I'm not I have it trapped in a big jar in the kitchen.
I think it is because both parties have screwed up so bad, in the recent past, everyone is scared to make a move. We have both parties telling us that we shouldn't do what the other party says, and yet no one knows what we SHOULD do.
I think we are just where they want us, divided and stupid!
People who are living it know what needs to be done. The political parties are interested in accumulating power and building the underclass. They don't want to know what actually needs to be done.
Change is great!!! when it is sane, upstanding and fruitful.
In the cosmic scheme of things...everyone is suppose to be learning something really big and important...so I hope everyone is waking up to what that is....
Because we don't want to see the last of the American "dollar" morph into more paychecks for dead-beat sperm donors, habitual criminals or mothers who create babies for paychecks.
1. Change brings fear of the unknown.
2. A change may or may not take you out of your comfort zone.
3. CHANGE is a CONSTANT thing in this world.
Change for the sake of change is not a good thing. If you want real change and want people to get behind it and push, you have to deal with them in an honest manner. Does that sound like a politician to you? Someone who is honest?
People fear this change because few people are being straight with them as to what the change really means. Since they don't know what's really going on, they fear change and work to keep it from happening. The real question should be why can't our leaders tell it to us straight and answer the fears of the people they're leading? Unless they're doing something dishonest.
America is actually waiting for the change 2010 will bring.
Yes we are. Bush's hands were tied for the last two years of his presidency. Prior to that the unemployment was at an all time low and the stock market roared like a teen lion stepping up to the plate for his turn to swing the bat.
Don't kid yourself. Most of the problems we're dealing with today have their genesis in 2001-2002. Of course many of the problems we had then had their genesis in 1992-1993. It's likely that five or six years down the road we'll be feeling the effects of the policies of our current President. Unfortunately, the effects of said policies will be much much worse than what we're dealing with right now. The best a President can do is put off the day of reckoning a little longer into the future. At least until they can't anymore. One wonders how long they can keep cheating the future.
We had a correction in 1863 that ended the greenback and 1931 pretty much destroyed that incarnation of the Fed. Had FDR not been elected, we might have gotten back to a free monetary policy. What we've seen until now is a sort of creeping takeover of our monetary system. But the problems with said system are so blatant now that we might soon come to the tipping point where we see things start to move in the other direction, towards a free monetary system.
I actually meant permanent income tax in USA in 1913, and don;t-remember-how-it-was-called banking regulation restricting savings banks in Britain in 1861, that has been repeated in USA a bit later.
Ah yes, the 16th amendment. 1913 was also the creation of the Fed. God damn Teddy Roosevelt to hell. 1913 was a great year for the Progressives. I have to confess I don't know much about British banking history except that they went off the gold standard in the late 1920's and that rocked the world of finance to it's very core. And gave FDR the blind he needed to steal America's gold, the bastard.
The only mechanism I know of that penalizes savings is inflation. Whether gradual or not, people who spend are rewarded and those who save are penalized.
It was not about inflation. I have to look it up cause I don't remember details, but it was some kind of regulation intended as I remember to minimize bank runs effect. Up to that point lending banks were separate from savings banks. The unintended consequences of this regulation was that lending banks started to deal in savings accounts, and purely savings banks eventually disappear. I wish I remembered this better.
Hm. Sounds like they made a transition from fully reserve banks to fractional reserve banks. That can't be right though. I know England suffered from bank runs prior to 1861, unless they enacted a law between 1840 and 1860 to keep fully reserve banks form acting as fractional reserve, then repealed that law in 1861. That's my WAG for the night.
Sorry jiberish you still want to grow without changing it doesent happen that way.
We have a real chance for change now and I know how you feel about a black man running the country but it our time . Its americas time and those like you will end up on the trash heap of history.
"You can grow without changing but you cant change without growing" - Larry wilson
I'm sorry, did I mention he was Black? I doubt you know how I feel about anything, but thank you for sharing.
How do you know how she feels about that? Did she say how she feels about it?
OK, my actual response to this is that I do indeed think that saying we are scared of change is a stereotype...and one that the OP obviously want to provoke responses with regarding our politics.
