DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:callmeslick, for you to suggest it is the republicans that have destroyed the economy is ridiculous.

no, it isn't. The GOP has brought us tax reduction in the face of two unbudgeted wars, deregulation that allowed millions of gullible folks to get screwed over and allowed our business to go offshore with profits and pay no tax. Ever since Reagan, they have been pushing the idea that government, and specifically government regulation, is bad, and even an old-style Republican like Eisenhower knew that was a recipe for disaster. The current batch of Republiclowns will take ideology to the extreme of allowing the nation to default, or cutting the legs out from under education, healthcare and other programs for those in society at greatest risk. Like I said, the old school GOP boys knew that such policies lead to disaster. Now, we have a disaster on our hands, and you want to blame the Dems? Sorry, to my mind the only thing the Dems have to be blamed for is not actually putting Democratic Party principles into play.

But Slick, you forgot that the Dems did stick to their principles. It was the Dems pushing the Affordable Housing act that ultimately led to the economic debacle we are now in. I wonder how much principle Barney Frank had while under the covers with his boy friend from Fannie Mae was "servicing" his debt? While we fought 2 wars under Bush, we still did not see the deficit climb 5 trillion dollars.

callmeslick wrote:They've been cowed by the GOP steamroller for the past decade or so and have merely become GOP-lite.
I hold the GOP to blame for the operating principles that are going to make the America of the future a hell hole that resembles the tenement/sweatshop world of the 19th century more than any place one would call a modern civilization. And, you know, some folks will be alright with that........it's just that most of y'all that pushed for it to happen were too dumb to realize you got sold a load of crap until it's too late for yourself, or especially, your descendents.

The Hell Hole you refer to was steam rolled by the first two years of Obama's tenure. You know...where the Dems controlled everything. We don't have to worry about sweat shops because due to all the regulations and taxes the Dems put on business, all the sweat shops are overseas now. I'm wondering how many laid off workers wouldn't mind a job where they'd have to generate a little sweat while working. Wait...the illegals took over the last of the sweat jobs so not to worry.

I think you'll find the Affordable Housing Act was helped along by more than one GOP official, and the massive deregulation opened up the bundling of dubious loans that would have never been made otherwise. So we now get a recovery that benefits those who depend on investments(just read that most of us averaged a 25% per year income increase since 2009, but I knew that) and screws everyone else.

Now, to return to the subject matter, Obama's subject the other day......Why, if it is so bad for business, would the Chamber of Commerce be so desperately fighting for Congress to raise the debt ceiling immediately?

woodchip wrote:The Hell Hole you refer to was steam rolled by the first two years of Obama's tenure. You know...where the Dems controlled everything. We don't have to worry about sweat shops because due to all the regulations and taxes the Dems put on business, all the sweat shops are overseas now.

are you suggesting that movement of US jobs offshore accelerated during those two years, or that the trend hasn't been ongoing for a generation? You must be smoking some really serious stuff there.

I'm wondering how many laid off workers wouldn't mind a job where they'd have to generate a little sweat while working. Wait...the illegals took over the last of the sweat jobs so not to worry.

great vision you have for the nation. More sweat jobs. You really don't get it, do you?

callmeslick wrote:I think you'll find the Affordable Housing Act was helped along by more than one GOP official, and the massive deregulation opened up the bundling of dubious loans that would have never been made otherwise. So we now get a recovery that benefits those who depend on investments(just read that most of us averaged a 25% per year income increase since 2009, but I knew that) and screws everyone else.

Now, to return to the subject matter, Obama's subject the other day......Why, if it is so bad for business, would the Chamber of Commerce be so desperately fighting for Congress to raise the debt ceiling immediately?

Your 25% increase was the stock market coming back from the disastrous 50% decline it suffered. You are not seeing any 25% increase this year. As to the repeal of the Glass-Spiegel Act, yes the GOP had their hand in it but it was Clinton who signed it into law.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, we turn into a third world nation and the economic engine of America starts going downhill. GOP is not against raising the debt, they just want to tie in fiscal responsibility with the increased debt. Without some sort of fiscal restraint, our credit rating may still drop a notch which would still hit our economy in a bad way.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:The Hell Hole you refer to was steam rolled by the first two years of Obama's tenure. You know...where the Dems controlled everything. We don't have to worry about sweat shops because due to all the regulations and taxes the Dems put on business, all the sweat shops are overseas now.

are you suggesting that movement of US jobs offshore accelerated during those two years, or that the trend hasn't been ongoing for a generation? You must be smoking some really serious stuff there.

