How to extricate your self from TDS?
This forum is started as a self help for those afflicted with TDS.
Here ar my ideas to help.
You can take it or leave it.
1. Stop watching TV news and stop listening to radio news. These are what we refer to as main street media.
2. Do a reset on your knowledge about Trump.
3. Do your own research on the web and read up on his long career and family...
4. You might learn something you never heard before.
5. Here is the hardest part...
Take a sheet of paper and draw a line down the middle. On one side list all that you think is true about Trump.
On the other side, list what you learned doing your own research...
Does the two match up? 100%, 75%, 50%, or less?
6. Once you calibrated your knowledge, now take a chance and tune into talk radio, like Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin...listen for a week and learn their MO...
7. Now determine for yourself, who is a trusted source for news?
This is one way, not the only way to extricate yourself from the deception surrounding Trump.
I wish you luck.
Now you may ask why should you do this, time consuming exercise?
The answer is this. If you go down the path as you current are heading, you will have no place to go.
Here is what I mean. It is like crossing a bridge and burning it behind you.
Once you go down the road and belief in all the lies about Trump, there is no turning back.
I am not saying he is a saint but he is just like many other people you know. They have good parts and they have faults. They are human...
Once you fell into the trap that he is a racist, a sexist, a predator, a Russian colluder...a mentally unstable person.,,where do you go when they are not true?
How do you walk those back? Who do you blame? Only yourself.
Good luck.I don't know Mark Levin, but Rush Limbaugh is NOT a "trusted source for news". He is an entertainer, not a newscaster or even a talk show host.
Yes, but Rush has been right about politics for over 20 years.
Mark Levin is a Constitutional Attorney and talk show host. He wrote many top selling books...
He is honest and a conservative and he calls it as he sees it, on both sides.
The point is, in today’s climate, there is no true journalism any more. Journalism died in 2008 when they sway an election for Barack Obama, a no body with zero experience...and a clean slate.
At least, with Rush and Mark, you are getting the truth, how things are instead of spin and lies and fake news.Oh man it seems you are in no place to be advising anyone on how to come to reasonable conclusions.
That is a reaction I guessed I anticipated. It is fine and as I said, take it or leave it.
Just want to give you TDS a heads up. You’ve been warned, in a loving way. I hate to see people disappointed, and misled.TDS can also stand for your particular crowd, Jack. I'm not gonna tell you what it stands for but the lest letter is "suckers."
Why are you so positive those two people are trustworthy, while the whole of the rest of the world's press are liars? What reasoning did you use to arrive at that conclusion? What evidence can you offer me?
If it's just because they say what you want to hear, that is not enough reason to decide they're trustworthy. Unfortunately, truth isn't always pleasant.I don’t make recommendations lightly. My judgement comes from many years of listening and reading and watching and paying attention to all the news...
I am blessed with a good memory. When someone say something, I remember it and when the topics come up even years later, I remember most of it.
In my estimation, after years of following politics, and the media, I found there are several types...
1. A person who claims to be objective in reporting but is not. They hide their bias and will report news with a spin.
2. a person who is after the truth and will criticize all sides even his own party when they do wrong.
3. The real die hards who will lie and cheat to defend his side regardless of truth or ethics.
4. The clueless. Those that just read what other write or say without a thought of their own...
In all my years of experience, I put Rush and Mark in category number 2.
They don’t try to hide who they are or claim to be objective. They are proud to be conservative and they defend the constitution over the party.
They both have tremendous audiences, Rush with 20 million daily listeners,
Beside being good at what they do, they are also entertaining. Their show ismpopular among conservatives and liberals alike. Both sides listen not only for knowledge but for their insight and also for the fun...Having a good audience just means you're a good bull$*** artist.
In some cases, having a good audience means that the latter are naïve, gullible, & powerless. They see authorities & powerful people as their psychological elixir so to speak.
That may be true but my experience with Rush is that most of his audience are smart and well informed about issues...
Not really even worth a response, but here's an objective analysis of the veracity of Rush Limbaugh's statements:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/Why rely on a political site when you can tune in and hear for yourself?
The thing about Rush is you need to learn his modus operandi. He will say things as satire and some who doesn’t know this thinks he is up and up.
I am pretty sure some of the lies they attribute to him is because they don’t understand his humor...
You will have to tune in and listen for a week to get it...
You may be pleasantly surprised.I am glad we are having this important discussion. It bring head on as to why we all disagree and who we trust to get our news...
This is only happening in the era of internet and talk radio. Before this, we all watch only 3 channels ABC, CBS and NBC. Now we have many sources and obviously, they are biased including the conservative sites. But, the truth is still the truth, no matter who tells it...agree?You would think so. But it was the Trump administration that coined the term “alternative facts.”
Yes, it was the media that made up stories and ran with them without checking sources - hence fake news.
Really, Jack? That is so ridiculous. Kellyanne Conway first used the term "alternative facts" to defend saying the crowd size at the inauguration was the biggest ever, when it is demonstrably untrue.
It was the media that posted the photo before the actual inauguration to show it was sparely attended.
Here is story how they deceived people -
https://en-volve.com/2017/01/21/poll-is … e-numbers/Yet another anonymous right-wing blog funded by either:
1. Billionaire Libertarians such as the Kochs
2. Russians
3. GOP operatives
If you want any credibility for your arguments, please use credible sources and not propaganda sites.
https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=en-volve.comJack has been given this advice many times on these forums, but still uses these type of crappy sources to prove his points. He's predictable, I'll say that for him.
K, so... show the photo of the area when it was full and point out that the photo the media posted was misleading. There was really no need to kick it in the other direction and use misinformation to “prove” it was the biggest inauguration crowd ever. How does that make them any more reliable than the media? (Hint: it doesn’t.)
Well “alternative facts” was used as a defence for the “facts” that Spicer gave regarding the inauguration crowd... many of which are pretty easily refuted. It’s not the media’s fault Spicer was given incorrect information.
I listen to Rush and Hannity every day for my daily dose of humor, Jack. Seriously! The fact you believe these shysters tells a lot about why you can't see through Trump like other 65% of the country. Sad...
Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are awesome. And don't forget about Alex Jones!
Thanks to them, I now know that Obama was a Muslim, the half brother of Osama Bin Laden and part of a vast conspiracy to take over America by his fellow Muslims.
I never heard that and I listen to Rush. Where did you ge that?
This is exactly what I am talking about. If you want to pursue this I am willing. Show me the transcript where Rush made those statements. I challenge you - put up or shut up.
I thought my sarcasm was obvious. Limbaugh, Hannity, Jones, Breitbart and the other right-wing media all pushed the Obama Muslim claim along with a lot of other BS about him.
Anyone who claims otherwise is not willing to admit it and suffers from ODS.
That’s your problem, you group them all jn basket and the media promotes this so the American people have a distorted view of conservatives.
"The media" includes Fox News, Breitbart, and Limbaugh. But you believe them?
The rest of the main street media, 90%, are liberal and democrat. Poll after poll shows this. Do you deny it?
The same goes with Hollywood, and the elite colleges...
Yet we are told, we conservatives are extreme and out of touch and biased...
Guess what? 40% of the public identify themselves as Conservatives.
Who is out of touch?Cutting to the chase...
Why do you think Democrats does not want Trump to succeed?
What is it about his agenda that scares them?
Tax cuts?
Border control?
Killing ISIS?
Better Trade agreements?
Support Israel our one ally in the middle-east?
Bringing manufscturing jobs back to US?
Dropping out of the Paris Accord?
Drilling oil off shore?
Building the XL pipeline?
You guys are missing the big picture.
If Trump succeeds, America wins.
So, if you are the opposition, what do you stand for?He's a liar.
He's a racist.
He makes America look stupid by electing such a buffoon.
He's a sexual predator.
He angers our best allies.
He favors the rich.
Want more?In other words, it's all about appearance. If he doesn't present a nice, aristocratic and very PC appearance ("proper" hairstyle and color is very important here) to the world he isn't fit. Actions and results are strictly secondary, right?
Must say, that's a rather shallow view of what we need in a president. Might work for the Queen of England though, or maybe a movie star.There you go again...
He is no racist as much as you wish it.
Your hung up on race is your problem, not ours or our country or our daily lives...
Hannity I can stomach, albeit in very limited amounts and carefully sifting what is said for truth and completeness. Limbaugh - "incitement to riot" comes to mind, and while that's probably a little strong it doesn't miss the mark by much. He's makes a living by inflaming emotions and is very good at it.
You don’t understand how Rush conduct his show. You have to be a long time listener to understand what he does. He knows there are many on the left that monitors what he say every day every minute. He uses that selectively to create controversy. How often have you heard main street media say here is what Rush said today...on their show? How did they know that unless someone is listening and feeding them the info. They often get the quote wrong or out of context.
In fact, Rush and Trump are similar in using those tactics. Rush is more refined and less crude.
He is always a gentleman and treat his guests with respect.
His satires are famous... like the Sharpton song about the magic Negro...sung to puff the magic dragon tune.
Rush is a political commentator. He claims he has no compnnection to the GOP. He would have guests on his show but he himself conduct his show from Florida by choice. He is far from the halls of power of DC. Yet, he commands respect and when he speaks, people listen and often he is right...Rush is a paid shill, Jack! No wonder you don't know anything about what's going on.
The reason he has no guests on his show is because they'd destroy him with facts.Exactly, Rush is a joke & Alex is bordering on the insane. I have never heard such nonsense that Rush & Alex spew out. Time to take out the popcorn!
And here's some analysis of Mark Levin (and the people who believe him, I suppose):
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2 … lie/215573Media matters is one of the most dishonest organization funded by George Soros.
You have a tenuous relationship with the idea of "dishonesty" then if Limbaugh and Levin are your news sources.
Don’t judge until you experience it for yourself. I have been listening to them for years and I have read their books.
Thry make a whole lot of sense...
You need to separate your ideology from the news.
They are Conservatives and proud of it as I am.
They are also believers of the Constitution. The truth and words do matter to us.They make sense to you because they tell you what you want to hear. Just like they do on their TV and radio shows.
And they are certainly not believers in the Constitution. They want a one-party country with racial and religious purity and power in the hands of a small number of people.They make sense to me because they agree with my philosophy and my understanding of the Constitution.which has not been followed by the progressives and the big government crowd.
Now that the Mueller investigation is wrapping up and no Trump collusion was found...
Where is the apology?
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/ar … n-meddling
I have no idea what TDS is, but I assume it's a shot at liberals.
I would say your best course is to listen to as many different news sources a possible, juxtapose that to the reality you see in order to determine who is fair and unbiased.
I would avoid loud mouth commentators like Rush. I've never listened to your other recommendation, so I can't form an opinion there.Where have you been?
TDS stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome
It is a real condition where a person is so affected personally by the election of Trump that they are experiencing difficulty dealing with life and are going out of their way to attack Trump in some cases at the detriment of themselves...
A prime example is Brian Ross of ABC news.
There are many others...who have ruined their reputation because of their disdain for Trump.I hope you listen to me about financial investing...
