Quote :

"The bulk of charity comes from people with more money."

Man, I can't wait for that wealth to trickle down.

*Opens mouth, receives piss*

10/30/2008 10:24:49 PM

Quote :

"rich people are greedier with their money than the poor."

Ahh..greed. Care to offer a definition? Wouldn't you agree that both poor and rich would prefer to hang on to the money they earned and spend the bulk of it on themselves and their families?

And according to your same study:

The top 2.3% of income earners donated 56.5% of total charitable donations in 2005.
The bottom 97.8% of income earners donated 43.5% of total donations.

How will punishing the top income earners with tax increases encourage them to give more to charity and not resent both the gov't as well as the ones receiving the welfare?

10/30/2008 10:41:13 PM

The better off the middle class is, the more they will spend, and the more money that the wealthiest 1% will make in return.

It's really that simple.

When the largest majority of Americans hurt, everyone hurts in return. This is why, now, all the real estate companies are going out of business, all the small businesses are hurting, and all the car dealerships are going down. With the middle class tightening up their budgets, no one is spending any money. The richest 1% would much rather pay more in taxes and have the middle class give the money back to them by purchasing products and services.

10/30/2008 10:44:54 PM

Quote :

"The top 2.3% of income earners donated 56.5% of total charitable donations in 2005. The bottom 97.8% of income earners donated 43.5% of total donations. "

It makes no sense to break this down this way. Per household, the "poor" donate more of what they have than the rich.

Quote :

"How will punishing the top income earners with tax increases encourage them to give more to charity and not resent both the gov't as well as the ones receiving the welfare? "

If these people are really resentful at the gov. that protected their ability to gain wealth, or resentful at people poorer than them, then someone should slap them. They are too wealthy to be resentful, ESPECIALLY considering they're the group that's only been getting MORE wealthy, while everyone else has been getting MORE poor. It's this type of thinking that foments class warfare, not what Reagan called anti-poverty measures (because that's what they are).

10/30/2008 10:57:14 PM

Quote :

"the gov. that protected their ability to gain wealth, or resentful at people poorer than them. ...they're the group that's only been getting MORE wealthy, while everyone else has been getting MORE poor. "

The rich aren't resentlful that the gov't "protected their ability to gain wealth", they're resentlful that the gov't is taking their hard-earned money away and giving it to people who didn't earn it.

And you make it sound like the rich are stealing their wealth from the poor. The only entity that can get money through threat of deadly force is the gov't. Everyone else has to entice money from each other. If someone is getting wealthy, that means they are providing a valuable product or service that lots of people want.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

10/31/2008 12:25:04 AM

Quote :

"If someone is getting wealthy, that means they are providing a valuable product or service that lots of people want."

Hahah. Tell that to these guys:

10/31/2008 12:32:36 AM

Its really just about choice.

Do you believe you should have the choice to choose your way of life or do you think you are too stupid or incapable of living life on your own.

Look at Obama's sitcom the other night. Apparently people just cannot make it for themselves anymore. We just can't survive without big brother's help.

Sure he says he wants to help small business, but seems to me that every sob-story he puts forth is really just some thinly veiled caveat towards validating the creation of yet another government program.

I don't care how high taxes were during world war II, or when the new deal democrats had a stronger hold on the economy. The question is not what we did 50 years ago, the question is about now how are we going to structure of tax system in a global economy. At least McCain is willing to stand up to fake environmentalism like ethanol subsidies, and he is willing to take the unpopular but logical stance we ought to reduce our corporate tax rate to be more competitive with Europe etc...

Are we going to buy Obama's hype that those evil companies can take care of themselves? Sure they can if left alone, but can they defend themselves against the biggest and most corrupt monopoly in town? The federal government also has had record profits in these hard times, maybe they ought to trim the fat. People work for companies, hurting companies just hurts workers ultimately. And consumers after that, because the people in charge will not take the brunt of the misfortune, its the low-level lackeys. What are you going to do about that? Give the government control of the companies? That hasn't worked out so well other places because as greedy and as corrupt as CEOs may be they've got nothing on the cancerous insincerity that pervades DC.

Joe autoworker is shocked he cannot just rely on Ford for a full time job? Well damn, where have you been the last 20-30 years? Have you heard of these things called robots? Maybe you should have worked towards an education and tried to diversify your future job options.

