I Hope You Democrats Remember & Take Responsibility For This!

Jump to Last Post 1-38 of 38 discussions (385 posts)

61
lady_love158posted 13 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-dorfm … 67131.html

The action by the Fed to counterfeit a trillion new dollars will make the rich richer and the poor, poorer. Inflation will spark, your savings already earning nothing will be worth less, your paycheck will buy less, and everything will cost more, and we may even be thrown into another recession! Then what? More stimulus? The democrats are driving the car off a cliff!
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They don't care.
  They're the Party of "Yes" to anything that creates more controversy and chaos; they gotta take "action" no matter what; I think they're subject to attention-deficit as well as National deficit.
  reply report
  69
  bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The private Federal Reserve bank is not controlled by the political parties. They do what they want. They are connected to the NWO of world finance.
  reply report
  84
  I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, don't you be bringin' facts into this discussion! Just because the federal reserve chairman was appointed by Bush doesn't mean he shouldn't be considered a Democrat when he does things that people don't approve of.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't confuse the confused. They like to point and grrr without thinking and throw words like counterfeit. They do this without thinking. Obviously, if the Fed are the only ones who PRINT money than any money they PRINT cannot by definition be considered counterfeit. However, idiots are idiots for a reason.
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I expect when inflation does not kick in - in 30 days. They will say it's too soon. When inflation does not kick in in 60 days they will say - wait. When it hasn't kicked in in 90 or 120 or 180 days - then we will get an admission from the teatards that they were wrong and the move was not inflationary,
  
  Don't hold your breath. In 3 years if there is inflation they will scream it was a direct result of what the fed is doing now. Sheez. I will make a specific prediction now that no teatard will - annual inflation for the next year under 4% measured by the CPI. I will bet money on it - any inflation hawk teatards got the brass to bet?
  
  Somebody with more patience than I have explain to the teabaggers what the CPI is and how it's measured and where to find it.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can someone please explain to me how the Fed can print money without gold to back it up? Not looking for an argument, just facts.
  reply report
  82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I could give my opinion on how the Fed can print money without Gold to back it up but it probably wouldn't be extremely factual... esp not tonight when I am barely coherent as it is.
  reply report
  74
  Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've got a feeling this thread will still be here in the A.M.
  
  Sleep tight.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We stopped backing currency with gold over 70 years ago.
  reply report
  61
  Kidgasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My impression was that it was in 1971 when Richard Nixon closed the gold window. France had a lot of dollars and wanted to exchange them for gold which was denied.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, we dropped the backing in 1933, but it was a bit more complicated. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
  reply report
  61
  Kidgasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  True, I understand your point of view.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  FDR made owning gold illegal by executive order in 1933. The banks had lent out too much money, and had been victim to bank runs (read: people getting what was rightfully owed to them). So, instead of saying "yeah, banks have to pay back what they owe as well", FDR said "screw you America, I got elected thanks to these banks", and let them renege on their agreements.
  
  Then Nixon had to completely cut our currency from Gold because the Fed had inflated the money to practical worthlessness.
  
  ... and since then the money supply has multiplied over 30 times. (there was about $80 billion in our economy in 1971, and today there is over $2.4 trillion, that is, with this new $600 billion).
  
  Your money WILL soon be worthless; Hyperinflation IS coming. Buy silver, buy gold. Buy ANYTHING.
  reply report
  61
  Kidgasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't worry. I have written many Hubs about gold and silver. I own them both and have almost 50% of my retirement accounts in Goldcorp and Silver Wheaton stock. But I am taking some profits and trimming those holdings over the next several months.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  silver has gone up like 4 dollars in the past month.
  reply report
  61
  Kidgasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have been watching it closely. Most of my silver is purchased at less than $8 per ounce.
  report
  60
  lisadprestonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  yeah, cause the Rothschilds stole all of it.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  In addition to what Pcunix said, the Constitution says that Congress can:
  
  Article 1 Sec 8
  "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
  
  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  notice how Coin is used as a VERB in that sentence. And then read more of the constitution
  
  No State shall...emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
  
  So, not only is our government not supposed to be using paper money, but the states (and federal government, thanks to the 10th amendment) is not even allowed to accept anything BUT gold or silver as money.
  
  You've been scammed America, it's time you woke up.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "So, not only is our government not supposed to be using paper money, "
  Hmmm, no, I don't think you're interpreting this correctly, Evan. Congrefs has the constitutionally mandated power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. No mention is made of any limitations on the materials out of which the money can be coined, so Congrefs can coin money out of any thing: gold, silver, copper, aluminum, plastic, cardboard, or Ritz crackers.
  
  The clause about the States no being allowed to make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a legal tender prohibits that power to the States. Therefore, since coining money (out of any material; there are no prohibitions about material in the clause that grants Congrefs the power to coin money) is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution (which also prohibits that power to the states) the power to coin money out of anything is not prohibited to the Federal government by the 10th or any other amendment.
  
  I get that you don't like fiat currency, Evan, and your arguments against it are compelling, but fiat currency is not unconstitutional. It would be perfectly constitutional (and much tastier) if Congrefs were to coin money out of Ritz crackers.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ooooohhh, Jeff - me likes the Ritz cracker idea!
  reply report
  61
  Kidgasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I re-read Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution and no mention of the materials for money "coined" by the federal government is made. So I guess Ritz crackers are on the table as it were.
  
  Found this which was an interesting read:
  
  http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/200 … per-money/
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no, jeff, the states are denied the power to emit bills of credit. And then the tenth amendment says that all powers denied to states are NOT granted to the Federal government.
  
  Thus, the federal government, as well, can NOT emit bills of credit.
  
  Our money system is unconstitutional.
  
  I'm amazed people can disagree with this interpretation, since it's clearly what the damned document says (I used the term "damned" in its literal sense - an accursed document)
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871)- Supreme Court decision. Grow up Evan. The Founding Fathers ALSO provided a system by which the Constitution could be improved upon, and specifically outline how...which we did. If we go back to the world you and Ron Paul want, then you and your wife will be building my railroads. Snap out of it.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh man, the federal supreme court defined it's own powers to be stronger than what the Constitution clearly states they are?
  
  Man, thanks for pointing out how immature I am!
  
  It's almost like... people who WANT power can GRANT themselves power, despite our history of a constitutionally limited government.
  
  Thanks for clearing that up!
  
  AND THEN! you point out how the constitution COULD be changed through an amendment process.... .... but readily acknowledge that this process has yet to be imposed! BRILLIANT!!!
  
  ... ugh.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'll tell ya what....put your chance in changing the powers of the Supreme Court in one hand, and take crap in the other. See which one fills up first. Deal with reality kid.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i've written quite a bit about this. Check out my "Evan's Easy Economics"
  
  The way the fed creates money is that it "buys" bonds from private banks. it does this by simply typing "+$10,000" into the bank's accounts.
  
  That's literally what it does.
  
  The money comes from no where, and it is then used, by the bank, as real money.
  
  That is LITERALLY how it works.
  
  When you hear "the fed lowered the interest rates to 1%" (right now the rates are at 0%), that LITERALLY means that the fed created so much money for the banks that the banks are willing to lend the money at a 1% rate.
  
  For example: If the banks have $100, but they have bad loans that they are afraid won't be paid off (i.e., the people they lent money to earlier are going bankrupt), and so they will only be willing to lend out the money for 10%, then the Federal reserve will "lower interest rates" by (for example) increasing the money supply ten fold, so that the bank has $1000. Then, the bank is like "well, we got $900 out of no where, i suppose we can lend it out at 1%!".
  
  And... that's ... literally how your money works.
  
  Buy Gold. Buy Silver. Buy ANYTHING that isn't money.
  reply report
  61
  Kidgasposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is simply just printing dollars and becomes the law of supply and demand. Like I tell my kids. If they all had $10 and wanted the last piece of gum that I had, the cost of the gum would be $5-8 depending on how desperate a couple of them were. But if they each had $10,000, the price would be a lot higher.
  
  Inflation is a monetary phenomenon but won't be happening for a few years at least. You have to consider the effect of fractional reserve banking on the money supply. When banks aren't lending (which they aren't currently) and debt is being removed from balance sheets, money supply will decrease. You can see this on the graph located here:
  
  http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_da … ply-charts
  
  Only recently has the money supply begun to increase. I feel that it will be several years before inflation begins to appear as a result of all the stimulus. There is still a lot of slack in manufacturing and many jobless that you won't the actual "price inflation" unless speculators get out of control like you saw with $140 per barrel oil. If oil and other commodities get too high in price, then you might see the double-dip recession.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Gold Standard, or the Bretton Woods system, was nixed during Nixon for very good reasons. All of the cats now days who are proponents of it apparently didn't read the ENTIRE WORLD's articles during the decision to forgo its use. We all did it; it didn't work due to the time and population, so we did something else. Period.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  actually the gold standard was initially nixed in 1933 cuz FDR got elected thanks to bankers who had been printing up "bills of credit" and couldn't repay their debts.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Allow me to be more specific...the Bretton Woods system, ended during what is called the Nixon Shock. Didn't you learn about that in the Ron Paul rallies? Come to think of it...I have always wanted to ask you, since Ron and Rand Paul have a LONG history of working with white supremacist groups, how is it that you, half Asian with an Asian wife, could support him? Like I have said before...if he had his way entirely, you would be building a new railroad while I sit in a chair watching and drinking tea. How can you support that?
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ... I'm asian? That's news to me! Not that this even needs to be brought up, but 1) I'm white 2) I'm a mix of romanian, italian, german and a bunch of other "European" countries...
  
  ... but most importantly: 3) asians are the only ethnicity doing better than whites in the US (at least, on a wide range of such measurements).
  
  I have yet to hear Ron or Rand Paul make a racist statement. In fact, I've only heard them make statements that confirm that they value freedom more than the color of people's skin. In fact, the only statements directly regarding race I've heard them make are that they like the messages of MLK jr., and they value the opinions of people like Thomas Sowell.
  
  I, of course, know full well that the Bretton Woods system, and the final ties to the Gold standard were cut/failed under nixon. But saying that the gold standard ended with Nixon is nonsense unless you qualify it with the fact that FDR made it ILLEGAL TO OWN GOLD IN 1933!!!! By executive order!!! It wasn't even an act of congress!!! He just WILLED it into power!
  
  ... of course, you crazy liberals just think of this as good. Deal with the fact that you have, and worship, a monarch.
  
  Texas: you've been nothing but rude and a jerk to me. The race card won't make me give up on freedom.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You also failed to discuss the fact that our federal government has yet to amend the Constitution to grant it the powers you claim it has.
  
  I also wanted to point out that YOU were the one to bring the race card into this discussion. So much for "free-thinking liberals".
  
  YOU were the one to play the race card, not me.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Usually, bringing in the race card mean the author is playing it the their own benefit. I was stating that Ron Paul is a racist, you follow him, and if he had his way, in the he and you both want to go back to the old west, that you and your wife would be building railroads. You can think that is offensive all you want, and if you are offended, I don't really care. The fact is, Asians built railroads in the Old West. Asians were not treated like people. See, I am the liberal...so you can gather that I think that is bad.
  To what statement would you need to tell me that Asians are doing great in the US. Wonderful. See, if you can't follow the strain of logic...I support modern times where we acknowledge people's worth as people. It is Ron Paul and yourself that propose going back to a Wild West time. As for you not being Asian. My bad. You look Asian. Whatever. Who cares. I mean, way off base? You studied Japanese, have a Japanese wife, and lived in Japan, and resemble someone of Asian decent. Who really cares? The issue is that you want to go to a time where Asians were treated badly, and I don't.
  With regards to you bitching about the gold standard and trying to "point out," in my original post I referenced the Bretton Woods system one word before mentioning the gold standard. So grow up. You are fighting over a war that happened 80 years ago. We don't have enough gold to go back to a gold standard. So, who gives a s&%t how it happened. Live in reality for once Ron Paul man...it IS. Now what?
  With you reference to "free-thinking liberals", you don't understand language apparently. Free thinking would denote thinking of all potential elements, thus including race and everything else. Think about what you write before you write it. If you think I am rude. I am. I think you are offensive for you positions and how you contribute to this country. You don't want to live in my world, and I don't want to live in yours. Deal with it.
  reply report
  0
  Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ron Paul Political Report, 1992, LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM
  
  "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable."
  
  That was located in 30 seconds. He is calling black people in America terrorists. You claim you haven't read anything racist from Paul, and my response is...get off of your rump and look for it. There are quite a few. They are easy to find. His speaking at White Supremacist rallies are easy to find. Your fearless leader is a closet nazi. If you find THAT offensive...again, DEAL WITH IT.
  report
2. 75
  thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Inflation works on a percentage so if the dollar becomes worth less, then the rich stand to lose a LOT more than the poor.
  
  This is a bad thing for me though, as the dollar value will drop it will make it much harder to pay off my English debt.
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oli - I think this depends. A rich person might lose millions - but if he has millions, what's the big deal? A poor person, on the other hand, will be making the same amount of money but paying more for basics like food and gas.
  
  On the other hand, if there's hyperinflation, the actual value of my student loans will be less, right? So in a sense I'd owe less! Woot.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You wish! I think you'll owe the same but the dollars you use to pay it off will be worth less so you'll pay twice as much. It always works against us.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, William is right.
  
  Let's assume he borrowed $10K in Y2K, and it would have taken him, say, a month of work to earn $10K in Y2K.
  
  Now it's 2010, and because of inflation (not because he got a raise), it takes him half a month to earn $10K dollars, he's only paying back half the original value he borrowed, even though he's paying the same dollar amount.
  
  This is a gross oversimplification, and does not take into account such things as interest on the original loan (and whether the interest is in stronger Y2K dollars or weaker 2010 dollars, or some combination of dollars on a sliding scale from strongY2K to weak2010), William's probable increased earning power, higher or lower demand for William's hubs, the price of tea in Bengladesh, butterflies flapping their wings in the Yangtse Delta, suicide bombers buying life insurance, and any number of crazy things that affect the economy, but in broad terms, yes, if there is hyperinflation, William will be able to pay off a loan of valuable dollars with an equal number of less valuable (and thus easier to get) dollars. In effect, he will owe less.
  
  Inflation is good for debtors, and bad for creditors.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  The rich do not hold their wealth in Federal Reserve Notes of debt (US dollars?). They own things of actual value.
  reply report
  75
  thisisoliposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  At some point whatever their equity is based in will be devalued even if you hold shares instead of dollars, the chances are they are invested in a company which has a huge dollar reserve.
  reply report
  84
  I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is not usually correct. This would only be true if the rich held most of their wealth in United States currency. That's very uncommon. The rich tend to hold most of their money in investments (both foreign and domestic) and assets (such as property and cars). The poor tend to hold most or all of their monetary assets in the form of currency, so they are disproportionately affected by inflation.
  reply report
  69
  pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My bad Olie…you’ve heard of the English debtors prison haven’t you? Best pay that debt off.
  reply report
3. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  _______________
  You've got to be kidding. How long did the Bush family run this country?
  Obama inherited the problems Bush created. Just because he is having a hard time cleaning up the mess, doesn't mean he's to blame.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OMG! Not the inheritance argument again! Do democrats EVER take responsibility for what they do? Even during the election they ran away from thelegislation tehy passed! In many cases removed any reference to being a democrat or an incumbent from their advertising! Democrats are the lowest of the low and Obama is the loser in Chief, blaming the economy for all the democrats losses... well DUH! Remember all the bill that had to pass to SAVE the economy? Remeber how it was an emergency and there was no time to post it or read it? We had to pass it (stimulus) right away! And now he still wants to blame Bush and the economy! OMG! Okay I guess now is the time to call me tea bagger racist! LOL
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Remember all the bill that had to pass to SAVE the economy?"
  And it's working. But apparently it's working too slowly for our short attention spans.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah that's your opinion and maybe Nancy Pelosi's as well, but if you ask the 20% of the country that can;t get a job, they might think differently.
  reply report
  84
  I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's the problem. The business sector has recovered (just look at the stock market from 2008 until now), thanks in large part to TARP, which was wisely signed by Bush and supported by then-presidential candidate Obama and also just about every other politician in Congress. Unfortunately, the natural unemployment rate has changed. That means most of those jobs aren't coming back. Private sector job growth has been steady but slow, but the days of 5% unemployment are behind us. The natural rate of unemployment is going to remain around 10% even when this recovery is done. The blame fell on the democrats this election, but who knows who gets the blame in the future.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Newsflash, the stock market is NOT the economy. If what you're saying is true that unemployment will remain at 10% then we will see unrest in this country!
  reply report
  84
  I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We are seeing unrest in this country. That's why it was so easy for Republicans to pick up seats this election. People don't have jobs and they're angry about it. The stock market is a reflection of the corporate side of the economy. If the stock market is doing well and economic factors like unemployment are doing poorly, that's a signal that major change is occurring. When corporations can succeed while the average Joe is unemployed, that indicates the job that average Joe had was an inefficiency in the system that has now been corrected (and put average Joe out of work). If your business laid off 100 people 2 years ago and never hired them back and now your business is doing great, would you hire those people back just to give them a job? Of course not. Businesses are only going to hire when it benefits them.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good points! It's disturbing though...
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  _________________
  Where have you been? Bush started the $350.00 billion dollar bailout..Obama just resurrected it. And the deficit was inherited.
  
  In your own words OMG!
  
  At least the Democrats don't hate everyone and everything.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Never mind that democrats have had a super majority for the past 4 years, and CREATED the deficit Obama "inherited" when he became president.
  
  Have you not been watching television these past 2 months, Debs? Democrats have the market on hate cornered. If *I* say I dislike the Obama Agenda, I am tarred and feather for an obvious racist. If I say the Dept. of Education is a festering bloated puss-filled waste of 77 BILLION dollars a YEAR ~which has done ZILCH for improving actual education or test scores~ I am obviously a hater of children, minorities, and the poor.
  
  How many conservative pundits did we hear calling female democrat candidates names like bitch, whore and slut, this year? Do conservatives call black democrat politicians names? Liberals call black republicans Uncle Toms or House N-words, regularly.
  
  When the New Black Panther president was caught on video saying "I hate every iota of a white man, and we need to start killing their babies!!", was he espousing the right-wing viewpoint?
  
  Who owns the hate??
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well said.
  
  They, of course, will still try to pass the buck to others.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ___________________________
  Republicans wanted President Obama to fail so badly, they refused to help make America succeed. They didn't want to create new jobs and wanted to end the unemployment extension. None of which is toward the welfare of humans, not even children.
  