If you did, you would have been 20% richer this past year...
Again, you can lead a horse to water...but you can’t make him drink.
If you listened to the famous economist at the NYT, Paul Krugman, you would have missed out on the biggest stock rally in history of the market.
Who are you going to trust with your money?I care more about the welfare of the American people than my stock portfolio. Honestly, I consider this multi tier stock market to be part of our problems.
So let me get this straight. You would rather America continue in the path of the Obama years, of 2% growth, lost jobs to out sourcing, open borders for immigrants from all over, and very little jobs or wages growth...
The wealth created by thos boom affects at least 60% of people who are either invested directly in the market or thru theit 401k funds...
This is a real weath builder.
So your ideology had gotten the better of you.
I guess that says it all. Good luck.Jack, you need to go down to Mar Lago tonight where Trump is having a $100,000 a couple dinner so his donors can reward him for his tax bill. Of course, Trump isn't going now the govt. is shutting down due to his once again lying about signing a bipartisan bill brought to him last week. You remember the shithole/house meeting in the Oval Office I'm sure.
Randy, you might want to flood our country with illegal immigrants out of the goodness of your heart, but the rest of America who is clear thinking, knows that in the long run, our soverignty will be lost.
Trump made it clear in the meeting what he will accept and the bipartisan Congress was not going to meet his demand. This by the way is what most American want from our congressional leaders.
This has little to do with race despite how Durbin and the corrupt media try to create the message.
No other nation in the world has an open border like ours.
If you want a continuous stream of low skilled workers taking jobs and keeping wages stagnant, than just continue what we are doing. It is working as designed.
The rest of us want a controlled immigration process.I never indicated I wanted to flood our country with illegal immigrants, Jack. But I do want the DACA problem to be solved in a timely manner. I do believe Trump is a racist because I've lived among racists my entire life and can easily recognize one. Keep telling yourself this lying arrogant buffoon is good for our country's image and you'll be just fine. Monetarily, that is....
If that’s the case, you must have very poor judgement. Do you know what is the definition of a racist?
I am talking about a legal definition. If you been around racist, then you must know what they do?
Trump is clearly not a racist, and many people have said so, not just me. He was portrayed by the media to make him to appear to be racist and a clear example is what went on with,the Virginia incident. I have explained that before and you can take it or leave it.
In 2016 America, a racist would have zero chance of running for high office or even a dog catcher.
The American people are not stupid. They may be misled at times by corrupt people or organizations.
The current economic boom is real and they see it and feel it and soon in Feb. will get a bump in their pay check. Sorry if that disturb your twisted views.
No. But until Americans start looking toward what's in the best interest of all Americans and not simply what fattens their personal wallet we'll keep wallowing in collective misery.
How so? What is you idea how to help all American?
I thought we conservatives answered that in the Constitution.
The way to help all people is to have self reliance and people pursuing their dreams...
That is the only sure path to happiness and success.
Big government with all its entitlement programs have failed miserably.
If you have a better idea, I would like to know? Honestly.
If we are to have a real discussion about policy and results, then we must present ideas and test them against reality.
We just had 8 years of progressive, big government, policies that did not produce the wealth and jobs we needed.
Now, Trump, in one year, has delivered a better alternative and you are not able to see it.
Why? What is it that you don’t get?First, conservatives didn't answer that in the constitution. If you think the revolution, it's outcome and the subsequent government formed was the result of conservative thinking....there isn't a starting point for a conversation.
You avoided answering my question? What is your proposal?
Our Constitution, if you read it, clearly called for a limited government. That is the under lying principle of Conservatism.Sure. Conservatives believe in limited government on some fronts, then demand to legislate morality standards they don't bother to live by. They are for limited spending, on every thing but war.
I'm for limited government on all fronts, but keeping in mind that we need to care about those citizens on the lower economic levels.We do more than that. We have welfare, food stamps, medicaid, housing, child subsidies, CHIP, disability and a slew of benefits...
I am not against helping our neighbors in need. I support private charities which do more with a lot less bureacracy and cost...
This is not hard to understand.
You can do a search and see what these agencies cost.
Why people insist on giving government more power and more money when they are so inefficient and wasteful?
Conservatives believes in the Constitution and federalism, which means limited powers and delegate the rest to local govenmemt. Some can be done by private charities.I agree. The more local the help, the more cost effective it can be and the more effective in general. Welfare, food stamps, WIC are all abused on many levels. But, if municipalities, state governments and charities fall short or do not address the needs of people in some areas, what is your solution. Is it 'Too bad'?
No, the solution is local charities, catholic charities does a lot in this area. Our local parish also does a lot to help food banks, giving cloth to the homeless, midnite runs, meals on wheels for seniors...
The people are good at this and it makes thm feel good. When government does it, it is wasteful and the people doing it is just a job. When individuals get involved, they actually cares and does a better job and they reap the reward of helping others, it is a win win.Yeh. Yeh. But, what of the people left out? You can't tell me your charity takes care of everyone in need. If you do, I won't believe you. So, tell me what of those you cannot help?
How did people survive in the old days?
What about other countries that don’t have these benefits?
Your whole outlook is skewed.
The services will fill the need. That was how it always was, until big government decide it was better for them to do it. That is why our federal government grows year after year...
What is the incentive for them to cut?Well, I mean... lots of people didn’t survive in the “old days”...
Although I agree with you that government programs can create a burgeoning demand beyond true need, I cannot agree that all in need would be taken care of,in its absence. Were that so, we never would have felt the need for programs.
Your outlook is sorely lacking in compassion. Primarily because you have to willfully ignore the needs of many, in order to hold it.You are wrong. Precisely because I care about the poor and the disadvantaged and the illegal immigrant that I hold my conservative beliefs. It is the best way out of poverty. When you teach a person to fish, they will never go hungry. By giving welfare, you are encouraging a state of hopelessness and dependency. People, in general, and true of human nature, resent accepting charity.
There are some that will need government assistance but that is the exception. That is why we have a safety net. By extending this net from cradle to grave, we have created a generation of dependency that is passed on to the next generation. If you can’t see that, then we will never agree on how to fix this.Live and learn, I like your handle... but here is a simple question for you. Just look around your own family and neighborhood...how many people or what percent do you think needs government assistance on a long term basis... I am including those that are old, disabled, and with mental issues...
What percent of the people in your circle of friends and associates?
This should give you a good estimate on what society should expect...to be dependant...
In my own circle, it is less than 5%. For most people I would guess between 5-10 percent.
That seems to be the rate of poverty in our country which varies between 10-15% since the 1960s.
Despite our war on poverty and billions spent, we haven’t been able to lower that number...We haven't been able to lower that number, true. And, I do know those who might be labeled in poverty, but are happy with their circumstances and don't feel impoverished. They are content with their life style and don't feel in need.
I don't have the answers, but I do believe we have to have a collective commitment to the disadvantaged and not just believe someone else will fill the gap,across the board, throughout our country. I used to help all I thought I could. I am not financially able to provide that help anymore and I don't arbitrarily assume someone else will. Because my observation has been that they don't."I used to help all I thought I could. I am not financially able to provide that help anymore and I don't arbitrarily assume someone else will. Because my observation has been that they don't."
As you say I used to do and give more than I do now; I don't have the resources I used to to help people.
But is the "right" thing then to require a third party to pick up the slack, at gunpoint if necessary, to do what I think should be done but can no longer do myself? I confess to some problem with that concept - I have a hard time thinking that my views are morally superior to others, and an even harder time legislating my moral code into law so as to require that everyone in the nation act as I think they should.At gunpoint? You've never struck me as being dramatic.
I suppose, if helping those in need is not the collective desire, then putting our pennies together to make a difference is not what should be done. But, I think the collective desire is to help those in need.So? Refuse to pay your taxes (including the portion earmarked for charity) and see how it takes for the sheriff to show up. Armed. And if you still refuse, see how long it takes before your guards in the prison are all armed.
While I would fully agree that the desire of the collective is to help those in need, does that make it "right" somehow to force the other 49% to go along with that moral judgement? And we haven't even touched the various definitions of "need"!
Just thoughts, but I believe a good case can be made that charity to the "needy" (my definition, not yours) will help the country as a whole and if you live in the country you are bound to help support its needs. However, when it becomes half the population (or more) feeding from the pocketbooks of the other half it isn't "need" driving it. It's greed.
One more thing, I have said on some forum discussions, that I am not opposed to being taxes and the the money goes to a good cause and make a difference in helping people. In fact, I would welcome a tax increase if that was the case. What I object to is being taxes and the money being wasted and we are no better off and in some cases we are worst off...
So it comes down to results for me. I am pragmatic. I look for solutions. I am convinced that giving more money to a central government only promotes bureaucracy. There is no incentive for improvements.
Alternatively, if we kept the government small, only for essential services, the rest will be taken up by local governments and private and religious charities. In many cases, a strong family suport system is much better than welfare. Our system today, destroys family units instead of encouraging them.I can agree with that, except taxed for money to go to religious charities.
"...we'll keep wallowing in collective misery."
Do you really believe that? As we look around at the thousands upon thousands of coffee stands selling $10 coffee, as we look at the huge proliferation of restaurants, both fast food and traditional, can we be "wallowing in misery"?
When the size of the typical home doubles and even cheap cars come with power everything, AT and AC, can we be in "misery"? There are more than 10 major RV retailers within 10 miles of me, and it isn't the 1% supporting them by buying their completely unnecessary motorhomes and 5th wheelers. 90% of Americans, including a great many children, carry a phone everywhere they go - no more running to a wall phone - and half of those are smart phones with access to the worlds information about everything. Half the households have a computer and virtually everyone has access to one in a library. The cruise industry is flourishing and building billion dollar ships to serve the people that want that kind of thing. Last Thanksgiving was projected to be the highest travel day in US history, with most of it via plane.
I just can't see this "wallowing in misery" concept for all but a minute minority of Americans. Of course, I'm defining "misery" by my childhood, not by the yacht owners floating the Mediterranean.I don't think we should all be yacht owners on the Mediterranean. But our system of life creates slaves to the system. A consumer society only survives if people consume. It only flourishes if they consume more and more. Prices are rising across the board, pay rates are stagnant. The divide between the haves and the have nots is growing. How sustainable do you consider this to be?
I agree that rampant consumerism is not a good thing, although I will also say that wanting more than we have is a natural part of life and is what drives innovation and improvements.
But I surely do question the idea that pay rates are stagnant. If we aren't earning more now than we did in the past all those companies selling luxuries could not exist; we wouldn't have the money to support them. I'll also say that prices are NOT rising appreciably; that most things cost no more now (in terms of hours worked in order to purchase them) than they did 50 years ago, and those that DO cost more are nothing like the products we bought back then.
If we compare prices, again in terms of hours worked rather than $$, from the 50's or 60's they are very much in line with what we pay today, and what we get today is generally far superior in quality.Let's hold the observation of rising prices in the arena of food and fuel. Two things necessary for survival and the ability to get to work to earn what's needed for survival. The average inflation rate since the fifties holds at about 18%.
But, you are right. Wants and needs are not the same and we could certainly save by not purchasing many things. But, without that purchasing our economy would flounder.Can't imagine where you're getting an average inflation rate since the 50's as being 18%; if it were even half true a loaf of bread would now cost thousands. (Calling it 20%, because I can do the arithmetic better, means that prices will double every 5 years without figuring in the compounding effect. There are 14, 5 year periods since 1950; the price will go up 2↑14 times, or a factor of 16,384. The loaf of bread that cost 12¢ in 1950 would now cost $2,000, in round figures.)
But let's look at the numbers. Average wage in 1950 was about $1.50 ( https://www.reference.com/business-fina … 4d84ee2912 ) and in 2017 was $40 ( https://www.elearningguild.com/publicat … .cfm?id=98). Both figures predicated on 2080 hours per year; in fact there are considerable fewer hours worked in 2017 because of holidays and vacations; paid time off that wasn't there in 1950. But go with those numbers.
From http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/50sfood.html, the price of a loaf of bread in 1950 was 12¢; you could buy about 12 loaves for an hours work. Now it's around $2 and you can buy 20 loaves for an hours work.
Eggs were 79¢ a dozen then, for about 2 dozen for an hours work; now they're $1 and you can get 40 dozen for that same work.
Hamburger was 30¢ per pound, or 5# for an hours work. Now it's $3, or 13# for that hours work.
Potatoes were 3.5¢ per pound, or 42# for an hours work; now they're about 40¢ per pound and you get 100# for the same work.
Gasoline was 30¢ (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2005279/posts) then, or 5 gallons for an hours work. Now it's a little under $3, or 13 gallons for that work. But also to consider is that at 15 MPG in 1950, that hours work would get you 75 miles while the same work now will get you better than 390 miles (30 MPG).
Cars (to get to work in). in 1950 a new car cost around $1500, or 1000 hours worked. Now it's $30,000 for a nice car or 750 hours. But it doesn't stop; the car now has power windows, locks, steering, mirrors and likely seat. It has air bags everywhere and gets double or triple the mileage. It has AC and a CD player rather than a radio and heater. It can be expected to last twice as long as the one from 1950. It's like comparing a MacDonalds hamburger meal to steak and lobster, with a bottle of wine to boot...and is still cheaper than what it was.
Bottom line is that all the complaining that we're losing ground just isn't true at all. Not unless you're trying to compare to that yacht, anyway.I got the 18% from my dad whose pretty good with numbers, himself. But, if I take your word for it.....I used to manage a grocery store (some time ago), but I was more familiar with prices than most. Only the most unobservant would argue that price increases have not greatly outstretched the stated inflation rate.
When I was a kid my mother was averse to the idea of shopping sales or being seen in discount stores. I know what designer clothes cost back then and I know what they cost now. I can assure you they, too, have outstripped stated inflation rates.
But, I would propose that many things we now need are not driven by wants. Without a computer, will your child have access to as much educational opportunity as one without? Not to mention the added cost of ensuring access. Is the planned obsolescence built into many items we need, on a daily basis, driving up the cost of maintaining an average lifestyle? Are the monthly fees involved in such things as basic phone service reasonably in line with what they were, prior to mobile? Is it your belief that home prices have seen a low rise in value?
It's easy to make statements that we just want too much, but if the average household in 1950 could live an average lifestyle on one income I have to wonder why the average household now struggles to live an average lifestyle, with two incomes, if all things have remained equal.You are both right is some respect. The problem is price has not always gone up on all products. Some have come down such as electronic due to innovation...
The stated inflation rate is also not accurate because over the years, they have change the basket of products that goes into the computation... the government plays games like this so that they can reduce the automatic social security increases to our seniors due to inflation.
The truth is we are spending more than what we take in by all measures, our government is spending too much and as individuals we are borrowing too much (credit cards, student loans, mortgages...and car loans).
This condiction can not continue. Our national debt is over 20 trillion in 2017.
The answer which no parties wants to address is to institute a balanced budget amendment.
That is the only sure way to prevent Congress of over spending, year after year.
In individuals, we need to educate our youths about money management, and saving and investing for the future. I try to do that here on HubPages with many articles on investing.Computers: only 51% of households have a computer. I'd have to say they are not a necessity. https://www.bing.com/search?q=what+perc … e=20111030
Planned obsolescence: Almost everything we have lasts longer than it used to. Cars, appliances, even clothing (if we're not a slave to the fashion industry). I see "planned obsolescence" as more gripe that things change than an actual fact. Always in search of something better, we're calling the old one "obsolete" when it still works just fine. Rampant consumerism, then, though we prefer to blame someone else by using the term "planned obsolescence".
Phones: again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Not only is a mobile phone not a necessity, giving everyone in the household certainly isn't.
Home prices: Average cost of a home in 1950 was around $4,000, or 2700 hours work. Now it's perhaps $150,000, or 3700 hours. But once more we're looking at apples and oranges - average house size in 1950 was 983 square feet, while it is now 2500 square feet even though family size has shrunk. Today's house will come equipped with a range, dishwasher and refrigerator - all things that were extra then. It comes with central AC, unavailable at any price in 1950. Where we used to sleep 2 or 3 kids per room, now it's a bedroom for every person. It will have 2 or 3 bathrooms rather than one. And never forget the price of the land; we didn't used to insist that we live downtown in a major city; should we move out into the country that $150,000 will go down.
