Dictionary.com
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
Free Dictionary
1. refers to people or things other than the speaker or people addressed (they fight among themselves)
2. refers to unspecified people or people in general not including the speaker or people addressed (in Australia they have Christmas in the summer)
3. Not standard refers to an indefinite antecedent such as one, whoever, or anybody (if anyone objects, they can go)
4. an archaic word for those (blessed are they that mourn)
However as I have gotten older, I have developed an intense distaste for the word. It seems that many people like to use THEY to commit the 5 Relationship Cancers or to avoid taking personal responsibility for their own actions. Some examples include:
- THEY are responsible for me losing my entire retirement savings, though I chose to put all my eggs in one basket. I mean that opportunity looked to good to be true !!!
- THEY are responsible for me being upside down in my mortgage, though I chose to buy that house with very low equity financing. (ie 0 to 20%) I mean I deserved that very nice home and they only appreciate, right? And everyone deserves a home no matter how low their income. Right?
- THEY are responsible for me being deeply in debt, though I chose to buy that nice car, take those vacations, and in general live above my means. I mean I really needed and was entitled to that stuff, right?
- THEY are responsible for me not being able to get a job, though I chose for years not to continue my education, learn new skills, maintain professional contacts, etc. I mean I was valuable just the way I was !!!
- THEY are responsible for Social Security not being fully funded. I mean I am just a citizen, and I was busy spending time and money on those vacations. Who had time for politics, and I sure did not want to pay anymore taxes?
- THEY are responsible for the screwed up schools that are too expensive. I mean no one gets involved in that School Board or State Government stuff... Do they?
- THEY are responsible for me not having enough money saved up for retirement and healthcare costs. I mean I could not be expected to save more and buy the right insurance, I needed and deserved those cool vacations, that dream home, those neat toys, etc. And who wanted to work more or get additional education, life's not supposed to be that hard.
- THEY are responsible for for my health and medical care, though I drank, smoke, ate wrong and did not exercise. I mean everyone lived like me. Didn't they?
- THEY are keeping me from learning more, getting a better position and making more money... I am stuck where I am...
- THEY are controlling the system and keeping me from getting more involved... It would be futile anyway...
- THEY are preventing me from volunteering and giving more... I barely have enough time and money as it is...
- THEY are keeping me from attaining serenity and happiness... How can I be at Peace in this chaos...
Serenity Prayer
Grant me the serenity to accept things I can not change;
the courage to change things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference...
Wow !!! There is no THEY in my favorite Prayer... See the links below for some background.
Speed No Fear
Speed You can't make this stuff up
G2A Recession a Bad Thing?
G2A Bar stool economics
G2A Crisis of Credit
Thoughts?
20 comments:
Well said, but I claim there is one exception to your proposition. THEY are the ones who sought the job of governing us and THEY are the ones who told us they would educate our kids, care for our medical needs, secure our golden years in luxury and our borders against interlopers. THEY were the ones making all of the promises and THEY were able to fool enough of US that they now can have power to abrogate those promises, dumping the responsibility back on us, but without the resources. If we are to exercise our personal responsibility, we're going to have to first reclaim it from these brigands, charlatans and buffoons.
J. Ewing
I frustrated my somewhat older co-worker Friday by proposing we discontinue all Social Security payments until it is fully funded.
My rationale was pretty simple. The previous 3+ generations did not stand up and demand that the money be set aside for the known future liability. Instead these people were happy spending the money, or saving cash by paying lower taxes. (ie enabled ponzi/borrowing from the future) Therefore those generations should pay for their excessive spending and low taxes by foregoing the payments.
Needless to say his answer sounded a lot like your response. "The Enough of Us" (ie THEY) were responsible for electing these brigands, charlatans and buffoons, why should I pay for the choices of my generation's society/ government???
Of course my answer is who should if not you? Your children?
I'll probably have to take him to lunch to make up for talking politics at work and raising his blood pressure.
The problem is that these idiots made promises on our behalf, and now expect us (and our children) to make good on the impossible. The solution is simple: Promises must be kept, but we can quit making promises. "Social Security Insurance" and the "Social Security account" that you have are cruel jokes. We should immediately say that all current beneficiaries (and near retirees) will continue in the current system unharmed. But for those 5-15 years away, they will be allowed a diversion of 25% of their SS taxes into a true personal account and get correspondingly less at retirement. Those 16-25 years away can divert 50%, etc, and those 35 years or more away can divert 100%, and will receive nothing when they retire. So at the point the "trust fund" (another big lie) is depleted, it will be unnecessary and we'll all be retiring with much greater wealth OF OUR OWN.
That's just one example of my basic approach, which is that we need to be weaned away from these government programs and allowed to regain our freedom and responsibility to do for ourselves. And, as we choose and reclaim the means to do so, the compassion to help those less fortunate.
J. Ewing
"THEY are responsible for me losing my entire retirement savings, though I chose to put all my eggs in one basket. I mean that opportunity looked to good to be true !!!"
I don't think it's typical that people lost their entire retirement savings, but people did lose a lot. And "they", the people to whom we entrusted those savings are indeed responsible.
"The previous 3+ generations did not stand up and demand that the money be set aside for the known future liability."
But they did. That was the deal made in 1983, by Ronald Reagan which on the whole, has stood up pretty well. That was one of Ronald Reagan's achievements that hasn't gotten a lot of mention lately for some reason.
Here's what Ronald Reagan said when he signed the 1983:
"This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future."
It's those promise that RR believed we would always keep, that Republicans are now trying to break.
Was Reagan one of the charlatans or a buffoon? I ask because of the linked graph that shows him to be at the start of the debt crisis... Did he start the habit of borrowing our way out of recessions?
Zfacts Debt Graph
Everytime I see this graph it seems so opposite what my own "Republican Party" claims... Thoughts?
Reagan cut taxes early in his administration but was pretty much had to raise them every year after.
Republicans claim there policies never fail because they have never been tried. That's their attitude toward the president who preceded President, whose name, like Voldemort's must never be named. It never seems to occur to them that if their policies are never implemented, it may be because they are impossible to implement, and that in itself is a conclusive argument that they are wrong.
C'mon now, where are the Conservative Readers that can better help me understand why the National Debt grew when the "Conservatives" were in office.
Funny that I question Reaganomics and Bush policy... And all I hear is the sound of crickets...
I believe these 2 were what you would term as "We" and not "They"...
Here's an article from this morning's Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704081604576144621805691438.html?mod=ITP_pageone_2
This basically lays out the political dilemma. People want to cut government spending, but they don't want to cut the things government spends money on, basically Social Security and Medicare and other forms of health care. The more difficult problem is health care costs which are truly out of control, a few minor tweaks would solve SS problems.
The president did try to address the issue of health care costs, but in doing so, he encountered massive opposition (death panels, rationing, socialism charges) so to some extent, he backed off contenting himself with the hope that his program would lead to a slowing of the rate of increase in health care costs.
Given my choice, I might be pretty severe in addressing the issue of health care costs. We spend vastly more than other countries on medical care. But my guys lost. And they lost to a party whose response to this issue isn't to deal with it, but to ignore it.
First of all you shouldn't concern "conservative" control of the government as being a Republican President, particularly if Democrats or RINOs control the Congress. Second, you should have noted that the Laffer curve, the one that describes the point at which tax cuts start reducing the amount of government revenue, shows that point to be far below what even Reagan accomplished. So to that extent it has never been tried, not in recent memory at least. The other problem is that federal deficits and debts are caused by government making promises that they ought to know they cannot keep; when the bills come do they wail and point fingers but don't solve the problem of overpromising. That's where a balanced budget amendment would work wonders, simply forcing government to live within its means. (Assuming carefully constructed language, of course, with no loopholes).
J. Ewing
I like the idea of a balanced budget amendment !!! Where do we sign up !!!
It is kind of how the wife and I run our household finances...
Time for one more funny...
Politicians often promise no new taxes, yet they break that promise.
Why would they have a problem breaking promises regarding Government services and pay outs? Especially when many of the politicians were not alive when the irresponsible promise was made...
"Why would they have a problem breaking promises regarding Government services and pay outs?"
That is an issue, one that Ronald Reagan did not anticipate in 1983, when he made the promises he did. The Republican position on this is complex and contradictory. Their position seems to be "don't trust the government to keep it's promises, and therefore elect us so we can break them." Ronald Reagan would never have been able to get his mind around that logic.
"The other problem is that federal deficits and debts are caused by government making promises that they ought to know they cannot keep."
I know no such thing. One of the remarkable things about the 1983 Social Security deal is that it has worked as long as it has. Anything that government does now which solves a problem for 30 or 40 years is something I count as a major success.
We are faced with a set of crises resulting directly from the aging of the country. But there isn't anything unsolvable about them. Other countries facing the same issues are doing just fine. But ignoring the problem won't solve it. The bill is coming due, and it has to go somewhere.
The problem is that the promise has held so far only because we have borrowed the money...
I agree that we should stop and fix this problem by as you implied... "Paying the Bill"
A company would need to stop and fix by transferring money to its pension fund... The problem is where will this money come from?
Those that need the Social Security have no money to help with catch up payments... Either because they did not make enough or they did not save enough.
Those that really do not need Social Security and could afford catch up payments still feel they deserve their money back. They can afford this because they did make enough or save enough.
So do we really want to penalize those that made money and saved it to pay for those that did not?
Either way we should stop pushing the bill forward...
"Those that need the Social Security have no money to help with catch up payments... Either because they did not make enough or they did not save enough."
We just extended the Bush era tax cuts. Presumably that means the federal government is comfortable with it's ability to meet it's bond obligations.
A graph for thought... Not sure how accurate it is...Median Net Worths
Hard to get blood out of 74.9% that are turnips...
___________________
As for the Government, taxes, spending and bond payments... I think they are a lot like my acquaintances who spent right up to their bankruptcy. They honestly did not see the train coming until it smucked them up along side their head.
For a saver/planner like me, it is almost impossible to understand how they could have been so oblivious...
OK, let's pretend for a moment that the US is a corporation, bound by ERISA law to "fully fund" the retirement benefits it has promised. In other words, we are going to "pay the bill." It is a simple thing to do. We simply set the US tax rate to 100% for 8 years, with no exceptions, including the current federal budget. Some might think this not a good solution, but mathematically it's the right thing to do. We have to pay for the promises made on our behalf, don't we?
J. Ewing
On further consideration, I don't think a 100% federal tax rate is going to work.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment