GetBig Republicans side with Pelosi on domestic issues?

[240 is Back]

has the world gone topsy turvy?

I posted this list of the 8 initiatives that the Dems are trying to pass in the first 100 hours.  yes, the dems that everyone bashes as "destroying America". 

Well, here is the list.  Eight things that the Republicans have shot down.  I expected Getbig members like BB, nordic, Mr I, and others to shit all over it.  Instead?

SILENCE! ?

So please, speak on it.  How many of the 8 Democrat initiatives do you agree/disagree with?

-no new spending if it adds to the deficit.
-implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission
-lobbying reform ("break the link" between lobbyists and legislation)
-raise the minimum wage, and allow no pay hike for Congress unless the minimum wage increase is approved.
-ban on privatizing Social Security
-negotiate lower drug prices
-cut student loan interest rates by 50%
-roll back multibillion-dollar subsidies for oil companies

[Mr. Intenseone]

You obviously missed this........

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116650.msg1689452#msg1689452

[Brixtonbulldog]

I am very against raising the minumun wage.  In the interest of maintaining the most competitive market and providing jobs for those who NEED the most entry level (teenagers, waitresses, students, etc) I honestly don't think we should even have one.  Let the marker dictate entry level wages.  Everytime a new min wage goes up business owners can't afford to hire people and are commonly forced to cut jobs.  There are plenty of places willing to compete for good help with competitive wages.

[Brixtonbulldog]

-no new spending if it adds to the deficit.
Mostly agree... although I would never undercut Nat'l security (specifically military money).
-implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission
I never felt comfortable with the intensions of the commission.  I'd like to see another investigation first.
-lobbying reform ("break the link" between lobbyists and legislation)
Lobbys are big for a reason.  There's a lot of Americans behind those lobbys... so no.
-raise the minimum wage, and allow no pay hike for Congress unless the minimum wage increase is approved.
See other.
-ban on privatizing Social Security
Privatizing would FIX soc sec.  I would privatize almost everything if we could.
-negotiate lower drug prices
Doubtful but I keep an open mind.  I'm a strict constructionist and don't believe in screwing with a free market.  Insurance companies could do more at this end if they want to keep their clients.
-cut student loan interest rates by 50%
I would have no problem with that.
-roll back multibillion-dollar subsidies for oil companies
Until see a reason otherwise, sure.

I have a big problem with dems around election time and at the beginnings of thier terms.  They start to sound more conservative to gain more votes.  They know thier left leanings are way out of touch for most of the voting populace and so they start claiming to support nat'l security and the troops, border security, no new taxes, and most other conservative issues...

...then they get elected and promptly forget what they claimed.

[Mr. Intenseone]

(personally - the social security thing seems like a good deal - investing your own money - problem is, the poverty rate will skyrocket if a few big firms take a hit when the next recession comes.  I'm good with investments, and I would do just fine... but if 6 of 10 people over 65 suddenly lose their shirt, America takes a huge dump as you have 60 to 80 million starving helpless people begging on the streets.    )

Depending on what kind of investments are set up, it's highly doubtful that anyone would lose their shirts let alone starving and begging on the streets, quite the contrary, they would be more than likely be getting more than the full benefits!

[Brixtonbulldog]

not everyone wins with the stock market.  Enron failed and you had thousand of old people with no retirement.  That was one company.

Imagine some event which seriously slowed the US economy.  This could be an attack, a natural disaster, fraud, war spending, china/rus/eur rise, whatever.  Suppose 50% of US firms lost 20% of their value in a two-year period.  80 million american would go from $1000 a month to $800 a month.  That $200 difference means they don't eat.  And that 20% estimate is low.  Suppose GM bottoms out.  Suppose big oil loses it's subsidies.  Suddenly the exxon you're banking on for age 65 is worth $40 less per share and you bought it way too high. 

Also you have to remember that there are tens of millions of Americans who have zero knowledge of the stock market.  They will buy sucker stocks and will be starving.  It's easy to say "their problem" but when crime, disease, beggars, and worse are on the streets, it will be bad.


The stock market is a game.  Firms will come along offering to take the thinking out of it, and they will bilk the old.  Companies end, and it sucks when ten million old fogies become homeless when one CEO gets greedy and cleans house.  Think from a macro level in a aging nation.  This could be you in 30 years.  imagine if the stocks you owned, thru bad luck or whatever, lost a lot of their value.  or you battled cancer and sold some of your stock to live, and you beat it and suddenly the recession means you can't eat.

There are too many variables that can be easily manipulated by a greedy few.  There are way too many old people already, and that will only grow.  You take away their security - their certainty- and society will get very bad very fast.

I won't say you're completely off but if you look at how many times something bad has happened to cause the market to drop guess how many times the market has recovered...
.
..
Every single time.


While it is true some stocks are a flop and some are a hit if you're in multiple stocks spread over the market your average is still going to be around 10% per yer on average.  

[gtbro1]

Also you have to remember that there are tens of millions of Americans who have zero knowledge of the stock market.  They will buy sucker stocks and will be starving.  It's easy to say "their problem" but when crime, disease, beggars, and worse are on the streets, it will be bad.