I'd like to remind you who signed into law NAFTA and what Ross Peroit said about a sucking sound if it was passed.

I'm wondering how many laid off workers wouldn't mind a job where they'd have to generate a little sweat while working. Wait...the illegals took over the last of the sweat jobs so not to worry.

callmeslick wrote:great vision you have for the nation. More sweat jobs. You really don't get it, do you?

I guess you never been laid off for a lengthy time, money has run out and are faced with losing your house. I suppose since you must be used to working in a air conditioned building, you have no conception of what a lot of workers go through. I've worked construction, both as a worker and a contractor, most of my life and I've yet to hear the men complain about sweating in summer and freezing in winter. Perhaps you should step out of your polyester world and try working some other job. Perhaps then you might post otherwise.

A proper economy produces jobs across the entire spectrum, including “sweatshop” jobs, for those who can’t do anything else.

But what the hell, we don’t need sweatshop jobs, we have public assistance.

I’m using “sweatshop” here to mean low skill manual labor jobs, not the classic definition.

woodchip wrote:The Republicans don't have to try to destroy Obama. Obama is destroying himself quite nicely. Notice how the economy is everyone elses fault? When Paul Ryan unveiled his austerity plan, Obama could only naysay it and not come up with one of his own? If anyone would take delight in ruining America just to hang on to his job, look no further than the guy sitting in the big leather chair in the White House......oh wait, maybe you should look for him out on the golf course. Better chance of finding him there.

I'm afraid I disagree. The Republicans are actively fighting against Obama at every turn. The minute he agrees with one of their ideas, they turn around and distance themselves from it. They're two-faced. It's been happening over and over and over. They're willing to destroy the country to get rid of him, instead of working towards the common good. They're greedy traitors. In fact, most of the Dems are just a rotten too. They're all out of touch in Washington. We're screwed.

Lothar wrote:Yes you can. They just have to be very deep cuts.

The question is whether they're a good idea, or whether raising taxes is a better idea, or whether some hybrid between the two is

Not and maintain the 3 very expensive wars going on right now (yes, that IS Obama's fault now) and a health care system that's bankrupting everyone and melting down with rising out-of-control costs (also Obama's fault for not addressing medical costs with his Obamacare). One can get only so much blood from a turnip. So what's it going to be, austerity for the people of this country or fight those 3 wars, build new schools and infrastructure and hand out foreign aid to other countries? We're broke. So who should get the paltry money our government now collects? And do you want to live in this country when austerity creates the inevitable social unrest and violence that goes along with it?

Spidey wrote:A proper economy produces jobs across the entire spectrum, including “sweatshop” jobs, for those who can’t do anything else.

But what the hell, we don’t need sweatshop jobs, we have public assistance.

I’m using “sweatshop” here to mean low skill manual labor jobs, not the classic definition.

Well Spidey, you can vote in Bachmann. She wants to get rid of that pesky bad-for-business minimum wage. Then you'll have more high skill, low pay jobs to hang in front of desperate-for-work Americans who'll gladly work for mouse nuts and belly button lint.

That doesn’t make any sense…high skill jobs don’t need a minimum wage.

its irrelevant anyways. every state has a minimum wage law. so who cares if the Fed gets rid of theirs.

woodchip wrote:Your 25% increase was the stock market coming back from the disastrous 50% decline it suffered.

sorry, guy, but my losses never hit even 4% any year. It helps to:a) have the ability to smell a bubble when it gets going(a no-brainer in this last case), and b)have the financial flexibility to act upon that fact. I was largely sitting on cash, agricultural real estate and bonds by the middle of 2008, and had been making that transition by 2007.