If America is to be free then we must be free to do two things

1. be free to succeed.
2. be free to fail.

In my own life I have failed. Why? Because I made a choice to do something a little beyond my abilities. I am glad I had that option, to push the limit, to find my limit.

I want to live my own life. I don't want help. And if I'm going to give charity it should be on my own terms. When charity is applied locally it has accountability. When charity is applied globally it breeds corruption and abuse. Why are there still poor people and bad inner cities, the trillions we spent have done nothing but destroy the poor. Why is this? Our "compassionate" socialist social programs have corrupted the work ethic of those communities. It has enforced the message that its not about hard work and self-reliance, its about blame and reparations. Or its about making it "fair".

There are certainly rich folks who have unfairly profited from government help. But, that is in no way a justification to make yet more people profit unfairly from the hard work of others. Many of the rich are rich just because they had a good idea and they followed through and produced something that consumers wanted and bought. Its a travesty to take from those people just because somebody else rich cheated.

Obama can talk about the virtues of "hard-work" or "self-reliance" but when you look at his record of voting it speaks another message all together. His votes say big brother bigger now. And while he can pitch this increase in government as the right thing to do for our fellow man woman child etc... why should I believe him when he will not even help his own family with his OWN resources. Like Biden, he believes in charity only when it is with OTHER peoples money.

10/31/2008 9:25:00 AM

Which would you rather have

1) A higher tax rate on the super wealthy

or

2) The super wealthy stealing your hard earned tax dollars to give to their friends in Wall Street


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110/greider2

I'm really just shocked that there is anyone left that buys into the GOP ideology at this point after the disaster of an economy they created and are then attempting to steal from you to bail their buddies out. You really want this?

10/31/2008 9:28:26 AM

Mathman's post, translated:

Quote :

"FUCK YOU GOT MINE"

10/31/2008 9:30:56 AM

For fucks sakes, are you assholes still on this? He's raising the tax rate on income over $250,000 by 3%. Holy shit, what a fucking communist. Do you realize how ridiculous this all is? Even McCain back pedaled because no one with a brain could possibly buy it. It's going to be the same rate it was during the 90s, OMG Clinton was a socialist!!!!!!! Get off this retarded line of thinking and accept the fact that Obama is your next president.

10/31/2008 9:36:30 AM

Quote :

" 40% of the 90% of people who he has promised tax-cuts to don't even pay income tax. So they will be basically getting welfare. That bottom 40% isn't known for giving much up in charity. The bulk of charity comes from people with more money. And taking more of their income away for welfare payments to others is going to create a lot of resentment. "

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you realize this is how it works now (thanks regan) and this is the same thing that would occur even under the rights proposed flat and fair tax systems. So my question for you is now what makes it different under the system we have now and the proposed flat/fair tax systems when compared to Obama's plan.

Quote :

"The top 2.3% of income earners donated 56.5% of total charitable donations in 2005. The bottom 97.8% of income earners donated 43.5% of total donations. "

Following another line of thought, then when the middle and lower classes are able to keep more of their money through a tax cut then this ratio could shift to become more even, and the charitable donations by the lower income earners would be even more per capita compared to the higher. (also i'm confused by your numbers sine 2.3 + 97.8 = 100.1)

Quote :

"Are we going to buy Obama's hype that those evil companies can take care of themselves? Sure they can if left alone,"

i think we have enough evidence to suggest that this isn't entirely true. they're similar to kids who, when left alone, will do a portion of good things and take care of themselves for the most part, but will also find themselves doing things that they shouldn't. businesses need some degree of oversight. even greenspan realizes this now.

10/31/2008 10:05:17 AM

I'd rather have a lower tax on EVERYBODY.

Anyway, I don't believe for a minute that Obama will lower taxes. It is pure election cycle nonsense. This is evidenced by his actions. Is McCain that much better? No, he voted against those tax cuts, but if I read between the lines correctly this was out of spite for W. Something all of you all likel understand if not applaud.

And no more handouts. No more hidden welfare. This EITC is nothing more than welfare for tax cheats. When something like 30% of the people do not even pay net federal tax its kind of a joke to talk about the tax cut for 95% of the population. Sure Obama has got the deadbeat government leaches in his pocket on election day, but it is truly sad that there is a block of voters who vote on how much they can get from the government, as if that is ok. If they just took the money directly from the rich guy down the street then at least that would be honest. But, to let the government do it and then to claim some sort of innate entitlement for that theft. That's as deplorable as the outright theft and its worse. It says implicitly to the next generation that they don't need to work, they can just sit back and let the government pick up the slack whenever something goes wrong.

Its wrong for businesses and its wrong for individuals. There is no accountability in life or in business if we don't let both fail as a consequence of their own malfeasance.

Government regulation has failed and now you want more of it? Fanny and Freddy were not the free market at work.

I'd rather have a depression than weath and prosperity without financial freedom. Of course we will not share the weath anyway, we share the poverty. The failure of the War on the Poor manifests this obvious fact. The inner city is still a horrible place despite the billions upon billions we have thrown at the problem. These are not truly problems of resources. These are problems of attitude by in large.

You assume I support the GOP? Hardly. I hate almost everything financial they have done for a long time now. The only reason I vote for them is that they actually support the protection of innocent life.

Its really hard to give good examples of a free market in this country because our markets are not truly free. Not remotely.

10/31/2008 11:18:25 AM

I think the whole bailout Bush's supported was pretty socialist.

Neither on the low end or high end do I necessarily like socialism. Amusing is the fact that your average Joe working class republican voter cares more about helping out CEO's and stockholder through GOP style socialist policies versus DEm socialist policies which typically help the bottom end that would benefit them more.

At my current situation I don't make enough to benefit from GOP policies yet I make to much to benefit from Liberal social programs.

10/31/2008 11:38:35 AM

Quote :

"For fucks sakes, are you assholes still on this? He's raising the tax rate on income over $250,000 by 3%."

isn't it correct as well that it will only be the income above the 250,000 that is taxed that extra amount?

10/31/2008 11:43:59 AM

Quote :

"Sure Obama has got the deadbeat government leaches in his pocket on election day, but it is truly sad that there is a block of voters who vote on how much they can get from the government, as if that is ok."

It's simple self-interest. I doubt you'll see that go away anytime soon. Damn near everybody wants government money when they can get it, not only good-for-nothing bums.

10/31/2008 11:50:31 AM

Quote :

"Which would you rather have 1) A higher tax rate on the super wealthy or 2) The super wealthy stealing your hard earned tax dollars to give to their friends in Wall Street "

None of the above? Besides, don't pretend that the bailout was just a concoction of the republicans, it passed with democrats holding a majority in both houses.

10/31/2008 12:12:49 PM

I'm 100% convinced that conservatives are conservative for the sake of being against something.

10/31/2008 12:59:21 PM

10/31/2008 1:01:56 PM

HAAY GUISE

REMEMBER WHEN BUSH SR. SAID

READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES

?

10/31/2008 1:15:07 PM

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-lays-plans-kill-expectations-election-victory/

its already happening and he hasnt even won yet

Quote :

"The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of "hope" and "change" are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy. One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, "so there's not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair." The aide said that Obama himself was the first to realize that expectations risked being inflated."

10/31/2008 1:18:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm 100% convinced that conservatives are conservative for the sake of being against something."

Sure, just like you're liberal so you could bitch and moan for the last 8 years

(granted the last 4 were warranted, but liberals were crying before bush was even inaugurated)

10/31/2008 1:35:36 PM

Yeah, and man, were we ever wrong.

10/31/2008 1:37:36 PM

Quote :

"None of the above? Besides, don't pretend that the bailout was just a concoction of the republicans, it passed with democrats holding a majority in both houses."

None of the above? It isn't like you have another choice in this election (sad as that is).

And what do you mean abou the bill? It most certainly was an entirely republican concoction born in Paulsons head without any input from the real world. The Dems are in fact spineless, but let's not try to make this a debate of partisan nature when everyone expects them to cave on...well, just about everything. No, this is about a former GS VP and current Republican SoT bailing out his Wall Street buddies and those same Wall Street buddies playing puppet masters to do any and everything in their power to keep from having to expose the bad debt on their balance sheets. They've managed to not do anything with the cash they have been given so far other than to sit on it and guarantee exec bonuses. I don't have time to cry and complain yet again about the Democrats also being complicit in this failure when no one really expected them to do anything of the leadership sort in the first place. I do have time to complain about a GOP admin that has time and time again used the media to do their bidding, to force another brain dead policy down the throats of the American public, and do anything except take proper leadership at a time when this country desperately needs good fiscal policy.