240...I HAVE ZERO knowledge of the stock market..That is why My 401 k is handled by a company based on my retirement age. Now,while I'm young,they are more aggresive with the ratio of stocks to bonds that my money is tied up in..and it changes as I age and get closer to retirement.They start to become more conservative as I get older.I get a statement each month,and I have the option to change how they handle it at any time...but basically I let them handle it. I could have it to where I choose everything if I wanted to.This plan is designed for people like me  who do not know about these things.Sure you could argue that that is not smart allowing someone else to handle it...but I figure they know more than me and they would not be in business too long if they sucked at it. This was just one of the options offered to me through my employer,it wasn't something I sought out on my own. The company by the way is called T.ROWE PRICE.

[Brixtonbulldog]

True, but that's general, that's entire market on avg. think individual.  When Joe Blow, age 35 loses his shirt, it just means he has to work 5 more years before retirement.

if you consider that at best only 2% of old people will make mistakes on their own, that's what, almost 5 million people suddenly compeltely broke, 67 years old, and burder society for 10 more years on average?

if you consider that thieves will start firms to "help" old people and fk them over, that's another couple hundred thousand easily.   And I'm sure there are a few other scenarios - real estate market shrinking, technology becoming outdated and the second dot.com.bust coming along, who knows.

Katrina had less than 400k refugees, and they we a nightmare to feed and clothes.  imagine ten times that, and they are old, fussy, and incapable of getting on a bus without flaling down.  Literally, people will be dying in the streets.

It's an unspoken tenet of govt - you cannot trust people to invest their own money because the macro effects of a small % making mistakes or becomign victims of circumstances will put an even larger burden on society's breadwinners than that initial stipend would have.  Plus, you know your wife is going to want her old, bitchy, now-broke parents to come live with you for their last 23 years.  Enjoy!

I am.. and that individual should have a plan based on multiple stocks or mutual funds.  It's a market avg.  Invest in one stock you could lose all or win all or nothing.  Invest in many and on avg. earniings would be around 10%.

And we don't talk to my wifes parents.... they suck balls.

[gtbro1]

tru, but no stock is 100% safe.  very small margins here.  you could lose 10% of your savings and you'd be fine.  elderly person would be fucked.

since companies aren't reliable 100% of time (and you need reliability when you have 150mil retirees!) we use govt bonds.  bad.  very bad.  When the fed changes rates, they lose monthly income.  Imagine the pressure on the chairman of the fed knowing he has to crash the real estate market, or take away 5% of the monthly check of half of America.  Yikes.


If they did it, there would be zero room for error and every time a company closed, there would be tens of thousands of very broke people.  Remember - you're on getbig.  you're educated.  you can read and write.  Lots of americans ride the bus, work manual labor, cant' read, count, or reason, and would be there to stick a knife into your offspring for a meal in 20 years if faced with starvation.  macro level - they'll never let it happen.

   I wasn't debating you on this issue,simply pointing out that there are options for those who don't keep up with the stock market. I don't know enough about the issue to suggest an alternative to the way social security is handled...except stop robbing from the fund for other shit.

[Brixtonbulldog]

again, if the DOW drops from 12000 to 10,600, you just went from 1000 a month to 800 a month.  a drop like that is very possible.

People don't have the discipline to invest responsibly.  You do, I do, most here do.  But Joe Public will put all his cash in whatever CNBC says is hot, hoping for a quick fix to all his probs.  You'd see the CNBC pics of the day rising and crashing daily

If 1% of retirees lost their retirement one happy day, we have an instant huge humanitarian crisis and economic problems -suddenly 40 million houses get repo'd - you just flooded and crashed the real estate market  

And the next month you might be at 1200 a month.  The avg is VERY safe.  Most people do have the discipline to invest responsibly.  And just because some don't shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to have thier retirement dependant on investments... they would only need some professional guidance.  But the ultimate control would be up to them.

If soc security was based on the market most senior citizens would be not only well off, but many would be rich!

[Brixtonbulldog]

sorry man - i cannot agree with you.  macro vs. micro.  on the average, i agree, americans would be fine.  but once 500,000 john does lose their shirt on XYZ stock, they can't just get that back.  They become burdens upon society and an economic black hole.  Then, they all freak out and sell, and mkt tanks. 

Just think - every time a stock loses 70%, there will be tens of thousands of invalids who just lost their retirement.  unlimited opport. to abuse them! 

macro is full nation - and is great for trend eval and future planning.  but for personal requirements, you have to ditch macro and select micro. 

Think water.  if .001% of americans lost all their water tomorrow, then 300,000 people die of thirst.  And you cna't make new water without water to play with.

I'm sure a smaller soc sec program could make up for that small percentage.  The point is to get as many people as possible playing the market, because even at the most basic level with minimal investments it would be far more profitable than soc sec.  Get people off the gov't!

[gtbro1]

I'm sure a smaller soc sec program could make up for that small percentage.  The point is to get as many people as possible playing the market, because even at the most basic level with minimal investments it would be far more profitable than soc sec.  Get people off the gov't!

They are not "ON THE GOVT" they pay into social security their whole life.

[Brixtonbulldog]

They are not "ON THE GOVT" they pay into social security their whole life.

I should rephrase... the account should be based on the market and not a gov't program.

MY BAD