You are not seeing any 25% increase this year.

yes, I am. 28% year to date. You just have to position yourself properly. A bit of selling and rebuying helps, but overall, I haven't even tinkered with the portfolio all that much. For the record, the best year was 2009, which showed a jump of around 60%, due to investing the cash mentioned above, but only a complete greedhead would expect to maintain that. I am a very conservative investor, as I was raised to be.

As to the repeal of the Glass-Spiegel Act, yes the GOP had their hand in it but it was Clinton who signed it into law.

getting to my point about Democrats moving away from Democrat policy.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, we turn into a third world nation and the economic engine of America starts going downhill. GOP is not against raising the debt, they just want to tie in fiscal responsibility with the increased debt. Without some sort of fiscal restraint, our credit rating may still drop a notch which would still hit our economy in a bad way.

agreed, but fiscal responsibility entails also raising the revenues if need be, to maintain programs which damn near everyone wishes to see remain in place. It's a give and take, and of late, one party is refusing to give.
For the record, you would agree that a 'drop of a notch' in credit rating would be FAR, FAR less impactful than a default or panic over default, wouldn't you?

woodchip wrote:I guess you never been laid off for a lengthy time, money has run out and are faced with losing your house. I suppose since you must be used to working in a air conditioned building, you have no conception of what a lot of workers go through. I've worked construction, both as a worker and a contractor, most of my life and I've yet to hear the men complain about sweating in summer and freezing in winter. Perhaps you should step out of your polyester world and try working some other job. Perhaps then you might post otherwise.

let's get this point straight. I don't even have to work, I choose to do so. but can 'retire' at a moment's notice with no real change in lifestyle and only a 20% hit to overall income. My point is that you are heading for an economy that rewards people like me to the absolute exclusion of any concern over whether the rest of you all are employed WHATSOVER. Do you realize that a lot of folks in that top 10% don't give a rat's behind if you or anyone else has a job? My point about sweatshops is this: that was the scenario in this country when you had scads of underemployed, undereducated workers willing to work for any pittance. In other words, just the level of desperation some of you are suggesting is a good thing for a workforce. Do you all really wish to return to the glory years of the late 19th century as your vision for America? If so, then carry on, because low tax rates on the wealthy at the expense of social safety nets, product safety regulations, labor regulations and a gutted education system with no investment in infrastructure is a one-way ticket on the Wayback Machine.

CUDA wrote:its irrelevant anyways. every state has a minimum wage law. so who cares if the Fed gets rid of theirs.

because it's the start of a slow slide. What happens(to use your area as an example) if Oregon decides to go to a 40 cent per hour minimum? Do you think that impacts the workforce in Washington, California or other nearby states? You betcha.

that's a load of crap and you know it.
wages should be controlled by the states. they should be regional. just like the housing market and the car market. they don't base what a house should sell for in Oregon by what they sell for in NYC. they are based on what the market will bear in that region. it should be the same with the minimum wage. it's a state issue not a federal government issue.

Let me boil it down.
Slick says the Dems have no blame because he puts everything they did/do wrong under one all-encompassing heading: "Democrats moving away from Democrat policy" and by comparison his charges against the Repubs fill a very long itemized list that even includes his remarkable ability to site future events that he blames on Repubs as well.

So it is no wonder, using such silly logic and rationale that he finds himself correct in blaming everything on the Repubs!

But he's not a democrat stooge...just ask him he'll tell you!

callmeslick wrote:My point is that you are heading for an economy that rewards people like me to the absolute exclusion of any concern over whether the rest of you all are employed WHATSOVER.

I fail to see a problem with this, except for the fact the you're making it sound really negative. The "rest of us all" are employed when business owners and their businesses are doing well financially, and when people have extra money to buy non-necessities. The real question I guess, is why don't you deserve to be "rewarded" in your position, and what would more should an economy be doing for low-skill workers? We're all low-skill at some point. Nobody should ever expect to support a household with low-skilled labor anyway. If you need to then I say its poor planning and you need to tighten your belt and work your ass off to make yourself indispensable in some way--work your way up. It's a natural process over the course of a person's life, IMO.

We don't need some economy that is "concerned" that poor people have jobs. Any economy at all needs unskilled labor, its just that ours is being exported to countries with a much lower standard of living. Personally I think its amoral to export labor to countries that have lower employment and living standards than our own.

CUDA wrote:that's a load of crap and you know it.
wages should be controlled by the states. they should be regional. just like the housing market and the car market. they don't base what a house should sell for in Oregon by what they sell for in NYC. they are based on what the market will bear in that region. it should be the same with the minimum wage. it's a state issue not a federal government issue.

a reasonable minimum ought not be, to my mind, so I'll have to agree to disagree with you, CUDA. One of the favorite ways of screwing the little guy is to break things up to state-by-state. They've tried it with insurance, banking rules and as you suggest minimum wage. In every case, the ultimate loser(by which I mean the folks getting absolutely hammered) in such moves will be the little guy....the consumers who get the least favorable coverage for the price and the workers getting the lowball employment figure. Sure, some pricier regions will go higher, out of pure supply/demand necessity, but there has to be a national
minimum.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The "rest of us all" are employed when business owners and their businesses are doing well financially, and when people have extra money to buy non-necessities.

you're kidding me, right? I mean you have been paying attention for the past, say, 20 years or so, right?
Just because owners are doing well, and folks wish to buy stuff is utterly NO guarantee that you will be employed, so long as it can be done cheaper elsewhere.


To your other points, I agree to some extent, but differ in that I see the role of government in two respects:
1. Putting infrastruture, both physical and educational, in place AT ANY COST necessary to build for the future. and
2. Providing a core safety net of minimal subsistance income, housing, medical care and food support so
that we don't have folks caught in transition or folks who have started from a disadvantaged level fall through
the economic cracks and live a life of suffering in the most capital-rich nation on Earth.

Will Robinson wrote:Let me boil it down.
Slick says the Dems have no blame because he puts everything they did/do wrong under one all-encompassing heading: "Democrats moving away from Democrat policy" and by comparison his charges against the Repubs fill a very long itemized list that even includes his remarkable ability to site future events that he blames on Repubs as well.

So it is no wonder, using such silly logic and rationale that he finds himself correct in blaming everything on the Repubs!

But he's not a democrat stooge...just ask him he'll tell you!

speaking of stooges, what a great contribution......now, address what I've said in the two days since I made those comments. I think it goes a bit deeper than that, in that I was speaking of the group vision of the respective parties. But, so long as you can easily dismiss my observations or comments, all the better.....

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Your 25% increase was the stock market coming back from the disastrous 50% decline it suffered.

sorry, guy, but my losses never hit even 4% any year. It helps to:a) have the ability to smell a bubble when it gets going(a no-brainer in this last case), and b)have the financial flexibility to act upon that fact. I was largely sitting on cash, agricultural real estate and bonds by the middle of 2008, and had been making that transition by 2007..

Remember, you are the exception. Most peoples pensions are, by law, in the hands of accredited financial institutions. In the last 20 years and two financial companies, my pension has taken hits twice. I'm on my third "professional" fund handler so my fingers are crossed they can do better. Your no-brainer seems to be beyond the capabilities of the first two companies I used. Any good stock info kindlly PM me.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, we turn into a third world nation and the economic engine of America starts going downhill. GOP is not against raising the debt, they just want to tie in fiscal responsibility with the increased debt. Without some sort of fiscal restraint, our credit rating may still drop a notch which would still hit our economy in a bad way.

callmeslick wrote:agreed, but fiscal responsibility entails also raising the revenues if need be, to maintain programs which damn near everyone wishes to see remain in place. It's a give and take, and of late, one party is refusing to give.
For the record, you would agree that a 'drop of a notch' in credit rating would be FAR, FAR less impactful than a default or panic over default, wouldn't you?

The problem as we all can see is every time revenues (i.e. taxes) are raised, the newly found money is all spent and the following year the govt is once again seeking to borrow even more money. If a balanced budget amendment is tied into the debt ceiling increase, I suspect we would not even see a little drop in our credit rating. If we don't rein in spending, it will not be long before we turn into Greece. The resultant riots here would be more frightening than anything prior when the welfare money dries up, and federal workers are laid off in the millions. I've been thru the Detroit riots back in the late 60's and I can tell you, when people have their trigger stroked, it ain't a very pretty picture.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The "rest of us all" are employed when business owners and their businesses are doing well financially, and when people have extra money to buy non-necessities.

you're kidding me, right? I mean you have been paying attention for the past, say, 20 years or so, right?
Just because owners are doing well, and folks wish to buy stuff is utterly NO guarantee that you will be employed, so long as it can be done cheaper elsewhere.

Small business do not typically move elsewhere and small business is what employs 80% of the work force. Small or large business hire more workers as product demand increases. What business is going to go out and hire more people in a recessionary climate and one where they don't know what the cost of new hires is going to be ?

callmeslick wrote:To your other points, I agree to some extent, but differ in that I see the role of government in two respects:
1. Putting infrastruture, both physical and educational, in place AT ANY COST necessary to build for the future. and

The "At Any Cost" is what has got us 14 trillion into debt.

callmeslick wrote:2. Providing a core safety net of minimal subsistance income, housing, medical care and food support so
that we don't have folks caught in transition or folks who have started from a disadvantaged level fall through
the economic cracks and live a life of suffering in the most capital-rich nation on Earth.

You are forgetting cost of living. While a federally mandated minimum wage may suffice in Texas or Kentucky, it would not suffice in California or New York. So the Idea of state controlled minimum wages is a valid one. It is being reported after the 700 billion stimulus, it cost 270k per job created. A lot of folks would of been better of if the Feds just gave them the money direct instead of all the middlemen who lined their pockets along the way.

Spidey wrote:That doesn’t make any sense…high skill jobs don’t need a minimum wage.

Well, maybe. Right now, you're right, the minimum wage doesn't apply to high skill jobs, yet. What's been happening with our country's employment in the last decade or so is that as our formerly high wage middle class manufacturing jobs get moved offshore, it leaves all those laid off workers who used to get a good living wage to either go get trained for a more skilled job (which will cost them money out of their own pockets) or pick from the selection of minimum wage jobs just to survive. In Oregon, our minimum wage is $7.95 an hour. The poverty wage is listed in my county as $5.04 an hour and a living wage is listed at $8.39, per adult. Minimum wage doesn't even equal a living wage here. With a flood of people scrambling for jobs now, wage depression is setting in due to global market pressures and the shear large numbers of unemployed. Add to that the problem living expenses that are continually rising as well. So after the unions are busted and wages/benefits are brought down to match the global pay scale, sure, some manufacturers are moving back to the states, but those wages are now in many instances below a living wage, if not at minimum wage levels. None of this factors in health care costs rising at levels far above inflation.

Market pressure is also affecting skilled salaries too. With manufacturing moved offshore, most companies prefer to have their R and D skilled people close to the manufacturing facilities, so now those high paid skilled jobs, like engineers, are being hired for far less than they would be paid in the States. Those cheaper salaries in other countries will have a direct effect on the wages and salaries that skilled people are getting here as a result. Maybe not minimum wage, but who knows what the future holds. Add to that the cost of getting a college education just to get to get a chance at a highly skilled job and you can see the downward pay spiral this country is headed towards. People are being paid less due to global market pressures, while the cost of living keeps going up here. I don't see how lowering any minimum wages, federal or state would help the economy in the U.S. at all.

woodchip wrote:Remember, you are the exception. Most peoples pensions are, by law, in the hands of accredited financial institutions. In the last 20 years and two financial companies, my pension has taken hits twice. I'm on my third "professional" fund handler so my fingers are crossed they can do better.

no, I am not the exception, when one looks at one's peers. And that, precisely, is the idea I'm trying to get across. Sure, when your investing with some pension type fund, managed by some 32 year old MBA, you get what you get. Folks in a certain economic class fare better, every time, under our system for a few basic reasons:
1. We have liquid capital, or loose cash to hit markets at lows. We maintain that pool by selling at prudent highs, and maintain liquidity, something a pension or 401K can never do.
2. We've been raised in a culture chock full of peers with generations of financial acumen. We're raised with the stuff. So, when you look around and there are suddenly WAY too many McMansions bought by
middle class shmoos, and financial types are trying to sell you a lot of mortgage based paper, something ought to smell, and rightly so.
3. We usually have widely diversified portfolios. Mine, for instance is really geared toward capital preservation with a very modest rate of return. It's just that the last 3 years have been unreal-good, which is what happens for older money, conservative, liquid investors after every crash or even minor downturn.
We are the only ones positioned to buy near the bottom.