  There were 31 bills republicans blocked just in 2010
  You might want to read this..
  
  http://johnsvor.blogspot.com/2010/10/31 … ed-in.html
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Debs? I'm still curious as to how a republican party in such minority numbers could Block ANY bill, unless they had democrat help.
  
  When Obama succeeds, AMERICA fails. His party has been in the driver's seat for the past FOUR YEARS. He had a Super Majority for the first year plus, of his presidency. DEMOCRATS have blocked him up til now. Not Republicans.
  
  Also... How does an unemployment extension create more jobs?
  reply report
  52
  Silverfox9999posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What a dung heap! You conservatives are quite adept at shifting culpability to liberals. Observing the behaviour of conservatives for several decades with interest, I and many are convinced that conservatives are hypocrites. How could minorities trust you and your ilk?
  You often broach the race issue so that you could pander to racists who thrive on your odious philosophy.
  
  A good example is Rush Limbaugh who claims not to be a racist. But,
  listen to this vile,vicvious and vacuous conservative and almost invariably he brings in the race issue. Keeping Limbaugh from talking about race is analogous to preventing a pig from jumping into a pool of mud!
  reply report
  74
  Barbara Kayposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deborah, Amen.
  reply report
  59
  Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you give Obama credit for keeping us out of a recession? Your answer will help me determine if I should take anything you say seriously.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It was Bush that passed Tarp, Obama only continued it. Whether or not that averted economic catastrophe will be debated for years. The Obama stimulus did little if anything, the GM bailout shipped tax dollars to factories in Mexico and bailed out the unions. We aren't out of the recession, at least if you go by other measures than the official gauge of two quarters on GDP growth, which has been anemic at best.
  reply report
  76
  Moonchild60posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  She won't answer you, she has no interest in TRUTH. She avoids anyone who actually KNOWS what they are talking about.
  reply report
  59
  Neil Sperlingposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL - I'll dink tea with ya --- even though I am Canadian we have the same B.S. here! Lucky Tea is not only available in USA - LOL - we can drink it too!
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OH CANADA, a beautiful country - sadly suffering some silly things. Speech codes in Canada make American political correctness look wimpy - just ask Mark Steyn
  reply report
  76
  Moonchild60posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow Lady - You really should stop posting, you don't have a clue. IF you can afford it, might I suggest buying a clue? Because you are embarrassing yourself with both your hatred and sadly, ignorance.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Debate is good but only when you give facts. What is your rebuttal?
  reply report
  76
  Moonchild60posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  She writes "Democrats are the lowest of the low"...based on what? Obama is our "Loser in chief"? She sounds like a child? She knocks Paul Krugman a man who is a nobel prize winning economist, what the hell are her credentials? What makes her smarter? She says we should not continue to blame the Bush administration for what Obama inherited? Hey, that will never change. He DID inherit a huge freaking mess and everyone in the WORLD knows that, not just America. I don't know about you, but it takes me a hell of a lot longer to clean up my ENTIRE house than it does one room. What were these people expecting? A cure all in 6 months? No way was that going to happen. And the so called "tea partiers" are just pawns in the Republican game. They don't give a damn about any of these issues what they care about is gaining control again and I will give you this, the Republicans are exemplary when it comes to manipulation and lies. Democrats don't stand a chance against them in their shrewd underhanded manipulations.
  reply report
  52
  Silverfox9999posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Obama inherited a quagmire created by Bush and his brethren!
  The mess created is so enormous that a decade would not be sufficient to clear the mess.
  
  The Tea Party Clan , a rabble rousing horde, is ready to blame Obama for all the ills that afflict the U.S.A. Uncle Babba catches a cold and Obama is blamed for that. Aunt Woolmaloo slides on a banana peel. "Obama done it ." I aint never gonna not vote for no Obama no more!" It is a song that is so monotonous and often annoying!
  
  Obama inherited a mess. He endeavours to improve the country and tries
  various strategies. Before giving him enough time, conservatives
  hurl criticism against the president..Had he not done anything,the
  conservatives would be quick to bemoan this! A drowning man would clutch at anything to save his life.The alternative is to just drown! Which would you choose?
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T FIX THE ECONOMY!!! IT CAN ONLY REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH!!!! WAKE UP!!!
  
  Until someone can point out how stealing $600 billion from Peter and giving it to Paul can in ANY way "Fix" an economy...
  
  ... you need to STOP arguing that the government can fix an economy.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Common claim by conservatives, but no more true or untrue than saying the same thing about business.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I get so tired if this conservative nonsense.
  
  Our national interstate highways are wealth created by government. Your local roads, your local fire and police departments are also real wealth created by government.
  
  There are many other examples. The FDA, our armed forces, your local health inspectors, the local agencies that inspect scales and gasoline pumas - these all create wealth.
  
  Even the 'redistribution" you hate so much can produce real societal benefit by raising standards of living for the poor. But you never see that because all you can imagine is lazy people getting something for nothing, never understanding how these things are good for all of us.
  
  Conservative greed and short sightedness annoys me greatly and this is only the tip of it..
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think you need to look up the definition of "wealth". You lack real understanding in that regard. Creating wealth implies profit, or growth of assets. Roads my provide a means for others to grow their assets but for taxpayers it is a cost that depreciates over time. That is not creating weatlh, nor is any of the other examles you cited. It's liberal thinking, that spending creates wealth... it might but only for the select few that collect the funds from those that pay, and for those that pay, it's simply a cost, an erosion of their wealth.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really?
  
  Where do you suppose the "Commonwealth" came from in the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and other States?
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The interstate highway system benefits countless entrepreneurs, most of whom would never have been able to start their businesses without a relatively cheap and easy way to move goods from practically anywhere in the country to practically anywhere else at practically any time of the day or night.
  
  It may not have directly created wealth, but it certainly facilitated the creation of said wealth. Just like the internet (a Government project, originally) has facilitated the creation of all kinds of wealth, like Google, Amazon, eBay, etc. all of which take advantage of a public network to create their wealth.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Moreover, many business do nothing but shuffle money around - banks and stockbrokers being the prime example. It would be idiotic to say that these have no value to society.
  
  Many conservatives hold very stupid ideas about the role of government. If their ideas were the norm, we'd still be a nation of unpaved foot paths and everyone would live on farms and support themselves directly.
  
  That's not the world we live in. Government programs are a necessary and very needed part of our world. And the benefits ARE wealth. They are, literally, part of the "common wealth" that we create by banding togeher and pooling our money to do things we could not do alone.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  quit calling me a conservative, hippie. I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian (at best). Quit slandering me.
  
  Those roads and everything else created by government could have been created privately by voluntary contract. the simple fact remains that the money used to construct them was taken at gunpoint by an army. And this power is NOT granted to our government in the constitution.
  
  Just cuz you want to steal money from me and then give it to poor people doesn't make your position moral. It's just legalized theft.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, my. I am SO sorry. Yeah, you are a libertarian - which is a conservative with even less understanding of anything to do with government.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ugh. "Hey, I'll have my government steal your money and then give it to jimmy! That makes ME a hero! I'm so glad that theft is the answer to our problems!"
  
  You're a thief, Pc. You advocate theft but call it charity.
  
  Deal with the fact that you advocate theft.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Hey, let's have our military force that guy over there to pay us money!"
  
  "yeah! Lol!! we'll tell him that we're helping children!!! ROFL!!"
  
  "Hahaha, he actually believed it - I'm gonna buy a cadillac!"
  
  Pc, government is theft. Not charity.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hm, you don't understand government do you!
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i think i'm the only one on this forum that understands it: if I don't pay taxes -- even if that money is going to the invasion of pakistan, iraq, afghanistan and countless other countries -- i get thrown in jail.
  
  How is that NOT theft?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Of course! If I fill my car with gas and drive off without paying, I get thrown in jail. The fact that I am against ic engines driven by hydrocarbons is not taken into consideration, I haven't paid and therefore committed theft.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  no, see, you enter into a private contract with the gas station that says "i'll give you money for gas". When you drive off, you break that contract.
  
  I've never signed any contract with the US Government, and the only thing that even resembles a contract (the constitution) has been dead for over 160 years.
  
  I guess I really AM the only one on here who understands how government works!
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Must be different in the US! Just as the act of buying petrol creates a contract, being born in a democratic country forms a contract.
  Just as I support and defend my family, my country defends and supports me. As decisions covering many millions can not be individually tailored we have a vote and can elect those who make the decisions that represents the majority.
  If I decide that I don't approve of my tax money being used to support US militarism, I am able to breach that contract but fully in the knowledge that I will likely end in gaol. How can it be otherwise?
  Hey folks you don't need to pay taxes, an anarchists dream, no police, no education, no roads, no health service, no fire brigade, lovely.
  report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've never signed a contract with anyone. And If i HAD signed a contract, I would gladly opt out and form my own country because, for whatever strange reason, I keep getting the short end of the stick.
  
  And, even though I'm sure you've never bothered to think it through, all of those services could easily EASILY be provided cheaper and more reliably by a free-market (Chaos Theory, Anarchy and Law, Economics in One Lesson, and numerous other books all illustrate easily how such systems would LIKELY work.)
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly,and I've never entered a contract that I will not shop lift or us violence.
  
  I think you should try a think through or two.
  In the UK we had public services such as railways, gas, electricity etc run by the state. The right wing, thinking like yo, privatised them. Guess what? All those services became more expensive and many a lot more inefficient.
  
  That isn't from a book that illustrates how it might work, that's from life that illustrates how it does work.
  report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  yes, you enter into that contract the second you agree to shop there. By entering the stores property (their land), you are agreeing to their rules. If you don't like the fact that they don't want you to steal from them, then shop at a place that lets you steal. Either way, you agree to their rules when you enter their property because it's private property.
  
  "but what about this exact same thing being applied to government? you are a hypocrite", i can hear you reply. This is incorrect. The government pays for everything through theft, and the store had to pay for it through hard work and enterprise.
  
  And are you talking about National Rail? ... because that's a government organization... good job on that...
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You really are muddled aren't you? You think shops shouldn't be stolen from but the people in the form of the government are fair game!
  report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  actually, the rail system in britain is owned by a government agency. Nation Rail is a government agency.
  
  ... so ...
  
  ... yeah...
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  However it is operated by private companies (apart from Arriva, which is owned by the German government) the engines and rolling stock the private companies operate are now largely made outside the UK.
  report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Plesse do go form your own country where no one pays taxes and business rules all. Good luck.
  report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  would if I could, but the gubment won't let me!
  report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evan - I've made this point over and over again: you didn't sign a contract with the government any more than you signed a contract with the gas station.
  
  But you do use government provided services every day: you drive on roads to get to work. You buy things at the store which were brought to the store by truck that travel over the roads. You probably went to public school. Ever used a library? Ever called the police or fire department or ambulance?
  
  If you don't want to pay taxes, stop driving. Stop shopping. Stop using the internet. Stop using the reading and writing skills that you were taught at taxpayer expense. Then maybe you can claim that the contract is null. Maybe.
  report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I dont' want to get banned for debating with you.
  
  Here's my last response to this forum.
  
  The government doesn't own the property. The private company does. Thus when i enter a gas station's property, I'm agreeing upon their rights to their property.
  
  The government can only claim ownership of the property in that it stole the money to pay for it through taxes.
  
  Yes I do use roads, but I have no choice. How would you like it if I stole all your money and then built a moat around you, and then built a boat. Then when you said "you stole my money to pay for this", i simply turn around and say "Yes, but that's what the government says!"
  
  Obviously this would enrage you. But you must see that it is exactly the same thing that the government has done to us: it has so distorted the market that using a private road would be impossible. It has done so through theft.
  
  Sorry, you'll never change my mind on this, 2+2 does not equal 5.
  report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, that isn't the case. If you commit crimes to avoid paying taxes you go to jail. If you simply don't pay, the IRS goes after your assets, not you.
  
  Taxes are not theft by any thinking person's definition. Your self-induced confusion causes the negative emotions evident in your posts.
  
  Try sticking to the facts, it'll help your blood pressure.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, ok. My mistake.
  
  When the IRS takes my stuff because I don't want to support the 200 military bases we have, then that IS perfectly legitimate -- even though I never agreed to such rules! And, thank you kindly for clearing up that 'when they throw me in jail because i'm not paying taxes that are forced on me', it isn't them ACTUALLY throwing me in jail because I'm not paying! That made a lot of sense, Ron.
  
  I can't believe how much sense your comments have made! i'm so happy that I won't go to jail for not paying taxes, i'll just go to jail for not paying taxes! Thank god THAT confusion has been cleared up.
  
  Thanks for clearing that up.
  
  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Could_you_go_ … _pay_taxes
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you'd take a breath and actually read your own source, you'd realize it supports my statement and refutes yours.
  report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  actually, it states quite clearly that you can be thrown in jail for not paying taxes.
  
  That sounds a lot like what I'm arguing.
  
  in fact, it claims that there are X0,000 people in jail for not paying taxes.
  report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh man, it's so terrible that people are given jobs! I sure do feel bad that people are being paid 3-6 times the national average wage in their country!
  
  Please! Try to make me cry more! "Noooooo!!! They have much better lives thanks to markets!!! NOOOOOOOOOooooooooo!!!!"
  
  Poor Wendy Diaz - she had the entire american media make her look like a poor child. Then everyone demanded that Gifford shut down her factory...
  
  ... then Diaz had to resort to underage prostitution for 1/3rd the wage she was making.
  
  Deal with the fact that sweatshops are GOOD things because they increase demands for labor and thus wages. I know that "supply and demand" is REALLY hard to figure out, but I'm sure your liberal head can figure out: "duhhhhhh If i dun need sumthin, then it dun get more val-you-ble to me!"
  reply report
  51
  Locke.Demosthenesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  how can "the new deal fix the economy" when, in reality, the new deal was directly related to THE WORST ECONOMIC DOWNTURN EVER ANYWHERE?!
  
  It's mind boggling to read these arguments: "Hey, remember how FDR tried to do a bunch of stuff, and remember how it just happened to be the worst economic downturn ever? ... yeah! it worked!"
  
  Government CAN NOT fix the economy: ever dollar it spends comes at the expense of someone else. And then, on top of that theft, it bids up prices by competing with the free market -- that is to say that each dollar that the government spends increases prices not just once over (it steals the money), but two times over AT LEAST(because it buys things as well, and thus raises prices).
  
  The book "Economics in One Lesson" applies this simple fact to some 30 examples and each one shows conclusively that government intervention makes things worse. I highly recommend reading that book because I would love to see arguments against it. I have yet to read any good arguments against Henry Hazlitt's arguments laid out in that book, and, no offense, but I doubt you'll be able to provide any.
  reply report
  59
  jeri741posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you finally someone who says that Obama walked into this mess...I mean he had to take actions before he even took his oath...ths country was going down...I couldn't even drive my truck to make a living with gas as high as it was.
  reply report
  59
  readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but if you go back just a bit you might discover much of this economic mess began with the 2006 midterms when the Dems took control of congress.
  
  The downfall was accelerated when both Obama and McCain clinched their respective nominations.
  
  And then further perpetuated by the Obama administration’s agenda.
  reply report
  51
  Locke.Demosthenesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i love to read these arguments. Two people arguing over the best way for the government to fix the economy...
  
  ... but not a single one even bothers to question the premise: CAN the government fix the economy?
  
  Every time in history the government TRIED to fix it things just kept getting worse and worse! The new deal - the great depression. TARP - the current recession. etc etc etc.
  reply report
  51
  Locke.Demosthenesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  actually all of FDR's new deal policies were merely extensions of Hoovers' reactions to the downturn.
  
  Just about all of em!
  
  Yep.
  reply report
  52
  Silverfox9999posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Republicans are not to be trusted by the less fortunate ones! This is a party for the wealthy. Yes, they would create the impression that they are
  on the side of the underdogs just to get one's vote. It is quite glaring that
  this party is devoid of any compassion. In the last two years you should have observed how difficult it was to get them to vote in favour of payment of unemployment benefits. For years they voted against the raising of minimum wage. Obama successfully fought to have medical benefits
  in place for children whose families were not able to afford helathcare
  costs. The conservatives are OK with building of roads and bridges by the government; they are quite pleased with the education that their children receive; they are OK with social security payments; they are OK with
  the government funded military; they are OK with govt. funded police force.
  But, they cannot accept government intervention in healthcare because it is SOCIALISM. What a terrible word SOCIALISM. This is evil !
  
  Come on Americans who thrive on ignorance! Familarize yourselves before you level criticism against SOCIALISM and become the laughing stock of the world, if you are not already!
  reply report
  79
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree Deborah, this is not a new thing.
  I have been watching American politics for 30 odd years now and the common string that runs through it is blame. The outcome of stonewalling the incumbent does not seem to concern some.
  reply report
4. 60
  Ernieposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bernanke was appointed chairman by George W. Bush in 2006, and has been described as a "libertarian-Republican in the mold of Alan Greenspan". Obama nominated him for a second term as chairman in August 2009, and he was approved 70-30 in the Senate (18 Republicans, 11 Democrats, and 1 independent voted against). The Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, but "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government".
  
  Given this, I would say pinning the blame for QE2 squarely on Democrats is a pretty big stretch, all the more so if when you consider that 8 years under GWB contributed significantly to the current economic situation (without which, QE2 would not be necessary).
  reply report
5. 0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You do realize that the Republican solution is to raise the GDP or consumer tax to 23% right?
  
  Let's just hope they take the lesser evil. Raising the price on GDPs isn't a terrible idea, increasing wages to keep up with inflation isn't a terrible idea either.
  
  Switching from oil to other resources is not a terrible idea but if you want instant gratification then it's the booby trap you want to lay for America.
  
  Initial investment in "Clean[er] Energy", will raise the cost in the short term but it will head off further inflation because the cost of oil is not going down and it will keep rising.
  
  You can speculate on demand for oil and believe that oil cost rise because we switched to more efficient and cost effective means of supplying energy, but that would be a hindsight excuse.
  
  But whatever, your job seems to be to confuse people you think are 'stupid' and I don't believe you are just a regular run of the mill hubber, perhaps pro-troll who is getting paid to dummy up the works.
  
  Whatever the truth may be, what you are doing is making sure there is no good foreseeable future for America.
  
  Instant gratification vs. longterm stability. It's your choice.
  reply report
  60
  dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sandra..? if you raise the GDP, who do you sell to?
  World markets are limited, they are not buying US made. and...
  
  we have 64% of our factories off-shore and cross borders?
  who will make the product to raise it? China? India?, Hong Kong? Mexico? Japan? Korea? Canada? .........
  
  we have no large factory base to do it, and small business can not support the job growth needed, nor the investment needed..?
  
  solar pannels and batteries are not going to do it alone! Internet business produces a service only, not a product? So How?
  
  They are doing nothing to open up world competition for goods what so ever, just Health care!
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's clear to me you have no idea what you're talking about, but you're entitled to express your opinions.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Dittos, Lady_Love.
  
  If democrats said they actually planned to destroy the economy, so they could rebuild it in the socialist mold... What actions would they be doing differently?
  reply report
  62
  Wayne Orvisburgposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Last I checked, raising minimum wage causes inflation.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The mere institution of minimum wage suppresses employment for the least prepared workers. People with no skills, low skills, first time job seekers, teenagers all have more trouble finding work with a federally imposed minimum wage. In 1947 young black men had a lower unemployment rate than young white men. In 1949, just one year after the institution of a national minimum wage, the opposite was true. Federally compelled increases in the price employers pay for labor has three effects. One, to suppress employment. Two, to decrease the number of potential employers - effectively accomplishing the first effect in addition. Three, to compel a rise in prices so that those business capable of surviving this forced price increase can remain profitable. In this way government insinuation of its unconstitutional influence into the market place distorts that market place and not for the better. And so we distort and distort until an unadulterated economy is no longer visible.
  reply report
  71
  Diane Insideposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree Wayne raising minimum wage always causes inflation, why can't people see this.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What do you base your opinion on? Most studies of the effect of the minimum wage say that's not true. (Except for those funded by the fast food industry.)
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What do you base your opinion on when everything truthful about the minimum wage demonstrates a reduction in available employment.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The effect of changes in the minimum wage has been debated hotly for many years. Here are links to recent studies supporting the positive effects of the minimum wage:
  
  http://www.jstor.org/pss/2117925
  
  http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5224.html
  
  http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ … ?src=busln
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/0 … 76831.html
  
  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1359
  
  The effect of increases in the minimum wage is debatable, but it is not correct that "everything truthful about the minimum wage demonstrates a reduction in available employment."
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How about something a little more scholarly than the Huffington Post
  
  http://www.nowpublishers.com/product.as … 0700000015
  
  Foundations and Trends® in
  Microeconomics
  Volume 3 Issue 1–2
  DOI: 10.1561/0700000015
  
  Minimum Wages and Employment
  
  David Neumark
  Department of Economics, 3151 Social Science Plaza, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA, dneumark@uci.edu
  
  William L. Wascher
  Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Division of Research and Statistics, 20th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20551, USA, william.l.wascher@frb.gov
  
  Abstract
  
  We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages - in the United States and in other countries - that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the conclusion that the minimum wage reduces employment of low-skilled workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model generally predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups that are likely most directly affected by minimum wage increases provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.
  
  As I said and stand by, a rise in the minimum wage depresses the job market and contracts opportunities for the very people it purports to help. That link is to an extensive examination of the effects of rises in minimum wage on the most marginal in our society. Federal interference in the market place helps create poverty. One need only look at the command economies of the world, past and present, to conclude that governments do not run economies to the betterment of their people.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "How about something a little more scholarly than the Huffington Post?"
  
  Did you actually read the linked Huffington Post article? It cited and summarized several credible studies. Moreover, the Huffington Post link was only one of the five links I posted. As I said the issues has been debated. One can find studies on both sides of the issue. If the matter were left up to you, American workers' wages would be beaten down to 90 cents and hour so that they would be able to compete on a level playing field with China.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I did read your Huffington Post link. Much of the research sited is the very same research addressed in the Abstract I posted. As to my intentions or desires, if I were you I would confine my remarks about the intentions and desires of other to those you know personally. I am far too complex a person for you to know.
  
  That having been said, I would prefer that a free, unforced, good will exchange be the means by which a wage is negotiated. A mandated wage, the price for labor, will do what mandated prices always do - distort the market and lead to increased, not decreased, hardships. We have seen it all around the world for decades and yet pretend it isn't so.
  
  What wage do I think people should earn? What I think doesn't matter, dictating a wage is destructive. What I think is that if people act morally and justly in their personal relationships, including business relationships, then there would be much less hardship. Would this mean a higher wage? Perhaps, but what it would mean is a better wage one actually reflective of economic (not political) realities and would result in more employment opportunity for those who need it most.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But too many do not act morally and justly in either their personal and business lives. Or can you explain to me what is moral and just about paying less than a living wage? What is moral and just about children going to bed hungry, people unable to buy basic necessities whilst those who can't afford to pay those minimum wages don't go hungry or do without?
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ralphie tends to discover unpublished studies at the drop of a hat, U V. I keep waiting for him to admit he's Joe Biden.
  reply report
  52
  Silverfox9999posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Raising minimum wage causes inflation? One dimensional thinkers
  serve no purpose except inflate their egos. Just like that- raising minimum wage causes inflation! Are you going to stick with your preposterous assertion? ........... Inflation would not have occurred if the minimum wage was maintained at $1.35 an hour,right?
  
  Folks,these one-dimensional thinkers are non-thinkers . Economics is
  much more complicated than some assume. Hand the country to these one-dimensional thinkers ...and then flee to Canada or Mexico or
  Timbuktu!
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A rise in minimum wage does, indeed, result in an immediate change in the hourly price of labor far beyond those working for minimum wage. Though inflation has many and varied causes an imposed specific price rise to a wide reaching commodity, such as labor, will CAUSE a general rise in all prices. What an imposed rise in the price of labor does guarantee is a decrease in the demand for labor and a resulting increase in unemployment. This is born out by the history of the minimum wage and minority unemployment.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  When the minimum wage was introduced in the UK the right were making such dire predictions, inflation would go up, unemployment would go up.
  The reality was that neither of those predictions came true. The reality is that if you give a little more money to those without enough, they don't save it or invest it, they spend it, so those increased wages are immediately spent to the benefit of the economy.
  
  When the minimum wage was introduced in the UK one of the more liberal High Court Judges said he thought that the minimum wage was a good idea but why £5 an hour, there is surely nobody left in the country earning so little!
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So imagine you run a bakery. Demand means that you only run at half capacity. That means your 50% production has to carry all the overheads of your business.
  The disposable income in to your market doubles as a minimum wage kicks in and demand for bread doubles meaning that your fixed costs on each loaf halves as your plant starts to run at 100% capacity. You find you need more workers to keep your plant running with the added labour costs covered by increased production. The increased demand for floor and yeast, packing etc puts you in a stronger position when negotiating charges from your suppliers.
  Your delivery vehicles are now going out full, rather than half full, your drivers increased wages do not increase the cost of a loaf because though they may have doubled but so have the number of loaves carrying that cost.
  
  Please explain why you think increasing the number of people able to afford an item should reduce demand for that item.
  reply report
6. 60
  dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They announced today they are buying 6 billion in Bonds, buying our own debt, as a hedge..?
  
  We are going bankrupt slowly as Gold devalues against all the printed dollars and bond sales to ourselves. Obamanomics in full view folks.
  
  Federal Banks getting rich selling the Goverment its own Bonds! It is False money, about as worthwhile as confederate bills!
  
  if this is the best Harvard teaches, shut it down, please!
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  there is no other option!!! ok, then what would you do? it seems the plans people offer are either none or something that won't work. nobody wants to do this but again, what is a viable option?
  reply report
  60
  dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Printing Bonds to Buy our own money is viable?
  
  as they say on the NFL pre-game show...."Come on Man!"
  reply report
7. 69
  bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Democrats don't control the private Federal Reserve bank. Read my hub lady and learn about this private Fed.
  reply report
  60
  dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  bgamall, no political party controls anything Fed. But congress can act to stop the fed from a mistake like this???
  
  would not opening up the world trade markets in conjunction with the EU and Mid-east be more viable. The take the hands off and let the Markets run? Yes we take a short term hit, but not a permanent collapse of the dollar.
  
  Deals to lower tariffs, and taxes, raw goods that are F.O.B. to port for export make more sense. low cost to foreign Countries in need if they Buy larger bulk.
  
  Take the taxes off the railroads if they start building high speed electric rail in "every state" city to city, freight and people, do it now start creating a job base that could be self sustaining and can hire larger amounts of folks that small business can not do.
  
  our factories are down, splintered and sent off border, and we need to hire at reasonable wage, not a small business wages?
  
  how can you increase the GDP without larger factory support. 1.1% growth is nothing, in terms of a national recovery. We all can not pay a 30 year mortgage at McDonalds wages?
  
  the Fed does not need to buy our own debt????
  
  Business is loosing its accounts receivables, you can not keep borrowing to make payroll if your not selling something to put monies back in the bank to pay the loans.
  
  if you keep buying "stuff" now, you are not buying U.S. you are buying from foreign factories, as long as your job holds up, the Foreign companies make the money, not U.S. and jobs are "not" happening.
  
  We are making other countries rich, that's not real physical growth, that's a false 1.1 increase in sales to Merchandising companies, the numbers are lies.
  
  Merchandisers do not make products, they import and sell at higher prices
  Internet companies provide services, again no product making in the U.S. so no manufacturing jobs at higher wages, the kind of wages that can put a kid through school, or pay a 30 year mortgage. we are being lied to!
  
  buying clothes, cars, etc.. are lagging indicators not leading ones.
  Export growth, investment borrowing, expanshion, new perminant hiring, etc... are leading one's. The one's we need to have.
  
  they are tricking us in statistics that are false indications of real progress.
  they got nothing but Health care and TARP B.S. All of it temporary stop gaps.
  
  Now they wish to Buy their own debt?????? good grief man!
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes but the government is the one that appoints the governors so if they want to keep their jobs they have to do the bidding of the government.
  reply report
8. 76
  Freeway Flyerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Fed is not run by Democrats, although I understand why this action causes concern. There is also a good chance that it won't work all that well at stimulating the economy. We need investment into real economic growth, not financial schemes.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It won't work because it can't. Monetizing the debt is doubling the money supply not actually causing any real economic growth and will result in inflation. It has happened before and resulted in some real nightmares.
  reply report
9. 72
  Jillian Barclayposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I do not have an answer to the economic issues this country is facing. I have read so many political forums and there are always two distinct sides to every forum question or statement made. If the forum pages are always divided, then it is obvious that the country is, too. I have an observation and a suggestion. My observation is that things have not gotten bad enough in this country. I say that because in these tough times, there is still NO room for compromise. Both sides will fight to the death while trying to win the argument. Historically, Americans come together when faced with impending disaster and the risk of destruction of our nation. We must not be there yet.
  
  My suggestion is simple. First, the President cannot solve our problems by himself. Instead of rushing back with a response saying that he is making it worse, tell me what YOU are doing to make this country better. Instead of spending your time fighting and taking sides, put your time to use by making a real contribution to your community or country. Get involved in something that will actually add to solutions. Go out and work at a food bank for a few hours a week, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Just do anything that creates a positive result. If everyone was willing to give back and improve things in their own little way, the problems facing our country would get solved. When unity, instead of division becomes the norm, the politicians might conclude that working together to solve problems might actually produce positive results!
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As a conservative I absolutely, heartily endorse the idea that we, personally, individually have a moral obligation to care for those who cannot do for themselves. I applaud those who take on this personal obligation.
  reply report
  52
  Silverfox9999posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How refreshing to hear this from a conservative! Conservatives
  often hurl insults at people who receive assistance from the government!
  Tune in to conservative radio stations to see the venom that emantes from the orifices of Limbaugh, Hannitty, levin, savage.....
  reply report
10. 60
  caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is a lot of blame going on here...very sad. Bottom line is if these two parties do not start working together, it doesn't matter who carries what seats...nothing is going to change!
  I hope the majority of the people voted the issues and not the party...
  reply report
11. 60
  dobanposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really?? Okay, let's inject some facts into this discussion. First, the last president to not increase the national debt while in office was Clinton -hum... then came Bush who increased the national debt significantly. Obama has not been able to fix it yet, but really, who helped drive the car off of the cliff? It was Bush! And the last I knew, the president did not control the Federal Reserve. One thing that seems obvious about the Republican's though is that they are the "blame everyone else" party. And, no 18 months is not enough time to fix 8 years of damage.
  reply report
61
prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago
Basic economy is that when there is money to be spent, the price will go down as people will spend more, production increases and the economy will recover in the long run.

I don't know Ms lovely but I think you don't read the actual data on the improvement in the economy. It is improving but not to a level you want them before Bush was the Pres.
The economy is improving -- slowly recovering, thanks to Obamas administration.
reply report
1. 63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Correct. The outlook in Congress for needed additional stimulus is close to zero as a result of the election, so the burden falls on the shoulders of Fed chairman Bernanke. The ignorance of elementary economics on the part of tea baggers is boundless.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I guess neither one of you bothered to read the link which I purposely selected from Hufpo, your rag of choice for liberal propaganda!
  A dollar is like a share of stock in America, when the fed issues more stock the value of the remaining shares is diluted, in other words the value of the dollar declines and it takes more of them to buy a given good or service.
  
  PS, increased demand raises prices, not lowers them!
  
  Really you both need to go back to economics 101!
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  This is why we should have raised the minimum wage long ago, and why Unions are a good thing.
  
  Lady Love, you are partly right, inflation will be bad for the poor and middle class and good for the rich. But part of the problem is that the poor and middle class have been making less and less money over the past 30 years b/c our jobs have been going overseas.
  
  And the Fed is not the only force at play in this economy.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Fed's action is based on fears of deflation and depression, not inflation.
  reply report
  72
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yep hyperinflation!
  
  Hyperinflations are caused by extremely rapid growth in the supply of “paper” money. They occur when the monetary and fiscal authorities of a nation regularly issue large quantities of money to pay for a large stream of government expenditures. In effect, inflation is a form of taxation in which the government gains at the expense of those who hold money while its value is declining. Hyperinflations are very large taxation schemes.
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  i always thought it was the other way around. the more that buy, the lower the price. there is a definite increase in prices to the extreme. everyone has thought us to be so distracted with the recession that they thought we wouldn't notice. check, everything has gone way up.
  
  in march we reach a point where the debt exceeds the income of the nation. either we raise the debt ceiling or , we go bankrupt. the pubs have offered nothing that will even come close and quite frankly there is no amount of cuts that will remedy it either. what do you think they will do? i'll tell you. they are gonna vote to raise the debt ceiling.just like the dems would have, which is what the pubs fought so hard (they claim) against. time will tell.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Prices are going up because the genius in chief is having the fed print money...more dollars in circulation lowers the value of the dollars already in circulation which makes imports traded in dollars like oil cost more. Why do you think counterfeiting is illegal?
  
  And no you thought wrong, it doesn't make sense! When demand outstrips production prices go higher, think about it... if everyone stopped buying oil tomorrow what would the price do?
  
  Just go on EBAY and bid on somthing with a lot of bidders, do they raise their bids to win or the more bidders the lower the price?
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Prices are NOT going up is you want to look at facts instead of FOX-hype.
  
  "Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 1.1 percent before seasonal adjustment."
  
  That's from the Consumer Price Index Summary - Oct 15, 2010. All the talk about hyperinflation is just hype. The real risk is deflation. I recommend Paul Krugman, facts and statistics over fearmongering. Though the tactic of spreading lies can get you elected.......
  reply report
  60
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Explain how long you can print money before hyperinflation starts up.
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The GDP is the barometer of inflation. Watch the gauge if you know enough to read what you are looking at - or just spout FOX nonsense if you want to frighten the ignorant.
  reply report
  60
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You did not answer the question. Partisan howling has nothing to do with the effects of printing money.
  
  How long can you print money before hyperinflation?
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good question, although with free trade and overcapacity in Asia, I don't think the threat of hyperinflation is the same as it has been in the past.
  
  Wouldn't bringing tax rates on the wealthy in line to what they were under Clinton (and lower than they were under Reagan) do quite a bit to prevent the need to "print money", especially since the wealthy have done quite a bit better than the average American over the past decade?
  reply report
  60
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure what taxing wealthy people has to do with printing money, but the fed is going to buy government debt. This means the fed is going to bid UP the price of federal bonds. Lower yields. It means that the "fake" money is entering via federal spending, and perhaps possibly increasing the attractiveness of other debt to the market.
  
  If it is doing it because nobody's willing to buy federal debt, the results are going to rapidly head south, as far as the currency is concerned.
  
  If there's a strong market for federal debt, the act itself makes no sense.
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My point is that what is the source of revenue? You're right--you can not continue to pay things with debt alone and expect it to turn out all right. It's akin to paying for everything with your credit card, but then not paying down your credit card balance because you'd rather keep your money.
  
  Taxes will have to come up for someone.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We're about to find out!
  reply report
  60
  dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Doug;
  The Consumer Price Index is the baramoter of Inflation. NOT the GDP
  
  from the Chicago Trib: March of 2007; Gross domestic Product measures all domestic product produced in the US, the incomming value of it, not the the inflated prices it sold at, at a department store; but what was actually paid to factories for the goods produced. They remove the middle man step out of the price.
  
  From the Trib, as an example for definition only:
  
  The Consumer Price Index, a barometer of inflation, climbed 3.3 per cent in March, versus a central bank target of three per cent for 2007. That's the highest inflation rate in more than two years. Food stuffs accounted for most of the increase.
  
  The data was originally scheduled for release at 10am Thursday, but was postponed to 3pm after the stock markets closed, fueling speculation that the regulator feared the figures might cause a significant drop in the equity market.
  
  and yes ...during the Bush years, 2007! and NOT fox news!
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I stand corrected - I mispoke GDP - which is Gross Domestic Product instead of CPI the Consumer Price Indesx. I do know the difference. My mistake - thank you.
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  we had this discussion before. you are wrong. if you have a fixed amount of something and the demand increases, so will the price. but if you are able to supply the demand as in a healthy economy . the price goes down. lets see... cell phones used to cost $500 now you can buy them for 20bucks,etc. thus the term "supply and demand"
  the printing of the money is to maintain, hold the economy untill it takes off. the economy is coming back from the dead, almost. you talk about it as though it were a board game and you could do it better, even though we have the best and the brightest up there making the decisions.innuendo and opinions are not facts and back seat driving doesn't give you a license and monday morning quarterbacking doesn't make you a football player! if a loaf of bread costs 15.00 within the next two years you might be on to something. but that day will never happen nor anything close to it. i guess this is the new right wing fantasy fear huh?
  reply report
2. 58
  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If the money is WORTHLESS all of your logic is while technically correct is also worthless.
  reply report
60
William R. Wilsonposted 13 years ago
Not sure what this has to do with Democrats anyway - Bernanke was appointed by Bush and the Fed acts independently of political parties.
reply report
1. 72
  Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And this is where the countries problems originate.
  
  Hyperinflation.
  reply report
60
kazemaru2posted 13 years ago
The state of america politics is constantly changing just look at the tea party movement. The democrats are only on top due to obama and the deficit that plague our country has been here for at least 14 years. Our credit based economy and need to outsource jobs makes our nation at fault. Inflation is just a fact of capitalism.
reply report
63
Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago
Divided We Fail--Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/opini … amp;st=cse
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't follow links, so I dunno what that's about.
  
  But the "divided we fall" concept in general is spot-on. However, you should tell that to the President. Because I just watched his News conference, and although he at first said it was a humbling experience to see Republicans gain the House, his responses to all the questions show that he isn't at all humbled in any way at all about his policies. He continues to promote his agenda as the "right thing to do" even though it's blatantly wrong, continues to try to make laws instead of leading from the will of the people. Reckon he thinks the Presidency is the Legislative Branch. He and Sotomayor might as well just come out and admit they're tyrants shoving their agenda down our throats.
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't follow links, so I dunno what that's about.
  
  No need to follow it Brenda. Krugman is a Bozo who believes that another round of stimulus is just what we need. And then of course I am sure someone is going to want to trumpet his Ivy League pedigree. I myself am not to impressed with Ivy Leaguers these days.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Reckon he thinks the Presidency is the Legislative Branch."
  
  No, you're thinking of Cheney's argument about the Vice-president. He claimed that since the VP presides over the Senate, the office is actually in the Legislative branch rather than the executive.
  reply report
2. 87
  rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I read that, it's very worth reading and digesting.
  I've seen my blue state turn red and you can bet I'll be watching closely to see if they keep their word and work together. but I also realize it takes time.
  I would love to see jobs and growth in our state.
  
  when you see these kind of titles on threads and how people constantly place blame and resort to name calling, I can only hope that congress can realize they must work together for the good of the country. if they try to repudiate the last two years, we will go backwards. those tea party winners are not there because voters like status quo republicans.
  
  I truly think people like the OP want the country to fail unless a republican rides in and attempts to 'save' the day. I think that's a really sad, dangerous commentary on a portion of the American public.
  
  I'm not a label and throwing labels around like people are 'things' is immature and divisive. I'm not naive enough to believe change happens overnight and I've never seen mud-slinging accomplish anything but ill will. I don't really care what label these politicians have, let's see if they can work together as adults.
  
  another decent article link found on a HubPage writer's own site: How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost The Midterms
  http://crane13.amplify.com/2010/11/03/h … ytimescom/
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing Paul Krugman writes is worth reading! The Times is only good for toilet training your pooch!
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist with a heck of a track record.
  reply report
  87
  rebekahELLEposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  come on Doug, you know that fell on deaf ears.. I don't think too many right wing fanatics read Krugmen's work.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Krugman is a left wing hack and an idiot! His Nobel prize is meaningless...remember Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing other than winning an election. I wouldn't put much weight in Nobel prizes.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are full of strong, foolish opinions without facts or knowledge to back them up.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That would make a great fortune cookie.
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...in bed.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Don't go there...
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well you're certainly entitled to yours, typical of the left, If someone doesn't think like you they obviously don't know, don't understand, or are stupid... whatever.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ____________________
  Which is no different than you implied
  Double Standards?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Where did I imply such a thing?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.bullsource.com/jim-rogers-pa … -an-idiot/
  
  Now here is someone that shares my opinion of Krugman, the left wing schill of the Obama administration! I'm pretty sure Rogers knows what he's talking about.
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This from the lady who blames the Democrats for the actions of Bernanke. LOL!
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The president appoints the board does he not?
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you think Obama appointed Bernanke?
  
  Your credibility diminishes with almost every post you make.
  
  Let's see if we can knock it down a bit more: who signed TARP (the bailout) into law?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Tarp was a Bush bill. Obama could have replaced Bernake, and still can.
  reply report
  60
  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Krugman has a track record of being a broken record for Democrats, and being utterly wrong about EVERYTHING.
  reply report
  76
  Moonchild60posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thats BS if I ever heard it, he may not agree with you, but the man is brilliant. You people think you are smarter than a Nobel Prize winning economist? Dream on.
  reply report
3. 76
  Moonchild60posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent Article by Paul Krugman - Not just an opinionated ass but a Nobel Prize winning genius. Finally, someone with a brain!!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
I have felt that all along too, rE. They obstructed and obstructed and obstructed and smeared and smeared and smeared just so they could win, come in and implement all the Dems plans in the first place!

Gingrich sent a memo telling them this when Obama first got elected.

They cynically used the American people to get back in power. They didn't CARE about us, not until they could secure their place.

Ooooh, and we gave it to them in flying colors.

Well, I didn't. And he needs to stop saying "the American people" this and "the American" people that.
He DOES NOT speak for me! And I am an American people!

He speaks to his American people..of whom I want no part.
I know that is divisive, but that is honestly how I feel.
reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
Just refusing to see the truth.
reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
"everything has gone way up."

This started in 2003...groceries first, then heat/electricity/phone/tv/gas.....it all landslided, although it began slow enough. Little nickle and diming everywhere.

It's the COST of living that is the problem. And wages that do not keep up with it. And fee's, fines,charges....business free-for-all!
reply report
1. 61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And TAXES!
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody's. Nobody's taxes went up. Most went down. I'm pretty sure you're included in the group whose taxes went down.
  
  The big Bush-era tax cuts on the very wealthy will be expiring soon. Are you talking about that?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well that's not exactly true... dozens of new taxes were implemented, tobacco, and medical devices to name a couple both of which will affect the poor and then there was financial reform which added taxes on bank transactions, though technically the bank pays those but we all know they are passed along to us, perhaps you noticed you bank has raised it's fees, and there are plenty more but you only care about income taxes right? Well those will be higher too starting in January unless congress (and the republicians)do something about it.
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So break it down for us - HOW much is the average non-smoker who didn't buy a pacemaker this year paying in increased taxes? I have free checking and no credit cards - my checking is still free. So where are the new taxes that you are talking about?
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Contrary to popular belief everyone isn't YOU.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A tax on tobacco is a voluntary tax. You don't need tobacco to live, therefore, you choose to pay it. You could choose not to buy tobacco, and exempt yourself from the tobacco tax. I do.
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes and so is an income tax because you choose to work when you don't have to! Get real!
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ___________________
  A person has to work to survive. He does not have to smoke, so your comparison is ridiculous'
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously you were never addicted to cigarettes.
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you're too stupid to give up cigarettes you deserve to pay the extra tax. Either you look at it as a luxury and pay the extra price, or you quit doing it. Very simple.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's pretty hard to push "certainty" in the middle of the biggest recession our country has seen since the 1930s AND we are fighting a foe that is not identified with a specific country and certainly doesn't respect "rules of engagement" (understatement of the decade, eh?).
  
  Obama is a pragmatist. He doesn't overpromise. He approaches problems systematically and cautiously (in the case of the stimulus, TOO cautiously).
  
  But hey, if it will make you feel less uncertain, lady_love, we can always whip out some rah-rah Bushisms to make us all feel more patriotic. How about this little gem:
  
  "STAY THE COURSE"
  
  reply report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Puhlease! Certainity in business is simple, put policies in place that won't increase the tax, regulatory and cost burdens on business. Every single recession has been defeated in thsi way. Keynesian economics simply doesn't work and has never worked! Recognizing those facts is a good start.
  report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Have you asked yourself why the Dems have written NO BUDGET this year? They didn't want the numbers out before the elections.
  
  If liberal fiscal policy was such the Cool Kid way to run a polity, why are California and New York both on the brink of bankruptcy? Paul Krugman is living proof that while figures don't lie, liars do figure.
  
  The American economy didn't start tanking until Nancy Pelosi and Hairy Reid took over the top slots in 2006. Democrats suddenly chaired all the committees, and held the purse-strings for allllll kinds of spending.
  
  Presidents do not write laws or budgets, they preside. These past two years, Republicans have had nowhere near the numbers to "block" any legislation, or "obstruct" anything Obama/Reid/Pelosi wanted to get done. All the deals the Demo-Triumvirate had to make to get their agenda passed were with fellow Democrats.
  
  When you have 60 democrats, and you need 60 votes to pass a bill, every democrat there becomes the "60th" vote, and Dems are NOT known for their political loving kindness, nor generous natures. (Despite what their slobbering sycophants in the media would have us all believe.)
  report
  71
  livewithrichardposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then what is this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
  
  The President proposes the budget with help from the OMB.
  
  Ever hear of the filibuster? There have been 74 of them in the 111th Congress alone.
  report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cloture ends the Filibuster. 60 votes are all that is required for Cloture. Until the death of Ted Kennedy the Democrats had a Filibuster proof Senate.
  report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It has become practice for the President to offer A budget. The House can also offer a budget since it is, under that antiquated turd - the Constitution, the legislative body responsible for all money legislation.
  report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We're getting off topic... the fact is Obama raised taxes hundres of taxes that affect everyboy including the poor!
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you list these "hundreds" of taxes?
  
  And yes, we're getting off topic. The fact is, the Dems had nothing to do with the Fed's QE2. The fact is, efforts by Obama to deal with this recession have been blocked by the Republitards in Congress, thus extending the jobless recovery. The fact is, this recession started before Obama ever took office. The fact is, Bush is the one who bailed out the banks. The fact is, the "government takeover" of the Auto industry has been a success and profitable. The fact is, Obama cut taxes for most people.
  
  Etc.
  report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Look them up yourself.
  QE2 is happening under Obama.
  What Obstruction? Obama passed all of his stimulus bills.
  Bush passed TARP and what happened? The republicians got their butts kicked! You would think someone with a Harvard education would get the message!
  The takeover of the autos was a bailout for the unions! That money was used to support democrat candidates in this election. I can't thnk of anything more unethical or criminal then the use of taxpayer money for political purposes. I would hardly characterise it as a success. We supported fatories in Mexico, saved jobs there still haven't been paid back and propped up a company that just may well go bankrupt anyway! Shoul;d the government have stepped in to support covered wagons after the invention of the car?
  The fac is Obama raised all kinds of taxes and many more will be coming as they are timed to kick in after elections.
  report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  You keep referring to these hundreds of taxes but you can't name any other than the cigarette tax? Come on.
  report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Here's some reporting from a writer for that leftist rag Forbes:
  
  http://coloradoindependent.com/50655/fo … nder-obama
  
  Taxes Lower by Every Measure Under Obama
  report
  61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, yes he lowered INCOME taxes but raised countless other taxes and fees, and yes more taxes are coming! Wait until we hear from his fiscal responsibility commission on Dec 1.
  report
  84
  I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The tobacco tax has done wonders in the state of New York. More people have quit smoking in New York than in any other state since they introduced the highest tobacco tax in the country. Now, some might say that reduces the revenue from the tax, and it does, but you also have to consider the savings the state will see in the future from decreased health care costs. Overall, the state makes a lot of revenue from tobacco taxes while at the same time pushing smokers to be healthier. Also, those who would be exposed to second hand smoke are made healthier (in addition, New York was the first state to ban smoking indoors in establishments where people were employed, including bars).
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you're right, the government sends armed thugs around to force you to buy cigarettes if you refuse. In fact, they're at my door now, to haul me over to the tobacconist's shop. Gotta go!
  
  reply report
69
Ipeoneyposted 13 years ago
I agree with Debora sexton. Obama came to office during the economys fall. It might be the accumulations of past mistakes in the country and around the world. Don't expect the President to solve all these mess right away. I think nobody can solve the mess right away. It will be a long process. So you really can't blame one person for the economy.
reply report
1. 0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Funny. I didn't hear anyone like yourself saying that when Bush took office. Nor was he given any credit for keeping the economy rolling along and unemployment under 5%, even in the wake of 911, Katrina, and all the rest.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. Weren't we told that everything wrong in the world was because George W. Bush was an idiot and that Hopie Changie was the cure all?
  reply report
  51
  Locke.Demosthenesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well well. Brainiac returns. Ladies and gentle-people, Lockey here is Steve8Miller, once more resurrected under yet another new name, because he keeps getting caught in his own webs of deceit. Welcome back, Brainiac.
  
  Nevertheless, his statements demand a response:
  
  Between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006, Republicans held majorities, and the Bush Tax Cuts were in full effect. During that time, total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent.
  
  Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion.
  
  The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points.
  
  Roughly two-thirds of the increase of 1.5 percentage points in corporate income taxes relative to GDP can be attributed to increases in corporate profits. Also, higher realizations of capital gains (including any effects associated with legislated reductions in tax rates) added 0.3 percentage points to the ratio of individual income tax revenues to GDP.
  
  Revenues from both corporate and individual income taxes had continued to grow faster than GDP. Which means BUSH did more for government coffers, by LOWERING taxes, than Clinton or Obambi could ever hope to.
  
  The limp-wristed little RINOs (those very same Republicans In Name Only who fear the Tea Party's Sweep) who had become fat and complacent under the guise of "moderate-ness" allowed Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd to grow Fanny and Freddy into CAT 5 disasters. They blew money like Democrats.
  
  Then, in late 2006, the party of B.Rocks Nobama came into power. Hairy and Nan held the purse strings and committee chairs. They showed those little piker RINOs how to REALLY blow a wad. 2006 is when unemployment started to rise, gas spiked, and the excrement hit the oscillator.
  
  The terrible economy B.Husein inherited? HIS SIDE CREATED IT!!
  
  Since when does 4% unemployment and RECORD tax takes equal wreaking the economy?
  reply report
61
Kidgasposted 13 years ago
So, OP. What are you doing about QE2? I have a keen eye on silver and gold right now to protect my purchasing power. Doesn't matter whose fault it is. What matters is can I buy bread in a decade.
reply report
74
Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years ago
I think the printing of more dollars and the buy back of US long term debt by the fed are both moves to cause inflation -- on purpose.

The risk of DEflation is very real and that would be disastrous. No one would buy anything because it would be worth less tomorrow.

China's Yuan is undervalued by abt 40% and this alone will prevent a substantial US economic recovery. China has refused to make more than token moves to bring it's currency in line with it's trading partners. One way to push the Yuan value higher is to devalue the dollar which makes the Yuan worth more in comparison.

The danger of increasing inflation "just a little bit" is that it could easily explode into double digits quite quickly. China would be most affected since it's stimulus loan would be paid back with very cheap dollars.

It's less a party issue than an issue of economics. Let's hope they do it right.
reply report
1. 69
  bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deflation is actually better for mainstreet than inflation. Otherwise gas and food become too expensive. Deflation is not a problem for the standard of living in Japan. Inflation is a tax and the only people and government it helps are people in debt up to their eyeballs.
  reply report
  74
  Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Japanese are very concerned about their deflation and are battling it with purchases of long term debt, like the Fed. Their exported car prices are going to be raised to reflect the stronger Yen.
  
  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 … rs-up.html
  reply report
  69
  bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deflation is not disastrous. The cost of living has been too high too long, pumped up by easy money for 30 years. Takes awhile to deflate. You want a sale don't you?
  reply report
60
William R. Wilsonposted 13 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/qe … 35568.html

An article about QE2. Interestingly, one of the benefits is predicted to be that corporations can borrow more cash - something that Obama tried to acheive with his small business lending bill that Republitards blocked.
reply report
1. 61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No one knows what will happen... so far all the easing tried has failed to do anything. I think the real problem is uncertainity, whcih has been promoted by this administration. The republician congress is about to change all that, if Obama co-operates.
  reply report
  63
  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't agree that "all the easing" has done nothing, however, I do recall my money, currency and banking professor likening the effect of FED interest rate easing to "pushing a string" and pointing out that monetary policy is more effective at curbing inflation than it is at pulling the economy out of a recession. Fiscal policy (deficit spending on infrastructure, extended unemployment benefits and other government projects) is more effective in combating a recession than FED monetary policy. That's why Krugman has been saying Obama's stimulus package was too small and the source of his fears of what lies ahead for the economy.
  reply report
  66
  Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The printing of money in order to buy up our debt is really a hail mary. Prices will go up and there is no assurance that our economy will grow to more than 1% (never mind the 4% that the Obama people used for their projections ) because of this. In the meantime the ticking time bomb of debt repayment continues to tick faster.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I think the real problem is uncertainity, whcih has been promoted by this administration."
  
  What!? Uncertainty? Promoted by Obama? What have you been smoking? I mean, besides the cigarettes. If anybody has been promoting uncertainty it's the Right: the GOP in vowing to undo practically everything that's been done to create the current recovery, and the Radical Right pundits and Teapotters with all their astoundingly ignorant misinformative claptrap about death panels, forced abortions, secret eugenics programs, the president being a secret Muslim, and wanting to deliberately destroy the United States.
  
  My goodness.
  
  Are you being deliberately disingenuous, or do you really believe the nonsense you posted?
  reply report
2. 0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  HOW did the VERY minority Republican party "block" that legislation, again? Nice words and all, but they lack ANY relation to reality. Blocking require numbers, and until November 3rd (Thankya Jesus!), we just haven't had the numbers to block squat.
  
  Who is the Tard, here?
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  One of the benefits of a country buying its own debt - previously called monetizing the debt, before the government press decided to distort economics - results in the devaluation of currency and eventually inflation. One need only look at Weimar Germany or Robert Mogabi's Zimbabwe. We have been practicing Mogabinomics since President' Hussein's Inauguration. Massive injections of cash must lead to inflation, there is no other course. Thanks again Hopie Changie.
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Are you for real?
If certainty in business was so simple, then we would not be in a recession, would we?
We would not have 11% plus unemployment, either, because all the business owners would be certain of their products, markets, and profitability.

Businesses would never go bankrupt.
Their earnings would just keep going up, up, up.

But I guess it's the Democrats' fault....
reply report
1. 72
  crazyhorsesghostposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You can argue Republicans did it or Democrats did it till you turn blue in the face. What I don't get is why the average American will not wake up and realize that neither of the two parties really care for you the average American any way.
  
  Today as you read this there are 14.000 plus homeless people living in downtown New Orleans and another 300.000 former people from the New Orleans area that can't come home.
  
  Tonight 13.000.000 American children will go to bed hungry.
  
  Yes 13 million. And no food stamps don't work. They are sold and traded. Sometimes to pay for illegal drugs but quite often to pay for utility bills.
  
  Those are just some of the burning issues that should be bothering the average American citizen but they can play their Republican / Democrat games and keep your minds off the important issues. The issues that should have us all marching on Washington.
  
  It burns me up that the so called Tea Party calls its self that. Those Americans who did do the original Tea Party would most likely call for a revolution against our present form of government. Can you imagine what people like Washington , Jefferson , and yes even Bobby and Jack Kennedy would think if they could see what has happened to our country.
  
  But no the average American won't wake up. They will just keep playing their Republican / Democrat games and keep being led around like a lamb to the slaughter.
  
  Wake up Lambs before its to late.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yep. You're putting the Crazy back in Crazyhorse.
  
  The Tea Party IS the "March On Washington" you've been hoping for. Liberal policies increase poverty, homelessness, divorce, and a huge number of other social ills that bring a country down.
  
  Raw Capitalism and the form of government we call a Democratic Republic, are responsible for increased prosperity, improved standards of living, and far better health, globally, than any other in known history. THAT is the "form of government" you're calling for a revolution against.
  
  All those homeless people you're concerned about are living in a Liberal Bastion. Isn't that proof enough for you that the Left is all empty words and broken promises?
  
  The Tea Party IS the Average American, sick to death with idiots disguised as Elitists, screwing our country into the ground.
  reply report
2. 61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I WAS REFERING TO THE CERTAINITY OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH GOVERNMENT POLICY AND REGUALTION. I REALIZE LIFE AND BUSINESS IS FULL OF UNCERTAINITY.
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Well we now have every right to expect that those bills will fly through the Republican House and on to the Senate and pass through -- with the Republicans taking full credit for all of them.
It's pretty transparent, dontcha think?
reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
I haven't been hoping for any such thing. Although the Rally to Restore Sanity was a march on Washington was pretty cool.

That's quite a sweeping claim, AT.
Liberal policies increase poverty? How is that?
Liberal policies increase homelessness? The biggest contributor to homelessness is cutbacks and closures to mental health programs and facilities.
But the homeless rate has skyrocketed due to record number of foreclosures on loans that never should have been made. It was greed pure and simple -- not any LIBERAL policies that caused that.
Liberal policies increase divorce. Actually, the reverse is true. If we liberals get our way, there will be more MARRIAGES because people will be able to marry same-sex partners.
Other social ills?
Right. You did leave out the kitchen sink. Might as well throw that in, too.
reply report
1. 61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As a former loan officer I can tell you quite plainly that the foreclosures are a consequence of loose lending policies supported by the Federal Government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are also the consequence of pressures brought to bare on banks whose sole motive is the benefit of its officers, stock holders and depositors to make higher risk loans because they weren't making "enough" loans to minority borrowers. Despite the fact that many of those minority borrowers weren't credit worthy for a reasons other than race. President Hussein was one of the slew of community organizers nation wide who brow beat lenders and threatened litigation. SO ultimately, the irrational actions of liberals did indeed cause many of the foreclosures happening now. Just as liberal ideas about economics in general have caused much of the economic hardship this world has experienced in the last century. OH, YES, AND THE KITCHEN SINK!
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "As a former loan officer I can tell you quite plainly that the foreclosures are a consequence of loose lending policies..."
  
  You're forgetting the lax regulation and myopic oversight that allowed those worthless mortgages to be bundled and sold as highly-rated investment vehicles.
  
  The Evil Government (tm) did not invent the NINA loan, and you, as a former loan officer, should bloody well know that. The irrational actions of liberals don't hold a candle to the reckless actions of lenders when said lenders are absolved of any responsibility for the loans they write.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am not forgetting the abdication, by Congress, of a fundamental responsibility for any government, maintaining the stability of the money supply. There were agents of the Security and Exchange commission who warned the elaborate schemes to bundle these faulty loans together and sell them as a monetary instrument was dangerously destabilizing. However, lets not forget these faulty instruments were an effort to make bad loans profitable and indemnify the holder from economic risk by mixing them with more stable fiduciary instruments and loans.
  
  If the government had not insinuated itself into the private, free negotiations of lending in the first place those initial risky loans would not have been made. The government continues along this path and it will sink Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the next disastrous "shoe to drop," so to speak, and likely trigger another round of foreclosures.
  
  So let me be plain. I agree there were stupidly risky fiduciary instruments created and sold as if they were quality, high yield investments. The failure is shared, if not in equal portions, by the instrument creator, the regulators, interfering government lending practices and perhaps the most unspoken and least blamed but no less culpable, greedy borrowers who wanted the giant house on the tiny salary.
  
  In the end the one who suffers most is the one who always suffers most - the honest, decent hard working, modest American - big income or small. How many good banks, good mortgage companies, good home owners, good lenders, good investment houses have suffered?
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "There were agents of the Security and Exchange commission who warned the elaborate schemes to bundle these faulty loans together and sell them as a monetary instrument was dangerously destabilizing."
  
  You mean, someone from The Government said "Hey, maybe we shouldn't do this," and the lenders didn't listen, and it turned out that the guys from The Government were right? You astonish me.
  
  "If the government had not insinuated itself into the private, free negotiations of lending in the first place those initial risky loans would not have been made."
  
  Oh, so it's The Government's fault after all. You had me going there for a while.
  
  Except that the Fair Housing Act didn't require anything remotely like the loans that so many banks were dispensing like so much toilet paper, and bundling into AAA rated investment vehicles that were worth about as much as toilet paper.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No it was the higher ups in SEC that didn't listen. It is the distortions in the market place caused by government involvement in the first place that triggered all of this. If it had done its job, guarantee that the negotiation for a loan was free of force or fraud and monitor the creation of monetary instruments, then yes, I believe that none of this would have happened.
  
  Do I believe greedy, stupid lenders, mortgage companies, loan officers, appraisers and - let's not forget - borrowers would have met up in the creation of very bad loans - Hell Yes. But, it would have been one loan at a time not hundreds of thousands of bad loans encouraged by government interference. Government did abdicate its legitimate role in protecting against fraud when it came to the creation of credit default swaps and other questionably formulated fiduciary instruments. There is the rub, the scale of crap that can be unleashed when government isn't doing its legitimate job and doing a job for which it is ill equipped is monumental.
  reply report
2. 86
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Even among heterosexuals only, Red America has a much higher rate of divorce than Blue America.
  http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi … ral-states
  
  Social conservatives have a tough time generally living up to the standards set by their religion, so sometimes they make up new standards or they fabricate statistics altogether.
  reply report
3. 0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  (Thanks for confirming one of my points, uncorrectedvision.)
  
  ~I love it when a liberal takes the bait.~
  Mighty Mom? GREED is a Hallmark liberal attribute, along with an unbridled lust for Elitist power. This is easily proven by looking at who gives more of their personal, private income to charity. Conservatives out give liberals by an embarrassingly wide margin, across all economic levels.
  
  And speaking of Sweeping... How About them Election Returns?! But I digress.
  
  Liberal policies discourage productivity and creativity by repeatedly penalizing the Productive and the Creative. Only, you guys call it Taxing the Rich. You do it for the Hi-Minded sounding reasons of altruism and "caring for the poor," which makes Poverty an extremely necessary entity in the Leftist world-view. Rich people (and many not-so-rich people) open businesses which hire employees which create economic growth which creates more demand and thereby more jobs. The very definition of a Big Business is one that employs many many people.
  
  Without poor people to "need" your help, your stated reasons for amassing power are hollow. So, it is always in the best interests of liberal politicians to "create or save" as many impoverished people as possible. Plus, it's nice to feel needed, isn't it? Entire bureaucratic liberal fiefdoms have been built, and budgetary fortunes amassed, under the auspices of "this -newly discovered and badly in NEED of protection- social group MUST receive government money." And that government money will need administering, and those administers will need assistants and sub-assistants and additional staffing and transportation and unionization and increased budgets and on-and-on ad-nausium.
  
  JFK himself knew that lower taxes meant higher tax revenues for the government, and economic growth for the private sector. The Bush Tax Cuts put far more money in the government's coffers than population growth or GDP could account for. Several record breaking tax-takes, in fact. I've Hubbed that with all the pertinent data, should you care to have your eyes opened. Point being, higher taxes are not about making the rich pay their fair share, at all. The rich already carry far more than their share of the tax burden. Higher taxes are about Control, pure and simple. Sadly, "control" is a central theme in liberal policy.
  
  Liberals seek to control what you can say and to whom. What you can or cannot eat (SF just banned HAPPY MEALS!). What you can drive, what you can earn, what frickin LIGHT BULB you can use... The list of Leftist control issues, and the empty/unproven reasons they give for Forcing Their Religion Down Your Throat, would make for a ruddy great tome, let alone a book or a Hub.
  
  Liberalism encourages divorce by saying husbands and fathers are irrelevant, and probably only there to abuse the wife and kids anyway. Entire governmental pocket economies have built on the "single motherhood" industry.
  
  As for the other social ills... Have you never noticed the Conservative Christian Right-Wing Tea Party tendency to riot, threaten murder, smash-and-grab loot, set fire to store fronts and police cars, vandalize democrat political headquarters, generally leave wreckage and trash everywhere they go, carry billiclubs and wear camos outside polling places, form street gangs, sell drugs, promote prostitution and abortion and find "prison time" a resume enhancement?
  Me neither.
  
  This is a comparison photo of the Beck Rally and the follow-on liberal rally. I can also post pictures of the capital mall in pristine shape as the conservatives were leaving, and littered with piles of trash as the SEIU thugs and company were leaving. What is that old adage about Deeds being far more important than Words? Lefties talk a good game, but their actions always prove lie to their words.
  
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Liberal policies discourage productivity and creativity by repeatedly penalizing the Productive and the Creative. "
  
  That's really, genuinely funny. The top tax rate during the 1950s and 60s was around 95%. We had pretty good times, economically speaking, in those decades... The Bush-era tax cuts (which brought those rates down to below 40%) preceded a pretty harsh recession, if you recall.
  
  Clearly, high taxes do not necessarily inhibit economic growth, and low taxes do not guarantee it.
  
  Try again, and try not to use a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive."
  
  – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform.
  
  Evidently JFK didn't see that so "clearly" as you do, Jeff.
  
  Currently, the Top 50% income earners pay 97% of all income taxes. The Top 1% income earners pay 39% of all income taxes. Back in 1980, when the top marginal income tax rate was 70%, the Top 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes. Now that the top rate is 35%, they pay more than double that.
  
  In late 2006, Harry and Nancy became the Majority Leaders for the House & Senate. Democrats held the purse-strings and committee chairs. THAT is what brought about that Recession you speak of.
  
  Any other laughably backwards points to make, Jeff?
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, your counterpoint is basically, "But...but...but JFK said it too, so I must be right?"
  
  As for your statistics, it looks like we're looking at two different things: top tax rate vs proportional tax burden.
  
  And reading your numbers, it's looking like the situation is this:
  
  The top 1% earners are paying about half in taxes today what they did in 1980, but they still have it bad because everyone else is paying even less in taxes today than what they did in 1980?
  
  But again, you haven't countered my assertion that high taxes and economic expansion are not mutually exclusive, and that low taxes and expansion do not automatically go hand in hand. You're trying to tell me that about 40% of the nation's revenue comes from the the top 1%, but it's also true that the top 1% are paying about half in taxes now than they were in 1980. (And we still had a recession.)
  
  So lower taxes across the board aren't good enough, we need to not only ensure that the top 1% of earners (who control about 35% of the nation's wealth) pay less money overall, but to ensure that everyone else pays more? And some folks accuse liberals of waging class warfare.
  
  As for the 2006 democratic takeover, nice rhetorical sleight of hand, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there was a tax cut, and we still saw a recession.
  reply report
0
Deborah Sextonposted 13 years ago
I'd be ashamed to be a Republican.
reply report
1. 61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They would be ashamed to have you.
  reply report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ______________
  I'm glad, and I could never care what a Republican thinks of me LOL
  reply report
2. 60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  hear , hear! me too. and they have no shame. they walk in lock step speaking in a language that logical people can't understand. 2 plus 2 equals 7 , they say repeatedly.
  
  in fact, all that has been done by obama is good. the only reason that the repubs have stirred up their base is because they want power back, period. they have stated that their primary goal is to remove obama. where are the jobs that they claimed would be their priority.
  
  remember once they get those votes, they don't need them anymore, and there is no benefit to be had from what they said and when discovered the masses just turn back to eating alfalfa!
  reply report
  59
  Neil Sperlingposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL - Alfalfa is very good for you! Like I said in my last post - should be below this one - "power to the people is never given (by either party), it is fought for"
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  read the next one!
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  oh i see what you mean now. i read the other. people are to easily swayed here and too lazy to even care. they are even trying to get everyones paycheck to go directly to the bank, the banks want to pay your bills, you will never need to touch another dollar again because the banks will have them "ALL" and from"everyone and thing". soon it will become mandatory that paychecks go directly to banks and bills are paid thru same. they move slowly, but deliberately.about 8 years ago they tried to force everyone to have a bank account by taking five bucks from any personal check given to you if you didn't have an account at the payers bank. Obamas bank reform eliminated that. i've seen it and know what their goals are.
  
  the masses are unable to see beyond their noses. just like this health care argument ,that shouldn't be an argument at all, don't you know there would be people screaming the banks are good.we want to give our checks to the bank becaUSE WE DO IT FOR FREEDOM as they head back to the pasture HA HA HA
  AND OH I DIDN'T KNOW that ABOUT THE ALFALFA! so that's why they are so distracted ha ha
  reply report
  59
  Neil Sperlingposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bottom line in my opinion - it does not matter who gets in - left or right - it is in the end the same agenda. The mega corps and government are the same thing ... they work together.
  
  The two parties pretend to argue with each other and YES they sway a little in opposite directions - but the majority of bills that get passed end up screwing the majority.... the working middle class!
  
  As for the paperless money system - it is on it's way into being. There will be no way of doing business underground.... and that is the control those in power (office if you wish) want to have. We all work for the state first and us second.
  
  The rising taxes are the example.... and the useless dollar being the second. As they print more - the value goes down and buying power of a buck is Nil.
  
  Things do not really go up in price - the buying power of the buck goes down.
  
  All in all - with the gov systems (globally) - the money goes to few and the benefits we all have are only because the tax the hell out of the middle class and control everything we do so they make sure they get their money.
  
  No easy solution - huge complex problem!
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  well i agree there! both parties? yes, ultimately we will get the same result. what is one to do?
  reply report
3. 0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I might have been a Democrat, except both my testes dropped, I spent time in the military, I've owned a few businesses, I've seen first-hand the results of leftist/socialist/fascist/totalitarian policies around the world, I don't think the color of a person's skin has squat to do with their ability to fend for themselves, I don't call women names like whore, bitch or slut, and my intellectual growth requires me to never accept anything on blind faith.
  
  I could only be a Democrat if I got a lobotomy and was neutered. Then maybe Debs Sexton might like me "for who I was."
  reply report
  59
  Neil Sperlingposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm with you tiger on all your points but have to add a point I do not see you addressing. Personally I am all for free enterprise and being paid for creativity and hard work. I do NOT believe in hand outs for doing nothing and I also agree the color of ones skin has nothing to do with ones ability. The government has gotten too big and powerful in every country and they no longer govern but control.
  
  The point I do not see addressed by your comments is "where is the point in wealth building and size of a company when greed and power become the motivating factor to continue to grow..... or better said at what point are they merely power tripping?"
  
  In my opinion and in my observation, way too much wealth in the hands of too few (globally) has become nothing but another power trip. Both governments as well as huge business have become power trippers and supply goods only at an expense to the masses and giving wealth to only a handful at the top who have become good at golfing, sailing and contributing nothing of value in a days work.
  
  Don't get me wrong - I know first hand the value of being able to think. So few really do... they sit their with their hands out crying like the parasites they are.... but many so called business leaders no longer contribute much in a days work.... it is their money that is working not them.... and unfortunately power trippers is what they have become.
  
  Huge business and big government are both are both in need of downsizing. They both are now a problem to the working middle class.
  
  (My definition of middle class is owning a home, saving a little for retirement and helping kids through school.... the working middle class is a lifestyle that is being threatened and milked, both by huge business and big government.)
  reply report
59
Neil Sperlingposted 13 years ago
All the talk about left and right - looking to someone in office to make things better will never work. The only economy that has any honesty is the underground where deals are made on a hand shake. Those in office and yes power are educating the population to use debit cards and credit card NOT for convenience but for control. The use of any traceable method of payment just so they can get their 50% tax. (in USA tax freedom day was in April this year we in Canada our tax freedom day was mid June ---- you are heading that way)

I'll say it again - when we look for someone in Office (either party) to make things better we point our fingers away from ourselves. It will never work.

That is why the underground economy is the only honest one. There one takes personal responsibility. Until we the people ban together and WORK together helping each other maintain a quality of life the pioneers of North America struggled so hard for, we are controlled by those in office/power.

All that sounds like a cop out and easy solution - but if you wait for government and big business to create the solution for you, you will remain their puppet. They (those in office and power) pull the strings.

Power to the people is never given - it is fought for.

My two cents .... and sense!!
reply report
1. 72
  crazyhorsesghostposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mighty Mom your right on with your posts.
  
  American Tiger no Republican and very few Democrats give a damn about the poor. I work with the poor and feeding the poor on a daily basis. As I have done for the past thirty years.
  
  The Tea Party and its politics and the politics of mainstream Republicans and Democrats are never going to truly help America. The average rich person doesn't give a good two cents about the poor and hungry. We need to stop sending one dime over seas as long as we have one hungry or poor person here in America.
  
  The one time a year when every one tries to help the poor and the homeless is fast approaching. That is Christmas. But they tend to forget there are 364 more days in a year.
  
  Unless we have a major change in US Government policies both by Republicans and Democrats America and the situations are never going to change. And it is eventually going to bring a end to America as you know it. America could possibly even break up the same way Russia did.
  
  _______________________________________________________
  
  People jump up and down wanting to repeal the Health Care Bill. I say repeal it and replace it with Health Care for every single American. Other countries do it and so could America.
  
  America needs to stop trying to be the police to the world. Hell it burns me up to think that we blow hell out of countries and then spend billions rebuilding them. Its crazy. If we would destroy and leave the country laying there then just maybe other countries would not be so quick to hide terrorists.
  
  America can not win in Afghanistan. The Russians could not win there and neither can the Americans and we are crazy to keep wasting money and American lives there. Give them 24 hours to surrender or we nuke their cities and Americas problems would be over quick. But we have to keep playing politically correct. And letting the Republicans and the Democrats keep playing their little games.
  
  Bottom line what we need in America is a new political party that would be for Americans first and to hell with any other country. We need to stop sending one dime over seas until every American has shelter and food. We need to stop imports into America that take away American jobs. Look at what the American government did to the Textile Industry in the USA. Hundreds of thousands of American Jobs lost and it was both the Republicans and Democrats that did it to us. And the average American stood by and let it go on.
  
  We need to work as an American people to throw every Democrat and every Republican out of Washington and replace them with a American First party. If we had term limits in the US House and US Senate that would end much of the career political game being played. If we banned paid lobbyists that would also help to clear up the political game. If we took the $$$$$$$$$out of politics by limiting them to one term we would have a new government. Those few changes could rock the American political world and change it for the good for ever. I don't care if its the Republican or Democrat Party. Both are crooks and out to line their own pockets.
  
  But I know that's not going to happen because the average American is going to stand by and let them keep playing their political Republican / Democrat games with your life. Wake up like I said above and stop letting your self be led around like sheep.
  
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  well he tried to get the lobbyists out and they fought it like rabid dogs. now we have the citizens united decision and the peoples voices will never be heard again. only the voice of a business entity!
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We have two political parties because, in contrast to parliamentary systems, we have coalition building BEFORE the election, not afterwards.
  
  The Democratic and Republican parties are an amalgam of many different values and interests, all cobbled together to try to hit 51% of the electorate, and all not particularly getting along with each other.
  
  With respect to your proposal about a new party: sounds great at first. You'd have your first adherent say YES, let's take care of America's needy first! Oh, and yes, can we all also agree to ban semiautomatic weapons? And you and your first adherent might agree on this. And then you get a 2nd adherent, who says I agree, but can we tack on that Obama is a Kenyan and must be impeached? You might agree to that too, until somewhere down the line it emerges that half of the adherents to the new party have a diametrically divergent view on some basic policy (abortion, tax rates on the wealthy, etc.) as the other half, and the whole thing falls apart.
  
  I'm sorry to sound so pessimistic about it. It's clear to me, at least, that our political problems stem not from the fecklessness of the politicians (that is a problem, no doubt) but that we are a country in which everyone has their own priorities and opinions about what the government is supposed to do, and coalescing into 2 fractious, tense, acrimonious parties is about as good as it's ever going to get.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's the problem with most of the 3rd parties in America: 70% Good Ideas, 30% Space Aliens.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Golly Crazyhorse! Tell us how you REALLY feel!
  
  Some of what you're saying makes sense, and when you remember that we live in a Global economy, you might begin to make even more sense. Political leaders in a number of countries have attempted the isolationist track, and learned a hard lesson for the effort.
  
  The rest of the world collectively smacked them in the back of the head, and those leaders soon lose all power.
  
  It is also unnecessary to nuke every jerk-water tin-hat who pisses us off. When your children mess up, you smack their hand, you don't crack their skull. And, back to that whole Global Economy deal: There IS NO "missile defense shield" protecting America from incoming ICBMs. Conventional warfare, and rebuilding a country after we take out their oppressive leaders, has proven to be the safest and clearest way to spread Democracy and Capitalism around the globe.
  
  We WANT allies and trading partners. Your plans would screw us nationally, far faster than even voting democrat will. Stick with the Tea Party. They are the March you've been hoping for.
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 13 years ago
Well said CHG and JB.
Waiting for the inevitable Republican knee-jerk response that the tea party IS the American First party (which we all know it is NOT).
Speaking of parties, this one's over for me for the night.
I will leave it to you other fine Democrats to remember and take responsibility here in the Forums
reply report
1. 61
  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Tea Party, taking America back by defeating socialists one at a time! Thank God there are still people in America that believe in freedom, personal responsibility, and opportunity to pursue happiness! Don't worry America we will save you!
  reply report
  60
  caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LMFAO...Tea Party, Sarah Palin will save us...hahahahahaha- they are a bigger joke than the Republican/Democrat parties! hahahahahahaha!
  reply report
2. 0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent preemptive strike there, MM. Do you go to all the seminars on how to debate in the Liberal Style? "Invent, Ignore, Inflate, Insult." You are a walking "talking point."
  
  Calling the obvious answer a "knee-jerk response" is an absolute Classic. But...You forgot to point out that only a Homophobic Misogynist Racist would join the Tea Party, so you lose a few points. I'm sure you'll make it up tomorrow, though. Liberals are great at making things up.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Do you go to all the seminars on how to debate in the Liberal Style? "Invent, Ignore, Inflate, Insult." You are a walking "talking point.""
  
  AT, why not just go ahead and say, "I know you are, but what am I?"
  
  It'd be just as easy, and a lot more honest.
  reply report
  51
  Locke.Demosthenesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Brainiac, if you were allergic to stupid, your writing style and lack of forethought would have killed you months ago. Your post here alone should be sending you to the hospital with Acute upper respiratory infection.
  
  Tell us Brainiac. Who, exactly, said "I can see Russia from my house!" The answer is a no-brainer, so it's definitely right up your alley.
  reply report
59
readytoescapeposted 13 years ago
AT

Did you really need to use that billy club of logic and reason?

They will never understand it,

That’s gonna leave a conservative bruise.
reply report
59
readytoescapeposted 13 years ago
That is a broad statement that is only minimally factual. The Majority of people that find themselves caught up in the foreclosure storm have been swept up by no fault of their own. Unemployment caused by the liberal progressive agenda and governmental interference in the marketplace is the real culprit.
reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
"I could only be a Democrat if I got a lobotomy and was neutered."

Here is a prime example of the Republican mind-set.....in and out of office.

They feel superior, and ergo, feel they are the ONLY ones entitled to rule.

We can see this now, as all Repub leaders are using thug tactics and bullying, rather than reason and intelligence.

Thanks for nothing, you who voted these horrible people in to office..... again.
reply report
1. 80
  TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That goes for both parties...the arrogancy is astounding at times...
  
  The "horribleness" comes from both parties, and if we all continue voting out the unsuitable politicians, maybe one day the rest will "get it", and start doing the job they were elected to do--serve the American public, NOT serve whoever pays them the most, or does them the most favors.
  
  Personally, I didn't vote for a single incumbent, from either party. Whether it did any good or not, at least I knew that I was doing what was best for myself, and my family, and that was to TRY to change this government in the only way I know how, at the moment.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "and if we all continue voting out the unsuitable politicians,"
  But we also keep voting in unsuitable politicians.
  
  "Personally, I didn't vote for a single incumbent, from either party."
  Okay, but did you check that the person you voted for was a good candidate? Or did you just figure, "Oh, well, this guy hasn't had a chance to mess up the country yet..." I get the anti-incumbent sentiment, but "throw the bums out" alone is not good policy.
  reply report
  80
  TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I understand that you don't "get" my way of doing things--that's fine--and you aren't the first.
  
  But I will continue doing this, along with many other folks. If more would follow this practice, then maybe eventually these politicians would get the picture, and clean their selfish acts up, and do what they were voted in to do.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So you voted for the new guy, just because he was new, and voted against the old guy, not because he personally did anything you disagree with but because he already had the job?
  
  If the new guy won, in two years, you'll fire him, regardless of whether he stunk up the joint or did what he was voted in to do, and regardless of whether the next new guy is Mother Teresa or Genghis Khan?
  
  You're not rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior.
  You're punishing behavior, full stop, and rewarding an absence of behavior.
  
  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
  reply report
2. 0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Lovemychris? I'm always very excited to see your name in a forum. It invariably sounds like you're channeling that paragon of intellectual discourse;
  Anna Nicole Smith.
  
  For all that you and I have never been on the same side of ANY issue, and I've yet to find a word you've said resemble reality in any way... I think you're adorable. Second only to Brainiac (locke.demo/steve8miller) as the model spokesperson for the Ludicrous Left.
  
  You keep on keepin' on, lovemy!
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  nice knockers!
  reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
It is not both parties, it is this Republican one.

Obama--who is THE PRESIDENT, is calling for working together. The Republicans now in the House are saying...."You do it our way, or we don't play."

And btw....Newt Gingrich sent out a memo when Obama was elected, saying: "Say no to everything, then we will come in the midterms as saviors.".....

It worked! With all the lies and smears and Beckles-Dingbat Ridiculous Hystrionics.

Then for the coup de grasse----the Repub Supreme Court allowed Money to become equal to people....

And who is all that money going to? Why, these same people who are scheming to get back in power.

Only this time it's better, because YOU asked for it!

These people do not play by any rules of the game...They Own the gameboard.

One way to tell if they are phonies only concerned with money and power: if they don't let the tax give-aways expire. Pure Phonies then.

You will know them by their fruits.
reply report
1. 80
  TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Yes it is--and always has been.
  
  Sorry, but when I listen to him, all I can think about is how arrogant he sounds, and patronizing.
  
  When are you going to understand that BOTH party's politicians do this? Surely you are old enough to have been around for awhile to see this game played from each party?
  
  I'm not Democrat--I'm not Republican. I agree with some issues from both, and disagree with some issues from them, too. So please don't paint me with either brush...
  reply report
  78
  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I am talking about the HERE and NOW..this is going on NOW.
  
  ps; I didn't mean "YOU" personally--I meant the collective YOU who voted for the Baglicans...soon to be Republican only.
  
  This was planned and they ate right form their hand...They even SAID they were going to do it.
  
  And btw...I NEVER heard a Democratic leader say ;
  "My main goal is to get rid of the President."
  
  This is beyonfd entitled...it's pure and total Tyranny...or Dictatorship-- choose one.
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  By the same token I have never heard a President speaking on spanish television and calling his opposition party and some of the American citizenry " the enemy ".
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I have never heard a President speaking on spanish television and calling his opposition party and some of the American citizenry " the enemy "."
  
  And neither have I. So what?
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So what is to say the least that is not very Presidential and calling not only the opposition party but the American people who oppose you the enemy borders on promoting class warfare. But I understand where you are coming from he's a Dem so he gets a pass.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, not "he's a dem so he gets a pass," but rather, "he didn't say what you say he said, so you're wrong about it."
  
  If he'd actually called the opposition party "The Enemy," then yeah, you'd have a point. But he didn't, and it's deliberately disingenuous to take what he did say*, and try to turn it into something that it is not.
  
  *He did say that the opposition are enemies to the Latino population. That was pretty divisive, but it was so not the same as saying that the opposition party are The Enemy, full stop. The deliberate inflation of the President's comment is even worse, since it's not only deceptive (the President didn't actually say what they say he said), but also itself divisive (since it stirs up unwarranted bad feelings against the man), and finally hypocritical, since it blames the President for fostering division in the same breath as it fosters a different kind of division.
  
  But I understand where you're coming from: He's Obama, so anything he says must be un-American and socialist.
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OK Jeff this is his exact words straight outta Reuters. The youtube video is no longer available, SURPRISE ! Cass Sunstein musta had it removed.
  
  If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder," Obama had said.
  
  Jeff enjoy your denial
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, I'm enjoying my ability to read and comprehend what I've read. He was saying that Latinos should support their friends (that is, the friends of the Latinos, that is, the Democrats) and punish their enemies (that is, the enemies of the Latinos, that is, the Republicans). He was saying that the Republicans are the Latinos' enemies, not the enemies of the USA.
  
  See, words like we, us, and our are what we call "pronouns," and they are little words that stand in for bigger words (nouns) that take a long time to say and which would make speech cumbersome if we had to say the whole noun every time we wanted to refer to the same person, place, or thing.
  
  The word a pronoun stands in for is called its "antecedent." When I use the pronoun I, its antecedent is me, that is, Jeff. But it would sound silly if Jeff said "Jeff" every time Jeff wanted to mention Jeff.
  
  There's an English exercise from fifth grade (maybe fourth) that you might find helpful. It goes like this: In the following sentence, replace all pronouns with their antecedents. (Remember that word for the vocab test next Friday.)
  
  "If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' -- if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's going to be harder," Obama had said."
  
  Heck, I even gave you a big hint, and called out all the pronouns for you in italics. Go ahead, try the exercise. Pretend you're on that game show, "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?"
  (answers below)
  
  "If Latinos sit out the election instead of, 'Latinos're going to punish Latinos' enemies and Latinos're going to reward Latinos' friends friends stand with Latinos on issues that are important to Latinos' -- if Latinos don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then Obama think election's going to be harder," Obama had said."
  
  Oh, by the way, if it sounds as though I'm talking down to you it's mostly because I'm trying to be funny. But it's also because I'm talking down to you, because you either genuinely don't understand what all those pronouns are referring to (which indicates that you're reading at or below a fifth grade level--no foolin'!) or else you're being deliberately disingenuous, and therefore both deliberately divisive and egregiously hypocritical.
  
  Or maybe you just never saw Rufus Xavier Sasparilla, Raphaella Gabriella Sasparilla, and Albert Andreas Armadillo (no relation to the Sasparillas) on Saturday morning TV when you were a kid.
  reply report
  60
  tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If he'd actually called the opposition party "The Enemy," then yeah, you'd have a point. But he didn't, and it's deliberately disingenuous to take what he did say*, and try to turn it into something that it is not
  
  So Jeff you just completely contradicted yourself because you told me he didn't make that statement and you can try to justify it with proper pronouns and adjectives and adverbs all you want. Trust me you are fooling no one with your shoddy attempt at humor.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "So Jeff you just completely contradicted yourself because you told me he didn't make that statement"
  No, I said he didn't say what you think he said. Obama didn't call the opposition party The Enemy, full stop. He called the opposition party the enemy of Latinos, which is so not the same thing. That would be bad enough by itself. It's divisive and unpresidential, and he shouldn't have said it.
  
  But somehow, that's not enough for you. You've got to take what he said and pretend he was calling the opposition party The Enemy, full stop, which, if true, would be even worse.
  
  "you can try to justify it with proper pronouns and adjectives and adverbs all you want."
  
  Or, "Don't chew go showin' off yer fancified edjumacashun at me! I don't need me none o' that con-pre-hensile stuff. If'n I b'leeve somthin', then it's trew, an' it don' matter whut the fax is."
  
  "Trust me you are fooling no one with your shoddy attempt at humor."
  And you're convincing no one with your proud display of willful ignorance.
  
  And apparently I'm rasslin' again. I gotta learn to stop that.
  
  Good night, Internets. You've been a lovely audience. Don't forget to tip your hardworking bartenders and waitresses.
  reply report
  80
  TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I give up--not conceding, mind you--just giving up even trying to make any sense of some of the statements you make...sorry.
  
  Back to the real world, where I CAN make a difference, once in awhile...
  reply report
60
John Holdenposted 13 years ago
Does it not occur to you guys claiming that the minimum wage creates poverty that if a business can not afford to pay your rather puny minimum wage and needs to depend on slave labour then it isn't actually going to be generating any sort of economy saving wealth, in fact it will be depleting it. A burden on the country even. Unless of course the owners are exploiting workers to line their own pockets.

We've had a minimum wage in the UK for some years now, at a rate much higher than that paid in the US, there is no evidence that it reduces employment or creates poverty or turns the milk or anything.
reply report
1. 61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The unemployment rate UK finds acceptable is and has been for decades much higher than what Americans are willing to tolerate. But there is so much at which Americans will chafe and Brits will blithely ignore. If you look at economic growth rates, job creation, youth unemployment, declining revenue and increasing taxes then I suppose you have a point America and the UK are much more alike now than in times past. Isn't it the UK government that just announced massive cuts in government work roles and a desire to unwind NICE? How can this be if a centrally directed economy - which a national minimum wage is - is so productive and valuable. I wouldn't recommend emulating the UK. In times past the sun never set on the British Empire, now it barely rises over number 10 Downing St.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure what you mean about the UK finding high unemployment rates acceptable, I don't think that reasonable, big business finds high unemployment acceptable, the nation doesn't!
  The present government is the same party the brought the country crashing to it's knees in the 80s and laid the foundations for the present UK situation and they are repeating all the mistakes they maid the last time.
  I don't believe that the policies of the present government have anything to do with sorting out problems but have a lot to do with trying to ensure their political future, unfortunately repeating the same tactics that saw them in the wilderness for near 20 years last time.
  reply report
59
readytoescapeposted 13 years ago
The minimum wage is in place and designed more for the advantage and enhancement of the unions and has been for many years.

I’d suggest you look into the Davis Bacon Act of 1931 and the Federal Minimum wage act of 1938. Davis Bacon requires prevailing wages be paid to union and non union workers (at differing levels btw)on public projects. The minimum wage law sets an unskilled baseline for these trade prevailing wages.
reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
"By the same token I have never heard a President speaking on spanish television and calling his opposition party and some of the American citizenry " the enemy ".

Proof please.
reply report
1. 60
  tony0724posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LMC this is for you , plenty of other reports I can access too !
  http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2 … emies.html
  reply report
2. 60
  caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I believe he said, "if you are not with us (the war) then you are against us (the enemy). Also, I would prefer a President who speaks with clarity (Obama), then one that sounds like a constant idiot (Bush)!
  
  I would prefer people start voting the issues and get out of the "party" vote. Reality is, we are all screwed if these two parties do not start working together-
  
  I am a person who wants my rights upheld. I want choice, I want to bear arms, I want food on my table, a roof over my head and clothes on my back. I want to be able to go to the doctors without having to leave a limb for payment-I want my children to have nutritional lunches at school I hope there is a school with all the closures, how do I get these things when all I hear is left-wing that and right-wing this! Ridiculous arguing going on in this forum and reality is-we all want the same things-
  
  We need to vote the issues and forget about the Parties-they are not helping anyone but themselves!
  reply report
  80
  TamCorposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Actually, this is what he said:
  
  And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder - and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2," he said.
  
  So I took it as, instead of trying to unify the country in these hard times, he's trying to spread the parties even farther apart, which is the WORST thing he could do.
  
  Other than that, I agree completely with everything else you said!
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "I believe he said, "if you are not with us (the war) then you are against us (the enemy). "
  
  You're thinking of W, who said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
  
  What Obama was saying, or rather, implying, was that liberals are the Latinos' friends (because they support the rights of Latinos), and conservatives are the Latinos' enemies (because they don't).
  
  It was pretty divisive, granted, but Obama wasn't saying that the opposition party is The Enemy, full stop (as the opposition have about Obama, saying that he's part of some communist plot to destroy the United States). He was saying that the Right are enemies of the Latino population. Divisive, yes, and therefore ill-advised. Also disingenuous, because the Dems haven't exactly been champions of Latino rights either.
  
  But calling the GOP "The Enemy?" Hardly.
  
  I'm not surprised that the blog you linked is called the "Creative Minority." Their spin on the quote was very creative indeed.
  
  Heck, just taking the quote at face value, and saying, "Boo, Mr. President, for this divisive rhetoric" would have been effective, and people like me, who generally like the President, would have had to--had to--agree that he'd said something he ought not to have said. It was divisive and unnecessary. But instead, they decided to take something that was kinda bad, inflate it to something way beyond what it was, and pretend that it was evidence that the president is trying to paint his political opponents as enemies of the USA (rather than as enemies of Latinos).
  I can only presume that they exaggerated the facts in order to try to drive a wedge between Obama and their audience (which is pretty darn divisive as well, by the way).
  reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
OK. So, I guess that means this really is war.

So why is Obama reaching out yet still to the enemy?

He should bring his true feeling to governing as they do.

Because, I happen to think he is right. This crop of neo-con Repubs are the enemy, and they are out to destroy America. Dismantle it bit by bit so their wealthy friends don't have to pay anything to live here. Just reap the rewards and nothing more.
reply report
1. 70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, they're not. They just want to make it so that there are no rules for corporations, and that the people in Pennsylvania whose well water is poisoned when a gas company sinks a drill on the neighbor's land (for example) won't be able to sue for damages.
  reply report
62
Daniel Carterposted 13 years ago
For all the blame you lay on liberals and democrats, ladylove, you certainly don't seem to ever offer anything to be a part of the solution. I'm not a liberal and not a democrat, but I'm really fed up with the entitled victims of this country who only lay blame and want every one else to clean it up.

Why don't you become a part of the solution instead of continuing to perpetuate the problem?

Just wonderin'.
reply report
74
Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years ago
lady_love158 wrote:
"...The republician congress is about to change all that, if Obama co-operates."

Politicians campaigned saying they're "going to go to Washington and change things." Actually, each lone legislator is pretty impotent -- without help they're not going to change anything.

There is not yet a Republican "congress." They hold a majority in the House but they are a minority in the Senate and obviously, they don't hold the presidency. They can't override a veto so they can't mandate any change to healthcare or anything else unless it's a negotiated deal -- that's where their real power is.

Mitch McConnell now says Republicans will fix everything after the 2012 elections; just elect his party to the presidency and the senate and watch 'em go.

Why don't both parties start negotiating and fixing things now? We can't afford two years of gridlock while each party blames the other and does nothing.
reply report
1. 82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...There is not yet a Republican "congress." They hold a majority in the House but they are a minority in the Senate and obviously, they don't hold the presidency. They can't override a veto so they can't mandate any change to healthcare or anything else unless it's a negotiated deal -- that's where their real power is.
  
  I am hoping by writing that there is not yet a Republican "congress" you are refering to the fact that they haven't been sworn in yet, the rest of your paragraph though seems to indicate that you think the only way for there to be a Republican Congress is for the Republican's to take control of the Senate and Presidency which if that is what you meant tells me you don't know much about how our system of government works. In January there will be a Republican Congress... as the Republican's will control the House of Representative. The Senate and the Presidency have nothing to do with whether or not there is a Republican "congress".
  reply report
  74
  Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Senate is referred to as the "Upper House" of Congress and the House of Representatives is referred to as the "Lower House." Together they make up "Congress."
  
  Read, learn then post.
  reply report
  82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then why do we have congressmen and senators? If the House of Representatives is not congress?
  reply report
  74
  Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Rachael - The Republicans won half of congress...the House of Reps. The Dems still will control the Senate after January. That's why I believe they should be cooperating instead of gloating or crying about the election.
  
  I was a card carrying Republican for years but I saw the party change from the party of honest middle class folk to the party of "tax breaks for millionaires and It'll just trickle down." I became an Indie which I still am today. Neither party has a claim to the high road, IMO.
  
  Sorry for the snippy remark. I guess I'm catching forum fever.
  reply report
  82
  rachellrobinsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey we all get that way I was truly confused, still am. Will read more, will try to understand, I know how it used to be, (spend too much time looking into the past) It's late I've been up since three so I might get this bass ackwards but wasn't it set up where the Senate was appointed by the Govenor to represent the people and the House was elected... or like I said I've been up since three and swimming through a mountain of work so all of this post might be completely gibberish.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I will probably never vote for a Republican, but I also am Unenrolled and get disgusted by Demicrats almost as often as I do by Republicans. I don't trust any of them, but I just cannot support the GOP. Too much religion, too conservative, too ant-gay and too much bowing to corporations. The Dems do some of that too, but it is enough less that my vote goes there.
  reply report
  74
  Hugh Williamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I wish I could get worked up enough over 1 party or the other to get on here and flame out about them, but I just can't.
  
  Hey....did you make that hat out of Pylos' birds? The truth now....
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I found it in a dresser drawer last year. Neither of us remembers buying it. I wore it to a party over my wife!s protests and a friend took this picture just before I gave in and took it off
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Guess you will just have to Tea Party all night long.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No chance. Those are the worst.
  reply report
61
Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago
America, your money is becoming worthless.

Keynes was not only wrong, but was a political tool (just like marx)

Realize that your government officials only care about being re-elected and don't care at all if your money is worth anything. Buy silver. Buy Gold. Do it now: it's the only true money.
reply report
1. 51
  Locke.Demosthenesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahahhahahaha
  
  "Socialism works"!!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahah
  
  hahahaha
  
  ... ooo... good one..
  
  ... wait , you were serious?
  
  Here, I'm going to prove to you right now that socialism can't work: If I got paid the same for whatever work I did, then A) there's no way in hell i'd be a garbage collector, B)I'd probably just sit around and play video games and collect welfare.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But which socialist ever said that the man who empties the rubbish should be paid as much as a banker?
  
  The socialism I subscribe to says the man who empties the rubbish should not have to do without to help preserve the wealth of the bankers.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  right, so what you're saying is that lazy people should be paid more than their labor is worth.
  
  You're just digging yourself deeper into nonsense.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So show me where I said that?
  
  In my life I've seen some exceptionally lazy people in very well paid jobs.
  Over here we have a politician from a working class background who has never had a job outside politics and his major employment has been as an MP. He's a multi-millionaire!
  
  If you really they pay is related to productivity then you are in no position to accuse me of talking nonsense, I could never aspire to your heights of nonsense.
  reply report
0
GladYaMetMe!posted 13 years ago
reply report
78
lovemychrisposted 13 years ago
"Karl Rove was served a subpoena Sunday, Oct. 24th, 2010, as he arrived at the CBS studios to appear on “Face the Nation.” Upon his arrival, Rove was served a subpoena to give a deposition in a lawsuit that stems from the 2004 election in Ohio. Despite the fact that two news crews taped Rove being subpoenaed, neither CBS nor CNN have reported it or aired the footage.
I sat down with the attorneys who issued the subpoena, Clifford Arnebeck and Bob Firtrakis, and asked them how their suit reached this point and what Mr. Rove’s legal obligations are, considering he has strenuously avoided ever appearing under oath."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaH-__fG … r_embedded

It's only a 3 minute vid.

Wonder why this wasn't NEWS....don't you?
reply report
1. 61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  karl rove deserves to be beaten with socks filled with soap.
  reply report
60
John Holdenposted 13 years ago
"Deal with the fact that sweatshops are GOOD things because they increase demands for labor and thus wages. I know that "supply and demand" is REALLY hard to figure out, but I'm sure your liberal head can figure out: "duhhhhhh If i dun need sumthin, then it dun get more val-you-ble to me!"

Yes, and lets have children sweeping chimneys and young girls working in mines where apart from hauling their own weight in coal they are used to sexually satisfy the miners, without pay. I believe people lose valuables down sewers let's get the kids back down there salvaging and handing over their finds to their masters.
I'm sure all those kids would appreciate those jobs and understand the money they earned would be better spent by those with more than them.

How come in all the years of sweat shops they did nothing to increase wages, but now they will?
reply report
1. 61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  umm... dunno what you're talking about - those people working in sweatshops earn 3 times the national average of their countries.
  
  Sorry that you obviously did no research, but it's true.
  
  here's an informal website discussing a research article that I used to have saved but lost track of.
  
  http://finance-mentor.com/sweatshops-im … world-poor
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hm, haven't godaddy.com, the owners of the site you rely on frequently mentioned on these forums as not caring too much about the ownership of the material they post?
  
  I'm sorry you feel that being in slavery to America is acceptable because the pay is better.
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  slavery to america?!
  
  Why is it a good thing for jobs to be created in the US but not abroad? How can you POSSIBLY not see that you are a hypocrite?
  
  "We need more jobs here in the US... but if people in foreign countries get jobs, it's evil and heartless"
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Evan, the pay may be better, and some of those factories may be relative utopias compared to the usual working conditions folks in the developing world have to deal with, but it ain't some libertarian paradise by any stretch.
  
  This story from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer tells of several women who were lured to American Samoa (technically US soil!) with the promise of higher pay and better working conditions, and when they got there they faced in humane treatment, starvation, beatings, sexual assault, threats, etc.
  
  "To get to American Samoa, a U.S. archipelago about 5,000 miles southwest of Seattle, the women had to pay up to $8,000 to Vietnamese government labor offices, which sent the workers to Lee's factory.
  
  See also: A brief profile of American Samoa.
  
  The workers borrowed millions of dong -- Vietnam's currency -- from relatives, banks and loan sharks. Parents put up homes as collateral.
  
  The Vietnamese women were promised -- and dreamed of earning -- $400 per month for three years, regardless of whether work was available.
  
  For the workers, the money was to provide an escape: In Vietnam, where farmers make up about 80 percent of the population, many people earn only $200 per year.
  
  For American Samoa, it was a way to employ islanders and pump money into a fledgling economy.
  
  For U.S. companies, many of which shipped their own materials to the factory, it would be a way to manufacture labor-intensive clothing at competitive prices -- and to stateside standards.
  
  For the Vietnamese government, which controls emigration, it was a way to profit by charging workers large amounts of money to go overseas, where they could earn U.S. currency to send back home.
  
  Ideally, everyone could have won.
  
  But once inside the gated and guarded factory, workers say they were penalized, fined, starved, groped, confined, slapped, threatened with deportations and forced to endure squalid dormitories."
  
  Etc.
  
  According to the Congressional Record, around 14,000 workers from southeast Asia and Polynesia were lured by false promises and tricked into paying persons unnamed "up to $10,000 to enter the labor force in the Norther Marianas [again, a US territory]. In 1996, federal lawsuits accused 32 contractors [emphasis mine] on Saipan of beatings, forced abortions, and rat-infested quarters in essentially a prison environment surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards."
  
  (It's an abysmal sentence, I know, but that's what it says.)
  
  Now, I could be wrong, but I thought that libertarian principles included freedom from fraud and coercion.
  
  For my money, it's good if people can get jobs no matter where they might be. But it's not good if said people can't decide to up and quit those jobs at any time. And it's not good for the rest of the labor force (the non-indentured-servant part) if many of the world's workers are defrauded, coerced, or even out-and-out forced into staying their jobs when the conditions become intolerable.
  
  Now, these situations I called out were about 15 or so years ago, and I would hope that the workers' conditions on American Samoa--and throughout Asia-Pacific and the rest of the world!--have improved a lot since then. But somehow I doubt they have.
  
  A company that uses free workers can't compete economically with one that uses slaves. Can one, Evan?
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Theft is theft! Corruption, fraud and theft are all evil practices. I won't ever condone those things.
  
  But if you want to blame an entire industry for the corrupt actions of a single party, then ... well, we'll have a field day with all the idiotic things we can say: one of my employers stole from me, thus ALL EMPLOYERS EVERYWHERE ARE THIEVES!!!
  
  Evil is Evil, but one person's evil actions are not everyone's evil actions.
  
  But once more: Imagine if a company from another planet came in, and offered you $100,000/year to work in some crappy conditions. If you chose to do it, you would have chosen to do it. If you would choose to not do it, then you would have chosen to not do it.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "But if you want to blame an entire industry for the corrupt actions of a single party, then...."
  Oh, no, I'm not saying that (though I wasn't clear enough, clearly). What I am saying is that the entire industry is not run by paragons of libertarian virtue; some of them get their workers through fraud, and make them stay through force.
  
  Virtue is virtue, yes, but one person's virtuous actions are not everyone's.
  
  "Imagine if a company from another planet came in, and offered you $100,000/year to work in some crappy conditions. If you chose to do it, you would have chosen to do it. "
  
  Yes, but if the same company offered me $100K/year to work (and didn't mention the crappy conditions, beatings, gropings, and forced abortions), and I took the job, and then the company forced me to stay after I found out about the crappy conditions, beatings, forced abortions, &c and wanted to quit, well, that's not a free and honest exchange of goods/services, is it?
  
  If those sweat shops are really fraud- and coercion-free, wahoo. If the workers are free to quit and go home, great. If not, then there's a problem.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff, the conditions you just described are horrendous. I cannot fathom people treating other people that way. When human life becomes so cheap and devalued that abortions can be and are forced, civilization is on the brink.
  
  I'm in complete agreement with you, all over this post. The Collectivist model, which promotes and condones the very corruption you've just described, Does Not Work. It is for people like those that I support Capital Punishment.
  
  The freedom to go and do and create what I decide to, as an individual, AND keep the fruits of my own damned labors, is the very heart and soul of Capitalism and a Democratic Republic.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But if you work for a capitalist you will be taxed by that capitalist. He will not allow you to keep all the fruits of your own labour, he will take his cut to support his life style. Personally I'd rather be taxed by the government than by Donald Trump etc.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Taxes, in and of themselves, are quite necessary. Are you now saying that Conservatives are the traditional "tax & spend" party? LIBERALS, as a rule, want more and more taxes to support bigger and bigger bureaucracies. To support their lifestyles.
  
  Donald Trump cannot pen one jot or tittle or regulation, taxation, or legislation. Donald Trump creates businesses which hire people, who work there of their own free will. Donald Trump can never force me to give him a dime, he cannot tell me what foods to eat or lightbulb to use, or that MY patrons cannot smoke in MY bar, which they entered of their own free will.
  
  Liberals seek political power so they can tell EVERYONE how better to live their lives, as if the common man would be lost without them. By insisting on equality of OUTCOME, instead of equality of OPPORTUNITY, liberals destroy everything they get their greedy little fingers into.
  
  But, we are not supposed to judge them by the results of their ill conceived stupidities. No. We are ONLY allowed to judge them by their good-est of intentions.
  
  The fact that they brought the American economy to its knees, by INSISTING that home loans be made to people who could never afford them ~then cooking the books for SEVEN YEARS while they sold those worthless loans as "Securities"~ should only be seen as liberals trying to help the poor and minorities get in on the American Dream.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well I can't speak with great authority on the right and left in the US but in the UK it was the right that disposed of social housing and encouraged the banks to make higher loans and removed mortgage controls to enable this.
  It is the right that is in the process of increasing taxes at the moment.
  When they last gained power in 1979 part of their campaign was based on their claim that they were the party of low taxes and the left would tax us off the face of the earth. When they took power tax was 36% of GDP, within four years it was 44% of GDP, some tax cut!
  
  Thanks for your agreement Trump et al will tax you without any representation and if you happen to work for any capitalists they won't force you to give them a dime, they'll take it without asking and I can't say I've seen the right in my country or yours ever promoting equality of opportunity, unless it's the opportunity to screw their fellow men out of the profits of their own labour.
  
  It's not all about you you know, there are others in your country as equally deserving as you.
  reply report
2. 0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  John, you do know that the Child labor and the abuse you're defining are all the result of atheistic collectivist policies, yes? "The individual must suborn themselves to the good of the collective, and every hand must pull its weight" was the excuse used to abuse children.
  
  Christian capitalist "Tea Party" types were instrumental in bringing that kind of destructive behavior to an end. It is and always was the LEFT which taught that no single person (save for the ruling class Elite) was of any particular value, and human life is no more importance that a flea or a tick.
  
  Or do you believe abortion (an absolute devaluation of innocent human life) is a Right-Wing Christian Capitalist sacred cow, too?
  
  I sincerely hope you're aware of this, at any rate. We both hate the same things and desire the same things, except you're fighting on the side that promotes what you hate, and robs you of those things you desire.
  
  Come away from the DarkSide, John. It's much nicer here in the Light, and we have cookies!
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The right is now claiming credit for labor laws????? Unbelievable. Beyond unbelievable.
  
  It is almost worth getting banned here, but I'll just leave it at that.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Right freed the slaves, gave women the vote, allowed interracial adoptions, ensured that blacks could vote and has generally done more for Civil Liberties than the ACLU will EVER do in its entire history.
  
  The Left gave us child labor, the KKK, Prohibition, the Palmer Raids, the end of the Gold Standard, the housing crisis, the "Lewinsky", and people like P-Unicx who will choke before they admit that Hitler was a Progressive Socialist who fought hard for all the things THEY hold sacred. (When is the last time you heard a liberal say something nice about Israel?)
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh boy.
  
  You are very confused.
  
  Hint: the Republican party was not always the party of conservatives.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Republican Party has indeed always been the conservative party in that there has been an underlining philosophy about human nature, natural law, the nature of civilization and society that under girds conservative thought. There has been a conservative political party in the United States since its founding in so far as both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were both conservative. I would recommend reading a little Edmund Burke to understand conservatism in America.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And you want to seriously assert that conservatives freed the slaves, gave women the vote and campaigned for civil rights?
  
  Yeah. And two hundred years from now another fool will tell us they were responsible for finally getting homosexual rights and universal health care.
  
  Conservatives are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history. Always.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Always!
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Funny. History seems to show otherwise. Republicans have ALWAYS been the Christian Right, and it was that very same Christian Right which freed the slaves, gave women the vote, built hospitals, and continuously give more to charity than greedy leftist millionaires can even fathom.
  
  Nov. 22, 1865: Democrat legislature of Mississippi enacts the “black codes,” institutionalizing discrimination
  
  Apr. 9, 1866: Republican Congress ushers in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on American Blacks
  
  May 10, 1866: Republicans in Congress introduce the14th Amendment, guaranteeing due process and equal protection under the law to all citizens, of every race. 100% of Democrats vote no
  
  Jun. 8, 1866: 14th Amendment gets to the Senate, 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
  
  Mar. 30, 1868: Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men” fumes as Republicans begin his impeachment trial
  
  Oct. 7, 1868: Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
  
  OR, if you want examples or RECENT liberal double-speak and sleazy conduct:
  
  Jun. 9, 1964: Republicans condemn Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) 14-hour filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was a former Ku Klux Klansman. The Act was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate, and opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr.
  
  Aug. 4, 1965: Despite Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act, 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose.
  
  Or who Conservatives are, and always have been:
  
  Aug. 20, 1996: Part of the Republicans’ “Contract With America”, a bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, becomes law.
  
  Contract With America was a liberal plank, now?
  reply report
  61
  Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You ain't no tigaa, you is a LION!
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  D-Dude? All politics aside, that was easily THE most clever one-line retort I've ever gotten. Most guys who fall back on insults (your quip is no insult), usually opt for Tigger, Kitty, Pussy, or some variation on that theme.
  
  I tip my hat and nod my head to an original thinker. Not far enough to take my eyes off you, but know I'm still chuckling.
  
  Now, which of those factually accurate and easily researched points are you calling a lie, D-Dude?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hitler was a progressive socialist!! Boy have you got problems Hitler was a dominating psychopath and a megalomaniac to boot of all the things he was, a socialist was not one of them, not by any sane commentator anyway. Maybe for those who try to demonise things by labelling them wrongly.
  
  And I think you'll find on the whole the right was against the freedom of slaves (still is)against the emancipation of women and have constantly stood in the way of civil rights. You might have forgotten Kent State, not everybody has.
  
  Oh wait, I'll give you a part of one. Some on the right realised that slaves had to be maintained even when there was no work for them and it was cheaper to give them their freedom, pay them minimum wages when they worked and sack them when the work dried up, which is why some slaves regretted the end of slavery, they were no longer housed or fed when there was no work.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb: You go and you get yourself over to the search engine of your choice, and you punch in the words "National Socialist German Worker's Party." See if you can discover their Patron Saint and one of their Founding Members. (Hint: First name... Adolph!)
  
  You know; Just on a lark. Hell, you can even leave off the "German Worker's Party" part, because that just sounds too communist, doesn't it. If you like, you can shave the "National Socialist" part down to it's most popular German nic-name; "NAZI."
  
  I wasn't born when they made that label, so you can debate them on it's application and meaning. Do you think they were trying to maybe demonize themselves??
  
  Read their political planks, get a feel for the way the viewed politics, nationalized single payer "womb-to-the-tomb" health-care, vegetarian/healthy diet, anti-tobacco, pro gun control, pro gays in the military (Hitler's top SA division was brutal, vicious, deadly, and entirely peopled with gay men, whom he praised as "Dedicated to the Third Reich"), new-age mysticism, anti-alcohol, and a host of other Liberal Progressive Statist Fascist Totalitarian concepts that the left still loves and promotes.
  
  Not that Hitler wasn't a "dominating psychopath and a megalomaniac, to boot." I just think that you should stop trying to convince everyone you're far more likely to spout drivel than you are to gather facts and speak knowingly on whatever subject is at hand, is all.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  People often push the insane, psychopath, megalomaniac label on those whose heinous crimes are too horrific to believe come from someone undamaged, intelligent and even dedicated and brave. Hitler, Stalin, Mao,were all brutal monsters. What is the difference between them except Hitler slaughtered people to achieve a Utopian vision based on ethnic purity and Stalin and Mao slaughtered people to achieve a Utopian vision based on ideological purity. All three were feted by American liberals and in the case of Mao, still admired by the ideological left in America despite his presiding over multiple ideological purges and mass starvation caused by forced collectivization and "The Great Leap Forward." It is an Utopian and collectivist vision rooted in centralized and brutal civil authority and not the vision of an evolving civilization based in moral, active, free individuals working out their personal destinies sometimes alone, sometimes in concert with other individuals, that separates the "progressive" from the conservative.
  The real difference between the American leftist and Hitler, Stalin or Mao is insufficient dedication to their vision of a perfect society. Lucky, for conservatives, American liberals, with the noted exception of people like Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dorn, are, in the main, physical cowards and afraid of fire arms and the military. It is this that may be the only reason we have avoided the Night of the Long Knifes here.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent points, U.V. It's also worth pointing out that your modern, lock-step Lilly-liverred limp-d.. Um.. Wristed! Limp-wristed liberals...
  
  Lock-Step Lilly-Liverred Limp-Wristed liberals look on the Ayers and the Dorns (and the Uni-Bombers and McVeighs) with no little awe. They are quietly praised as Champions of the Cause for having the Courage of their Convictions, which the LS LL LW L's lack in their own lives. Terrorism is Cool if it's for a leftist "cause."
  
  Oh, what a glorious day it will be when they can send maladjusted knuckle-draggers like the Tiger & UV to "reeducation camps." Or at least to Internment Camps, like the liberal hero Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt did.
  
  If I'm reading Punicx & Johnny Reb correctly, FDR was a Conservative back then, right?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose one of the major differences between the US and UK is that we still teach history as history rather than as skewed political dogma. Our right wing have not yet started to use the education system to recruit supporters to keep them in style and comfort.
  I've yet to see any definition of socialism that spouts ethnic cleansing, purity of race or other such tosh that doesn't have its feet firmly planted on the right.
  In fact it tends to be the right that chases ethnic cleansing, remind me which side shouts loudest about immigration controls, wages war on Islam, attempts to impose its political beliefs on other countries and demands slave wages for labour
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've yet to see a bear do his business in the woods. Does that mean they don't?
  
  There was long period during the 30s and 40s when Stalin accused anyone against HIS Totalitarian Collectivist Marxist Communist government to be "Right Wing". Being at war with NAZI Germany and all, he called them Righties too. Generally speaking, if Stalin said it, I'm inclined to disbelieve it.
  
  I'm forced to assume you never did as I suggested, and didn't read a damned thing on the Incredible Leftness of Being Hitler.
  
  "Those who refuse to learn the lessons of the past, are doomed to repeat them" (and are sometimes named John Holden).
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm afraid that anything called the Incredible Leftness of Being Hitler sounds about as good and plausible as The Great Poetical works of GW Bush or how to reduce transit time by travelling to work on your washing machine, but ok, you're so masterful and dominating I feel compelled to read it when I have nothing better to do.
  
  Those who refuse to learn the lessons of the past are sometimes called American Tiger. I didn't learn my history of WWII from Hollywood block busters. I learnt it from those who'd served and the relatives of those who died, I can still see nearly 70 years after the start the effects of WWII, so don't patronise me and tell me I now nothing about European history and need to take lessons off you.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As I said, liberals find slaughter for ideological purity far less objectionable than for ethnic purity even though in the race for "butcher supreme" Hitler comes in a distant 3rd behind Mao and Stalin. Let me know how that whole - we British liberals are so much better than you American conservatives works for you when British Law is superseded by Sharia Law - which should be within my lifetime,given the pace at which Great Britain is destroying itself and 2000 years of culture.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe American liberals find slaughter acceptable, how would I know
  It doesn't apply to UK liberals, maybe you are bitter because they were against the UK joining the US in Afghanistan?
  
  I don't remember every claiming that either Mao or Stalin were on the left, again, like the claims that Hitler was a socialist just another attempt to discredit their opposition.
  
  What makes you think UK law will be ever superseded by Sharia Law?
  Threats are no more than rumours spread by the far right. There are not enough Muslims in the UK to take over the government and legal system to overturn the UK legal system.
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "There are not enough Muslims in the UK to take over the government and legal system to overturn the UK legal system..." YET.
  Historically speaking however, it's a safe bet that's on their agenda.
  
  So Johnny Reb, if NAZI doesn't stand for National Socialist, and isn't an abbreviation of National Socialist German Worker's Party, and Adolph wasn't a founding member, what DOES it stand for, exactly? For that matter, what the hell are they teaching you in England?
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  So um, USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... does that mean that Republicans are Socialists?
  
  North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea - does that mean that Kim Jong Il is a democrat or a republican?
  
  China is called the People's Republic of China - does that mean that it's governed by Republicans?
  
  Your argument is childishly simple minded.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Very well put. You have gotten to the root of the Teabaggers mental deficiencies.
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have never claimed that the party wasn't called the National Socialist German Worker's Party, it was! It doesn't prove that it was socialist though.
  
  OK, basic principles of socialism
  
  Right to belong to a union. Hitler abolished them.
  Right to a living wage. Hitler cut them.
  Ownership of the means of production. Hitler increased the powers of capitalists reducing the work force powers.
  Equality. Hitler murdered just because the Jews were socialists trying to over through capitalism.
  
  He hardly shared power with anybody did he?
  He thought the aryan race superior than all others and led the world (sounds familiar!)
  Will that do you or do you need more before you believe there is more to being something than a name?
  
  They obviously teach us a little more than they do in the US. If your education taught you that Hitler was a socialist, they have taught you wrongly about Hitler and they have taught you wrongly about socialism, can you trust anything else you are taught? Can we trust anything you are taught?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Do you believe everything you are told? If Hitler had called himself Florence Nightingale and declared he was a nurse, you would have believed him and accused nurses of being a bunch of fascists and waging war.
  Given some of the drivel you spout forgive me if I pass on the offer to join you.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Man, you are totally unbelievable. Do you really believe half the rubbish you spout?
  The idea that the right defends workers rights and pay against attacks from the left can only come from an excessive consumption of hallucinogenics.
  
  I suggest you get back in touch with reality PDQ.
  reply report
  93
  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wait, wait.
  
  He said the right was "instrumental". Of course he us correct: without abuse by right leaning factory owners, we never would have needed such laws!
  
  So yes, the right was indeed the cause of labor laws.
  
  Personally I like how he blames atheists too. Maybe some uppity women who don't know their place share their part of the blame too?
  
  What a piece of work.
  reply report
  51
  Locke.Demosthenesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, perhaps he only favors abortion when it's forced on sweatshop workers in Southeast Asia?
  reply report
60
dobanposted 13 years ago
I am reading some comments about basic economics that are way off. Think of it this way. You own a business and have a product for sale. You find that customers now have a lot more money to spend in your business. I don't know about you, but I am certainly not lowering my prices at that time. If anything, I will raise them!
reply report
60
John Holdenposted 13 years ago
PC, I'm not sure whether to be amused or scared by the degree in which some are out of touch with reality and will twist and turn to fit reality to their rather odd beliefs.
People in the UK, and I suspect US too, complain that the education system has failed. I supect the truth of that depends on what the system is intended to do, if it is to keep those who consider themselves ruling material in power, then it is singularly successful. Too many will accept hat they are told without question.
reply report
60
John Holdenposted 13 years ago
But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?
reply report
1. 61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  did you READ what he wrote?
  
  He just told me that I won't go to jail if I don't pay taxes: I'll just go to jail.
  
  And you agreed with him.
  
  EPIC.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ballot box try and elect a government that will make taxes optional.
  reply report
  51
  Locke.Demosthenesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, or even democracy?
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Aren't taxes optional now. Surely if one wanted to pay higher taxes government would hardly reject the largess. That is why it always amuses me to hear billionaires, like Warren Buffet, and millionaires, like President Hussein, advocate for higher taxes. No one is stopping them from paying every penny they own to the government. It isn't their own money they want to give the government - it is yours and mine. They want to compel all of us to do what they will not do voluntarily - pay higher taxes.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How do you suggest such things as defence, education and policing are paid for when taxes are made discretionary?
  Without public support how will those essentials unattractive to private enterprise happen?
  Without a space program where would the stimulus come from for many of the spin offs?
  
  In short, how do you propose to survive?
  reply report
  0
  American Tigerposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What are the "essentials unattractive to private enterprise" made up of? There have been fortunes made hauling garbage. The private sector ALWAYS works more efficiently than the govt does.
  
  If there is a need, some enterprising Capitalist will find a way to fill it. In the hopes of becoming Rich, himself.
  reply report
  60
  William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, those mercenaries the Romans hired sure did a wonderful job defending Rome....
  reply report
  61
  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ... really? rome? that's your argument?
  
  ... oh crap, now i"m going to get banned again.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Health care for the long term sick is essential, no private health provider will supply it.
  
  All the public services in the UK that were sold off are considerably more expensive than they were in public hands and often still receive large subsidy from the public sector.
  The price of gas and electricity were doubled immediately before they were sold off even though they were profitable at the time.
  The railways were sold off so they did not receive public subsidy. During the first year they received a grant rather than a subsidy and the amount almost exactly matched the dividend paid to share holders.
  
  There are some things that should be in private hands and even let to make a profit. There are some things that shouldn't, and the idea of selling off the basic means of production to foriegn powers is absurd.
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  agreed!it's the equivalent to spending the principle!
  reply report
  60
  JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A.T.- it is certainly a wonderful idea but it just doesn't work that way. it would amount to: the people that can pay for lets say policing would have a police force and the ones that couldn't, wouldn't. gov't provides the same for all, or should. look at healthcare. the ones that could afford it had it, the rest(eventhough they worked too.)...didn't!
  
  people say charity should cover the have nots. but, if you study history you quickly see that it didn't successfully! in the 60's the rich controlled 9% of all the money. today that same group has 24% and clawing to get more. they will pay millions upon millions to have a law overturned, or a loophole added. but to pay 300,000 more for taxes which will benefit everyone including their relatives they say no.
  reply report
  60
  pueblomanposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Paper Tiger
  Still can´t find that anti Liberal Hub you wrote on me. Lost your bottle?
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  After reading the moronic term "President Hussein", I would expect the rest of your post to be equally nonsensical...
  
  You didn't disappoint.
  reply report
  61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, argument by non sequitur and contradiction that is awesome. Here let me just dismiss your argument without addressing it - wait you didn't present one. Pointless dismissal of a point proves little more than that you and I have no common ground. Better yet let me make your next argument for you "Yes we do. Your(sic) a liar repeating Republican talking points. Making no sense, blah blah blah yackety smackety blah blah blah....
  reply report
70
Jeff Berndtposted 13 years ago
No, UCV has a point...if Buffet or Gates or [pick your billionaire] wants everyone to pay higher taxes, well, they might consider setting the example.

But he wasn't saying that everyone should pay higher taxes. He was saying that he, and others like him, ought to pay higher taxes, and the rest of us (people like you and me) ought to actually pay lower taxes than we now do.

He could still up and do it on his own. Heck, if he up and did it on his own, he could write checks to his favorite federal agencies. Not a bad idea.

Warren, if you're reading this, and you really want to pay higher taxes, what's stopping you?
reply report
1. 61
  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for getting the point J-h-E-u-F-ss-F-ien. Goes to show it is good faith that makes for common ground. Any argument that isn't shared in good faith is worse than useless.
  reply report
2. 61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Buffet has given - at last count - 6.4 billion to the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. I am not sure how much the Gates have kicked in. They are urging others around the globe in the EXTREMELY wealthy category to give away at least half their fortunes to philanthropy. I applaud the efforts of these men.
  
  Some people in the EXTREMELY wealthy - (billionare) class, are not interested in giving ANY of it away. They don't want to pay their fair share of taxes either. Most of my posts sound hostile to the rich, but there are a few worthy wealthy, the Gates & Buffet among them, who deserve the praise of the commoners like me.
  
  For those without a conscience, I support fair taxes. For those who use their wealth for good, I support tax breaks. But do note that those screaming loudest for tax breaks display little social conscience.
  reply report
  70
  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Buffet has given - at last count - 6.4 billion to the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation."
  
  Yes, and that's awesome, and I likewise applaud that. But the gates Foundation isn't the Federal Government, which is where taxes go.
  
  "Some people in the EXTREMELY wealthy - (billionare) class, are not interested in giving ANY of it away. They don't want to pay their fair share of taxes either."
  
  There's plenty of folks of modest means who feel the same way; that's not limited to the wealthy. Of course, folks of modest means only have modest wealth to give away. It's a difference of scale. Someone of modest means might seem incredibly generous for giving a hundred dollars to charity; someone of vast wealth might seem stingy for not giving a thousand.
  reply report
  61
  Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jeff - you are one of the sharpest writers on the forums, so I must not be making myself clear. I know the Gates Foundation is private - as such contributions are not 'taxes'. But Gates and Buffet have put their money where their mouth is in terms of using wealth to benefit mankind.
  
  Contrast that with the ultra-rich who spend considerable sums to get tax shelters and exemptions and grants - something a common tax cheat can't afford. Getting the ultra rich to chip in their fair share is not something Gates can require, but the government can if they aren't bought off by the cheapskates first.
  reply report
  72
  crazyhorsesghostposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As I posted above the political infighting continues. Republicans and Democrats at each others throats. We need to throw both parties out of office. Look at what both parties , yes both parties have done to the American people and how could you possibly want to support either party. For the most part they are all crooks.
  
  Think about this up until the early 1980's there were approximately 150,000 textile jobs in the town of Belmont NC and the surrounding little towns around Belmont. Now there are 150 jobs left in Belmont NC and it was the Republicans and Democrats who voted for this and did it to the American people. Yes both of the parties.
  
  Have you ever been to a American Indian reservation. You would think you are in a third world country. Why! Because the Republicans and Democrats still want to control the Native American People when the last hostilities were in the 1880's.
  
  I work every day with the poor and the homeless and I see little children hug a can of green beans when we give out food boxes. We can't feed Americas children but we can spend billions and billions on a war that a politically correct America is afraid to win. I know poor disabled people who still have to make a choice between utilities or medicine. But they passed health care didn't they. Yea right.
  
  A lot of American cities public housing units have boarded up public housing units because they say there is no money to do needed repairs. But we can continue to spend billions on a politically correct war.
  
  And guess what everyone it is both parties , Republicans and Democrats who are doing this to America. But the political infighting continues and you keep getting led around like a lamb to the slaughter. Wake up America. Its later than you think!!!
  reply report
79
ReuVeraposted 13 years ago
reply report
52
femguyposted 13 years ago
It all started with Reagan, cut taxes and run up the deficet, it shrinks governmental power and allows big business to gain power and take control of our government. When the Demacrats retake control they are forced to raise taxes to try and put the government back in the black. The Republicans yell tax and spend liberals and other repeated lies tell the brainless lemmings reform another herd and leap off the cliff again. Large corporations are very good at controling thier employees and bought off congressmen. They are very good at advertising, evan more so when the government has given them all the money. People who truly believe in democracy are free thinkers and less able to unite and put up a strong defense. Our country looks very much to me like Germany of the 1930s. We once had a tea party to gain our freedom, now we have a tea party that unwittingly wants to give it away. So go ahead and wave your red white and blue flag as you give up your wealth, freedom and independance to the "Corporate States of America" because the "United States Of America" no longer exists.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

I Hope You Democrats Remember & Take Responsibility For This!

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

I Hope You Democrats Remember & Take Responsibility For This!

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies