40 responses so far ↓

• 1 laughing808 // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:58 am

  Thanks, this breakdown of candidate views on key issues is great particularly for those not really following the presidential race.

• 2 Livingalmostlarge // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:01 pm

  This is a financial breakdown and NOT a social issues breakdown.

  We are here for finances. Social issues are a different reason to support a person for president.

• 4 tom // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  This breakdown is killing me because I disagree with both candidates.

  One thing I disagree with McCain on is Drilling… No more oil please… someone get T Boone Pickens to slap this guy.

  One thing I disagree with Obama is taxing outsourcing businesses. Please… look at The Boeing Company. The aerospace industry is The labor union has been given the greatest labor contract in the history of the company, and they still piss and moan. Labor unions are driving up costs and that’s why we send jobs overseas.

• 5 Kristy // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  See, I am better off than I was 4 years ago. I have tripled my income in the past 4 years due to hard work and picking the right field of work. The unemployment rate, although higher than last year, is still low. Most of the people that are being layed off are in construction and financing and is a directly attributable to the tanking of the housing market.

  While prices are increasing and inflation is high, people that are not doing well have only themselves to blame. Did you buy too much house? How many new cars are sitting in your driveway? Did you plan for unemployment? Do you have an emergency fund.? Most of the people struggling thought that the good times couldn’t end and did not prepare for the bad times.

  I am not trying to be mean, but American’s need to take responsibility for their actions.

• 6 Livingalmostlarge // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:54 pm

  Tom, we are outsourcing jobs even without labor unions. My DH manages about 15 people in China, and he’s not union. Actually everyone he manages has a Bachelor’s and most have PhDs. So these are professional level jobs.

  Kristy, Sorry but my DH went from $20k/year to $100k after finishing his PhD. So yes our situation improved in one fell swoop. But that’s because of a degree not because of the economy.

  Since that time we’ve both gotten 3% annual raises. Unfortunately that has not kept up with inflation, our portion of medical insurance, and utility bills doubling in 3 years. I have my utilities bills and our usage has not changed but the costs have.

  Yes we’re responsible. We don’t have new cars, we didn’t buy too much house, we save over 20% for retirement, we are paying for another degree to make we’re employable, and we have an EF.

  But we are worse off than 3 years ago. 3 years ago it looked rosy. 3 years ago at the start of new higher incomes we thought we’d be doing great. Well we’re not. My DH lived through a layoff and while he found work we did worry.

  We have had a lot of professional friends struggling. Also friends who work for the state governments struggling. Recall the friend in CA who is getting paid minimum wage for a job she was making $70k/year?

  And she’s prepared for the worse, others are not. But they still have jobs. So one would ask them are you doing better? No.

  I hope you vote that you are doing better. What was your raise last year? Did you make enough for the higher gas, food, and utilities cost?

  If it is then you are doing way better than me.

• 7 Livingalmostlarge // Sep 5, 2008 at 12:56 pm

  Also Kristy, if jobs lost are only due to the housing situation, then how can the US be doing better?

• 8 Kristy // Sep 5, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  Our country is in a recession. Part of the reason is due to the greediness of Americans, for buying a bigger, better house than they could afford. For not putting a down payment on a house and taking out an interest only loan.

  I never said that the only jobs lost were due to the housing crisis, I said most. The US is not doing better, I never said it was. I said that I was doing better than 4 years ago. Mine was due to a degree, not the economy. I don’t work on salary and don’t get annual raises. You would think that I would be doing far worse than I am. But, I am not. My job is based on commissions. When work is busy I make more money, when work is slow, I make less. And still I am doing better than 4 years ago.

  Of course things don’t look rosy right now, we are in a recession, IMO. Things never look better then. It can not always be good time, you have to take the bad with the good. And you have to be prepared for it. Most people are not.

  How can you say that you are doing badly? You are probably maxing your retirement accounts, have an emergency fund, etc. Maybe your expectations are too high? What else do you WANT? You have everything you need and if something were to happen to one of your jobs, you have an emergency fund. Of course you worry when one loses their job, its human nature.

• 9 AS Green // Sep 5, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  Hi Livingalmostlarge. I discovered your blog from Budgets are Sexy. Thank you for such a great breakdown of the economic policies of our candidtates.