It's time to kick their asses to the curb out and let someone else take a shot.

10/31/2008 1:52:43 PM

Quote :

"Many of the rich are rich just because they had a good idea and they followed through and produced something that consumers wanted and bought"

many rich people are rich because they came from rich families and had the opportunities in life to guard that wealth. once wealth is accumulated, it's much harder to lose than it is to gain wealth from nothing, in my opinion. besides, nobody wants to live off of welfare and foodstamps. it's demoralizing and the incentive to make something of yourself is still there, unless you just really like eating ramen noodles.

joe autoworker, as you called him, probably didn't have the opportunity to go to private schools or college, and i'm sure it has less to do with his intellectual capacity than it does the opportunities he was afforded growing up. besides, this world doesn't function without the autoworkers, the sanitation workers, the teachers, the waiters and all the other blue collar workers that you pretty muched blamed for being lazy.

and the notion that companies deserve every penny they earn is about strange to me. it wasn't that long ago that we had large coal companies exploiting their workers; making them work in dangerous situations, and paying them in money only redeemable in company stores and live in homes built on company property. this is an example of large entities protecting their wealth at the expense of the blood and sweat of their employees, and it's wrong. yes, these actions have stopped, but newer and more inventive ways to guard wealth at the expense of the working man have taken their place, such as gambling with other peoples money in the stock market.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 2:16 PM. Reason : ]

10/31/2008 2:13:16 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ZGnM2oku8

there you go.

10/31/2008 5:35:04 PM

cant beat a party boy
cant beat a party boy who has already proven he isn't the man for the job
cant beat a 100 year old guy who isnt promising the world?


Three strikes?



[Edited on November 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2008 12:07:59 PM

doh!

is that for real?

11/1/2008 12:17:32 PM

I don't think you guys quite understand the conservative movement if you actually think what I said was done so in jest.

11/1/2008 5:22:44 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110202150.html?hpid=topnews

Again, can someone explain to me why they are arguing so much against any Obama fiscal policy when the right has been the disaster that it has been with their handling of this mess?

11/2/2008 10:56:20 PM

AHA, I just got your username.

Awesome!

11/2/2008 11:33:20 PM

bump

7/10/2010 8:04:53 PM

Poll: 55% of Likely Voters Think Obama Is a Socialist
Jul 9 2010

Quote :

"This new poll from James Carville's Democracy Corps firm is bad, bad news for Obama, incumbent Democrats, and the White House's economic message. If you're a Republican, be happy for the midterms."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/poll-55-of-likely-voters-think-obama-is-a-socialist/59463/

And Obama's latest recess appointment--over the obviously relatively short Fourth of July holiday--has done nothing but solidify this line of thinking.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026720.php

7/10/2010 8:15:34 PM

wait, 55% of voters are stupid? you don't fuckin' say

7/10/2010 8:18:17 PM

just keep in mind...merely 6 years ago, the American people re-elected Dubya

I wouldn't put anything past them

7/10/2010 8:29:33 PM

Hmm, Obama, the currently elected U.S. President, currently runs and operates government owned General Motors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and AIG. So, yes, by the technical definition, Obama is a socialist. He had the option of throwing these firms into private ownership. He has attempted no such thing. He may not want to run the whole economy, but he clearly wants to own and operate these parts of it. That makes him more than a little bit of a socialist.

7/11/2010 3:28:56 AM

^ Yep.

^^^ and ^^ Did you consider that many of those American voters that you are calling stupid also elected Obama? You didn't really think that one through, did you?

7/11/2010 4:38:20 AM

I don't understand why socialism is such a poisonous buzzword. A 30 hour work week sounds awesome to me. And talk about family values, just think of all the time you could spend with your family!

7/11/2010 2:03:58 PM

In what way is socialism related to a 30 hour work week? Lots of people in capitalist countries enjoy a 30 hour or less work week. My work week is 10 hours. But everyone in socialist North Korea puts in a fifty hour week and still spends the rest of their daylight hours struggling to find food, clothing, and shelter for their family. Doesn't seem very family values oriented to me.

