JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Are you a spender or a saver

And Ray I get the distinct impression that the only federal "social" spending you approve of is the money that goes to the wealthy and the corporations. All else is bad because people should be totally self reliant like you are.

You derided all those folks who were "sold" on those cheap mortgages that were pushed by banks, then "commoditized" and sold on Wall Street. Never a word about the multi billion dollar Wall Street bailout when those financial instruments "crashed" ...and subsequent fat bonuses paid out of those funds. Or bailing out Detroit more than once, or airlines...or...

Now in fairness, a lot of Wall Street bailout and financial crisis money has been repaid, but there are large amounts still unpaid by big companies and there are lots of federal government programs that carry no strings attached

....but should these recipients not have planned better, saved more, been more prudent, more self reliant???

Both sides add to the debt but both sides think the other side is foolish spending. As a Jesuit priest once told me, everybody thinks they have the answer, but the truth is the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

If not spending on social programs, the money gets spent on the space force or millitary. Spending on the homeless or spending on a war.

But really, it's mostly labeled divide. I submit that if put to a test, a good majority of people would not be able to tell me what a candidate stands for. What his beliefs and wants are. They are not all one size fits all, I can like a Republican and hate a Dem, and vica versa. I already know this is tru, I spoke with a Dem, who liked both Biden and Sanders, and he says, I'm not sure why kids like Bernie sanders. I said cause he wants to give them free college and legalize marijuana, and offer free healthcare.

He says he does? Lol, you told me you liked him and you don't know his views?

It's party. Nothing else, so to go facts. Facts can be twisted.... "Before I came in office unemployment was at an all time high, now its dropped 25%". Somebody who doesn't like the guy will refute the numbers and believe he's right

And even if proven wrong, wont change the vote.

Politics started really getting ugly with the internet. How repubs and dems hate each other, nobody can mention an actor,singer etc without bringing their
politics into it and saying they hate them.

But it is funny how often staunch republicans and dems don't know what their candidate wants to do or has done, and really don't care

Well John,
Lets just look at the mortgage mess you allude to. Who relaxed the Banking Regulations so anyone could get a Mortgage.
Again it was the democrats who pushed the bill. Now John, why do we have tough banking regulations? It is because regular people put money in the banks and banks have to be careful where the lend it so the depositors can depend on it being there when they need some of it.

But, when the regs were relaxed, the people charged the lending instutitions like a gaggle of Hogs charging a trough of slop to get a mortgage they had no way to pay for. You want to blame everybody but where the real blame is. Yes a lot of people put tons and tons of *hit in the game to deflect the real blame. The people that took out the loans John, not Wall Street or the Banks is where the blame belongs.
You must sit up in your big office with your sheets, graphs, slide rule and say if we just do this and this and this it will all work out.
So lets take a walk down memory lane. People borrowed small amounts of money and invested it in the Stock Market expecting to make a killing. They and of course the taxpayers were the only ones that made a killing, got killed as it were.
So the great communator got Social Security passed.
now we're on easy street, right? Not so fast. Next the great orator got Medicare passed. We're home free right? Well not exactly. So the great housing bill was passed. Wow, we are getting there at last. But last but not least the Affordable (Unaffordable) Health bill was passed. Well OK right. But the jobs all disappeared! What the F.
So John we traded the Stock Market Crash for a 23 soon to be a 33 Trillion Dollar Federal Debt. Real progress eh, John. I'm still looking for that Free Lunch John. When do you think it will show up?

Once again you avoid the central point that Republicans and conservatives are big spenders too and introduce a something so easy to refute

Yes, Bill Clinton signed the Gramm, Leach Bliley Act into law...but how ^&(*&( inconvenient that 1) all three sponsors were Republicans, and it was passed by a bi partisan majority. That is I presume the relaxation of banking regulations in 1999 you refer to.

How inconvenient it must be that it was really a response to Citigroup wanting to merge with Travellers Insurance...which was not allowed under previous regulations. They obtained a temporary waiver, then this Act was passed in less than a year. That is almost record time don't you agree? For such a major things as relaxing banking regulations. Wonder how and why that was??? It could not be a powerful bank, a large political donor, an interested industry...all at work reminding the politicians who they can rely on to fund their re election?? Nawwww. Can't be...could it????

