Ok. Explain. A real explanation. Not the FoxNews version.
absorb
- Thread starter ex fed exer
- Start date
Ok. Explain. A real explanation. Not the FoxNews version.
The national debt has grown from 8 to 14 trillion dollars since early 2007 when the Dems took over Congress. Most of that in the last 2 years. Servicing the interest on the debt is the single biggest expenditure of the gov't. If the spending isn't curtailed it will threaten the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. If the gov't defaults on it's debt it'll mean much higher interest on future bond issues otherwise investors like the Chinese won't buy our bonds(we defaulted previously). Will make it impossible to have any of the little programs that help average citizens as every spare dime will be paying on the debt. Not a FOX News spin, just economic reality. If the gov't tries to print it's way out of debt it'll flood the market with too many Dollars resulting in high inflation i.e. the late 70's under Carter. That means your savings will be worth alot less as well as my little fixed benefit traditional pension FedEx replaced. And if taxes are raised to pay debt it will put a damper on the economy as money that would've been spent on goods and services will now go to the gov't to pay interest. There is no free lunch and the debt we've accumulated will be a burden on future generations. Already the head of the Federal Reserve is saying the job market will need 4 or 5 years to get back to normal. That means fewer income tax dollars to pay for a bloated Federal Gov't. As bad as things have been it could get worse if the gov't keeps spending at the current pace.
Good theory. Now for a few reality points.
1) The United States will never, ever, default on it's debt.
2) Without deep cuts in SS, Medicare, and Defense, we can't even begin to look at debt reduction.
3) Those cuts are political suicide, so...
4) The debt ceiling will be raised and small to modest cuts will be made.
1) The United States will never, ever, default on it's debt.
2) Without deep cuts in SS, Medicare, and Defense, we can't even begin to look at debt reduction.
3) Those cuts are political suicide, so...
4) The debt ceiling will be raised and small to modest cuts will be made.
The U.S. has always had debt that in terms of it's GDP was manageable. Not so anymore, we're at a tipping point. Raising the debt ceiling just adds more to the debt and adds to the problem. You can't get around the fact that we ar at 14 trillion Dollars in debt. We will have to make serious cuts in spending, political suicide or not. By the way Social Security is separate from this mess. Even if there's nothing left in the trust fund we still take in money weekly from employees and their employer's match. That'll pay almost 3/4ths of promised payments. But it won't affect the national debt.
It's really easy to dismiss something you don't like as FOX spin. I see Sean Hannity on FOX keep pushing the idea that SS is bankrupt. The conservatives would love nothing better than to not have to pay the employer match on SS. I'm not in lockstep with them on this and some other things. But in some regards they are dead on. There isn't an endless stream of money out there. We do have to be realistic about our expectations. The corporations are in business to make money first for their stockholders, which often means those in upper management, and unions have played a big part in how heartless corporations have become towards pay and benefits. FedEx could do better by us, but the single biggest reason they fight unions so hard is once the camel's nose is under the tent there's no end to the problems it can cause them. I think UPS drivers get excellent pay and benefits. I've seen their employees complain here that if the CEO is making so much then they should get even more than what they get now. It never ends and has resulted in the ruin of many large industries in the U.S.. People have to take responsibility and work with management. But they've demonstrated too many times they won't and now we have a world of low paying service jobs and a owner/management class that is determined to hog the much smaller economic pie. And an employee class that's in denial of it's role in creating this mess.
The U.S. had decades of growth that insured things like defaulting on debt would not happen. But as FedEx has noted the U.S. is a mature market. We're still the largest economy but the growth in the world is in the large emerging markets like China, India and Brazil. They have huge growth potential while we have fast food jobs. If you haven't noticed, FedEx has positioned itself to take advantage of that growth. It infuriates me that they renegged on their pension promises, etc, but at least we have jobs that pay better than $9hr due to them developing business overseas. Without that we would be looking at a very bleak future. I've come to the conclusion that we'll have to just take what we get and like it. We can rant all day, but they hold all the cards. For me the solution is sacrificing now, then moving overseas. While I realize they hold all the cards, I won't work any longer than necessary to enrich others while I have to struggle to just get by. If I stay in a way overpriced U.S. I'll be working until I die. That's not a future, it's a sentence.
Don't give up Van. I'm guessing you are 45-50 years old. If you are going to work until you die then do something you love so it isn't work. If you retire at 65 you still have 20 more years of work. That's just shy of how long you have been here at Fedex.
For those of us who have spent most of their adult life working for Fedex there doesn't seem to be much hope, but we need to start thinking differently. I don't want to spend another 20 sum years as a courier (quite frankly I can't imagine being a 65 year old courier) so I have decided it's time to do something.
And you are right about "them" holding all the cards. But they aren't going to make it any better. We are a consumer economy but we are running out of money to consume. Honestly, most people consume with credit and that bubble is about to burst. The powers that be could solve a lot of the economic problems if they would just raise wages to a liveable wage. if we had the money we would spend the money. It used to trickle down but what they used to give us they now give to China and India and they don't care. And we can't make them care.
Instead of wealth trickling down, poverty is trickling up. Walmart is perfect example. Say you work at Walmart for a 9.00 an hour. You probably qualify for assisstance. You get food stamps. Where do you spend your food stamps? Why Walmart of course. You have health benefits at Walmart but what can you afford? The clinic in Walmart because that's where they want you to go. You can choose your own doctor but going to the clinic saves you money. Same with eyeglasses. Bank? Why Walmart can help you there, too.
So you work there but spend all of your money there. Bad business model? I bet every corporation wishes they could do that.
But I digress. They don't care and it shouldn't surprise anyone.
For those of us who have spent most of their adult life working for Fedex there doesn't seem to be much hope, but we need to start thinking differently. I don't want to spend another 20 sum years as a courier (quite frankly I can't imagine being a 65 year old courier) so I have decided it's time to do something.
And you are right about "them" holding all the cards. But they aren't going to make it any better. We are a consumer economy but we are running out of money to consume. Honestly, most people consume with credit and that bubble is about to burst. The powers that be could solve a lot of the economic problems if they would just raise wages to a liveable wage. if we had the money we would spend the money. It used to trickle down but what they used to give us they now give to China and India and they don't care. And we can't make them care.
Instead of wealth trickling down, poverty is trickling up. Walmart is perfect example. Say you work at Walmart for a 9.00 an hour. You probably qualify for assisstance. You get food stamps. Where do you spend your food stamps? Why Walmart of course. You have health benefits at Walmart but what can you afford? The clinic in Walmart because that's where they want you to go. You can choose your own doctor but going to the clinic saves you money. Same with eyeglasses. Bank? Why Walmart can help you there, too.
So you work there but spend all of your money there. Bad business model? I bet every corporation wishes they could do that.
But I digress. They don't care and it shouldn't surprise anyone.
I had never realized that about Walmart but I think you are spot on right about that. I'm 49 and it's tough working all these years and have them pull all of this. But I've found a great beach town in Peru that's popular with backpackers and surfers. I can get by there on $500 a month and live very well on $1000 a month. Due to an ocean current that comes up from Antartica the weather is mild there year-round and it's safe. So I have my escape plan. Just have to deal with FedEx a little while longer.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
newgirl, the optical shop, bank and hair salons at Walmart are not owned by Walmart--they lease the space.
The one that I did not like is when H&R Block used to set up shop inside Walmart. They would attract those people who could easily file on their own, most likely for free, with the lure of a Refund Anticipation Loan, which they could very conveniently put on to a pre-paid credit card. I would see folks get their credit cards and then walk out 5 minutes later with a brand new big screen TV when in fact they probably should have used their refund to pay down debt.
The one that I did not like is when H&R Block used to set up shop inside Walmart. They would attract those people who could easily file on their own, most likely for free, with the lure of a Refund Anticipation Loan, which they could very conveniently put on to a pre-paid credit card. I would see folks get their credit cards and then walk out 5 minutes later with a brand new big screen TV when in fact they probably should have used their refund to pay down debt.
Yes, but they lease from Walmart--Walmart still gets money. And they have to play by Walmart's rules.
Wally is this close to getting the ability to be a bank. Gov't turned down the request for a charter but they are still pushing. They offer quite a few financial services. Sam's club gives small business loans.
The prepaid card is a perfect example. You are absolutely right. It's brilliant from some perspectives.
Bravo Zulu for having a plan. I've got kids so I don't think Peru is in the cards. Sounds nice though.
Mr Fedex
Banned
I dont need to explain as there are just too many examples but i'll just throw one out there.
$3.4 million to help turtles cross under a highway
Small minded of you.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
One of your brethren was at work today in Tucson. His belief system eerily seems to parallel yours. Oh, and the Congresswoman's district was one targeted in the crosshairs of Sarah Palin's "map" of the USA as an area that needed to be dealt with in Second Amendment terms. Tea Bag= Insane.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Have you seen the MSNBC video where the Palin "crosshairs" map was discussed? Not only does the map point to the district where the shooting happened, but it also names each of the Democrats. The Palin people have already yanked the map off their website. Wonder why? This is the beginning of the end for the crazy train. It will be interesting to see the hate-mongers (Palin/Rush/Beck/Hannity etc) try and spin this away from the Right. They aren't going to be able to do it.
As opposed to the hate-mongers O'Donnell/Maddow/Obermann?
According to NBC this morning there's nothing in his Internet postings about current political events like Obamacare, etc. Instead it's come out that this guy has been mentally unstable since high school. He actually asked the Congresswoman a question 3 years ago at a rally and complained she didn't understand what he asked. He did complain about gov't in general, and said things like policemen violated the Constitution just being policemen and other nonsensical things. The Democrat Congresswoman is a close friend of Republican AZ Governor Jan Brewer by the way.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
There's certainly hate on the Left too. The folks you mention have only a fraction of the audience of the Right-Wingers.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Don't those sound like Tea Bag issue to you? He also had issues with immigration and the US currency, which sound like Far Right extremist talking points. I fully agree this guy had mental issues, but perhaps he was set-off by some of the inflammatory political rhetoric from people like Palin. A gunsight target on the Congresswoman's district and her name listed beneath aren't dangerous?
So using your logic, if I see a commercial for a Ginsu and then go knife someone, I can blame the Japanese Emperor???
Isn't this man solely responsible for his own actions? Why allow him (or you) to blame someone else?
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Lack of it is killing America.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
"Personal Responsibility" is a talking point of Libertarians, who mis-use the term to justify many of their views on topics like taxes, "big" government, and the like. I fully agree that this person is a crazy, but doesn't the Far Right rhetoric and imagery incite in some the idea that we need to "take our government back" by force? The Second Amendment extremist views espoused by Palin and others on the Right, have been constant and pervasive. Your comparison to a Ginsu Knife commercial is neither constant nor pervasive. If I dial my radio to a given station or select a channel on my TV, I'm not likely to be barraged with Ginsu Knife commercials. But, if I pick a Far Right radio station that plays Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Rush all day long, or select FOX News on my TV, I know what I'm going to get.
"Personal Responsibility" is great. That's why Sarah Palin (and others) need to be more responsible in terms of the kinds of ads they run. Griffith's Tea Party opponent used M-16 rhetoric in his campaign, Palin's "target" imagery was equally irresponsible, and it's ironic that the Palin site has been scrubbed to remove it. Glenn Beck thinly disguises a call to arms to take back our government. Is that responsible? No, it isn't.
Free Speech should be free, but that doesn't mean you can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, OR "target" people for elimination on an irresponsible website. Even if Palin cannot be held directly responsible, her rhetoric is careless, violent, and unnecessary. She's free to convey her message any way she wants...as long as it is done responsibly.
