.

You increase your value by knowledge, however gained, experience, creativity, ingenuity and drive. No one can mandate that, not government not employers, only you can create it.
 
Thats not historically accurate.

The vast majority of the loans that defaulted were made between 2002 and 2006, and were not even made by commercial banks, they were made by non-bank entities. Exactly who was president then?

It amazes me that conservatives bash Obama for not taking blame for the recession that started under Bush, then conservatives try to pass on that blame to Clinton.

Actually it all start with Carter but, "In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden."

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
We took a chance on him because we were collectively feeling, rather than thinking. That was our big mistake. In the wake of a huge financial crisis, we were looking for someone to save us, and not someone who would step out of the way, and let us save ourselves. The biggest problem I have with Obama is his desire to control and micromanage, where the best strategy would be to back off and let the creators and innovators of our society do their thing. A leader who has a need for control stifles creativity, and hinders growth. It's like a parent who wants to control the life of their child. It makes the child inhibited and stunts his ability to flourish.


But you honetsly feel that the US is in a worse place now than back in 2008?
 
We took a chance on him because we were collectively feeling, rather than thinking. That was our big mistake. In the wake of a huge financial crisis, we were looking for someone to save us, and not someone who would step out of the way, and let us save ourselves. The biggest problem I have with Obama is his desire to control and micromanage, where the best strategy would be to back off and let the creators and innovators of our society do their thing. A leader who has a need for control stifles creativity, and hinders growth. It's like a parent who wants to control the life of their child. It makes the child inhibited and stunts his ability to flourish.

You must be referring to those same leaders and innovators that got us into the crisis in the first place; yeah let's trust those guys to fix it all. Oh yeah, they did, they got the government to bail them out with tax money! Sheesh.

But you honetsly feel that the US is in a worse place now than back in 2008?

The USA has been going downhill since the creation of Fiat Money during the Nixon Administration. We just refuse to acknowledge it.
 
I believe you can look at a President Clinton for allowing those loans to people who couldn't afford them [Bush actually 'tried' to stop some of that]

I'm not a Republican and it's never a good idea to 'assume'.

Why don't we address the actual people responsible for the condition we're in rather than throw around political nonsense?


Oh this silly narrative. Clinton did no such thing. I suspect this is some reference to the CRA which stopped redlining (i.e. stopped banks from denying loans to QUALIFIED borrowers in certain zip codes, in short, minorities).

In any case, we have always had foreclosure. No big deal as long as you don't have unregulated CDSs floating around tainting the entire system. Now who was it that deregulated CDSs? Take a guess.
 
But you honetsly feel that the US is in a worse place now than back in 2008?

I don't recall saying that. I believe that we would have been much better off with a president who took a hands-off approach with business and industry creation, and this one seems to be quite the opposite, preferring to regulate and control to the point that few are willing to take the risk.
 
Back
Top Bottom