7/11/2010 2:20:14 PM

Quote :

"mls09: joe autoworker, as you called him, probably didn't have the opportunity to go to private schools or college, and i'm sure it has less to do with his intellectual capacity than it does the opportunities he was afforded growing up. besides, this world doesn't function without the autoworkers, the sanitation workers, the teachers, the waiters and all the other blue collar workers that you pretty muched blamed for being lazy."

As a potential teacher, I just wanna thank you so much for defending me. While my chosen occupation certainly has a little something to do with my crappy intellectual capacity, you're right that it really has less to do with that and more to do with the lack of opportunities that I was afforded growing up.

7/11/2010 2:47:43 PM

I will never accept the assertion that teachers are lazy. I was visiting California and saw teachers reacting to a proposed cut in their cost of living increase. They and the teachers union were taking to the streets in a flash, with a level of rage exceeding anti-abortion rallies.

Workers of a government monopoly are not lazy, they fight tooth and nail for whatever they can get. But because the system is political, educating children is not part of the equation. What they get paid for is lobbying and unionized wrangling. They are all great teachers, but the act of teaching is charity on their part and they deserve praise for still teaching when they know they don't have to.

7/11/2010 3:21:17 PM

yeah North Korea is the country I was talking about Lookat Scandinavia, France, Australia, Germany, etc.

In France, full time workers get 5 weeks of paid vacation. What a nightmare! It makes my blood boil to think our country could be heading in that direction

7/11/2010 3:39:07 PM

Quote :

"Hmm, Obama, the currently elected U.S. President, currently runs and operates government owned General Motors, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and AIG. So, yes, by the technical definition, Obama is a socialist. He had the option of throwing these firms into private ownership. He has attempted no such thing. He may not want to run the whole economy, but he clearly wants to own and operate these parts of it. That makes him more than a little bit of a socialist."

Better count in every other president then (ok, almost every other president). Who owns and operates the USPS, Amtrak, Tennessee Valley Authority.

I don't bring these up to dispute your claim. But I bring them up to show that the majority of the people who call Obama a "socialist" would never stop to think that many of our other presidents are socialists for the same reasons. I also bring them up because they were conveniently left off of your list.

By the same technical definition you apply to Obama, pretty much every President from 1934 to now should be considered a socialist, yet people won't call them out as such.

Now, I don't agree with the ownership of GM, AIG and the other acquired corporations, but unlike the ones established by Congress, I do believe that the US government has intentions to sell these companies when they deem them as being financially stable and self-sustaining. Again, I don't agree with their ownership by our government, but Obama's decision to "save" them doesn't exactly make him any better or worse than any other president in my opinion, in terms of defining him as a socialist.

7/11/2010 4:32:22 PM

^ Yes, many other presidents engaged in socialism to varying degrees. But the vast majority just left the socialist sector as they found it. maybe larger in absolutely terms, but not diversified, as Obama has arranged things.

Quote :

"I do believe that the US government has intentions to sell these companies when they deem them as being financially stable and self-sustaining"

That is a bell you cannot un-ring. These companies will never be self-sustaining because now there is an explicit understanding that whenever they are in trouble, here come the bailouts. However much the government protests that they mean it this time when they say no more bailouts, no investor will believe them. The only possible solution is to liquidate them. Only then can it be over.

Quote :

"Lookat Scandinavia, France, Australia, Germany, etc. In France, full time workers get 5 weeks of paid vacation. What a nightmare! It makes my blood boil to think our country could be heading in that direction"

None of which are relatively socialist compared to America. You don't see France owning a car manufacturer, Germany owning a postal carrier, or Sweden owning a high school. In these and many other respects, America is far more socialist.

And you speak of paid vacation. What does that have to do with socialism at all? That is a regulatory statute which any government can pass. Do you think statutory laws against theft and murder are socialism too?

[Edited on July 11, 2010 at 4:51 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/11/2010 4:47:48 PM

the difference is that USPS and TVA were never private corporations to begin with...

7/11/2010 4:48:10 PM

at least the USPS is specifically authorized in the Constitution.

7/11/2010 4:57:38 PM

The real question is, how many Americans realize socialism is actually a good thing which the most successful nations employ.

7/11/2010 5:30:10 PM

Quote :

"maybe larger in absolutely terms, but not diversified, as Obama has arranged things. "

You do realize that during the Nixon administration, there have been at least 2 bailouts?

You realize that under the Reagan administration, there was 1 bailout and 1 government ownership of a bank, right?

And under Bush Sr there was 1 bailout.

And of course the bailout of the airline industry in 2001 is still pretty fresh in our mind.

I guess my point is that Obama isn't much different from other presidents in the past, one of whom has the support of the people who constantly berate Obama.

Quote :

"That is a bell you cannot un-ring."

Bullshit. You can say all you want investors won't believe that the government would let the company fail. That's irrelevant to "un-ringing" the bell. They can believe what they want all they want. They are, after all investors, and investors have this habit of being wrong sometimes. But to sit here and say that the government would never let a company fail because it had previously bailed it out is an absurd statement.

All you're using is a few past examples to support your argument, which makes it illogical in nature, as just because the government had previously bailed out previously bailed out companies (see Chrysler), does not mean that it will do so in the future. I would say that the policy you stated is wholly dependent on the administration in charge. If we get an administration who does not give a company who was previously bailed out a bailout, then I would consider that bell "un-rung."

Quote :

"None of which are relatively socialist compared to America. You don't see France owning a car manufacturer, Germany owning a postal carrier, or Sweden owning a high school. In these and many other respects, America is far more socialist. "

Are you seriously looking to Europe to defend your position? Not to mention, you seem to think that the nationalization of a company or industry is a bad thing. I never said that Amtrak, USPS, TVA, ect, should not be owned by the government. I said I didn't agree with the nationalization of the companies it had acquired. I wouldn't say we're "far more socialist," but rather that we're socialist in other aspects than what other countries are socialist in.

Quote :

"And you speak of paid vacation. What does that have to do with socialism at all? That is a regulatory statute which any government can pass. Do you think statutory laws against theft and murder are socialism too?"

I agree. Those are irrelevant to a socialism.

Quote :

"the difference is that USPS and TVA were never private corporations to begin with..."

Irrelevant. They are still owned and operated by the government.

7/11/2010 5:33:02 PM

^^ haha, normally i don't even respond to you, but your implication--that America is anything but the most successful nation on Earth--is laughable.

7/11/2010 5:37:34 PM

^ She's just trolling and being very obvious about it.

7/11/2010 5:39:26 PM

Meanwhile, back in the real world. . .

Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits
May 22, 2010

Quote :

"PARIS — Across Western Europe, the 'lifestyle superpower,' the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II. Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism. Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net. 'The Europe that protects' is a slogan of the European Union. But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead."

Quote :

"The reaction so far to government efforts to cut spending has been pessimism and anger, with an understanding that the current system is unsustainable. In Athens, Aris Iordanidis, 25, an economics graduate working in a bookstore, resents paying high taxes to finance Greece's bloated state sector and its employees. 'They sit there for years drinking coffee and chatting on the telephone and then retire at 50 with nice fat pensions,' he said. 'As for us, the way things are going we'll have to work until we're 70.' [Aw, poor thing. ] In Rome, Aldo Cimaglia is 52 and teaches photography, and he is deeply pessimistic about his pension. 'It's going to go belly-up because no one will be around to fill the pension coffers,' he said. 'It's not just me; this country has no future.' Changes have now become urgent. Europe's population is aging quickly as birthrates decline. Unemployment has risen as traditional industries have shifted to Asia. And the region lacks competitiveness in world markets."

Quote :

"'The easy days are over for countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain, but for us, too,' said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, a French lawyer who did a study of Europe in the global economy for the French government. 'A lot of Europeans would not like the issue cast in these terms, but that is the storm we're facing. We can no longer afford the old social model, and there is a real need for structural reform.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html

Quote :

"Correction: June 6, 2010 A chart with an article on May 23 about fears in Europe that the economic crisis there could lead to more austerity, such as reduced benefits and an increased legal retirement age, reversed the labels for the United States and Italy in trend lines comparing American and European ratios of working-age people to retirement-age people, an indicator of looming pension problems. The chart should show the trend line for Italy ending at a lower ratio than that of the United States, not vice versa, meaning that Italy's pension problems are more severe, not less."

[Edited on July 11, 2010 at 5:45 PM. Reason : Keeping dreaming, Utopians. ]

7/11/2010 5:42:40 PM