Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

"Austerity" = Abandoned Children coming to a Country where you Live soon, UNLESS

Posted by   + Show Post

I just heard where in Greece, people are abandoning their children because they can't afford them.  Are we next in this Country?  Human cost of Greece's Crisis.  We are going in that direction, UNLESS we STOP Obama!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/10/1118622/--austerity-abandoned-children-Coming-to

http://www.cnbc.com/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/17/world/europe

http://cnn.com/2012/06/17/world/europe/athens-neighborhoods-greece/index.html

 

 

by on Aug. 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Replies (21-23):
turtle68
by Mahinaarangi on Aug. 23, 2012 at 12:27 AM

LOL....what blah thinking.

Have you forgotten about the prevalence of orphanages that dotted every city in every country....still do in the third worlds.

People couldnt afford them so they gave them up.  Then came social welfare...people kept them becasue they were able to.

Cant have it both ways. 


meriana
by Platinum Member on Aug. 23, 2012 at 1:01 AM


Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting meriana:

 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting katy_kay08:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/23/lesson-obama-europe-failed-austerity

So far, President Obama's election strategy can best be summed up as: "We're on the right track, my economic policies are working, we still have a long way to go, but stick with me and you'll be fine."

This won't be enough to win him the election. The US recovery is too anaemic, and the chance of an economic stall between now and election day far too high.

Even now, Mitt Romney's empty "I'll do it better" refrain is attracting as many voters as Obama's "we're on the right track." Each is gathering 46% of voter support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Only 33% of the American public thinks the economy is improving, while 39% say they're still falling behind financially – an 11-point increase from 2008. Nearly two thirds are concerned about paying for housing, and 23% of Americans with mortgages say they're underwater.

If the economy stalls, Romney's empty promise will look even better. And I'd put the odds of a stall at 50:50.

Europe's forced austerity is pushing the continent into recession. Spain is already in one, and much of the rest of Europe is on the way. Luckily, the United States hasn't yet fallen into the austerity trap – America's fiscal policy is still wisely expansionary – but it's not sufficient to overcome a pull-back by American consumers.

Because most Americans' real pay continues to drop, they're going deeper into debt and tapping into their savings. Inevitably, they'll have to cut their spending. Without sufficient government spending to make up the difference, total demand will shrink, causing employers to pare hiring. March's disappointing jobs report could mark the beginning.

All this puts the odds of a Romney presidency far too high for comfort. So, what is Obama to do?

He'll have to go beyond "we're on the right track" and offer the nation a clear, bold strategy for boosting the economy. Such a strategy would help inoculate him if the US economy slows. It would also provide him with an economic mandate in his second term.

Obama should focus on four items.

First, he should demand that America's big banks modify the mortgages of homeowners still struggling in the wake of Wall Street's housing bubble. He should threaten that if the banks fail to provide meaningful relief to homeowners, in his second term he'll fight to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act that used to separate investment from commercial banking. He'll also seek to break up Wall Street's biggest banks – as the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve Bank recently recommended.

Second, he should stop oil speculators from raising gas prices. Numerous studies are showing that speculation by US index-fund traders is pushing up gas prices by almost $1 a gallon. Wall Street and Big Oil are making lots of money, but average Americans are paying the price. Oil-industry lawyers have gone to court to prevent the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from setting limits on such speculation. Obama should push the CFTC to set those limits, and instruct the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute oil-price manipulation.

Third, the president should make it clear he won't allow government spending cuts to take precedence over job creation. He won't follow Europe into an austerity trap of slower growth and higher unemployment. While he understands the need to reduce the nation's long-term budget deficit, he should commit to vetoing any spending cuts until the unemployment rate in the US is down to 5%. Instead, he should commit to further job-creating investments in the nation's crumbling infrastructure – pot-holed roads, unsafe bridges, inadequate pipelines, woefully-strained public transportation, and outmoded ports.

Finally, Obama should make sure Americans understand the link between America's fragile recovery and widening inequality. As long as so much of the nation's disposable income and wealth goes to the top, the vast middle class lacks the purchasing power to fire up the economy. That's why the so-called "Buffett rule" he has proposed – setting a minimum tax rate for millionaires – needs to be seen as just a first step toward ensuring that the gains from growth are more widely shared. He should vow to do more in his second term.

Such an economic strategy – forcing banks to help distressed homeowners, stopping oil speculation, boosting spending until unemployment drops to 5%, and fighting to ensure economic gains are widely shared – is critical to jobs and growth. It's the mirror image of Europe's failed austerity policies.

But to put any of this into effect, Obama will need a Congress that's committed to better jobs and wages for all Americans. He should remind voters that congressional Republicans prevented him from doing all that was needed in the first term, and they must not be allowed to do so again.

