in the video, you can skip to the 1 hr mark to see the numbers. In very real terms, we are talking about a net $700k transfer of wealth from my future children to my parents. if you look at this per each household, you can understand why people are struggling, and have been over the past 40 years, and it will only become compounded. you can talk about defense cuts, but even if you cut defense to zero, the growth in social security and medicare will eat that up in 15 years. the current fiscal budget (because the AARP has it's way) is 1 trillion. 850 billion of that go to the elderly (medicare social security). 6 billion goes to children.
Ugh, Tim, those numbers are do depressing. On NPR today they talked about raising or removing the cap on Social Security taxable income and of course a bunch of right wingers brayed on about how that's a redistribution of wealth therefore socialism. We're doomed.
Dec 5, 13 8:02 pm ·
·
Europe too. The west has been built on a ponzi scheme of growht and it's near the end.
Excertp:
"I think it was Jay Hanson who said that a democracy can only function until people figure out they can vote themselves an ever larger piece of the pie. And even if he meant it as a general observation, it's true in this narrower sense as well. A 51% majority can vote itself a lot of goodies while denying the other 49% a lot of their basics. Nor does it stop there: lots of disillusioned young people don't vote, leaving the coast even clearer for their parents to rob them.
Should they then vote? It's not much use, is it? There's not enough of them. Through advances in medicine, the older part of the population grows faster than the younger ones. They can't win.
Should we tell them they have their entire lives ahead of them and they can work to make their dreams come true? Should we do that while we refuse to create jobs for them, as the Europeans do?
For many of today's younger people there are no jobs, and for most of those who do find jobs there will be no pensions. And the cherry on the cake is they are the generation that will be burdened with paying for the stimulus measures that are handed out to the world of finance today so it can keep its losses hidden and still live in style, just to make sure the sweet lives of older generations can go on a little longer.
If you're young, this is what your folks do to you. If you're older, this is what you do to your kids. I know I present it all in black and white, but that doesn't mean it's less true, it just makes the edges a bit sharper. The fact remains that we're busily and blindly running into the mother of all generational conflicts. Which in the end the young always win."
Dec 6, 13 9:40 am ·
·
Teh detriot banruptcy is kind of the frontline in this conflict. Old retirees living in Florida are about to get their pension checks whacked.
^Donna, it is pretty silly considering, if unattended, this will be the greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of mankind, and that's not even hyperbole. Some people call it generational theft, but I believe if grandparents knew how much they were taking from their grandchildren, they would jump on voting to reform their own entitlements. It is just never framed this way by politicians because they're cowards (D and R). As a matter of policy, Stan Druckenmiller proposes taxing capital gains the same as income to halt the money grab taking place by baby boomers (see stock market) while at the same time reducing the corporate tax rate down to zero, to keep jobs here and also to use that money towards research and development. Also reforms must apply to current retirees, starting with means testing for social security. Why should a retired billionaire get 3.5k a month in social security? I also think the retirement age can be changed to 69 for white collar jobs. In fact my mom insists on working past 65 just because she wants to.
The house is burning and Republicans just want to talk spending cuts while Democrats just want to tax income, but no one wants to talk about entitlement reform. I've voted Democrat most of my adult life, but I'm willing to vote for any politician who is willing to talk about this. Everything else is just pennies on the dollar in comparison.
For more info look up the can kicks back or Stan Druckenmiller.
Rant warning: I have an elderly aunt who every time I see her she makes some comment along the lines of "you kids keep paying into the kitty, I need another social security check to buy more jewelry and art" and she thinks she is so fucking funny I can't stand it, especially since she is drawing both a pension (full salary, retired school teacher) AND social security which she told me you aren't supposed to do but she is smart and figured out how to do it I guess. I have a fantasy where next time I see her I will put $300 or $400 in my baby daughters pocket and when my aunt cracks her social security ha-ha lines I will say with all seriousness, "Oh, I almost forgot, yes, your social security, this month I thought we'd do something different and just bypass the middle man and give our share straight to you" and take the money out of the baby's pocket and give it to her. That would be overly dramatic and she probably wouldn't get it anyways.
The elderly people in my life are all on 7-8 medications that cost god only knows how much, is this normal? They refuse to exercise even a little and sit around eating roast beef and ice cream all day.
The elderly people in my life are all on 7-8 medications that cost god only knows how much, is this normal? They refuse to exercise even a little and sit around eating roast beef and ice cream all day.
Well, roast beef and ice cream all day is not, especially together, as in alternating bites, but I hope the roast beef is well done.
One of my parents is on about 5 or 6 of them. If they are on Medicare, and have a good companion "wraparound" plan, it's not such a big deal, assuming the co-pays are low. The co-pays for the generics can be real low, like $4 sometimes. I take a few generics.
The rule of thumb is: If there's a TV advertisement for a pharmaceutical, you're screwed.
observant, why do you hope the roast beef is well done? I just calculated how much I actually pay in FICA every month, it is WAY more than $300 a month.
Maybe if the retiries stayed in Detroit the city might not be bankrupt or at least as far into the red as they are. I am all for public pensions giving a premium for people staying in the city or state they earned their pensions in and charging a modest penalty if they take the money and run. Many places require public employees to live in the city or county they work for, maybe the same can be done for pensions. But look to Illinois and the future of pensions is bleak, I would be surprised if we have pensions beyond the next decade.
This all means we need to collectively scale back our living large lifestyle. No more 3 hour commutes in your 9 MPG rage rover suburban assault vehicles, vacation homes and unused reck-rooms in peoples Mc Mansions. We need to think small again, compact and efficient. A home doesn't need to cost half a million.
we will have to accept the reality that most of us will have smaller homes, later retirements, less leisure time, lower wages, more career interruptions than our parents ever did. Talk to your grandparents if you still have them and learn how they got through the depression being frugal yet dignified.
Well, in the Reagan boom years I remember articles saying that the boomers would not be able to retire as there were not enough younger workers left to fill the empty slots they would leave. How things change! The key reason for the current train wreck is the shipment of manufacturing, engineering, and service jobs offshore. At the same time we have millions of illegal aliens who are not paid enough to support themselves so their housing, food, and medical shortfall are made up the US taxpayer (who has just lost his job or had his salary cut). In addition there is an enormous number of "poor" people in the cities who use the government programs as a monthly income floor while they work off the books, or engage in criminal activity of one sort or another, kind of like a salesman who has a set salary plus commissions.
Dec 6, 13 4:19 pm ·
·
I dont' know enough about Detroit but ,yeah, it probably would help if those people had stayed int the city.
I read somewhere recently that all retirement funds will be empty by 2043.
Even the ones that appear healthy are probably fucked because most of their calculations of futrue returns overally optimistic (like 8-10% annual) when more realistically given the deflationary environement somethisng like 2 % growth would be closer to truth.
Dec 6, 13 5:08 pm ·
·
And yeah Illinois is in reall bad shape and might be the Detoit of the states. But unlike cities, states have no option for declaring bankruptcy unless they change some rules.
I dont understand how anyone could put any faith in the idea of a Retirement fund that pays back 40-50 years in the future. A lot can happen by then. We usually fail to consider the impact of technology on the future economy. Robotics and automation will make most jobs obsolete which means most people will be jobless. Robots don't need 401k or health insurance, the perfect corporate slave. We are fucked! As a result, there will likely have to be a shift towards some form of socialism or fascism. Many will resist by dropping out of society and living in commune like subsistence farming towns. Big cities will all become Detroits or Disneylands for the rich. Technology has/will make the physical utility of the city obsolete.
Once the city loses its utilitarian function as a place of commerce and production it will either collapse like Detroit or transform into a place of pure amusement like Las Vegas.
The creative economy will probably flourish despite the rise of the machines. Robots can hammer nails, drive cabs, serve food, etc....but probably won't be capable of creative thinking any time in the next 200 years. I am also anticipating a huge cultural artistic renaissance around the mid 21st century. Unless ww3 wipes us all out first....or throws us back into the Stone Age.
I agree with you jla-x. The lack of creativeness that cannot be captured in robotic technology yet should be a good focus for people that have their jobs replace by them. And as the rich get richer there will be more demand for uniquely inspired art/technology that isn't printed/made by the thousands and dumped into big box stores. I have notice that my generation (in my 30s) is becoming more and more aware of just how destructive globalization is and how important community is. If you look at capitalism, it breeds this false notion of 'self' and the idea that you need nothing other than that. While it is important to respect one's self, and do what is best for yourself, it is becoming very apparent that without community you lose your strength as a whole/nation. The ppl that I surround myself with are looking to do more and more community gardens, and even aquaponics and the like to break away from the corrupt institutions that the government has in place that don't give a damn about your health and are only concerned about a bottom line.
Dec 30, 13 2:30 pm ·
·
"I dont understand how anyone could put any faith in the idea of a Retirement fund that pays back 40-50 years in the future."
Especially mind boggling when you consider that those promises are made by politicians and corporate CEOs, because we all know those are the most trustworthy bunch.
DARPA is also developing autonomous solider robots that can identify targets and kill without any human guidance. Scary shit. I am curious as to what features they will be programmed to look for in targets.
Was thinking about this the other day when I saw a garbage truck. They all have these robotic arms now. One driver is all that's needed. When I was a kid there was always one driver and 2 guys to grab the trash. Soon the driver will be gone too. These are all jobs that are disappearing. The elitists may not see these as good jobs anyway, but people feed their families on these jobs.
jla, i'm pretty sure the wages of that truck driver keep being pushed down while their cost of living keeps going up. working in a job like that won't be able to keep you out of poverty. you've seen the stories from walmart and mcdonalds where they have help lines that tell employees how to apply for WIC or other government subsidies right, since they know their employees are unable to stay alive on the jobs they provide? why would people work if they're going to starve anyway?
Dec 30, 13 4:23 pm ·
·
"I am curious as to what features they will be programmed to look for in targets."
That is an easy one, they'll just do a backdoor check of you iphone and if you've been talking to anybody named osama then you can probably expect a robot or drone visit soon.
"The elitists may not see these as good jobs anyway, but people feed their families on these jobs."
operating a heavy vehicle is not the same as working a line at a fast food joint - you need extensive training and a special license - the pay isn't that bad and the skills are transferable - i mean, you learn how to operate heavy machinery and you also learn how to collect brain waves for the reptilian aliens that secretly control the world - especially without people knowing that's what you're really up to.
Toaster, a robot can be designed to drive a truck. There are already prototypes for self driving cars. It's not too far off. Go look at some photos of assembly lines from 50 years ago and them some from now. It would be complete sci fi if a person in 1950 saw what we had today. Actually even the sci fi was of the day was so far less "advanced" than what actually became reality. One day I-robot will be as cheesy as those huge green letter hand held computers of 1980's sci- fi. The two constants in society are technological advancement and human greed. It's a pretty logical conclusion that robots will replace most jobs in the near future.
If everyone is in robot-operated cars and trucks, it would be very easy for cyclists to take complete control of traffic. it's a conspiracy by the reptilian elite - you can see them in riding around spandex, since it's the closest approximation of their natural state.
the second installment of Back to the Future was set in about our time, and it was totally wrong. Therefore the future is not coming. The reason being that our reptile overlords were destroyed in a secret battle that took place underground or possibly in a volcano and we never noticed. The side effect of that battle is global warming, which explains why scientists have to fake it to make sense of the odd data, and so on. It's all a very viscous (possibly vicious) world, behind the scenes.
or possibly we are all just in real trouble.
Dec 31, 13 7:24 am ·
·
omg holy shit, how do you know about the underground alien fire fights?!!! that's supposed to be super top secret.
It's a mathematical given that Federal spending has become unsustainable. We can't tax our way into the clear, and we can't grow the economy at a pace and scale to offset the spending. It's simply not mathematically possible. We could cut spending, but the magnitude of the cuts in entitlements that would be required for balance would likely cause a revolution. Not that the spending does not need to occur.
So discussions of upping the minimum wage, the Basic Income, which rich are too rich, which group deserves what, why you think profit is evil, etc. -- none of these will matter, and all are beside the point. In any case, it should be clear that adding even more spending programs defies logic.
In the face of this, the current administration is spending unchecked. As did the previous several administrations. Spending is on an increasingly steeper upward slope, and there is no indication that the mainstream of either party intends to participate in an actual solution.
Bullshit. If the fed taxed the rich and corporations, and didn't squander trillions on destabilizing wars for profit and corporate subsidies, we'd live in a golden age.
In 1945 debt to GDP was 120%. Between 1945 and 1980, top tax rates were between 70% and 92%. During that period the US built a nationwide infrastructure of power, communications and transportation, built a humongous nuclear armed military to wage a global cold war and put a man on the moon. At the same time there was a radical reduction in poverty, a huge thriving middle class and the national debt was reduced to 30% of GDP.
Then came Ronnie Raygun and the accelerated corporate takeover of government. The rest, as they say, is history.
Saint, I'm in agreement with Miles on this. Plus, it's not about cutting spending but about spending wisely. We don't, currently. How many tax breaks - aka spending - are given to "farmers" who don't own farmland for any reason *but* to get that agricultural tax break? How many tax breaks are given to a company to stay in a city that they're going to stay in anyway because they can't rebuild their workforce in another place? How many miles of new roads, utilities, police protection, and schools are we going to build on open land so another McMansion developer will contribute to a politician's reelection?
I think we as a society should be spending like crazy. We're wealthy enough to make public school teaching such a highly-paid profession that every smart college grad wants to go into teaching, to make sure no child is unhoused or poorly fed, and to invest in our infrastructure to the point that we have the highest-quality built environment and technological systems on the planet. But for some reason - many untenable reasons, really - we as a society choose to say that's not possible.
(Also, I too blame a lot of where we are now on Reagan. He was the worst president in history, and pretty much ruined America, but did a bang-up job of making us feel good about ourselves while he/we did so.)
The 40-Year Slump - featuring an architect!
in the video, you can skip to the 1 hr mark to see the numbers. In very real terms, we are talking about a net $700k transfer of wealth from my future children to my parents. if you look at this per each household, you can understand why people are struggling, and have been over the past 40 years, and it will only become compounded. you can talk about defense cuts, but even if you cut defense to zero, the growth in social security and medicare will eat that up in 15 years. the current fiscal budget (because the AARP has it's way) is 1 trillion. 850 billion of that go to the elderly (medicare social security). 6 billion goes to children.
Europe too. The west has been built on a ponzi scheme of growht and it's near the end.
Excertp:
"I think it was Jay Hanson who said that a democracy can only function until people figure out they can vote themselves an ever larger piece of the pie. And even if he meant it as a general observation, it's true in this narrower sense as well. A 51% majority can vote itself a lot of goodies while denying the other 49% a lot of their basics. Nor does it stop there: lots of disillusioned young people don't vote, leaving the coast even clearer for their parents to rob them.
Should they then vote? It's not much use, is it? There's not enough of them. Through advances in medicine, the older part of the population grows faster than the younger ones. They can't win.
Should we tell them they have their entire lives ahead of them and they can work to make their dreams come true? Should we do that while we refuse to create jobs for them, as the Europeans do?
For many of today's younger people there are no jobs, and for most of those who do find jobs there will be no pensions. And the cherry on the cake is they are the generation that will be burdened with paying for the stimulus measures that are handed out to the world of finance today so it can keep its losses hidden and still live in style, just to make sure the sweet lives of older generations can go on a little longer.
If you're young, this is what your folks do to you. If you're older, this is what you do to your kids. I know I present it all in black and white, but that doesn't mean it's less true, it just makes the edges a bit sharper. The fact remains that we're busily and blindly running into the mother of all generational conflicts. Which in the end the young always win."
Teh detriot banruptcy is kind of the frontline in this conflict. Old retirees living in Florida are about to get their pension checks whacked.
^Donna, it is pretty silly considering, if unattended, this will be the greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of mankind, and that's not even hyperbole. Some people call it generational theft, but I believe if grandparents knew how much they were taking from their grandchildren, they would jump on voting to reform their own entitlements. It is just never framed this way by politicians because they're cowards (D and R). As a matter of policy, Stan Druckenmiller proposes taxing capital gains the same as income to halt the money grab taking place by baby boomers (see stock market) while at the same time reducing the corporate tax rate down to zero, to keep jobs here and also to use that money towards research and development. Also reforms must apply to current retirees, starting with means testing for social security. Why should a retired billionaire get 3.5k a month in social security? I also think the retirement age can be changed to 69 for white collar jobs. In fact my mom insists on working past 65 just because she wants to.
The house is burning and Republicans just want to talk spending cuts while Democrats just want to tax income, but no one wants to talk about entitlement reform. I've voted Democrat most of my adult life, but I'm willing to vote for any politician who is willing to talk about this. Everything else is just pennies on the dollar in comparison.
For more info look up the can kicks back or Stan Druckenmiller.
Rant warning: I have an elderly aunt who every time I see her she makes some comment along the lines of "you kids keep paying into the kitty, I need another social security check to buy more jewelry and art" and she thinks she is so fucking funny I can't stand it, especially since she is drawing both a pension (full salary, retired school teacher) AND social security which she told me you aren't supposed to do but she is smart and figured out how to do it I guess. I have a fantasy where next time I see her I will put $300 or $400 in my baby daughters pocket and when my aunt cracks her social security ha-ha lines I will say with all seriousness, "Oh, I almost forgot, yes, your social security, this month I thought we'd do something different and just bypass the middle man and give our share straight to you" and take the money out of the baby's pocket and give it to her. That would be overly dramatic and she probably wouldn't get it anyways.
The elderly people in my life are all on 7-8 medications that cost god only knows how much, is this normal? They refuse to exercise even a little and sit around eating roast beef and ice cream all day.
tint, that is hilarious - the pulling money out of your daughter's pocket thing. Love it.
The elderly people in my life are all on 7-8 medications that cost god only knows how much, is this normal? They refuse to exercise even a little and sit around eating roast beef and ice cream all day.
Well, roast beef and ice cream all day is not, especially together, as in alternating bites, but I hope the roast beef is well done.
One of my parents is on about 5 or 6 of them. If they are on Medicare, and have a good companion "wraparound" plan, it's not such a big deal, assuming the co-pays are low. The co-pays for the generics can be real low, like $4 sometimes. I take a few generics.
The rule of thumb is: If there's a TV advertisement for a pharmaceutical, you're screwed.
Thanks for posting that video, Tim, I'm listening to the whole thing.
observant, the prescriptions probably don't cost very much, but I still don't like them. Must be the intermountain bohemian in me.
observant, why do you hope the roast beef is well done? I just calculated how much I actually pay in FICA every month, it is WAY more than $300 a month.
observant, why do you hope the roast beef is well done?
That's how I order it. I don't know, rare or medium rare roast beef with alternating spoonfuls of Neapolitan ice cream wasn't doing it for me.
I want Martha Stewart to pay a LOT more in Social Security taxes than she probably does.
Maybe if the retiries stayed in Detroit the city might not be bankrupt or at least as far into the red as they are. I am all for public pensions giving a premium for people staying in the city or state they earned their pensions in and charging a modest penalty if they take the money and run. Many places require public employees to live in the city or county they work for, maybe the same can be done for pensions. But look to Illinois and the future of pensions is bleak, I would be surprised if we have pensions beyond the next decade.
This all means we need to collectively scale back our living large lifestyle. No more 3 hour commutes in your 9 MPG rage rover suburban assault vehicles, vacation homes and unused reck-rooms in peoples Mc Mansions. We need to think small again, compact and efficient. A home doesn't need to cost half a million.
we will have to accept the reality that most of us will have smaller homes, later retirements, less leisure time, lower wages, more career interruptions than our parents ever did. Talk to your grandparents if you still have them and learn how they got through the depression being frugal yet dignified.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Well, in the Reagan boom years I remember articles saying that the boomers would not be able to retire as there were not enough younger workers left to fill the empty slots they would leave. How things change! The key reason for the current train wreck is the shipment of manufacturing, engineering, and service jobs offshore. At the same time we have millions of illegal aliens who are not paid enough to support themselves so their housing, food, and medical shortfall are made up the US taxpayer (who has just lost his job or had his salary cut). In addition there is an enormous number of "poor" people in the cities who use the government programs as a monthly income floor while they work off the books, or engage in criminal activity of one sort or another, kind of like a salesman who has a set salary plus commissions.
I dont' know enough about Detroit but ,yeah, it probably would help if those people had stayed int the city.
I read somewhere recently that all retirement funds will be empty by 2043.
Even the ones that appear healthy are probably fucked because most of their calculations of futrue returns overally optimistic (like 8-10% annual) when more realistically given the deflationary environement somethisng like 2 % growth would be closer to truth.
And yeah Illinois is in reall bad shape and might be the Detoit of the states. But unlike cities, states have no option for declaring bankruptcy unless they change some rules.
Volunteer - none of the things you stated are key reasons for our current budget imbalance. not even close.
Another article, from the art world, on the same topic.
Molly Crabapple:
An artist, like an activist, is expected to financially hobble herself. Purity is as important as survival. There's a constant criticism for earning "too much." But as we slash the social safety net, once basic things—a home, college, a dignified old age—become mirages. It’s near impossible to live the average American dream on the average American salary.
I dont understand how anyone could put any faith in the idea of a Retirement fund that pays back 40-50 years in the future. A lot can happen by then. We usually fail to consider the impact of technology on the future economy. Robotics and automation will make most jobs obsolete which means most people will be jobless. Robots don't need 401k or health insurance, the perfect corporate slave. We are fucked! As a result, there will likely have to be a shift towards some form of socialism or fascism. Many will resist by dropping out of society and living in commune like subsistence farming towns. Big cities will all become Detroits or Disneylands for the rich. Technology has/will make the physical utility of the city obsolete.
Once the city loses its utilitarian function as a place of commerce and production it will either collapse like Detroit or transform into a place of pure amusement like Las Vegas.
The creative economy will probably flourish despite the rise of the machines. Robots can hammer nails, drive cabs, serve food, etc....but probably won't be capable of creative thinking any time in the next 200 years. I am also anticipating a huge cultural artistic renaissance around the mid 21st century. Unless ww3 wipes us all out first....or throws us back into the Stone Age.
I agree with you jla-x. The lack of creativeness that cannot be captured in robotic technology yet should be a good focus for people that have their jobs replace by them. And as the rich get richer there will be more demand for uniquely inspired art/technology that isn't printed/made by the thousands and dumped into big box stores. I have notice that my generation (in my 30s) is becoming more and more aware of just how destructive globalization is and how important community is. If you look at capitalism, it breeds this false notion of 'self' and the idea that you need nothing other than that. While it is important to respect one's self, and do what is best for yourself, it is becoming very apparent that without community you lose your strength as a whole/nation. The ppl that I surround myself with are looking to do more and more community gardens, and even aquaponics and the like to break away from the corrupt institutions that the government has in place that don't give a damn about your health and are only concerned about a bottom line.
"I dont understand how anyone could put any faith in the idea of a Retirement fund that pays back 40-50 years in the future."
Especially mind boggling when you consider that those promises are made by politicians and corporate CEOs, because we all know those are the most trustworthy bunch.
Yup^
Robots are getting even closer, just read about Nasa's new toy. Meanwhile, hungry homeless people are being duped into cleaning up fukushima.
what a lovely species we are. Indeed, we are fucked!
DARPA is also developing autonomous solider robots that can identify targets and kill without any human guidance. Scary shit. I am curious as to what features they will be programmed to look for in targets.
Was thinking about this the other day when I saw a garbage truck. They all have these robotic arms now. One driver is all that's needed. When I was a kid there was always one driver and 2 guys to grab the trash. Soon the driver will be gone too. These are all jobs that are disappearing. The elitists may not see these as good jobs anyway, but people feed their families on these jobs.
jla, i'm pretty sure the wages of that truck driver keep being pushed down while their cost of living keeps going up. working in a job like that won't be able to keep you out of poverty. you've seen the stories from walmart and mcdonalds where they have help lines that tell employees how to apply for WIC or other government subsidies right, since they know their employees are unable to stay alive on the jobs they provide? why would people work if they're going to starve anyway?
"I am curious as to what features they will be programmed to look for in targets."
That is an easy one, they'll just do a backdoor check of you iphone and if you've been talking to anybody named osama then you can probably expect a robot or drone visit soon.
"The elitists may not see these as good jobs anyway, but people feed their families on these jobs."
Feeding families and growing families are clearly a threat. Especially given the elitist agenda of population reduction.
operating a heavy vehicle is not the same as working a line at a fast food joint - you need extensive training and a special license - the pay isn't that bad and the skills are transferable - i mean, you learn how to operate heavy machinery and you also learn how to collect brain waves for the reptilian aliens that secretly control the world - especially without people knowing that's what you're really up to.
they'll just do a backdoor check of you iphone
Thank doG for condoms.
Toaster, a robot can be designed to drive a truck. There are already prototypes for self driving cars. It's not too far off. Go look at some photos of assembly lines from 50 years ago and them some from now. It would be complete sci fi if a person in 1950 saw what we had today. Actually even the sci fi was of the day was so far less "advanced" than what actually became reality. One day I-robot will be as cheesy as those huge green letter hand held computers of 1980's sci- fi. The two constants in society are technological advancement and human greed. It's a pretty logical conclusion that robots will replace most jobs in the near future.
If everyone is in robot-operated cars and trucks, it would be very easy for cyclists to take complete control of traffic. it's a conspiracy by the reptilian elite - you can see them in riding around spandex, since it's the closest approximation of their natural state.
all hail our reptilian overlords!
Never said anything about reptiles.
neither did I. who is talking about reptiles? you're crazy.
the second installment of Back to the Future was set in about our time, and it was totally wrong. Therefore the future is not coming. The reason being that our reptile overlords were destroyed in a secret battle that took place underground or possibly in a volcano and we never noticed. The side effect of that battle is global warming, which explains why scientists have to fake it to make sense of the odd data, and so on. It's all a very viscous (possibly vicious) world, behind the scenes.
or possibly we are all just in real trouble.
omg holy shit, how do you know about the underground alien fire fights?!!! that's supposed to be super top secret.
http://gawker.com/5667202/11-things-from-back-to-the-future-ii-that-actually-came-true-and-3-that-havent-yet
It's a mathematical given that Federal spending has become unsustainable. We can't tax our way into the clear, and we can't grow the economy at a pace and scale to offset the spending. It's simply not mathematically possible. We could cut spending, but the magnitude of the cuts in entitlements that would be required for balance would likely cause a revolution. Not that the spending does not need to occur.
So discussions of upping the minimum wage, the Basic Income, which rich are too rich, which group deserves what, why you think profit is evil, etc. -- none of these will matter, and all are beside the point. In any case, it should be clear that adding even more spending programs defies logic.
In the face of this, the current administration is spending unchecked. As did the previous several administrations. Spending is on an increasingly steeper upward slope, and there is no indication that the mainstream of either party intends to participate in an actual solution.
Bullshit. If the fed taxed the rich and corporations, and didn't squander trillions on destabilizing wars for profit and corporate subsidies, we'd live in a golden age.
In 1945 debt to GDP was 120%. Between 1945 and 1980, top tax rates were between 70% and 92%. During that period the US built a nationwide infrastructure of power, communications and transportation, built a humongous nuclear armed military to wage a global cold war and put a man on the moon. At the same time there was a radical reduction in poverty, a huge thriving middle class and the national debt was reduced to 30% of GDP.
Then came Ronnie Raygun and the accelerated corporate takeover of government. The rest, as they say, is history.
Ronnie RayGun......now that is a perfect play on his name. Now I will ever see him with his weapon strapped to his side.
Saint, I'm in agreement with Miles on this. Plus, it's not about cutting spending but about spending wisely. We don't, currently. How many tax breaks - aka spending - are given to "farmers" who don't own farmland for any reason *but* to get that agricultural tax break? How many tax breaks are given to a company to stay in a city that they're going to stay in anyway because they can't rebuild their workforce in another place? How many miles of new roads, utilities, police protection, and schools are we going to build on open land so another McMansion developer will contribute to a politician's reelection?
I think we as a society should be spending like crazy. We're wealthy enough to make public school teaching such a highly-paid profession that every smart college grad wants to go into teaching, to make sure no child is unhoused or poorly fed, and to invest in our infrastructure to the point that we have the highest-quality built environment and technological systems on the planet. But for some reason - many untenable reasons, really - we as a society choose to say that's not possible.
(Also, I too blame a lot of where we are now on Reagan. He was the worst president in history, and pretty much ruined America, but did a bang-up job of making us feel good about ourselves while he/we did so.)
Raygun is the fifth worst president behind (4th) Bush I, (3rd) Clinton, (2nd) Bush II and the all time worst president in history - Obama.
Notice a trend?
Is Obama a democrat or republican? I can't tell who he works for?
I hear some ppl say he is a product of the neocon think tanks, just like 911
but those are conspiracies, and conspiracies are always made up by idiots, right?
I can't even tell the difference between a democratic pundit or a conservative pundit, it's like they are one in the same.
it is almost like if you even vote, you are contributing to continuing the oligarchy that is in place...humm
i better shut up before the lizards come and visit me again...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.