The fact of the matter is we Americans love change and we thrive on change. We are a country of adventurous immigrants, we identify with "rugged individualism;" what it took to settle a wild (and still wild in some areas...come West, lol) land, we still dominate the world's imagination and dreams as the country to "give us your poor, your huddled masses," and then turn out innovation, creativity and prosperity.
We also love the 'idea' of freedom, lol. Very much. Sometimes so much, I think, that we lose ourselves in it. Same could be said about 'success;' about wealth.
I just think in some ways, it is time for America to grow up. I could actually go on...one could write a book on this topic. It's given me an idea for a theme for something, writing this, so, .
AGREE!...NOT SKEERD at all! Just dont treat me like an idiot and try to run past me. Explain the change you'd like in clear wording, ask me if I'd agree. I just might!
Jon in Tenn.
I think a lot of people do see the changes that are being made and it frightens them. I know it scares the hell outta me.
Yeah, me too. One of the reasons we're scared is because we had it very good here for a very long time and now the wheel is turning, and naturally we don't like that.
It's hard for us to see an improvement in the changes that have been happening here lately.
It isn't "change" in general, it's what's happening now that makes us feel a little shaky.
We'll be ok. Things will fall out the way they happen, and we'll hang in. We'll be ok as individuals, we'll be ok as a country, and things will self-adjust over time. We'll cope, we'll manage. I believe in us. It just isn't too much fun to contemplate right at the moment.
I think Germany would like America to kick the feds.
Not much fun for America having a privately controlled Fed.
In reality it's more of a public private initiative. Bankers get benefits from working with the government and government gets the ability to live beyond their means and promise things to voters without having to raise taxes. In that respect it's kind of like a deviant incestuous arrangement.
Angela Merkel is about to hit the deck in America, and you just know she is gonna be tough!
I hope she can talk some sense in to some US pollies!
Germany and France are strange places. Socialist to the core, but very hard money oriented. I'm not sure how they do it. Of course I think their tax burden is something no American would stand for, but hey, it's their county more power to them.
I do like how they stood up to the US and UK over inflating their currency and refused to do so. Guess who's showing real signs of recovering?
I've never advocated change, being of the opinion that (as the old saying goes), "Often better the old Devil you know than the new Devil you don't." Of course change can sometimes be marvelous--most of us are unlikely to complain if we win the Lottery and change from destitute to filthy rich. But change can equally be disastrous; being alive one moment and dead the next would definitely be change, but not everyone would volunteer for that sort of change.
In other words, the word "change" in of itself means absolutely nothing one way or the other. It's a neutral nonentity. It's the "stuff" you put WITH the word "change" that makes it potent for either good or ill. When the political slogans about "America wanting change" became popular, few indeed of the users and/or followers of those slogans ever stopped to think that they might as well be saying, "America wants widgets".
Gotta define the precise form of widget to know whether it's a good widget or a bad widget.
Sorry dude the future doesent work that way. You have to go into it with your eyes open, throwing off your fears and hope for the best. what you suggest is like "driving into the future while looking in your rear view mirror".
Sorry dude, but what was comin' down the pike was obvious from what was said and it was most definitely NOT the change I ever wanted to see. Sometimes you can see the change that's coming, and sometimes that change is worse than what went before it.
of courese it wasent the cahnge you wanted you want it to be like it was before. Your like a butterfly wishing he was still a catterpillar. you have to let go of the past to get to the future. Grow up!
That is an erroneous assumption on your part. What we have now is much worse than what went before, but what was before was pretty horrible in itself.
Change for change's sake can be foolish.
It's not change for change's sake its growth and it new and it's scarey. but to get through to the otther side you have to go throught your fears. what we have now is better. and we are heading towards the future. grow up
Yes, and that's why you didn't vote for him. You were outnumbered. Most people DO want the change that you and other conservatives don't.
[ And just what, exactly, is that change..? Surely not transparency in the executive branch...surely not an absence of lobbyists in an Obama administration...nor a foreign policy that reflects the maturity of an International House of Pancakes level of experience to our allies...or the appointments of radical progressives as Czars... Is this the changes you had hoped for, or were you just daytripping..?]
I especially like how they will keep out the pork and the lobbyist.
