« Anders Breivik: Europe’s Own Osama bin Laden (Berliner Morgenpost, Germany)
A New National Party That Will Contest 2012 Elections Becomes Inevitable »
On Display Now: A Dysfunctional Marriage
Jul 28th, 2011 | 82 responses
Tensions have been growing at the Jones family for quite a while now. Recently, it has been getting downright ugly.
A couple of years ago, Mrs. Jones met an attractive, silver-tongued man—we’ll call him simply T.P. —who at first wooed her with compliments and lured her with pied piper tunes. But as their romance grew, so did T.P.’s influence on and demands from Mrs. Jones, including that she distance herself from Mr. Jones; that she criticize and oppose his every word and action.
Let’s be clear, Mr. and Mrs. Jones have had their differences for a long time; their marriage has been shaky even preceding Mrs. Jones’ romantic interlude. However, while the two have many ideological differences, today’s serious arguments over financial matters threaten to topple the crumbling marriage once and for all and with disastrous consequences.
Basically, Mrs. Jones feels that Mr. Jones spends too much money on their children—on things such as education, expensive and perhaps unnecessary health care, creating and maintaining a safe and healthy environment around the home, etc.—and, in the process, is accumulating too much debt. And, true, Mr. Jones is not the paragon of frugality and financial responsibility. However, Mrs. Jones forgets how much money she has spent, how much debt the family has incurred pursuing petty, unnecessary and very expensive fights against those whom, in her vivid, phobic imagination, were threats to her and her family. Mrs. Jones has some very expensive tastes herself, including wining and dining her more wealthy friends. She also forgets how often she has refused to accept financial help from her very wealthy relatives, who are able and more than willing to help the family out until they get their financial act together.
No one observing this marriage coming apart at the seams will agree that increasing the family’s revenues alone will solve their financial woes or perhaps even save their marriage. It is obvious that until the family settles on a solid long-term plan to manage the budget, the family needs to both reduce their outlay and increase their revenues. However, there is an even more urgent problem knocking at the Jones’ door. A problem that threatens to ruin them financially and make any potential recovery just that much more difficult.
See, the Jones family’s credit cards and other credit have maxed out, their creditors are about to knock the door down—the Jones are about to default on their debts. Mr. Jones wants to increase his lines of credit one more time. He has been doing so regularly with Mrs. Jones’ full support. He knows it is not a long-term solution, but he also knows that if the family defaults on their debts this time there will be very serious consequences.
But how about Mrs. Jones? Well, in comes T.P who believes that it is now time to “own” Mrs. Jones; that it is time to once and for all break up the Jones marriage regardless of the consequences to the children and especially if it means ruining, making the much hated Mr. Jones fail.
No compromise, no marriage counseling, no financial recovery plan and consequences to the Jones children be damned. This is all-out war, the prize is Mrs. Jones and all that comes with her: wealthy relatives and friends, their influence, her Tiffany tastes and, above all, how this final conquest will humliate, hopefully destroy Mr. Jones.
True, it takes two to tango and, yes, both partners have contributed to the financial disaster their marriage is facing. However, having a third party—a suitor—step into the fray, a party who, for dubious ideological reasons consistently gives one of the dancing partners exactly the wrong advice, who will “take no prisoners,” certainly does not bode well for this marriage.
Unless some common sense and caution prevail, it looks like T.P. may just get his way. If so, this American dysfunctional marriage will bite the dust and, as usual, the children will be the big losers.
82 Responses to “On Display Now: A Dysfunctional Marriage”
SteveinCH, I’ve said several times here that I’m fine with means testing for SS. I guess you missed it.
Allen, I don’t think you’re extreme, I think you’re enthusiastic about knowing right from wrong. Don’t worry about Logan, he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a hater and an extremist. Don’t believe me? Keep reading his posts.
God Forbid Duck!
We all end up with a life sentence in an old folks home, and, they take your Social Security as payment. So with reduced Social Security, expect to get your butt kicked daily by the cheapest labor they can afford. That is, if your lucky to get into a place with a roof at all.
Allen, if we don’t take the piggy bank away from the politicians, grandma will get to The Camp a lot sooner.
BTW: The workers at the camps will be federal employees, so we finally have a JOBS PROGRAM.
dduck-Again that is because it never made it out of the committee AND both sides turned against it immediately. You can blame who you choose but know that you are actively TRYING to blame him when the history actually paints a very different picture. I would also note saying the guy that offered up a budget package twice the size as what Boehner is now offering as “not serious about it” is not only a joke but it is also part of why the right refuses to make any deals. Both extremes refuse to trust or believe one another and you just made a TP argument that was used to kill the O Boehner deal.
Also the commission was O’s idea, and it was badly designed I admit but he did NOT create the SB plan. The entire idea of SB was that it would annoy everyone and if it passed committee would then move on to the House and Senate. Problem is it did not pass. The commission either needs to be crafted so that a majority sends it to the House and Senate and then gets a straight up or down vote in both chambers and they are forced to vote on it OR the SB needs to be treated that way. Otherwise it will die a silent death like the last one so that the GOP can try to force us to finally let go of the safety net and the Dems can try to force us to grow it further.
The GOP and the Dems stepped away from it so swiftly that it became “Obamas plan” which would have been wonderful political fodder to prove how he is killing grandma. Tell me what POTUS in modern times would have taken that suicide plunge?
I get that you hate O and basically have since much of the time we have debated I am just noting hating him for SB is stupid.
Duck
I have talked to several seniors in my life and none of them want to move but that’s not the point. Younjust duck the question. Why should the state subsidize intergenerational wealth transfer?
“Steven, you are out of touch with the senior world. Please talk to someone over 65 when you get a chance, I can’t explain your why question and certainly you don’t know the difference between an inconvenience and a hardship.”
Dude seriously changes need to be made. My generation and those younger than me cant afford to pay for what has been whittled away in the last 30 years. That is just the cold hard truth. Gut everything else and we would still be unable to pay for what we are on the hook for. The military, SS and Medicare/caid are the big targets where the situation can be improved, and the military alone is also not enough by itself. They are not on the chopping block but changes are mandatory OR they will in the end be on the chopping block.
As to moving if you want to retire somewhere that I cant afford to live while working my butt off that is not my nor the tax payers fault but the markets. Ways exist to fix that issue but I would note they are anti-free market means like rent freezes and the like.
Steven, please eliminate or increase the Federal and State estate and inheritance taxes, I’ll go along. I just care about seniors having as comfortable life as possible. The two issues are not comparable, many seniors don’t have a nickel to make an IG transfer. I don’t duck anything except Mrs. Duck. You are the one ducking senior’s rights to live where and how they wish and can afford. No camps please.
Seniors have rights, what they dont have is the right to trump everyone else in the nation. I would support some taxes increases to help but you seem to equate rights with fed money and I thought that I idea went to the grave in the Reagan era. What we have now is a right to minimum subsistence and we have to fight and claw politically for that.
DDuck-
Yeah the Republicans are making the argument (CSPAN Replay of today) that unless they cut Social Security and Medicare it will not remain solvent. Which means what? Pay the elderly not enough to survive on in the name of solvency? That’s stupid.
Obviously they have to raise taxes and cut defense. Nationalized healthcare would bring costs down to decent levels also, but they already reject that out of hand. Why?
Because they cannot accept the word “social” in anything. So why don’t we just change the word social to relief. Then they can feel that they are giving something away as a gift. They can save face.
I am sorry but from where I sit you are crying about a threat to gold plated retirement to a bunch of people that will likely not ever have a chance to retire. We cant afford to.
No pensions, no retirement plans merely 401k’s that if we are truly truly lucky will give us precisely what we invested in them and not a penny more. SS will be the only thing most will have and it will be of a subsistence variety.
MSF, I don’t hate Obama, Btw. I just don’t like some of his lack of actions and some miscalculations. For what it’s worth I just think he inherited a mess and is over his head in trying to fix the mess. I don/t know if anyone could have fixed this mess, however, and I wish he would do better. I would even vote for him next time if he manages to do a better job, I like him better than most of the Rep candidates. And being a practical type, I like that he wouldn’t have a learning curve like a new guy/gal.
Seriously dduck
What right does one person have to another person’s money when they have their own. I am all for supporting those who cannot support themselves but, to do so, we are going to have to stop supporting those who can support themselves. Many seniors, I would guess somewhere between 10 and 30 percent have higher incomes and net worths than the median American. Why should those people get money?
You don’t have a right to live where you want, nor do I. We have a right not to be prevented from living somewhere. That is quite a different thing. Why should someone be able to live in manhattan or San Francisco if they cannot afford it on their own? I’m sorry but there’s no justification in my mind for doing that
MSF-
I’m waiting for the part when he says: “you should have worked harder in you life”.
SteveinCH-
Answer: The right of taxation. United States Constitution.
MSF, I already said I’m in favor of means testing, what else a pint of blood?
Night all, it’s been fun debating the left and the right.
D. Duck wrote:
Especially if government starts charging Visitation Fees!
Who knows, that may influence their “futility” decisions.
Steve in Chicago wrote:
True, there is no “right” at other’s expense to live anywhere one wants.
It opens the door to plenty — as I’ve said to someone who complained in the past about living on federal welfare payments that were very challenging when living in New York metro in New Jersey, there is no “right” to expect to live there at public expense, and federal welfare payments should be uniform. Moreover, it’s cheaper simply to relocate such people to Kansas, e.g., where they could be bought a house as well as moved, and save money.
(The same thing is true for expensive refugee assistance, BTW.)
Allen wrote:
What the hell else are good for old dinosaur industrial plants? Plus, it keeps people in the Sunbelt rather than adding to migration south and west. Blue Nation can preserving some political clout, after all, and some of its voting power!
(Don’t forget schools in some places — convert them to Senior Centers.)
[grin]
Sorry to intrrupt this interesting debate on Means Testing, etc. However, there is this new development related to the national dysfunctional marriage that is on the brink of coming apart:
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Thursday, July 28, 2011 — 10:42 PM EDT
—–
Lacking Votes, House Won’t Vote on Boehner Debt Plan Tonight
Republican leaders in the House have announced that there will be no vote on the debt ceiling bill Thursday night, an indication that House Speaker John A. Boehner remains short of the votes necessary to pass his legislation.
Mr. Boehner and his top lieutenants called it a night after more than five hours of furious arm-twisting of freshman Republicans, many of whom emerged from the closed-door sessions appearing to be firmer in their opposition.
There was little indication of what else had transpired during an evening that was supposed to have been a victory for Mr. Boehner as he passed a second debt-limit bill over to the Democratic Senate.
Instead, the evening highlighted the tensions within his conference and the sway that the Tea Party backed members hold within Mr. Boehner’s party.
There was no indication of whether a vote might still come on Friday.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
Allen,
What do you think the future of (federal) government health care means? Do you think home health care will be affordable later?
It also keeps people in Blue Nation rather than fleeing to the Sunbelt. (what I intended to say in the previous posting) And it may be even (with strong institutionalization) preserve old Blue Nation central cities. Herd the old into them. Mooooooooooo
Yes, Dorian, the House GOP is still playing games (be it stalling for a better deal or ideological blindness).
Thanks Dorian De Wind-
They can’t even get a bill out of their own party, much less out of the house for a senate vote. How can the President sign it if he never gets it!
lol, these Pea Party people are clowns.
Dorian-Thanks for the info to which I can only say oh dear god please stop fiddling.
DDuck-Sorry I kinda flipped out there. Currently looking for jobs and therefore I am highly conscious of cost of living in certain areas that I really really want to live in but fat chance of that. It was the word “right” that threw me off. That and for some reason I misread you agreeing to means testing. Also the explanation on O makes sense. I had only noticed you supporting him on a few military issues and otherwise only against so I broke out my jump to conclusion mat.
Funny… this chat out intergenerational wealth transfer..
Last I checked, my grandma paid into SS for most of her life. All she wants is the money she paid in, but instead she had to move to a smaller room in a senior’s home because her SS doesn’t go as far any more.
This means testing discussing is just a distraction created by those on the right that don’t want to talk about kicking grandma to the curb.
Sure, we should do means testing, but that really isn’t the problem now is it? And it surely won’t solve the debt problem, will it?
Shannon
Means testing would make a large difference if by “our debt problem” you mean the accumulation of debt. As to your grandmother, everyone’s situation is different but, on average, people in her generation are taking a lot more out of social security and Medicare than they put in.
Means testing is the best way to avoidn kicking some people to the curb, nothing less
Shannon, MT is an attempt to save an antiquated SS system based on people dying at age 65 and with one worker supported by many paying into the system. MT is sort of like duct tape on an old boiler, we are still trying to keep the heat going. Yes, old useless skin bags like me are reaping (raping) the system and are receiving more than we put in to it. However, there is a chance that I could have invested those input dollars and achieved a higher total account that would have yielded a higher guaranteed lifetime monthly payout. That, of course was not feasible, but what was, is.
Those, including the TPers and lemming pledge signers, have to wake up and smell the chicory (a coffee extender and substitute for poor people, see WWII) we have to stop the spiral down the road to bankruptcy without having to move to a swamp in Kansas.
The entitlements, pay-as-you-go (Ponzi-scheme) programs based on earlier demographics and even political norms, are unsustainable and will have to be reformed, or fail. Look for the “return” on the “investment” [sic] taxpayers have made in the future to be much lower (especially those subject to means testing!) than they are now.
It would have been radical, but perhaps paid better to have truly invested (still a scheme, but read on) FICA taxes in Treasury bonds.
Shannon, the fiscal problem the federal government has is excessive spending, and entitlements are the Godzilla of the federal budget and of spending. (Liberals look at the military, too, and want to gut it typically to spend the money for it and more on other things, but the entitlements are the big part of the budget and will swell later.)
Anything to reduce the growth in entitlement costs is the #1 budget reform.
As to what D. Duck said about the old boiler, it’s not just the entitlement model but the welfare state model (yes, old political norms that are still with us, albeit no longer deified) that is being wrecked. Demographics alone can wreck them — people are living longer, the population is aging, “replacement migration” from abroad isn’t a politically acceptable solution to boosting the labor force, et cetera. The welfare state model was based on old political norms and is actually obsolete now. It will remain with us, but not as it was before.
http://www.twq.com/02spring/hewitt.pdf
BTW, did I mention that I am in favor of the safety net concept of SS. We just need a new boiler in the basement (lots of luck with that, that’s why duct tape is a big seller).
Boehner will never have any luck with those feral children – even with a whip and chair. No deal. None. Zip.
Sometimes you can herd cats if you open enough cans of cat food. They run to the sound of the lid being popped and also clean kitty litter being poured. (They are smart, unlike some dogs.)
Yup, one of my cats can hear a can of food being opened from anywhere in the house, no matter how quietly I do it. The dog? Not so much, but she can hear a car in the driveway long before I do – which is one of her jobs of course.