  Are you better off then you were 4 years ago is hard to say. Yes I am, but in that time I also received a masters degree and went from my early 20s to the late 20s. I think a lot of changes happen during this time, including gaining experience to help you in your job.

  However, with the rising cost of food and gas I’m really feeling the pinch now. I think overall our economy is much worse, and this is reaffirmed when you try to travel outside the US and you can see how much our dollar has gone down.

  I’m looking forward to reading more of your blog!

• 10 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 5, 2008 at 2:56 pm

  I think a lot of people are retooling getting different degrees and different jobs. Because there is no such thing as job security. Most of our friends are professionals.

  My friend in CA is a public heath analyst, something you’d think was recession proof. NOT. Another few friends are school teachers, also recession proof right? Not.

  We’re in a professional field where our friends and ourselves go through cycles.

  No, we are doing well financially, but let’s be honest. I worry more now than 3 years ago about getting a job. My DH is working on another degree just in case.

  I am a student, I have no medical insurance. MORE than money if my DH loses his job I’m uninsurable. I have a history of seizures, I have genetically high cholesterol, which I control through food, diet, and exercise. Who is going to insure me?

  I’m overall healthy, but what if? I talked with a life insurance guy and he said I’d be expensive to insure. So if that’s just life insurance what about medical not employer provided?

  We’d do Cobra or find any job with health insurance. So yes we’re worried. My DH also has a preexisting condition of Retinitis Pigmenosa. He will be blind in his 50s/60s. His mom is going blind.

  We do not have the luxury of buying our own insurance because whose going to insure us?

  So we keep our jobs because of health insurance. I know that if my DH ever wants to start his own business I need a secure job with medical benefits. We’ve discussed this extensively.

  But we’re well off. We make good money, we save and yet I doubt we could afford or get medical insurance. We’re thin, we work out, and yet no one would want either of us.

  So yes I’m worried. Shouldn’t I be?

  And by the way travelling is curtailed for us internationally. Even going to Canada has been painful for us. When the dollar was 60 cents to $1 CAD. Now it’s par.

  We’re in trouble.

• 11 Kristy // Sep 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm

  Of course you should be worried, the country is in a recession! I am worried too, but I know that I have a backup plan if things go south for awhile.

  We have discussed health insurance before and I know its expensive. That is why I work, the health insurance is through my employer. No one wants to pay for Cobra, it is far more expensive than anything else. Fortunately, you have an emergency fund. Hopefully, your DH won’t lose his job.

  I understand about life insurance, we pay far more for DH’s policy than mine due to his skin cancer 7 years ago. He gets checked every 6 months for cancer. However, it is worth it to me to pay for peace of mind. I have one child and one on the way, we need life insurance.

  My original point was that I personally am better off than 4 years ago or even 1 year ago. I am not saying that the economy is good, I am saying that “I” am doing better.

• 12 Jim ~ mydebtblog.com // Sep 5, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  I’m not sure where this post is supposed to go. This entire election is a toss up and in the end, neither one will make much of an impact on an individual level. Throwing the recession word out there still gets annoying though. The last quarter the economy still grew, but at the same time unemployment has gone up. I think this is typical of an election year and things will return to normal once it’s over. Just 8 more weeks and over a billion dollars later, it will be over.

• 13 Livingalmostlarge // Sep 5, 2008 at 7:09 pm

  I think Jim our policies will affect the market. Depending on who gets in will determine what is in place.

  I also don’t think we’re better off than we were 3 years ago when we started at the income we’re at now.

  Are we better than 4 years? Yes. But one year? With 3% and 0% increase in salary no. Salaries are the same.

  The only thing saving us is living simply and realizing that things are tight. Not vacationing like we’re used to. Not buying a newer car. Not doing as much home repairs, and doing it ourself instead of paying for it.

  Would you have ever guessed that we’d be driving the same cars we had in graduate school as now? We certainly didn’t but it’s not a possiblity of affording any upgrade.

• 14 Terry // Sep 5, 2008 at 10:54 pm

  Taxing healthcare fringe benefits and adding a $5000 refundable tax credit for families will work out for the families if the child tax credit is also increased to $7000. That puts $8500 or more in the pockets of families to pay for the new tax on health benefits.

• 15 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:18 pm

  What happens if you don’t have children? Are single? Yeah sounds like a great plan. Also what happens to people who are paying 25% of their premium now they pay taxes on the 75% premium. Will $5k cover the taxes on the premium? I think for my DH and I it won’t. And without kids what tax credit?

• 16 Sense // Sep 6, 2008 at 3:03 am

  Just looking at my retirement accounts…I’m doing much, much worse than four years ago.

  I’m really hoping the election goes the way I want it to…it feels like we’re at make-or-break decision time, like the wrong answer could destroy those of us that are middle class and lower. and that’s just the financial assessment, there are so many other important issues (environment, war…etc.) at stake here.

• 17 Tim // Sep 6, 2008 at 8:33 am

  I agree with Kristy.

  LAL, your DH going from $20k to $100k is a function of the economy. If it wasn’t there wouldn’t be resources from the employer to offer the job and to offer as much for the job.
  Here’s an interesting analysis of the two on their positions as well: http://www.smartmoney.com/consumer/index.cfm?story=20080904-mccain-obama

  it’s all too glamorous to focus on the presidential candidate as if the President has the sole purview over the economy or US budget.

  remember tax credits is just a fancy way of saying it will come out of the tax payers’ hide, because it still has to be funded somehow. Buzz words ought to give everyone pause to start questioning them and to look deeper into whichever candidate is using them.

  there’s been a huge void in personal financial responsibility in the US. when people are blaming creditors for lending them more than they could afford on a house, is a prime example of this. negative savings rate is another. although not everyone buys new cars, big tv’s, etc, there were far more who did. Starbucks didn’t climb fast without having a lot of consumers. Leases on more expensive cars didn’t become popular because people didn’t have an image problem. People weren’t getting interest only mortgages, ARMs, mortgages with 0% down, and getting into mortgages that were way over what they could afford if there wasn’t the compulsion of consumers to over spend. don’t get me wrong, these companies should fail for even lending them and we shouldn’t be bailing them out, but at the end of the day, consumers are to blame for signing the dotted line.

  I for one think the retraction in the economy is good, and necessary, for its long term health, especially if it gets americans back to reality (although by all the fingering pointing, lack of personal responsiblity, and govt bailouts, i question if this is true).

  these snapshots also are a problem and easy to get caught up in all the noise. it is an election year and everything is amplified. diverisfy and have a long term picture.

• 18 Livingalmostlarge // Sep 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  It was getting a degree. BUT the truth is the economics of the degree wasn’t worth it.

  Nope, the economy has been rough for a few years. I haven’t felt that things are doing excellent.

  Actually these past 8 years the executive branch of the government has gotten a lot more power than before. With a republican congress for 6 of those years they’ve been runnning the show and I don’t see the benefit.

  I also don’t think the average person who make $50k/year does either. Kristy and Tim both make i’m guessing above average salaries. Thus they want to keep their money.

  But making any less and they would complain more. I noticed people who make the in the category between 2-5% of earners complain the most about taxes and government handouts.

  I wonder why that is?

• 19 Meg // Sep 6, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  I’m not going to argue about the discrepancies in some of your analysis (like that McCain’s tax cuts and unwillingness to raise taxes will only benefit the rich), but I would like to point out that you repeatedly talk about the last 4-8 years, the previous administration, what the economy has been doing, “are we better off now” etc.

  Voting for or against a candidate because of what Bush’s administration has done and what the economy has done over the last four years is not wise. What happened under Bush economy-wise is largely the result of policies put into place by previous administrations and by Alan Greenspan. Plus 9/11 happened to occur during Bush’s term which dramatically affected our economy (and any President would have upped spending in response, not just Bush).

  So arguing for Obama based on a “you’re probably not better off since Bush has been in office” is illogical. Besides, many if not most people actually ARE better off since the last recession in 2001 - check out recent articles, polls, and debates about that very topic on CNNMoney.com.

• 20 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 6, 2008 at 11:48 pm

  I wonder are we really better off? It doesn’t appear most average americans aren’t.

  I still think that those in the top 5% earners would say we are. Because we really are.

  But the true middle class?

  And if things are doing so well why is the approval rating so low for Bush? Why should we continue the policies if we don’t approve of them?

• 21 Zombie Money // Sep 7, 2008 at 1:17 am

  I’m better off now vs. 4 years ago but it doesn’t affect how/who I’m going to vote for.

  I disagree with your views on why you chose obama and I agree with Meg’s points.

• 22 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 7, 2008 at 1:24 pm

  Better because of a degree or better because you got tons of promotions and more money? Degrees help bump your salary.

  So how are you doing from 1 year ago? To everyone who got degrees?

  Let’s look at a time frame of one raise/bonus year.

• 23 Tim // Sep 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  LAL, there are two conditions (probably more here). First, if you ask if i’m better off than i was a year ago, i would say no since my investments have hit hard, but yes because i’m investing rather than paying off debt. if you ask if i’m better off then i was 10 years ago which is a minimum time horizon for thinking investment, then yes i am most assuredly better off in terms of savings, not having debt, and increased wages.

  the economy has continued to grow, even if we are in a recession, the economy has continued to grow over this current administration. if you take a long term view, although you can choose whichever two dates you want to in order to make your case, but in general the line continues upward.

  The executive branch has not gained any more power in terms of the power of the purse or budgetary powers. So i’m not sure what you are trying to say by stating that the executive branch has gained more power. besides, this is irrelevant in terms of the economic situation. the issue is that consumers over extended themselves. That is the bottom line. the mortgage crisis has nothing to do with the war in iraq, pork barrel projects, or increased spending. if people hadn’t over extended themselves and they could afford what they purchased, we wouldn’t be in the mortgage situation we are in. moreover, commodity prices have absurdly contributed, and this is a long term policy snafoos which should have been handled after the oil crisis in 1970s.

  you are damn right i want to keep my money, because i’ve worked hard for it and paid my dues. there’s nothing wrong with wanting to retain what you’ve worked for. I’m sure you are giving every cent you make from this blog to someone far more needier than you. Nope, i wouldn’t be whining about the affects right now. i saw it coming, and i took action. my wife only started working recently so we were a one income family. before that i was in serious debt, because i had the same mentality that many americans had. the only difference is that although i was only making $40k a year and had close to $80k nonsecured debt, i took personal responsibility and paid it off. no one else got me into that situation except me, not the credit card companies who kept increasing my credit limit, the pay day loan places that i cashed checks, no one except myself.

  the majority of my family is lower middle class, and one of my siblings who is 44 years old makes minimum wage. sure they aren’t spending on want items as loosely as they were, but they didn’t run up the credit card or buy houses that they couldn’t afford. forget about congress and the president, this economic mess is squarely placed on the consumer.

  FYI, AP reports obama is now considering delaying rescinding bush tax cuts.

• 24 Livingalmostlarge // Sep 7, 2008 at 10:49 pm

  I think our economy is stalling and hitting a wall. I think that more things are going wrong than right.

  Do I think that people got in over their heads? Yes, but I think it’s more localized than that. I know that the mortgage implosion occurred in some areas. Other areas like Michigan and Ohio it’s due to job loss.

  Did mortgage crisis hit everywhere? I hear some places are still going up.

  As for money from my blog, I’ve been doing it almost 3 years. And nope I’m really not making money from it. Most PF bloggers aren’t. I make enough to pay for my hosting and stuff but not a ton.

  My adsense sends you a check when you hit $100, well I’ve never gotten one. Tells you how much I make. I run this because it’s a cheap hobby and I have fun. I’m not a professional blogger, maybe they make tons I don’t.

• 25 Clair Schwan // Sep 8, 2008 at 12:23 am

  First point: “…and McCains tax cuts are for the rich.”

  Well, I for one don’t have a problem with that at all. The rich (meaning high income) are the ones that pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes.

  If you make more, you pay more, so why shouldn’t you get more back when it comes to incentives, rebates and tax cuts?Why is it that the high income folks are picked on like they are evil people that aren’t worth having around (except to pay most of the taxes).

  The high income folks:

  -create new businesses
  -invest in our economy
  -create jobs
  -make new products and services
  -pay most of the taxes
  -and the list goes on and on

  They don’t “just go to work” like most Americans, they are a vital part of our economy. When you think of the rich, think of the late Dave Thomas who founded Wendy’s.

  Last point: why bother comparing McCain and Obama? That’s like comparing bad and worse. That’s like trying to figure out who is the lesser of the two weevils. Either way you wind up with a pest.

  Why not vote for someone with good core values and integrity? Or, write someone in. Most of us think that there are only two choices, and that’s why we have two poor choices this year, just like we get most election years.

  Start using you vote to encourage others that don’t have a chance to win because you keep throwing your vote away on a demo-publican. If the two major parties start seeing the emergence of stronger third and fourth parties, then they will have to change or fail.

  We haven’t given them much reason to change, especially if we keep evaluating their candidates as if they are the only two to choose from.

  Clair

• 26 The Happy Rock // Sep 8, 2008 at 12:36 am

  LAL, this doesn’t read like a fair assessment of both candidates. It reads like someone who likes Obama/or dislikes Republican discussing the issues through their own personal filter. Now that is absolutely fine it is what blogs are about as long as that aren’t trying make it seem like there are being unbiased. For the record, I don’t see you doing that. It reads like LAL’s opinion on the candidates and this is a great forum for that.

  The part that bothers me has almost nothing to do with you. This is what almost every political discussion has been reduced too. Even from politicians. Neither side has any respect for the other. Both side are in a power grab that they continue to try and win by tearing the other side down. I wonder how similar strategies would play out in a marriage…what about respecting differences and learning to appreciate them and leverage them. Admitting that you want similar things for all people, although the route of getting there is different, and then working together as a team. Comprise and come up with good solutions to real problems.

  On the issues I want my government to empower people to take control and I don’t see a ton of that from either candidate especially Obama. In what you have listed, Obama’s energy charge to people and maybe a little with taxes is about the only place where Obama tried to encourage some personal control and limit government. McCain does a little with his attempt at keeping taxes down and attempt to encourage competition and choice in health care and fails in energy and and economy. Neither candidate does it for me.

  On housing I think they both have it wrong. Americans, both financial lenders and consumer got crazy greedy, and everyone wants to bail companies out. Bailouts cause people and business to be more reliant on government and makes them less responsible for their behavior and more likely to repeat the same or similar behavior.

  On a side note, I think it is awesome that you are taking the time to respond to each person, that takes solid commitment. Keep up the good work.

• 27 Tim // Sep 8, 2008 at 6:15 am

  chicken before the egg scenario. people overextended themselves for the past 10 years on housing and on credit and have precipitously decreased savings. that is not a function of job loss or a function of anything other than a lack of consumer control. if it was truely localized, the situation wouldn’t be so pervasive. Yes, there are areas still rising, which should indicate that the economy isn’t doing necessarily bad in those areas; we are seeing a lot of foreigners buying into the market returning the dollars into our system, which is a good thing; and people are seeing opportunities to buy. if you do look at where the crisis is hitting hardest, it isn’t necessarily because of job losses, which started to occur afterwards. The areas hit hardest were those areas where personal exuberance was very high. it’s easy to say that it was due to job losses, but job losses are a symptom of bad fundamentals.

  Happy Rock: yes, lenders got greedy, but they can’t force anyone to sign the dotted line. it goes back to the consumer. i agree on your bailout point though.

• 28 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:23 am

  Happy Rock, Thanks. I enjoy my blog and sometimes when I read other blogs and never get a response I feel like what’s the point?

  By the way, it’s MY blog and I can say whatever I want! And You don’t have to read it if you don’t like what I’m saying. Go write your own blog if you so choose because blogs are personal.

  Because the other candidates are out in the primaries Claire. If you wanted Huckabee, Ron Paul, Guiliani, etc the primaries was the time to do it. Or if you wanted Hillary, Edwards, etc. Unfortunately that’s how it works. We choose someone to represent the major parties and then they compete. Why do you think the conservative base until Palin’s choice wasn’t behind McCain? They felt he wasn’t representative of their values and still don’t. But now he’s chosen someone who does.

  As for the rich, I haven’t seen much new jobs created or wealth felt. Actually jobs have been going down. I think it was 6.1% for August 2008 unemployement. I also know many other jobs are being outsourced. So where’s all this trickle down wealth going on?

  By the way, Reagan and 1st Bush both raised taxes after Reagan cut them. In fact Reagan raised taxes 6x after cutting them. And the 1st Bush promised no new taxes, but then he had to raise them. And then was voted out for breaking his promise. So if what Meg says is true, it’s due to previous presidencies, then obviously the solid thing to do is RAISE taxes. IF it wasn’t due to Clinton, but due to Reagan and the 1st Bush, then raising taxes idea has even more support.

  Second, we keep talking personal responsibility. BUT we haven’t got a very good track record of it here in the US. We’re in trouble with retirement, trouble with credit, trouble with housing. Japan did what we did regarding housing and look what a mess happened? The saving grace is there they have enforced savings for retirement.

  So if other countries are in the habit helping people save and guiding their habits, why shouldn’t we? By the way previous generations had enforced pensions and that was how they retired at all. Then we stopped because it was too expensive. And now we’re autoenrolling people in 401ks, and it’s working. I wonder if that isn’t a sign we’re like every other country and need severe help with personal finance?

  Actually I think people in Michigan and Ohio would argue their housing has been stagnant for years and it was due to job losses. Maybe someone will weigh in.

  Do I think that consumer control is at a low? Yes. But it’s in all aspects of life. Tim you are blaming credit, and housing but it’s not that at all.

  If people can overdraft checking accounts for hundreds and thousands of dollars the problem is more serious than a credit card or house mortgage. You know you only have $100 to spend but still spend $200 or $300? How can that translate into proper finance?

  It can’t. The truth is until we leave to even balance a check book it doesn’t matter if we had no mortgages, no credit cards, no debt period. There are people still overspending with cash.

  And the government by their freespending ways aren’t helping. They sure can’t say “people need to save, people need to be responsible” when they are in debt and not responsible at all.

• 29 Kristy // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:29 am

  So LAL you are all for the government being involved in all aspects of our personal lives then? They should help us with health insurance, saving and teach us to be responsible too? This is our difference right here, I believe in less government, not more. I am tired of everyone blaming the government for their problems and tired of bailing out people who have no personal responsibility.

• 30 Tim // Sep 8, 2008 at 12:04 pm

  LAL, considering people were buying huge suv’s even in the face of increased gas prices, that indicates that it was a consumption issue. factories don’t close if there is no demand. they close after demand decreases. again, chicken before the egg.

  if people are writing checks more than they have in the bank, it is in general because of a consumption behavioral problem. people aren’t starving in masses in the US. People are still buying lots of want stuff and choosing to over spend and charge thinking that the economy will perk back up quickly. Apple hasn’t been making killer record profits over the past few quarters when the economy has been bottoming out because people aren’t buying ipods. ipods surely aren’t a need item. this indicates that people are continuing to choose want items over need.

  i don’t think other countries have a habit of helping people save any more than the US. there are plenty of opportunities to save in the US, but americans choose to consumer rather than save. savings rates were fairly high as of through last Fall, yet there was negative savings rate. that’s a personal behavioral choice.

  other countries have some serious problems, too, which we are going to see more of since central banks aren’t budging on lowering their rates. We are starting to see this already in the UK and mainland europe will follow as well. Europe also has higher unemployment rates and inflation is high, yet ECB’s aren’t willing to lower rates. That comes at a price eventually.

  I completely disagree: the current Mortgage fiasco is entirely a function of people choosing to over extend and take out mortgages that they could not normally afford. GM and Ford were not closing factories last year and unemployment was still very low, only starting to increase over the past few months. we just hit a perfect storm, because so much was tied into bad mortgage loans. If people were buying what they could afford, we wouldn’t be having so many mortgage defaults.

  Yup, blaming the govt for not setting the example is just another excuse and blaming someone else for bad personal financial behavior. I agree, govt behavior has been bad; however, that doesn’t mean that we need to follow the example. We can still budget, we can still save. That’s a personal choice. I agree with Kristy, I’m tired of having to see my savings decrease this year because of other people’s bad choices.

• 31 The Happy Rock // Sep 8, 2008 at 12:50 pm

  LAL, agreed. Like I said in my comment this is great forum for LAL’s opinion.

  I hope that comment didn’t distract from my points about respecting each other opinion and working together not to tear down each other.

  As far as personality responsibility it sounds like we agree, we need more of it. Americans don’t have a great track record on a lot of issues. I like the your word guiding. The government can try guiding but things like bailouts are control. Creating ‘energy’ jobs is control. Creating incentives for private business and people is more in the line with guiding. Getting your own house in order like you said is guiding. Government needs get their own personal finance house in order and it does effect people, we are agreed. The problem is that the more power you give government and the more you take away from people the less accountability the government has, the more they can do whatever they want no matter what the people want.

  If we think in parental terms, I think the analogy works to some degree. If a parent constantly takes control of the child, bails them out, constantly feeds them money, and doesn’t let them learn from the cause and effect of consequences which kind of child is produced.

• 32 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 8, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  No I believe in personal responsibility but there is no reason to believe that it will work just doing it. We have to help people learn personal responsibility.

  I think Happy Rock understands. And by the way, I get it opinion, just letting those know if you don’t like it here, don’t read my opinion.

  Example, we teach our children abstinence only. We don’t teach sex education, and thus have the highest teen pregnancy, teen abortion and teen STD rates internationally. The direct conclusion is that we aren’t as open as Europeans yes. But we also aren’t even TRYING to teach personal responsibility. Instead we are saying the law is no sex before marriage, but that’s not REALISTIC.

  It’s like saying to people “no debt ever”. It is bad. But we don’t explain and teach people about debt, what it is and why.

  Well we teach people about sex, preventing STDs and pregnancy, that will raise awareness of personal responsibility because it will go hand in hand with explaining sex.

  Like teaching personal finance. You have $20 but you write a check for $30, it doesn’t work. Why? Because you don’t have the money. There is a serious disconnect with reality in this country as shown in our abstinence only programs.

  Do you really expect a 31 year old single man to be a virgin until he marries? I have one living in my house and I would say he’s normal. Is it wrong for him to not be “abstaining” until marriage? Well according to what we’re taught yes. And if he never marries it’s wrong.

  Well here’s the deal. Reality check. He might have some relationships along the way. But he should have been aware of all aspects of life rather than just having information about one route.

  And like debt, we can’t expect people to just be born with financial knowledge. Or expect parents to educate people. It’s obvious some parents think it’s not good, and unnecessary.

  Well we have to start educating our society. By the way that takes money. The failure of 401k as retirement vehicles have shown that lack of education has deeply contributed to people’s failure to save.

  But we’re now autoenrolling them and telling them there isn’t a pension? Funny that we have to help people so much. And they are accepting the government’s help.

  By the way the bailouts. I have an opinion on that too later.

• 33 Tim // Sep 9, 2008 at 5:56 am

  I personally think it is the responsibility of the family for teaching social values, whether it is sex ed or finances. If you are going to have kids, then you take on the resopnsibility of teaching them values.

  most people understand the simple concept of don’t spend more than you make. people are lazy and people choose not to adhere to the simple principle. ok, understanding how to invest in different investment vehicles takes some learning, but that too is a function of self-motivation. Anyone can put money into a savings account at the very least. You cannot teach, whoever you are, someone who is not willing to be taught.

  yes, the govt has a sex ed policy, but if anyone believes that kids learn about sex/std prevention etc, from these programs, they are living in lala land. BTW, US does not have the highest teen pregnancy rate, std and abortion rates in the world. However, that is a useless argument since it is difficult to get accurate information in many countries.

  don’t think we are saying the law is no sex before marriage; however, i agree that american sexual morrays are far different than other countries, but again that is a social learning issue and who better to convey than the family.

• 34 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 9, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  The US Tim has the highest teen pregnancy rates in any Westernized Country. Check out New England Journal of Medicine, Jof Virology, and look at epidemiologically studies of STD tranmission specifically HIV/AIDS. Compare apples to apples, not USA to Africa. There are detailed studies done in European and Asian countries.

  Now moving back to teaching personal responsibility. You sound like a liberatarian. Like the government shouldn’t help anyone and everyone can do it on their own.

  Truth is that many parents are as uneducated as their children. And they haven’t got a clue. They can’t help guide their kids because they are as lost as the kids.

  Yes you need to teach the basics of sex education and personal finance. An educated society is more successful. We’re not talking college, book smarts, but basic health and financial learning.

  You are assuming that people are born with some innate sense about everything. I have to say they are not. Would I be financially savvy if I hadn’t had guidance from my parents? No.

  Did I learn enough sex education in school? No. Did I learn more than now? Yes. I at least learned that having sex had more consequences than pregnancy. How many teens do you really think can connect they can catch and STD and not show any signs?

  Exactly why something like 1 in 3 teens has an STD currently. Because most have no idea.

• 35 Tim // Sep 10, 2008 at 8:48 am

  mmm, i think you will find that you probably ment western countries, but in fact wrote world when you originally posted, “We don’t teach sex education, and thus have the highest teen pregnancy, teen abortion and teen STD rates internationally”

  it’s funny how you are placing any kind of political bias on me considering I haven’t much shown my political card. I never said the govt shouldn’t help. Unless you want to live in a society where govt dictates all facets of personal choice, what I stated was that personal responsibility issues are just that: personal and should start at that level. The govt can and should act, which it most certainly does quite a bit; however, just like in other free countries, it comes down to who you learn values and at what level, and that ain’t at the govt level.

  i’m a bit tired of people making the argument ath people are essentially stupid when it comes to sex and finances. not spending more than you make is being financially savy. that’s the basics. and where did you learn about sex and its consequences? from govt programs or from those around you? if you learned nothing or not enough in sex ed at school, then i would say the latter, which is exactly my point.

  i would contend that there is an oblivious nature to kids’ perceptions of STDs and their individual risks, and it’s a more a function of it can’t happen to me. but, if they have no idea, it’s because their families aren’t involved and they are learning from their friends. again, my argument. far more people in the US do not want govt being involved at that level.

  if STD and preganancy rates were lower for teens’ parents, the parents obviously were educated on the subject. So if parents are educated, and govt policy (sex ed) has been consistent (which it has), then the parents are not passing on their knowledge to their kids for whatever reason. The studies into teen std and pregnancy rates suggest this.

• 36 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 10, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  No, we didn’t teach sex education at all before. But social mores have greatly changed since our parents generation and so have the STDS we’ve discovered. AID/HIV wasn’t discovered until 1980s. And the levels of transmission of herpes, wart, chalymida, gonorreahea was less than 50 even 30 years ago.

  So you can’t put the same constraints on the society now versus then. Thus the sex education then wasn’t enough then and isn’t enough now.

  And I learned the bare minimum in school. Not enough. And no personal finance. Which might explain why people have trouble balancing a checkbook.

• 37 Kristy // Sep 10, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  People have trouble balancing a checkbook because they don’t care if they overspend. I agree with Tim in this case, it is the parents responsibility to teach sex education and personal finance.

  My DD is 2 1/2 and I am trying to teach her already. Yes she is young, but she needs to know that you have to pay for stuff when you leave the store and that you can’t always buy everything you want. I will continue to teach her about personal finance and hope that she is responsible. You can’t just leave the teaching to teachers in school.

  By the way, my parents didn’t teach me a thing about finances growing up, its something I learned on my own. Not everyone is stupid when it comes to finances.

• 38 LivingAlmostLarge // Sep 10, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  No you have to do both. But for some there is no teaching at home because there is no home. Or very poor teaching at home. So it has to start somewhere.

• 39 Tim // Sep 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

  like i said, it’s a lack of family responsibility.

  i’m most certain that every school in the nation teaches economics 101.

  i learned how to balance a checkbook in elementary school, we had sex ed classes, too. look how good it did. not really.

• 40 Livingalmostlarge // Sep 11, 2008 at 4:51 pm

  Actually there is no economics 101. Most people don’t take economics. They take chemistry, biology, history, and calculus. But no practical course about life.

• John McCain’s Speech | LAL Musings - Sep 5, 2008

Leave a Comment