Well, you're right that that hasn't changed. The previous administration spent like crazy, and, inexplicably, during an economic boom (and with very little to show for it). The most amusing part is they pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility...that is when they don't manage the purse-strings, of course.
Not everything changes overnight, and a complete overhaul of each and every dysfunctional aspect of our government isn't going to happen. People who voted for Obama (that would not include you) did not expect everything to be changed according to your wishes. Your candidate lost so "better luck next time."
A reform of our health care insurance system is long overdue and Obama's administration is working on it.
I didn't vote for either of those clowns so you have no need to remind me of it over and over. I don't expect change to happen overnight and thank God it won't. What I don't want is for my government to think the constitution is toilet paper. The govt has no business taking over private companies. Chavez even quipped that "Obama is ahead of us now". Great, coming from a communist dictator.
Exactly what parts of the Constitution are being trampled on?
Chavez has professed a love of lasagna. I suppose all democracy-loving folk should shun the stuff now.
Exactly what part isn't? Do you understand what administrative law is? It is a body of law overlaid on the constitution that allows the feds to circumvent it any time they want, depending on their political agenda. It didn't start with Obama but he's very happy to make use of it.
Change? Ha, that's a laugh.
Again, how and what (try to be specific)?
That was VERY specific. Do you know anything about law and how these things work? Or would you rather just sit back and have everyone explain it to you so you don't have to take any responsibility for what you do or do not know?
Not specific at all. You are complaining (generally) about a longstanding executive branch practice that only libertarians such as yourself take issue with. Most Americans do not consider that a violation of the Constitution, and, tellingly, neither does the Supreme Court.
Not until they find themselves caught in it. Administrative courts violate the principle of an independent judiciary. The reason people don't make a fuss is because they see court and think it's part of the judiciary, not the executive. You might want to reread the Constitution, or maybe read it for the first time.
The real reason most people don't make a fuss is because of the court's presumption of jurisdiction, which goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. The judiciary routinely bypasses the constitution by presuming your status to be that of a federal "person" who is granted privileges, rather than that of a citizen who has rights. As soon as you set foot in a court of law their presumption is that your voluntary presence there allows them this presumption. So technically, you have no rights.
You have no idea what MOST Americans consider to be a violation. You won't even communicate here what you consider to be.
There isn't going to be any real change. It's called bread and circuses. By keeping the underclass down and distracted with shiny things and bright lights, those in power can continue to live high off the hog. Do you even know why we're in trouble when it comes to healthcare? I mean really know, not just what you've heard. If not, how can you judge if what they are doing in Washington is the right thing or not?
As for things not changing overnight, well ask the French sometime how quickly things changed in the 1790's.
Yes, that's the standard refrain among populists.
Are you comparing pre-Revolutionary France with today's US?
Wow that has to be the first time I've been associated with a populist. Ah well, just goes to show your education is deficient. Which leads me to question if you really do know the true problem of healthcare. Hint: Economics. Yes, I cam comparing pre-revolutionary France with the US today. Then, like now, we had a government which was rapidly centralizing power and as a consequence there were economic crisis that are remarkably similar to what we see today.
Try to avoid making any commentary about my education when you don't know the first thing about it.
Populism: Populism is a political discourse that juxtaposes "the people" with "the elites".
Reread your comment.
Thanks for the hint about the real problem about healthcare. It's a tiny bit more complex than "economics."
The US today is far more like other periods in our own country (centralizing power, economic crisis) than it is like pre-Revolutionary France. And yet we never befell the same fate as France. Maybe some significant cultural differences, along with the fact that the picture ownership of private property is also nothing alike?
Heh, private ownership of property. You mean like not having to surrender part of your income to the government? Or how about not having your property confiscated due to eminent domain or non-payment of property tax. Doesn't sound like a country which enshrines the ideal of private property to me.
And yes, I will call your education into question due to the comments you make. That may not be entirely your fault as the educational system in this country has been failing for decades. If you weren't educated in the US, well then I hardly think you have the background to comment on things here.
And we haven't yet befallen the fate of France. Whether or not we will still lies in the future.
No. Don't you benefit from the money you give in taxes?
These are two different issues. Eminent domain is one, one that I'm inclined to agree with the libertarians on. Fortunately, it's exceedingly rarely enforced.
Non-payment of property tax is non-payment of property tax. Ludicrous to think you should enjoy any of the benefits of government without having to pay for them.
It will never be good enough for libertarians, but libertarians are a small minority. In international rankings of the strength of private property laws, the US ranks near the top.
Translation: If I don't like what you say, I'll impugn your educational credentials.
Translation: Whether you were educated in the US or outside the US, you are clearly uneducated...because I don't agree with what you said.
You like to get caught up in technicalities, don't you?
You still haven't stated any of your positions or backed them up.
Since when have I been required to list all my positions and back them up?
Does this look familiar..?
Transparency: check out Whitehouse.gov. What do you think is lacking?
Lobbyists in his administration: I don't know. Do you? Who are they?
Foreign policy: Seems like a vast improvement to me.
Czars: Much ado about nothing.
MadamX, you are doing a fine job, you make a great forum attorney.
I'd do better keeping my money. I have firsthand experience in how much the public option sucks as opposed to the private option. Um a minority? I don't think so, but I'll humor you. Even if libertarians are a minority, that is who the government is supposed to protect, not the majority. The majority will always get what they want. Which is why we're set up as a republic, not a democracy.
It doesn't matter if something is rarely invoked. It shouldn't even be used ever. http://www.wjactv.com/news/19396127/detail.html
That's what happens when you don't protest something that violates private property.
And if I impugn your educational credentials, it's because you don't seem to offer anything but assertions that you are right and everyone else wrong. You don't provide sources or any sort of real argument. Educated people provide sources to prove their point.
Good luck spending that money traveling on dirt roads, and avoiding robbers and thieves. Maybe you should stick to Amazon and order in.
Interesting, considering it doesn't exist yet.
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on what you think. Since you've chosen using sources as your arbitrary measure of a person's education, let me offer this.
Yes, of course. Are you saying that the rights of libertarians are unequal to the rights of non-libertarians?
As I said earlier, I am sympathetic to the matter of eminent domain. Lots of bad things happen in the world. This happens rarely, so doesn't merit the same attention as, say, famine, war, etc.
I think your 9/11 memorial link was the only source you've provided in our exchanges. What are you saying about the quality of your own education?
Spot on. The democrats made regulations that insurers could not compete across state lines. As a result the free market is unable to function and weed out the "bad" ones. There is no economic incentive for them to offer what people really need, and no reason to lower prices.
But you don't see Obama calling for the removal of those regs.
Show me a French guy still alive since the 1790s and I'll ask him anything you want me to...in fact, I'll switch sides and vote straight Republican for the rest of my life. I'll shine shoes and do floors on my hands and knees with a scrub brush. If you can't produce the 210 year old man, make a different point and stop making unreasonable requests.
Better luck next time..? Do you think this is some kind of oneupmanship..? We are talking about serious problems here, not some kind of gotcha BS...All those " changes " I mentioned were proposed by Obama during his presidential run...changes he promised to his robotic droves...why aren't you being honest and holding him accountable for the changes he promised you..?
Transparency: check out Whitehouse.gov. What do you think is lacking?
Lobbyists in his administration: I don't know. Do you? Who are they?
Foreign policy: Seems like a vast improvement to me.
Czars: Much ado about nothing.
[Where is this promised transparency : " We will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it." His very first bill was rushed through and signed within one day...many more since..
He has over 16 lobbyists working in his administration now. To name a few: Mark Patterson, Wm. Lynn, Derek Douglass, and Christine Varney..
Foreign policy is a joke. Bowing to an Arab, ignored by the Russians, ignorant of Polish history and concerns, and an impotent and irrelevant Secretary of State.
Your comment re Czars is not even worth responding to...]
I bet paying them is the least of your worries. Paying for what they legislate is another story
Charles Rangel, Henry Waxman, John Dingell and a few others cosponsored HR3200, it has been revised to become HR3400, there is also a senate version called Mark....all these bills are not actually read by the rest of congress, they get pieces of it in memos. Those of us who have read every darn versions and are totaly confussed, know who have or have not attempted to read them by the comments they make. I don't propose to know what each legal sentense says, however, i get the jist.
PS....the health plan is going to be a requirement just like car insurance is now, also, it will not be FREE....and there will be fines for those who do not enroll, and taxes on companies who do not meet certain requirements.
So when someone comes in the forums and says something like "you just don't want people to have health care" it is a comment that makes my head explode. Everyone gets health care regardless....this is my argument, period...
Did someone mention Charlie Rangle? Why he isn't wearing stripes and a number is a scandal in itself.
Not afraid of change...I just don't want a federal bureaucracy meddling in my constitution and constitutional rights. Change is a necessity of life but having some clown in D.C. telling me this is for my own good when they violate the Constitution on a daily basis harms this country. I like to be kissed after I have been ...well, you get the picture...not just kicked out to the curb like a dog by some bureaucrat who is only in it for himself.
I'm not scared of change I embrace it and push it forward at all cost and damn all you that stand in the way AARRGGHHH!!!
The more things, the more they stay the same; some people would like to hurry-up slowly
Have you ever been on either side of a process change at work? Was it uncomfortable? I'm guessing yes. People are naturally resistant to change. While most complain about the status quo, the only thing worse is disrupting it.
Although management has studied the process, identified ways to improve efficiencies and resolve system issues, and planned the implementation of a new and improved process, they do so with the understanding that they will be met with resistance. Sometimes the change does improve the process and a new comfort zone is eventually reached, sometimes the improvement isn't evident and the "I told you so" fingers start pointing upstream. Once people are in a comfort zone, they prefer to not be disturbed, so there will naturally be rumbles of grumbles.
There are exceptions, and people that trusts their management team or understand change from the management standpoint looks at it differently (not necessarily agreeably, but differently). Of course people who are skeptics of the management team will most certainly not be accepting of the proposed and/or implemented change. It's an opportunity for them to oppose the powers that be, with a team of people who are also resistant to the change...numbers are on their side at that point, thus the voice is much stronger. Hopefully this current hotly debated public issue doesn't get too ugly before it is resolved, and I hope it ultimately works in favor of the majority of American society.
Okay...that's my soapbox moment.
And a good soapbox moment it was, too.
Change for the better, some of us don't mind...and actually welcome (I am thinking directly in your management metaphor now). This really depends on the management itself and whether or not they know what they are doing, at least to me.
Because in my experience, I've seen that many do not know what they are doing, literally, just act as if they do--and actually, the status quo--the infrastructure and the furniture that has already been built to support them, works for them. A well established, and/or large company can always afford a few managers who are totally incompetent...but only a few.
Change that is done with no plan or for interests other than true leadership (which is service) is of course, stupid change. In this case, intelligent people have a right and duty (although it isn't always possible) to complain...and enact real change. ...On the other hand, many people (and usually those who enjoy the status quo like cows enjoy cow paths and standing in the same stall) are easily manipulated and directed by those who would do so for again, other interests.
Interesting and human-scale way to look at it, T Augustus! Much better than lib/con food fights and aphorisms.
The only problem with your argument is one of scope. If the management team of a company fails, the effects are limited to the company and possibly people who do business with that company. If the "management team" of the President fails, then the effects are national, possibly international in scope. The point is that the government has claimed powers that it is legally forbidden to take. When you add that to the costs of failure, the consequences of failure become dire.
The first problem with your response is that I didn't make an argument, just a statement. I understand that when the Presidency makes a wrong decision that the effects are more dire and affects more people - I lived in this country during the George W. Bush regime. So I get it. The costs of his decisions (questionable at best) are still resonating into the current administration, and people are on HubPages across the country with misguided concern and ire. Now...this response was a bit more argumentative.
So you'd agree that the problem lies not so much with the person holding the office, but the office itself.
Largely yes, I would say not only "the office", but the "offices" on the Hill collectively.
Tom Withworth posted this in his recent Hub, it's a link to SS:
"I will not tax the middle class" (Obama)
The Associated Press
Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 | 10:20 a.m.
The Senate is backing away from a health care tax that would have affected consumer products like contact lenses, thermometers, condoms _ and even scented maxi-pads.
Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus says he will exempt consumer products costing up to $100 from his proposed $4 billion-a-year tax on manufacturers of medical devices.
Republicans were heaping ridicule on the revenue-raiser, calling it a tax on Q-tips. The tax on industry won't go away, however. It's meant to help pay for a sweeping plan to expand coverage and try to tame increases in medical costs.
I do not know if "Americans" are Afraid of Change. They voted for one and change is not like 'fast food'. I think change is slow and is happening in this country. 'Some' Americans are 'scared of change' and for various reasons. It is interesting to note that all the 'fear and scare' tactics are from people who do not know what's 'change and how should change be like'. I think the majority is still with Obama on change, and the there are those that think that the majority is against Obama and his 'change' methods. Well, stats and the media influence what some believe is the fall of Obama. And still, stats show that there are still those who see change taking place in the country, and still hold Obama in high esteem. Well. I think that change is slowly taking place, and the man in the White House is only eight months in the Presidential seat. Some say tis will have some repercussion for the 2010 votes(media inspired analogy) and there are those who say we'll see in 2012(recent elections inspired). What I think will happen is if there's a change in the things Obama is doing, he will be re-elected, if he does not succeed, we might see something different taking place with Presidential Elections. Right now, I think many Americans are checking out the change and changes that are happening, albeit slowly.
This particular generation of Americans are born with silver spoons. They lived in ease and affluence. They have not struggled much in their lives.
All these made them easy going. All changes have its own pain and no one is ready for that.
This is the psychology behind their opposition to any change.
Which of the 300 million Americans are you talking about?
Contrary to popular fiction there are many Americans who have had it very hard. I would say that fear is the biggest obstacle to change and to overcome fear requires maturity. If anything, Americans have been indulged in their childish behavior - not their material desires.
Thanks T - I don't always agree with you but you make excellent points
(not just here)
Some of the older generation struggled and spoil their children thinking they were making it easier for them. Today a clueless generation of young adults have no idea what sacrifice and hard work is. And it is this group whining the loudest about change.
Yeah, and a lot of them still live at home - some in their 30s and 40s - sheesh!
I am agreed. It is also true that they are afraid because they are week. They are week because they can not control their minds. they can not control because they want to consume more. They want to consume more because they have taught to do so.
Original problem lies in their training. Corporations making great profit by tempting them for consumption. They are earning at the cost (spoiling) their future.
Ah, we are so week! If only we could be more month, or a combination of day and year!
Seems a little racist to pick on a spelling mistake from a non-English speaker. A Personal Attack Even?
Nice work. Well done. My Master Thanks You for the Trouble Caused......
Millions and millions of Indians are brilliant in the use of the English language. I hope YOU would not suggest otherwise.
YOU were the one making fun of the spelling mistake:
Well done.Very racist of you. Nice work. My Master is Pleased.
Of an individual. If YOU want to extrapolate that to an entire race, that is very racist and inappropriate of you.
You seem to have lost some of your peaceful demeanor. Is the 'real you' shining through?
Pointing out a personal error is not an attack.
Swing and a miss...the next screen name comes up to bat...
Hummm, this comming from someone with the name of UHA? and Satan?
Hi, Thanks for pointing a spelling mistake. I am really thankful to you who has taken such pain for me.
A good tip for spelling :
Week is for seven days but weak is for feeble. How to remember? it is weak where "e' is weak that means single.
Did you OP mean Obama change or change in general.
I think America changes all the time so I really dont get the question.
Think about it for a moment ,they have to be constanly changing or why else do other countries look and try to emulate some of her habits.
why do you say Americans are afraid of change. most people I have ever met are afraid of change. So, shouldn't the question be, why are people so afraid of change?
Change hasn't failed them so far. Americans are stuck in their ways; just think about it America is ran by old people.
lumping Americans together in questions like these reeks or racism to me . example . why do black people like fried chicken? why do Japanese people drive bad? why do Spanish people drive low riders ? why do white people like the tv show friends? am i alone in seeing this ?
maybe some are scared, some are not, while others are still thinking about it, and the others are just clueless, while others say who the hell cares!.....they dont think as one and we cant measure majority in this topic...
Americans aren't scared of change. There's an argument over the type of change.
Are Americans ready to change their habits if necessary?
Not sure what type of habits you're talking about, Jyoti.
Americans are in economic crisis and financial problem, the biggest concern today, because of their spending habit. They have consumed a lot on credit.
Large number of experts say that they have to change their spending habit to overcome the problem and even to survive. Savings ratio is the minimum in America.
The banks are actually forcing Americans to change their habits by raising interest rates, again, on credit cards, while lowering their available credit. I worked, until recently, for both BAC and Capital One credit card division, and the banks are also not extending credit like they used to.
In other words, are Banks forcing Americans to change their habits?
Jiberish, are you aware of the inflation that will be unleashed if banks start making loans again. In 1977 and 1978 Carter increased the money supply by 13%. People still tell stories about the amount prices spiked that year due to inflation. Interest rates had to be raised to 20% to get rid of all that excess money.
The Obama administration has increased the monetary supply by 120%. What kind of inflation do you think we're going to have when that money hits the economy? The only reason we're not seeing consumer price inflation right now is because the banks are holding on to all that money. When it starts getting released, watch out.
You're absolutely right. It will be hell. I brought up the banks for that reason. They had to do it, but the general public doesn't understand.
I change my clothes daily and girlfriends every two years. Now I'm changing careers...Americans love change just look at all the trends that come and go. We even get bored with our own laws and morals and change them, if anything we can't make up our minds...Scared of Change...I wish!!!
We just voted the first black president into office because we WANTED change. Well... that's the only example I feel like giving hehehe I'm not even really sure what we are these days.
I supose that I am scared of the "moral decay" that is all around us.
1. songs and movies
2. what is acceptable in church and state
3. what they teach at schools
I enjoy change, as long as life gets better, not worse. The health care situation needs changing, but is very tricky to steer. Since I lived in a third world country for 15 years, I witnessed social medicine first hand and it wasn't pretty.
No one is scared of "good" change. What we're experiencing now is the polar opposite of "good" change.
Why are Americans afraid of change?The ruling class has disproportionant influence politically.When you say Americans you're actually talking about that 5% (the ruling class)that fund the political action commitees.Their influence insures that their political voice is heard the loudest.They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.Why would they be interested in change?
Because most American don't know the meaning of change.
If something positive were to happening, it's most likely for it to be overlooked.
Change of the past 200+ years of government isn't likely to happen, without citizens understanding what needs to be changed.
The underlying problem will never get addressed.
"Why are Americans so scared of change?"
About half of us prefer the Constitution and the United States of America.
The other half isn't afraid of change. They're just having a fist fight amongst themselves about whether all wars should be ended first, or Wall Street destroyed first, or Christianity done away with, or unions given all jobs and all workers made to sign on, or all private industry nationalized first or etc. etc.
So much to do, so little time. . . . .
Vote the bums out. We need real solutions like all of socialist Europe is implementing to keep themselves from "changing" into
What a joke, what a ploy, your topic is, IMO. No true American is afraid of change, Americans embrace change, always have.
The threat to America now is the message pumped every day for the last couple years -- I'll leave it to others to fill that in. Honest dialogue has become ........such a remote concept.
by TimTurner7 years ago
Ok that subject line sure got your attention, huh? Well, I just read a study that said only 57% of Americans think global warming is really happening: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_ …...
by Pr0metheus7 years ago
Democrats can't do crap. They're too busy arguing amongst themselves to actually get anything done, even when they had a "super majority".Republicans won't agree with anything Obama says. They are...
by American View5 years ago
After 16 months and $20 million in federal grants, a Seattle "Green Jobs" program has created only 14 jobs.And Obama wants to do another Stimulus.
by Michael Willis7 years ago
Seems Ms Pelosi has gotten her feathers ruffled. Pelosi has her own agenda with this Health Care Bill. Come Hell or High-Water, She plans to force this Bill through at any cost. Be ready to have government forced health...
by Jason C Jean4 years ago
I've often said, the issue of being afraid to come out of the closet, is because you don't want to lose a loved one, a family member who might stop loving you because you are gay. I've also said, WHO CARES! Happiness is...
by idratherbe5 years ago
If they keep us fighting, that gives them an excuse for no solutions, because they can't agree. If they keep us in fear of attack, we follow in line with hollow promises of protection. If they use the bible, they create...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.