The resultant riots here would be more frightening than anything prior when the welfare money dries up, and federal workers are laid off in the millions. I've been thru the Detroit riots back in the late 60's and I can tell you, when people have their trigger stroked, it ain't a very pretty picture.

and this is the only reason I come onto boards like this and expound on this crap. My fear is that these policies being proposed, which mainly cut the legs out from under the poor and middle class, will get us to such a place ultimately. It won't likely be the financial effect upon my child and grandchildren but the social costs of living, barricaded from the masses, on some protected estate. That isn't the America we've worked generations for, or I wish to ever think about, but it COULD happen. The wealthy in this country have it extremely well......I've averaged about 14% tax on my gross income for, like forever. Even under Clinton's rates, the giveaways for ag subsidies and other loopholes kept it down. Frankly, I think the Clinton tax rates ought to be the minimum starting point if we aren't going to change the code altogether. Sure politicians can spend money, but the vast bulk of our current budget is for very real benefits for the poor and middle class. Do I care if I get my social security? Really? Are you kidding? Will my family NEED universal healthcare coverage? Not really. Will I ever apply for unemployment compensation? No. But for millions, such things and other social programs are necessary for survival, albeit at a hair thin margin.
Take those core programs, throw in Defense and debt payments, and you have 85% or so of the whole budget. Feel free to mess around with the rest, although, to my mind, much of the rest has long-term benefits for society. Still, we have to start pulling in revenue to pay for what everyone likes and many need.
Avoiding that is either smoke and mirrors or simply intentional cruelty on society's weakest.

callmeslick wrote:...
and this is the only reason I come onto boards like this and expound on this crap. My fear is that these policies being proposed, which mainly cut the legs out from under the poor and middle class, will get us to such a place ultimately. ...

Too bad you try to save us using partisan democrat bullfeces instead of the whole truth because anyone who is inspired by your rhetoric joins you in ultimately being part of the problem instead of a change for the better!

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
and this is the only reason I come onto boards like this and expound on this crap. My fear is that these policies being proposed, which mainly cut the legs out from under the poor and middle class, will get us to such a place ultimately. ...

Too bad you try to save us using partisan democrat bullfeces instead of the whole truth because anyone who is inspired by your rhetoric joins you in ultimately being part of the problem instead of a change for the better!

how so? What I am proposing has more in common with Eisenhower Republicanism than anything which has emerged from the Democratic Caucus, especially the liberal wing of same. What part of the whole truth would you like to enlighten me about, and please, explain how (specifically) your version helps alter the trend of 30 years of middle class erosion into poverty.

Sad part is that if they had taken that huge amount of bailout money, and dispersed it to every taxpayer, everyone would have magically been out of debt, keeping their houses and their jobs in all likelihood. Instead look at where that money went. Most of that money went to banks that then went around buying up and monopolizing banks in general, and then to companies in turn continue closing down factories, etc... here while at the same time funneling money into our biggest competitors economy. That bailout was just another nail in the coffin. Nothing has changed here. Fuckin assholes.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...
and this is the only reason I come onto boards like this and expound on this crap. My fear is that these policies being proposed, which mainly cut the legs out from under the poor and middle class, will get us to such a place ultimately. ...

Too bad you try to save us using partisan democrat bullfeces instead of the whole truth because anyone who is inspired by your rhetoric joins you in ultimately being part of the problem instead of a change for the better!

how so? What I am proposing has more in common with Eisenhower Republicanism than anything which has emerged from the Democratic Caucus, especially the liberal wing of same. What part of the whole truth would you like to enlighten me about, and please, explain how (specifically) your version helps alter the trend of 30 years of middle class erosion into poverty.

Simple, my version of any solution or identification of a problem, is based on the recognition that both democrats and republicans are guilty as hell of causing and perpetuating most of the problems we face. You, on the other hand want us to believe it is only the Repubs at fault.
So in my view that puts you in a severely compromised position.

It's like if the problem is drive by shootings in the hood and you want me to believe only the Crips are at fault and the Bloods are just fine.

callmeslick wrote:how so? What I am proposing has more in common with Eisenhower Republicanism than anything which has emerged from the Democratic Caucus, especially the liberal wing of same. What part of the whole truth would you like to enlighten me about, and please, explain how (specifically) your version helps alter the trend of 30 years of middle class erosion into poverty.

Eisenhower, one of the last Conservative Republican Presidents, IMO, was far more prescient of what evils would plague us in the future and he even warned us about it in 1961! It's been a loooooong slide from those Republicans of the past. What we have now in Congress AND the White House are nothing but shills and yes men to the cancer that now controls our government, the Military Industrial Complex. This includes Wall Street as well. Money is still money, whether it's used for peace or war.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address and Warning

Eisenhower Warned Us

Think about this whenever you go to the airport to get your body irradiated or disrobed by machine and body cavity searched (the next step people), all for control and profit by manipulation and fear of the populace.

Think about this whenever any member of Congress, but especially Republicans, and the White House refuse to cut any defense spending in their quest to screw the common American in this debt crisis. We can cut education, food and drug safety, Medicare, Social Security, Science and Research Projects or even NASA, but God forbid we put deep cuts into the Pentagon's gold-plated budget. We're in debt and will stay in debt to feed the machine of war. There is no escape.

woodchip wrote:Small business do not typically move elsewhere and small business is what employs 80% of the work force

but small business doesn't generally provide very good income except for the ownership, and is notorious for not paying medical or other benefits.
.

flip wrote:Sad part is that if they had taken that huge amount of bailout money, and dispersed it to every taxpayer, everyone would have magically been out of debt, keeping their houses and their jobs in all likelihood. Instead look at where that money went. Most of that money went to banks that then went around buying up and monopolizing banks in general, and then to companies in turn continue closing down factories, etc... here while at the same time funneling money into our biggest competitors economy. That bailout was just another nail in the coffin. Nothing has changed here. **** assholes.

100 million taxpayers getting 400 Billion in stimulus......my math says each taxpayer gets $4000. How does that get everyone out of debt? Oh, I forgot, you did use the word 'magically'.

callmeslick wrote:100 million taxpayers getting 400 Billion in stimulus......my math says each taxpayer gets $4000. How does that get everyone out of debt? Oh, I forgot, you did use the word 'magically'.

apparently your Math was wrong because the Stimulus was not 400 Billion

WASHINGTON — Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Wednesday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan as Congressional Democrats sought to temper their own differences over the enormous package of tax cuts and spending.

and some reports have it already topping $1 trillion

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Small business do not typically move elsewhere and small business is what employs 80% of the work force

but small business doesn't generally provide very good income except for the ownership, and is notorious for not paying medical or other benefits.
.

And your plan is to put them on welfare?

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:Sad part is that if they had taken that huge amount of bailout money, and dispersed it to every taxpayer, everyone would have magically been out of debt, keeping their houses and their jobs in all likelihood. Instead look at where that money went. Most of that money went to banks that then went around buying up and monopolizing banks in general, and then to companies in turn continue closing down factories, etc... here while at the same time funneling money into our biggest competitors economy. That bailout was just another nail in the coffin. Nothing has changed here. **** assholes.

100 million taxpayers getting 400 Billion in stimulus......my math says each taxpayer gets $4000. How does that get everyone out of debt? Oh, I forgot, you did use the word 'magically'.

Ummm...no. Perhaps every taxpayer was a poor choice of words. What I should of wrote was "every taxpayer that lost their job". There...now do the math.

Point being, the bailout could have covered INDIVIDUALS in default at the same time. Would have been much more forward looking. Would have also kept the unemployment levels down. PEOPLE lost their whole livelihood while the banks who made the loans and thepeople who sold the loans get their ass's covered. Then instead of funneling THAT money back into this country, the banks hoard the money and use it to buy up all competing banks. With such a massive bailout, they could have just as easily bailed us out too. Instead, they chose to enslave EVERY descendant of mine hereafter. And yes, monies made on interest is magical money indeed.

[ Post made via Android ]

callmeslick wrote:..


100 million taxpayers getting 400 Billion in stimulus......my math says each taxpayer gets $4000. How does that get everyone out of debt? Oh, I forgot, you did use the word 'magically'.

Your fuzzy math aside..
How did the bailout get ANYONE out of debt (other than friends of Obama/Bush and Big Bankers)? So your complaint there is weak.

And even if the alternative was to distribute only $4000 each I think doing that would have been at least more of a stimulus, which is what it was all about, not reducing debt.

A recent report I saw on the stimulus packages and new jobs showed that the money the tax payer spent divided by the new jobs created came to a cost of $250,000 per new job! You could have divided up that money five times and just handed it out and said here, $50,000 each...take this to hold you over while you find a new job, take some classes to develop some skills to find work with etc. 5 times as many people moved forward and instant stimulus to the economy!

And the dirty little secret is whatever jobs were "created" were either going to be created anyway because the market demanded those positions be filled... OR... most of those jobs are not real because they need to be financed by a stimulus program, a source of funding which was supposed to be a one time deal!
Are we going to keep funding those "created" jobs? If not then they didn't need stimulus money to become available in the first place!

Most of that stimulus money went straight into the accounts of big corporate and banker friends of the administrations and political parties, what hasn't found it's way there is a slush fund for politicians to now use to best serve their own needs! The worlds greatest continuing criminal enterprise is the Congress led by the Whitehouse. If there were a truly independent judicial branch with law enforcement capability the RICO statute would be used to put every damn one of them in a federal penitentiary....they make Enron look like a child's lemonade stand forgetting to pay Mom back for the ingredients.

Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) Floats Impeachment If Obama Invokes 14th Amendment On Debt Limit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/0 ... 91521.html

article wrote:While some have asserted that the debt limit might be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, and therefore President Obama does not need congressional approval to raise it, Republicans have been quick to express skepticism over the idea. On Tuesday, a Republican congressman went a step further, saying that if Obama were to use that argument to bypass Congress on the issue, it would be an impeachable offense.

"There are a lot of things people say, 'Are you going to impeach the president over that?' -- No. But this? This is catastrophic," continued Scott. "This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers over something this significant."

Look, another way the Republicans in Congress can waste valuable legislative time - by trying to impeach a sitting President without the support of 2/3 Senators.

You mean some thing like this Democrats scuttle proposal to impeach Bush

or Impeachment of Bill Clinton

seems to be a running theme for any sitting president of late.

Heretic wrote:You mean some thing like this Democrats scuttle proposal to impeach Bush

or Impeachment of Bill Clinton

seems to be a running theme for any sitting president of late.

Yes, the exact sort of waste of legislative time as those two things.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:100 million taxpayers getting 400 Billion in stimulus......my math says each taxpayer gets $4000. How does that get everyone out of debt? Oh, I forgot, you did use the word 'magically'.

apparently your Math was wrong because the Stimulus was not 400 Billion

only half went to actual stimulus, as an economist would describe it. Half went to tax cuts and extended benefits for the unemployed, which continued the status quo(not an injection, merely not a deflation of spending. Hardly stimulus).

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Small business do not typically move elsewhere and small business is what employs 80% of the work force

but small business doesn't generally provide very good income except for the ownership, and is notorious for not paying medical or other benefits.
.

And your plan is to put them on welfare?

No, I am merely questioning that old chestnut about the essential value of 'Small Business'. Virtually NO small businesses in this nation would survive to the point of providing squat for employment were it not for the larger corporations. Most small businesses either service larger corporations, or the higher paid employees of same, or for the relative handful of innovative start-ups, get coopted by large corporate types as soon as sizeable capital is needed. Why is it that we always hear that mantra that 'Small Business is the key to a successful US economy'? That statement is a load of crap and always has been. Small business success merely reflects a robust major industry/large corporation modern economy.