Why do we need two incomes then? One, because we demand far more than we used to, as normal, necessary things for survival. We want double the house. We require 2 or more cars. A boat in the driveway. Air travel rather than driving on that vacation. A phone for anyone over 12 years old, and a mobile one at that, so it's available 24/7. We eat out far more; always more expensive. Where kids used to play "kick the can" with friends now we put them in summer camp or supply other expensive entertainment for them. We all want expensive toys - that boat, 4 wheelers, an RV, etc. Rather than doing our own repairs we hire someone else to do them while we lazy back in front of the TV. We even hire someone to cut our grass rather than drag out the man powered push mower!
And that last one brings up point two. In 1950, Mom (usually mom rather than dad) stayed home. She cared for the kids, she grew a garden (we hardly ever bought vegetables), she sewed clothing and darned socks. Her job was unpaid, but she "earned" as much as Dad did for the family. Meanwhile Dad worked, did repair work around the house and often hunted for meat. Now we hire someone else for those things, and we demand only trained, experienced, expensive people to do them.
The work load has shifted from unpaid work around the house to the job market, but it hasn't truly increased any for the family. We just switched Mom's job from the home location to the factory. I wrote a hub on "Dual earner incomes - is it worth the cost" years ago. We mostly have two earner families because we choose to, not because we have to, and that second income often actually brings in very little additional income. Not after deducting all the costs, not just gas and daycare.I totally agree. Two income family are less well than single income and mom or dad stay home and take care of the kids...
An interesting little tidbit I picked up when I wrote the hub: Two earner couples are much more likely to end up in bankruptcy than a single earner family. Very counter intuitive, but with two parents, one at home, when the inevitable comes and a job is lost for whatever reason there are two people available to look for work, not one. It would be a different story if that second income went into savings, but it doesn't; two earner families live just as close to the line as single earner ones do. They earn more and they spend more, so when a job is lost it is just as important to get another one as it is for a single earner family, but there is only person looking instead of two.
I will point out that you are stretching the truth a bit with your hours worked value. I doubt the job that garnered $1.5 in 1950 pays $40 an hour now.
The large percentage of Americans don't make $40 an hour for full time work.
With escalating living costs, it is challenging for two-income couples to comfortably live on an average solidly middle income salary which is about $80,000 per annum. If the two-income couple jointly makes less than $80,000 per annum, it will be extremely difficult to live comfortably. In order to live comfortably & w/o difficulty, two-income couples have to earn at least $150,000 jointly per annum & above while single people have to earn at least $125,000 per annum.
I believe that one has to earn $200,000 per annum & above to live a comfortable lifestyle. The cost of living has escalated so much that the middle class is dwindling or middling, the wealthy become wealthier, & the increase among the population of the poor. In the future, there will be only two classes-the upper & lower w/very little in between.
I think it's also worth considering the level of higher household debt people are taking on to maintain a comfortable level of consumption. We've only begun to feel the effects of globalization.
It IS a problem, and that "comfortable level of consumption" is exactly what I mean. It has become a level that was reserved for only the high and mighty only a few years ago. That changing perception - that we need ever more luxuries just to survive - is resulting in the false to fact concept that we are earning less than we ever did before.
Agreed. We are obsessed with purchasing things we don't need that are building strength outside of our borders. Far too much of our consumption puts the US at a disadvantage. With more automation and AI on the way, and infrastructure and efficiency improvements in the developing world, the fight for the desired standard of living is going to become more difficult.
That's an excellent point. And look at the hoops the industry has gone through,over the years, to allow debt to rise and rise. Credit cards were once difficult to attain and had low debt ceilings. Home mortgages took a long time to process, but didn't have the ridiculous fees now tacked on by almost mandatory use of third party processors. The amount of debt that can be accrued now by borrowing against your home is phenomenal.
All are slaves to the system we willing allowed to grow,in order to consume more and more.It's funny in an age where little is spared from government intrusion that the measures to prevent the average citizen from taking on unhealthy amounts of debt--against their homes as you mentioned--are so weak. All of the funding with little to none of the dedication to the people of the country...
What you suggest is fine...in a nanny state. I very much prefer to run my life myself, without the Great Father of the White House telling me how I must do it. I am, after all, an adult and quite capable of making my own decisions, thank you very much.
I would much prefer autonomy as well. I just find it suspicious that with Uncle Sam wearing the nanny pants in almost every other aspect of our lives, that this area goes mostly untouched.
Well, you'll find an awful lot of people that will tell you it's because the credit industry would lose money then, and their "contributions" to legislators might fall.
I'm one of them.
There are two extremes at war here.
One is the concept that every member of society has a duty to care for those less fortunate.
The other is the idea that every man is responsible for himself.
The first one is called civilization.No, the first one is called a nanny state, with a few in charge of taking and distributing what others have worked for in order to benefit themselves. Or perhaps slavery.
The second is called freedom.
"Civilization" lies somewhere in the middle and unfortunately the US has crossed over into the first. It does not consist of playing Robin Hood until all people are considered "equal", somehow, with a few providing the work and effort for the many.Actually if it's done correctly, then the many are providing the work and effort for the few. Are you seriously saying American society is so bad, the majority of Americans are layabouts?
It does seems to be moving in that direction. With the record number of food stamps, welfare recipients and people on disability...
What percent do you think is a reasonable number of people needing assistance?
Is it 5%, 10%, 25% or 50%?
By most indicators, the poverty level in the US has hoovered around 10-13% for the last few decades.
Yet, we have seen dramatic rise in the various subsidies and entitlements...
Where does this lead us?
Would a better solution be to incentivize people who are health and able to work?I agree with you, on some levels. But, I also think many who dream of being part of the 1% are blind to some realities. Maybe, a better solution would be to look at the fact that the cost of living rises faster than wages? Maybe, it would be better to address the growing problem of individual debt? Maybe, it would be better to stop blaming people for being in need of aid and address the problems creating that need?
Personal accountability must be expected. Compassion with our government programs should be maintained. Finding the right balance is paramount in a free society.While I agree overall, part of the problem as I see it is that we've somehow decided that doing the same thing year after year must result in a constantly improving standard of living.
Joe has a job paying X, and the job just barely pays the bills. No movies, no eating out. Joe gets a raise (still doing the same job) and expects to see a movie now and then out of it and thinks he should now get to eat out once a month. Yet he is still doing the same thing he did before - he isn't producing anything more but wants more (movie and dinner) for doing the same thing.
It doesn't work, and shouldn't, but somehow we demand that it does. So we put more and more people on charity programs...because they haven't done anything to improve themselves so have just what they did in the past. Doesn't make sense, does it?Is it your contention that job does not need to be done? If it does, and Joe moves on, will Bob have the same problems Joe had?
No. It is my contention that if you don't produce more then you should not expect more, no matter how we try to spin it differently. That yearly raise for doing the same work should not be expected to buy any more than it did last year any more than the employer expects more work for it.
"That yearly raise for doing the same work should not be expected to buy any more than it did last year any more than the employer expects more work for it."
That's why you get a raise for doing the same thing; so you "tread water" in [b]what you can buy[/i].If that were true, it would certainly make sense.
Jacklee is right - we are most definitely moving in that direction. Over half the nation now accepts govt. charity - charity paid for by the other half. Very nearly half the people contribute nothing to the needs of the nation (taxes), leaving the other half to provide 100% of the resources we need as a nation.
Charity is fine and good - it is part of that "civilization" - but when that kind of percentage is digging into the pockets of others for what they want but cannot afford it becomes bald income redistribution in a misguided effort to "equalize" the people, but "equalizing" only the income part but never the production part.
"Do a reset on your knowledge about Trump." Voters already did that on Election Day and look where it got us.
Where has it gotten us?
Dow over 26,000.
Business and jobs coming back to US
ISIS decimated...
Jerusalem capitol of Israel
Tackling immigration problem finally...
Sexual harrassment stopped in the work place.
Reset on Paris Accord.
All good s far as the American people is concerned.
Where do you sit?Not only has sexual harassment been stopped, but Trump has done an amazing amount for the blacks.
Their unemployment is way down.Yes, and how many of these things would have happened if Hillary was elected President?
Raise your hands, anyone?
Where is the compassion for the poor, the disadvantaged, the American workers?
The Democrats have a lot to think about and introspection....Agreed. He was right when he said that 95% of all blacks will vote for him.
“And at the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95 percent of the African-American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ … ote-227218That is typical Trump...the truth is he doesn’t need anywhere near 95%.
Even if he gets 25% of blacks, he would win by a landslide. Blacks have traditionally voted Democrats 90% of the time...
The average size and cost of a home is 2500sqft and $150,000?! Crikey, sounds like I might need to move to the States. That’s even worth dealing with Trump for.
That's what they say - 2500 sq ft. And I'm guessing on value, based on the homes right around me. Neither cheap nor expensive, not downtown and not rural.
That's bs and I assume he knows that. I have lived in quite a few states and that is only true in very,very rural areas or dying towns.
LOL I live in one of the fastest growing cities in the country (fastest in Idaho, and a suburb of the capitol of Boise), and that's about what I see. Admittedly, I don't scan the million dollar plus homes, and that will skew the average, but do stand by the price of an average home. And the size, too.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=average+h … e=20111030 (I'm off a little, but not much, at $180,800)
and
https://www.reference.com/home-garden/a … b8144de9b2 Again, off a little at 2598 sq. ft.
Better move to Idaho. God's country, don't ya know? (Unless you're from California - we already have too many of those nut jobs trying to make another Cali out of the state.)LOL. So,home prices are lower in Idaho so you assume that's the norm. We can't all move to Idaho. I've lived all over the East coast and, on average, that price might get you a single wide trailer. Unless, you head several hours out from any metropolitan area. And, in those depressed and rural locations, it might as well be $250,000. Because the wages used to pay that mortgage will be 1/2 of what can be garnered working in the city.
Seriously. I bought a house in Colorado Springs in the late '80s for more than that. It was in a middle class neighborhood.
I think you might want to rethink your figures. They're incredibly outdated.Nope - the links are nation wide. I just used my area because it seemed reasonable for the country; a large (100,000 pop) suburb of a decent city (Boise) with several more towns in the immediate area. Neither downtown nor rural, as I said.
Although that "not downtown" is changing rapidly
. We used to be in farmland (1996) and now it's residential and light commercial everywhere. When they put in a new interchange about a mile from home, and made the road outside the subdivision into 5 lanes it began to change rapidly.
Let's see, though. I built a house in a large (2400 lot) gated community with lots of amenities in the 80's in rural Va. The house was $90,000 and the lot $9,000. Though I'm not sure you can call a 2400 lot community with 2 pools, 7 lakes, 2 clubhouses, 4 tennis courts, basketball court, 5 playgrounds, 24 hour security at both gates plus a roving guard, private campground and 33 miles of private, paved road "rural"! 1988, that was, and about 1/2 hour from Richmond.I built a house in'90 in a bedroom community in Va. Contracted myself. It cost about $100,000. 2250 sq ft. I came in about$40,000 under the prices quoted by GC's.
You are wrong. Wilderness. I'm sorry to tell you. Whoever is coming up with those figures is using all housing, substandard or not, wilderness areas, or not.
You can buy a nice house, cheap, in a little town about 1.5 hours from Richmond. But, it will never go up in value. You'll never get a job to pay The mortgage in that area. The town is dying and has been since the railroad abandoned it. I don't think it makes sense to include some area such as that in figures. Not for working people. It skews reality for people, such as yourself, who want to pretend things aren't getting harder for the average middle class working income.Oh, I don't know about pretending some places and prices don't exist. My home was in Ladysmith, between Fredericksburg and Richmond. Lake Land'Or was the community and there was another one just down the road - Lake Caroline. Both were just off of I-95, on what was (then) the last undeveloped interchange between Petersburg and Boston. Land prices went from my $9,000 to nearly $30,000 when developers from NYC found us and began busing in customers to sell summer homes to. (We fought and beat the tax increase, though!)
One of my neighbors worked just south of DC. Alexandria, as I recall. 75 mile commute each way, nearly 2 hours in rush hour. People WILL do that kind of thing to get more house than they could otherwise afford. And with telecommuting today, anything is possible.
But LTL, saying that I pretend things aren't getting harder doesn't make a lot of sense when your sole reason for saying so is that you disagree with the sales numbers from Zillow. I gave you half a dozen prices, from houses to eggs, and the only one that went up was the housing. If you don't like my figures, find your own, put them into hours worked to purchase X then and now and compare the two. Don't just say you don't like Zillow for home pricing and therefore the entire premise is wrong!I didn't say I don't like Zillow. I'm simply pointing out that housing, in areas where decent jobs are prevalent, are not in line with your figures. My experience negates the validity of those numbers. And, I would put forth (through direct observation to support) that lower pricing reflects lower income potential in those areas, which would imply that,all things being equal, prices are rising faster than wages.
Driving the three hour commute increases the costs by that drive. Which, by monthly figures, would raise the monthly cost of that home to be in line with the higher priced homes closer in."Driving the three hour commute increases the costs by that drive. "
You're not kidding! He pretty much had to buy a new car every other year, most because of that commute. For him it was worth it, but I can't imagine it would be to me. Of course, living in Alexandria will result in increased property taxes by probably 10 fold, high costs for utilities, any contract work on cars, houses, etc. Pretty much everything costs more there, and that could easily have taken him out of the market for living there.You have shown an example why our tax system needed reform badly.
I live in NY suburb and we have a similar issue. The local property taxes and state taxes are too high.
Compared to our neighbors, and the south and western regions, we need to cut our taxes to be competitive.
Perhaps, over time, the locals will wise up, and realize they can’t offset their federal tax burden using local taxes...and elect people that will be more responsive... there is no reason why my property tax should be 5 times of someone paying in North Carolina.Well, you need 5X the number of cops (and judges and prosecutors and courtrooms). You need specialized fire equipment and lots more of it. Water and sewer utilities are much harder to handle, even with volume offsetting some of it. You typically offer more "free" entertainment (parks, parades, etc.)
There are reasons for higher taxes but yes, 5X seems too much. Fire some of your politicians?
I find this conversation ludicrous. Even factoring a very low$125 per square foot price (way below current pricing) the house, alone, would cost $312,500. That does not include lot, proffers, water or sewer hook up, etc.
I was just in Idaho in the summer, should’ve waved I guess.
Yes you should have! We could have gone down and rode the mechanical bull!
(Not really - I wouldn't have a clue where to find one of those. Even the Kit Kat Club, a strip joint just down the road, is gone now - when my cousin came through town she was adamant she wanted to play darts and that's where she, my wife and I ended up. A strange evening!)Oh, well, no strip club... of course houses are cheap! You’re not giving the people what they want.
Seriously though, that’s an interesting name for a strip club. Did they do tricks with Kit Kats?Naw - it was on Black Cat Road, that's all. I hear they've moved to a neighboring town when the road was widened and eminent domain got them, but haven't checked it out. Now that I'm retired my wife keeps close tabs and she doesn't want to go and watch the bare boo...uh...things. Yes, bare things..
Related Discussions
- 48
Should the GOP candidates have condemned Rush?
by idratherbe 12 years ago
I give Ron Paul credit, he was the only GOP candidate to condemn Rush's remarks. Santorum failed miserably by not coming out and condemning Rush. Romney and Newt,missed an opportunity to show he has a backbone and a defender of women's rights.I can't imagine any women voting for Romney, Santorum,...
- 237
What are your thoughts on Rush Limbaugh and President Obama?
by marinealways24 15 years ago
All opinions respected. Who would win a debate between Obama and Limbaugh?
- 44
Just saw Rush Limbaugh being interviewed on Fox News Sean Hannity
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
He made a profound statement which is one of his strong suit being the success he is on talk tadio.He said of the establishment Politicians in Washington - that they cannot afford to have President Trump succeed in his agenda. They cannot have an outsider come to Washington with zero experience and...
- 8
Is Rush limbaugh a reliable political news source?
by cafeteria 13 years ago
Is Rush limbaugh a reliable political news source?
- 92
Rush Limbaugh and the Lord's Resistance Army
by Sooner28 12 years ago
As most people who are not living under a rock know, Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, has been kidnapping children in Uganda in order to force them to be soldiers and sex slaves. Then a documentary surfaced called "Invisible Children." It moves the heart...
- 110
Rush Limbaugh is REALLY crazy ("nuts" would be a better word)
by fishskinfreak2008 15 years ago
Limbaugh has gone too far with his latest attack on Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy: ""Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill". THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. Rush, it's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but this statement makes it sound like...