And you place the blame ENTIRELY on those who actually took out mortgages. No doubt they share some of it, but predatory lenders and their agents must also bear some of the blame for making it so easy and enticing with interest free periods, balloon payments, hype that their property values would always increase...as should real estate agents who promised folks their house prices would only go up. Agents and originating banks who sold this hype earned massive fees and then passed on the risk into the mortgage backed secutities and walked away with lots of riches...in metaphorical terms, the snake oil salesman should not get a pass just because he could fool someone into buying.

And back to the 33 TRILLION dollar public debt you talk about (that is high btw...the US is not yet there) ...it was 19.8 trillion when President Obama left office and projected (without COVID) to be about 28 TRILLION under President Trump. Again, ^&&^(* inconvenient when you are arguing only leftists, socialist and Democrats are running this up.

And I absolutely do not believe there is such a thing as a free lunch in terms an economist would use. Wealth creation, in economic terms, is not an accumulation...it is combining factors of production to create something worth more than what is paid for those factors of production used.

In the end SOMEONE\SUMONE has to pay if something produced is "given away"

But the "free lunch" could also be a useful economic tool if it adds to the total welfare (again , not welfare payments..the "economic welfare" is what I am talking about) of the population.

That is why there are public policy debates about transfer payments, health care etc. You cannot have people starving, or dying because they cannot afford health care or their next meal.

Is it the responsibility of the federal government? That can be debated. Should it be the responibility of the state, the municipality, a charity, your neighbours??? Well the reality of it is that all levels have reponsibility and all levels are shouldering it.

And in closing, you keep talking about personal responsibilty...and I cannot disagree that in the end, we should be responsible for ourselves and our actions.

But that is an ideal. Reality gets in the way. Talent, intelligence, opportunity, circumstance, harmful events etc are simply not equally distributed. Not everyone is born with the same birthright and advantages or disadvantage that may bring...and life's events only hit some and not others. It is simply how it is.

We all need this pandemic to be over.

Bob, just adding the context to your post...trust you don't mind seeing the whole ermmm picture....


LEAH MCLAREN The Globe and Mail Newspaper
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 10, 2001


Last Saturday, readers of this newspaper, including myself, were surprised to find out that Justin Trudeau, the eldest son of arguably the most important and beloved Canadian prime minister of the last century, doesn't pay much attention to politics. "I don't read the newspapers, I don't watch the news," he confessed with apparent pride. "I figure, if something important happens, someone will tell me."

Given who he is, along with on-going private and public gushing over his abundant "leadership qualities," Trudeau's admission of deliberate ignorance may seem astonishing. But considering his age, 29, it shouldn't be. Trudeau is merely typical of his generation.

Most people I know who are in their 20s don't read a paper or watch the news with any regularity. Many don't vote, either. This despite the fact that virtually all these young people are well-educated, and employed in (more or less) their chosen field -- young software designers, lawyers and academics, who don't follow the news.

Yet many devoutly ill-informed members of this same generation conduct their day-to-day lives in a highly politicized manner. For instance, many of my non-paper-reading, non-voting contemporaries are also strict vegetarians ("meat is murder") who wouldn't be caught dead in a pair of Nike trainers ("they use sweatshop labour to make their overpriced products and, besides, vegetarians who wear leather are hypocrites").

So where does that leave Justin Trudeau and the millions of Canadians like him? Is it possible to promote civic engagement while deliberately tuning out the political process?

"I want to see more people voting," he writes. "I want to see more people feeling they have an engagement and a relationship and a responsibility for the society in which they live."

What simply doesn't come up is how he or any one else knows who to vote for, without maintaining even a cursory relationship with mainstream current events. Presumably someone will whisper the preferred candidate's name in Trudeau's ear on his way to the polling station.

It's no secret that low voter turnout is directly related to how many of us don't pay attention to the news. In the U.S., the number of people in their 20s who make it to the polls has been dropping steadily for 30 years. Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, recently told The Globe that these numbers are directly related to the fact that so few young people are reading newspapers.

With voter turnout in the last election hitting an all-time low -- 62.8 per cent -- Canadian politics is suffering a similar problem, he said.

As for being engaged in the communities we live in, civic duty isn't particularly big among the young. A recent national study showed that the "civic core" of Canadian society tends to be older, religious and lives outside of major urban centres.

Justin Trudeau's conflicted vision of uninformed engagement brings to broad public light the curious, if not outright troubling paradoxes that so many young Canadians embody today. Like many members of his generation, he considers himself "almost a subversive" who operates inside and outside the system at the same time -- a radical individualist who believes in community involvement, a promoter of political awareness who at once writes for newspapers and ignores the news, a self-described "cultural-resistance worker" who is the product of cultural privilege.

If you see all of these positions as incompatible, you're probably of an age that voted for Justin's dad.

But it is not necessarily inconsistent to be full of political emotion and a desire for change, and at the same time to be scornful of mainstream debate because it comes across as hollow and dry.

Young people are yearning for a politics of values, and are instead being served a steady diet of self-interested, sleep-inducing economic-policy wonking. We were brought up on slick advertising, and can see through puffed-up rhetoric and tough question avoidance from a mile away. We're not impressed by a vision of the future that is limited to passing out flags and a handful of tax cuts.

Justin Trudeau may be confused in his naive recommendations for achieving a new and engaged civic society, but he does offer a valuable map of this generation's political paradoxes.

And those paradoxes might eventually lead to real change -- whether we read newspapers or not.

Poppycock.

Well John,
I do understand the problem. That is the problem. I mentioned this once before but it is worth mentioning again..FARON YOUNG once recorded a song, IT's A GREAT LIFE IF YOU DON'T WEAKEN. You, on the other hand find excuse after excuse why people take no responsibility for their lives. And you put the blame everywhere except where it belongs. Ya know John, I pay a guy 500 dollars a day to do all of my worrying for me. Where do I get the 500 dollars? That's the first thing he has to worry about. Taking Fiscal Responsibility for your life is a hard Row to Hoe I know. But somebody has to do it. A lot of people sold a lot of Snake Oil trying to dodge this problem but it comes back to the same problem. If you can't pay, you can't stay. And I don't know if all the mess is done yet. Like I said, The Liars are figuring, and the figures are lying. You keep batting your head against a brick wall. Maybe that Free Lunch is on the other side.

Can we order take out here? Rays buying. I want a blimpies best with oil and vinegar with a sided knife of mayo. Lettuce tomatoes and onions.

It's free, but only cause Ray is flipping the bill. Otherwise there is NO free lunch.

No Ray you don't understand..

until you admit that conservatives, Republicans, the radical middle, the Democrats, the socialists ,,ALMOST EVERY government in the last hundred or so years with political leanings across the spectrum has spent money beyond their means ...to the point that total debt is now well on its way to that 30 trillion dollar number. Your claim that ONLY Democrats and socialists are to blame is simply unfounded..and that you keep harping on that as being true is a mystery to me

Furthermore, that you focus ONLY on money spent on social programs as being the culprit here shows you are entirely unfamiliar with the components of government spending ...or you see money given to farmers for not growing crops, or big oil, car, airplane, etc as being OK. AND THAT IS OK if you believe that...just admit that. But don't hide behind slamming programs aimed at the less fortunate as being the cause of all budgetary ills.

And it is also OK that you believe that people should look entirely after themselves and not receive any public monies ever, regardless of their situation, because, after all, they are the authors of their own misfortune...they really could have planned better ....

You and I simply differ in opinions there. I'm not sure people can plan better so that their cancer does not bankrupt them, or that they should not build a house inTornado Alley..or anywhwere they can fall victim to a hurricane...You would not think it a government responsibility to extend help to them because they were foolish in the first place...and idiots that they are, being born poor, or less gifted that others. Really, why is that anyone's fault but their own?

Why are you so concerned with our politics and government debt? Bored with Canadian politics? Is Trudeau not amusing enough for you? You copy/paste a 19 year old article and imply that I can't grasp the "whole ermmm picture" (in your usual condescending Canadian manner). The fact is, your PM is a joke who likes to play dress up.

Right at this moment our cities are burning. We have other things to deal with besides your self righteous blather. As I said before, John....STFU.


Regards,


Bob

Bob I can't let Ray's comments go unchallenged and I could not let your quote stand without context. Nothing self righteous about it.

Eh, Well,
If I remember correctly when Ronald Reagan was president the National Debt was less than 4 Trillion. Today it is a bit over 23 Trillion. Somewhere way back there the Peons got the right to vote. They elected more peons to congress. Every time they got the sniffles or stubbed their toe they ran to congress and got another spending bill passed. But John, it was never enough! So they started to raise Corporate Taxes but it was still never enough! Finally Corporations had enough and started moving Offshore. So now the freeloaders are left back where they started from.
I wasn't born with a Silver Spoon in my mouth. I worked my was up from nothing. I have no problem with Welfare but some people think it's a way of life. And a lot of people use every trick in the book to game the system. Sorry, I have no sympathy for them. Or people that make excuse after excuse for their behavour.

When people elect politicians on their looks alone, like the Trudeaus, Justin and his father before him, you can be sure you are not going to get wise government. Playboys will be playboys and use taxpayer money to play with. With over 50% of the voting public being women, who mostly don't follow politics but do follow movie stars, mainly because of their looks and lifestyle, you know whom they will vote for, the good looking politician. Well they fought for the right to vote and so they should vote, but don't base your vote on the looks alone, consider the brain and life style of the one running for office, because the elected official will be passing laws to suit themselves and not the public.

Ah I think we were largely on common ground Ray.


Like you, I too "pulled myself up" and have NEVER drawn any kind of social assistance. I did have good parents who valued an education, but did not have the means to finance it, so I graduated with debt at a time of huge interest rates. Still I\we managed and actually did well enough to live reasonably well and save. I now draw a pension from our public pension plan...but I paid for that over the years.


I do not respect shirkers or gamers either. I expect ways can be found to make sure those who do abuse the system can be identified and some action can be taken. But that is a big political step to take, at least here in Canada, because groups and politicians who lobby for programs for the poor are against that,. The issue has been raised here more than once and nothing substantial has ever come of it. It is definitely a free rider problem.


I do know Ontario has been working on it, but the "working group" labels welfare as a social investment, all the while working on lowering "the cost"...so I'm not sure they are really advocates for a better system for the taxpayer. Not to say they should not focus on the recipients, but I would rather have them call a spade a spade.


All in all, I expect our taxpayers share the same frustrations with the system as you do.


Back to the public debt. While Democrats FDR & Wilson were in government for gigantic increases, and rank 1-2 in running up the public debt. After them, and admittedly far behind them...in order of increase are

Ronald Reagan
George W Bush
Barack Obama
George HW Bush
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton

IMO the list is not perfect because it shows as percent increase, which is influenced by the base you start from, and actual dollars not adjusted for inflation.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

In fairness. We all hear the stories of people saying "I picked myself up by the bootstraps, worked three jobs to provide for my son or dwughter, and still found time to go to college at night and got a good job etc

Stories like that are harder to find today. College costs more than more people make in a year, you couldn't afford to provide a roof and food even with three jobs cause it's just not enough money, assuming the jobs are minimum wage.

And in reality everybody gets help. Most kids I knew all had two parents, not all, they all were given their first car, we're sent to college and don't have to pay for it. We're given a roof over their head for as long as they wanted, and could probably still get it if their folks were still around.

My generation is a bit different, the roof might be a available to our young, a car maybe, insurance maybe, college....well my niece and nephew are going cause of mom and dad, but that's where it stops for many, it's just not affordable for most.

Where would they be if these things weren't given to them?

Compare that to some body who doesn't even have one parent let alone two, no roof, little food except maybe donated food.

If they want a better life, they are gonna need free college, a place to live while going there.

So when speaking of freelosders, yes there are many, we have to remember nobody does it without help. Anybody who says they came from nothing....especially in modern times, is not being truthfull, not everybody is fortunate enough to have things we take for granted.

And even moderate income people struggle, and two jobs won't cut it

This just in: Trumps in trouble.

Turns out the whole, I'll go against governors if they don't open churches was cause he was afraid of losing the Evangelical vote, and posing with Bible, not a good look.

If Biden could stop stuttering and gain coherence, he'd win by a landslide.

Whazzat?
TRUMP IN TROUBLE? Well FD, don't count your Chickens before they hatch.

Well, I didn't think he'd win the first time so who knows. They'e not my eggs to hatch, I'm not a believer in Biden, but I'm becoming more and more against Trump. How many stupid comments and actions can we give him a pass for?

He so obviously doesn't care about Religion, just using it for votes, or bout this brutality, just trying to talk tough, change the subject and belittle the governors who have worked so hard during this.

I liked some things about him,but I'm guessing swing voters like me are wavering. I don't think Biden can do the job, so I won't go there either but I really don't think trump can win, he's been exposed in so many ways, and let's face it, has gotten some terrible luck last few months.

Well FD,
Save your money and pass the ammunition! I know it's unfair, but the Constitution gives you the right to make your own choices so don't blow it!
P.S. The Trump detractors have been putting out bum dope about Trump before he was elected. They do it here too. Every so often someone writes a letter to the Local Newspaper deriding something Trump has done. Dream on.

That's the probkem, if the guy actually says and does the things in public, on tv, he can't call it fake news.

Yeah he's treated unfairly by media, but the things some people were concerned about a President with no experience have come to pass.

I know Republicans will vote for him regardless of what he says or does. And spin is a professional skill.

It's also wrong to vote party and on nothing else though.

Our primaries yesterday... Biden 3,972, Trump 6,972. Whether you like it or not, Trump will probably be President another 4 years.

John

Depends on who you want to listen to, https://www.forbes.com/sites/markro...ill-lose-the-2020-election/#34da1d822691

For some, the only thing that matters is the economy. Fail. (Regardless of reason). You can't walk into an election booth telling yourself the economy is great when it's not...But many will anyway

I'm going to write in Mickey Mouse

No FD No!
I am supporting Alley Oop for president and Snuffy Smith for vice president. Now you know we need a good chicken thief in the white house!

I consider myself fair and balanced. So I'm gonna stick up for Nirvana bassist here.... Never liked the group, highly influential but never liked them.

He supports trumps response, he shouldn't have to delete his Facebook cause of his belief.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment...lash-for-supporting-trump-164051580.html

I agree with you, FD. I don't agree with what he said, but it was said in a measured tone and was simply expressing his opinion. He has very right to say what he thinks. I suppose that in today's world, he might have anticipated the reaction.

On the other hand, you can't defend him and then lambast others like Taylor Swift, Springsteen or even the Dixie Chicks all those years ago for expressing their views and say they should just stay out of politics and "shut up and sing.". I'm not accusing you of that, but I know there are many people, including quite a few here, who would do that.

I think it can be hard to separate the art from the artist. Especially when the artist writes very personally and you relate to that artist, then they get political and you don't agree. A lot of times it's just them thinking they are obligated to speak up.

If I were a famous artist I think...at least right now, that I wouldn't get political, mostly because I don't have a one size fits all belief system. Some of these people are so predictable how they will respond.

And I also don't want to support something and then change my mind later if wrong about it.

I laughed when I saw an article 'Taylor Swift warns Trump"

It's been proven by now that no celebrity endorsement makes a difference.

At one time Springsteen never said a word about polics, couldn't even get him to do an interview and wouldn't even go on TV.

Yes, I think with Springsteen, it was politics in a more general sense, not party politics - speaking up for the little people, or at least giving them a voice. I suppose that's kind of political by some folks' definition, although I think of it more as social commentary. Then he kind of got dragged into it when Reagan hijacked Born In The USA. Nowadays simply being an honorable person can be seen as an affront to the current President. Everything, it seems, is tinged with politics.

As for Taylor Swift, yeah, she probably won't make much of a difference. I imagine her efforts, if she makes them, will be focused on persuading her fans to actually vote.

I read comments "I threw out all my Springsteen records" yeah, sure you did you probably downloaded them for free anyway.

his songs leaned left, and he probably should have stayed doing that. I think he waited till it didn't matter if he lost fans, he had so many.

Most of it is internet driven, now it's more enjoyable to people to hate on political beliefs than it is to listen to musuc....

And we wonder why music isn't as good as it used to be? The demand is not there for great music, just music. The demand is for news.

I am a saver.. not a great thing when the market and economy crash and they inflate the crap out of the money.

Aw, Humm, Well,
It appears the jobs report was a lot better than expected today 5 June 2020. Still it pays to be a saver and depend on yourself mostly. It is most discouraging that a lot of these "Protesters" are really looting and destroying property.

I can't muster in my pea brain why places of worship are locked down while bars and strip joints are not.
And let us make no mistake about it with the covid virus. It is not like the normal flu and can cause iron lung.
But where exactly is the science vs. politicizing and a power grab?