Wow, you really don't get it, do you?  There is no money.  Since WWII, the gov't has spent more than it takes in, and it has finally caught up to us.  You can raise taxes on the "rich" all you want, and it won't even be a drop in the bucket.  The new French president, who got elected because he promised to tax the rich, and re-institute all of the social program cuts, free college education, etc...is trying to raise the taxes on the rich to about 70%.  Well, the "rich" are leaving that country left and right for greener pastures.  So, who is going to be left to pay for all of those social welfare programs.

In fact we have had hundreds of "rich" American citizens who have given up their citizenship and moved to other countries to avoid paying the highest taxes in the world, right here.  In fact, one of them is one of the co-founders of Face Book, who waited for the stock to go public, took his hundreds of millions, paid no taxes on them, and left the country to live in Japan that has a lower tax rate than we do.

Being involved in two wars we couldn't afford and basically had no way of paying hasn't helped. As for taxes..well they've had lower taxes for years due to the Bush era tax cuts which were extended past their expiration date and they're still complaining and leaving the country because of high taxes. It's not the tax rate that counts but the amount of taxes actually paid. There are so many more deductions that the very wealthy have that the majority don't, many of them pay very little in taxes. If it's all because of the high tax rate, how come corporations have been moving jobs overseas for years even though some of them paid no taxes at all. So yeah, lets lower the tax rate yet again so the Gov. has even less revenue and companies can continue to move jobs overseas which means no jobs here and no purchasing power to spur the economy, which again means even fewer jobs due to less demand for products and a middle class reduced to proverty

 

You know, it's time for Obama and the dems to stop blaming Bush.  It's been his economy for 3 1/2 years.  Unemployment is still at the highest rate since the great depression.  FYI Gov Romney paid $3M in fed taxes in 2010, and it is estimated he will pay $3.2 for 2012.  So, I suppose you think that's not his "fair share"?  Remember, these taxes are on capital gains, not earned income....since he doesn't have a job...and are the legally taxed at a lower rate.

Enough of the bull that Romney wants to lower the taxes on the rich.  Right now, he just wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

There are many reasons companies outsource.  One, the unions have driven the cost of labor in this country through the stratosphere...labor is cheaper overseas.  Two, corporate taxes are cheaper overseas.  Three, gov't regulations in this country are too restrictive....it is much easier to do business in foreign countries.  Flat out, it's just not cost effective to do business here any more.

I'm not blaming Bush for anything other than getting us involved in two wars we could not afford. Yep, Obama's been in office for 3 1/2 years but the problems started long before then and previous Presidents either ignored them or in trying to "fix" things actually just pushed the problem down the road. What took a lot of years to develop can't be "fixed" or made all better in a fraction of the time it took to create it. That's a bit like saying if you took on debt over a period of 8 years and it crept up on you to the point of not having enough revenue to cover the cost by the 10th year, that you could "fix" it in 1 year without filing bankruptcy. (general you). Yep, that's simplistic but it's also simplistic to expect everything to be all good in such a relatively small amount of time.

As for Romney, he wants to cut corporate taxes to 25% and other taxes to 20% and that's on his web-site. How does that do anything except lower Gov. revenue. Companies will still move jobs over-seas because, as had been said many times, it's really about greed and larger profits. He also wants to build on CAFTA, the trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile, Columbia, Panama and Peru, "to involve US and Latin American private sectors to expand trade through the region with initiatives that help US companies do business in LA and vice versa." http://developtradelaw.net/republican-presidential-primary-candidates-on-trade/. When U.S.companies start doing a lot of business elsewhere, it's not long before jobs follow.

I'm always amused when Unions are brought up as a cause for companies going over-seas. It's the Unions and those greedy factory workers who are the problem and they are often villified if they stage a strike just to keep what they already have. However if a sport team stages a strike to hopefully add another few thousand or so to paychecks that are often in the millions, people fully support them. Unions are the reason people have a paycheck that actually pays the bills, that they work a 40 hr, week, have vacation time, maturnity leave, sick leave, safe working conditions, etc. I don't think anyone really would want to give those things up but companies only provide them because of the Unions. If they had done so all along, Unions would never have come into existence because they wouldn't have been necessary. The same goes for regulations. If companies behaved responsibly concerning the disposal of waste, just to mention one thing, regulations in that area wouldn't ever have been necessary. The fact is, they didn't and won't because again, it's all about profit and those things cut into the profit line. What Romney wants to do benefits the corporations and the financial sector in that they'd be far freer to do what they want but that doesn't help the majority of people. Corporations and those in the financial sector don't act in the best interests of others, or even the country, they work in the best interests of those at the top. If they can gain more profit at the expense of the workers and average persons, they are going to do it.

Senator Coburn, in his report, mentioned some ideas for getting rid of waste, etc., among them means testing. Even he recognizes that often the very wealthy receive at the expense of the average taxpayer. Oh and he's a Republican.


LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Aug. 23, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Oh, it's OK. 

China owns most of the country, they'll just repo it... maybe they'll have to share some of it with Saudi, but I think they have enough cash to buy them out.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN