DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:40 pm**

flip wrote:Lol, no I don't have any faith in any of them, but I do wish we would start moving in a particular direction. My point was that we have been in a stalemate for almost 4 years now. Both Bush's had help across the aisle. Obama?

And who's fault is that? I can name almost ALL of the Republicans, ALL of the new tea partiers and quite a few Dems. The Republicans are all soooo happy to work with a pres from their party, even if it goes against their core ideals, but they become totally obstreperous with a pres from the other party, even if that pres wants to use some of their core ideals to work with them.

If you want movement, why not just vote in all liberal Democrats? I'm sure with Republicans, tea partiers and ConservaDems out of the way, Obama would get things done pronto. I'm sure it wouldn't be to your liking however.

Come to think of it, it wouldn't be totally to my liking either. Crazy liberals in control are just as bad as greedy theocratic conservatives in control. That's what compromise is for.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:47 am**

Honestly, I think the key now is to look at what they have in common. Separate from there.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:00 am**

tunnelcat wrote:And who's fault is that? I can name almost ALL of the Republicans, ALL of the new tea partiers and quite a few Dems. The Republicans are all soooo happy to work with a pres from their party, even if it goes against their core ideals, but they become totally obstreperous with a pres from the other party, even if that pres wants to use some of their core ideals to work with them.

and do you not see that it is exactly the same way when things are flipped????? Washington is not about getting things done. Washington is about staying in Power.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:32 pm**

Well DUH! That's why I would prefer to get BOTH parties out of power. But I refuse to stick an extremist in there to do it.

Put it this way, the deadlock we now have in Congress is MOSTLY due to intransigent Republicans, who are desperately trying to nuke Obama at all costs. They don't care if they trash the country doing it. They must have the delusional thinking that if they get back in power that they will make things all hunky dory again. Pbfffffffffffft! Somehow I doubt that for the rest of us commoners.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:42 pm**

I don't think the Republicans are that delusional thinking that they could get back in power. All they need to do is hand out more free burgers and the local mcdees and plenty of people will vote for them. Everyone has a price; and both major parties have lots of money.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:46 pm**

does a third party even have a chance to get any traction with the primary system the way it is?

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:06 pm**

Krom wrote:I don't think the Republicans are that delusional thinking that they could get back in power. All they need to do is hand out more free burgers and the local mcdees and plenty of people will vote for them. Everyone has a price; and both major parties have lots of money.

Well, maybe you're right. With the idiots they're running against Obama in the primary, I guess they can't be very serious about winning. Even Fox News is holding their collective noses with the present distasteful selection of candidates. Brett Baier practically flayed Mitt Romney the other night during an interview, and he's the one most likely to beat Obama in 2012. It was like watching a train wreck.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpol ... ecord.html

Why so much animosity towards Obama and liberals then, if not to regain power? The Republicans won't work with him even if it's something that goes towards their core ideals. They call him a Socialist with such dripping derision that it's bound to create partisanship amongst any Dems in their right mind. They've done nothing but fight him hand over fist on just about everything. What's the purpose? Make the President look weak or incompetent? That still indicates they want him out at all costs. They're not accomplishing anything but friction and deadlock. So what now?

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:33 pm**

flip wrote:You may not agree with everything Bush Sr or Bush Jr. did, but they damn sure got it done. With the way he is treated at home and abroad, I don't think anyone really wants to deal with him.

got WHAT done? Especially W, who managed to be asleep at the switch and allow 3000 citizens to die, screw with the tax code so we started running up accelerating deficits, and got us into one completely bogus war, killing and maiming a few more thousand of our citizens. I repeat, got WHAT done?

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:41 pm**

CUDA wrote:the question remains.

Are we better off then we were 3 years ago.

that answer is a resounding NO..

well, except for the fact that the auto industry is more solvent, the financial system didn't melt down as it very well could have, we have some banking regulations in place, it will be easier for most people to obtain health insurance, we have better cooperation with a lot of key allies and have managed to eliminate most of the Al Queda leadership as well as Ghadafi, I'd hasten to agree with you. But, if you consider the above, given ZERO help across the aisle, and roadblocks to even basic administrative appointments, not too shabby. You may as well root for him to be re-elected, CUDA, because the other side has no one remotely close to being competent and it would give you 4 more years of whining about silly quibbles(see comment above about a million bucks and complaining about stepping on the lawn.....I agree). Then, you can brace yourself for the Hillary years

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:42 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:Put it this way, the deadlock we now have in Congress is MOSTLY due to intransigent Republicans,

you're Delusional. you want to blame the GOP for everything. OPEN YOUR EYES. both side will stop at nothing to make the other side look bad. Both side will do what ever they can to "NUKE" and obstruct the other, the DNC did EXACTLY the same thing when your favorite President ever was in Office, and you are a fool if you think otherwise.

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:48 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:the question remains.

Are we better off then we were 3 years ago.

that answer is a resounding NO..

well, except for the fact that the auto industry is more solvent, the financial system didn't melt down as it very well could have, we have some banking regulations in place, it will be easier for most people to obtain health insurance, we have better cooperation with a lot of key allies and have managed to eliminate most of the Al Queda leadership as well as Ghadafi, I'd hasten to agree with you. But, if you consider the above, given ZERO help across the aisle, and roadblocks to even basic administrative appointments, not too shabby. You may as well root for him to be re-elected, CUDA, because the other side has no one remotely close to being competent and it would give you 4 more years of whining about silly quibbles(see comment above about a million bucks and complaining about stepping on the lawn.....I agree). Then, you can brace yourself for the Hillary years

108.616 million people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or "Not in the labor force". This represents 45.5% of working age Americans.

If you count the "Part time employed for non-economic reasons", you get 126.8 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, working part time or "Not in the labor force". That represents 53% of working age Americans.

and the reports today say that Unemployment is down to 8.6%, but lets look deeper. 315,000 people stopped looking for work last month. the population of Pittsburgh stopped looking for work. all the issues your presented are debatable at best. but the facts are people still don't have Jobs, and without those jobs Obama doesnt stand a chance for re-election

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:48 pm**

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Put it this way, the deadlock we now have in Congress is MOSTLY due to intransigent Republicans,
you're Delusional. you want to blame the GOP for everything. OPEN YOUR EYES. both side will stop at nothing to make the other side look bad. Both side will do what ever they can to "NUKE" and obstruct the other, the DNC did EXACTLY the same thing when your favorite President ever was in Office, and you are a fool if you think otherwise.

The DNC didn't obstruct Bush enough in my opinion. They essentially got sucked in by Bush's agitprop reasons for going into 2 debt-crushing wars and passing huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

As for putting more blame the Republicans in Congress, polls show I'm not the only delusional person who thinks that way. Although I agree that more people by percentage, 55%, equally blame both parties, there is a slight skew against the Republicans.

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

Both parties get in trouble when they cater to their extreme wing. It just happens that the Republicans are in that boat now with their tea party movement.

Republicans and their political spokesmen are also worried about the rise of OWS. Worried about appearances amongst the poor, dirty, sordid masses with an upcoming election are we Mr Luntz? Oooooooooooh! Capitalism is now a dirty word!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/repu ... 07949.html

Posted: **Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:25 pm**

The fact of the matter is that Republicans are FAR, FAR better at politics than Democrats. When the GOP is in power, they do exactly what the Democrats do. They spend and then they spend some more. But somehow, when they aren't in power, they manage to convince the general population that they "learned" their lesson and they will be better if they get that power again. You may call us Democrats delusional, but at least we face reality and know what our politicians are going to do. Do you honestly believe that any of your nominees would actually set foreign aid to $0? Do you really think all of Herman Cain's bills would only be three pages long?

Obama hasn't done near enough. That's why his numbers are so low on even the Democrats side of the aisle. He's tried to work with the GOP far, far too much in my opinion. But that's the way the Democrats always are. I tip my hat to the GOP; they make come up with the most bat-★■◆● crazy ideas but they get their people in line and make it sound so incredibly appealing.

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:52 am**

CUDA wrote:If you count the "Part time employed for non-economic reasons", you get 126.8 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, working part time or "Not in the labor force". That represents 53% of working age Americans.

and the reports today say that Unemployment is down to 8.6%, but lets look deeper. 315,000 people stopped looking for work last month. the population of Pittsburgh stopped looking for work. all the issues your presented are debatable at best. but the facts are people still don't have Jobs, and without those jobs Obama doesnt stand a chance for re-election[/quote]

....but, wouldn't you agree that the underemployment situation has been developing for more than a decade? If so, what, exactly, was Obama to do about that trend? It's reflective of the short-sighted, short-term profit oriented nature of US business, and the President has little or no say in that process.
Finally, I might agree with your assessment of re-election chances were it not for the GOP field arrayed against him. Right now, the frontrunner is a guy who divorced one wife while she was dying, and thinks that child labor restrictions are a bad thing. Dickens would have enjoyed that last bit, perhaps made a Christmas story out of it.......

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:00 am**

Asking Wife For Divorce While She Was In The Hospital Dying of Cancer

This story is a vicious lie. It was first reported by a left wing magazine in the 1980s based on heresay and has survived in left-wing chat rooms on the Internet until today. It is completely false.
Recently, Newt’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, wrote a column to set the record straight about this smear. The column reveals that 1) It was her mother that requested the divorce, not Newt, and it was months before the hospital visit in question; 2) Her mother was in the hospital to remove a tumor, but it was benign, and she is still alive today; 3) Newt visited the hospital for the purpose of taking his two children to see their mother, not to discuss a divorce.

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:28 am**

callmeslick wrote:....but, wouldn't you agree that the underemployment situation has been developing for more than a decade? If so, what, exactly, was Obama to do about that trend? It's reflective of the short-sighted, short-term profit oriented nature of US business, and the President has little or no say in that process.

Some of it yes. not all of it. a fair portion of it has a direct correlation to the current economy and peoples inability to find jobs.

callmeslick wrote:Finally, I might agree with your assessment of re-election chances were it not for the GOP field arrayed against him. Right now, the frontrunner is a guy who divorced one wife while she was dying,

flip beat me to it

The Gingrich Divorce Myth
Posted on December 2, 2011

Q: Did Newt Gingrich ask his former wife to sign divorce papers on her deathbed?

A: No. Jackie Battley is still alive, and the couple had agreed months before the 1980 hospital visit to seek divorce. But she was recovering from surgery to remove a tumor, and the former House speaker admits that they “got into an argument.”

check your facts please.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gi ... orce-myth/

callmeslick wrote: and thinks that child labor restrictions are a bad thing.

you didn't read the explanation to why he said did you what he said did you. seems you just took his comments at their distorted face value.

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:39 pm**

Newt is a hypocrite, plain and simple. He can't have his cake and eat it too. He needs to get off of his high horse and quit campaigning on his "family and sanctity of marriage values" when he didn't follow those same values in his own life in the past. Suddenly becoming a Catholic doesn't count. The past is still there. That's an automatic dis-qualifier.

He did say that the present child labor laws were "truly stupid".

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/01 ... r-20111202

He's partially right. They've gotten so restrictive that kids under a certain age can no longer seek gainful employment. I think it's even gotten more restrictive since I was a kid. But people need to remember what it was like during the late 19th century, or the Gilded Age, for child laborers as the U.S. shifted from an agrarian to an industrial society. The horrible conditions and long hours children were forced to work in were abysmal. They were essentially low wage slaves with no childhood and a high sickness and death rate. It was so egregious that it fostered the Progressive Era of Reform.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/davis/ ... e_era.html

People don't want to see us go back there again, at least those with half an ounce of memory of U.S. history. Newt needs to be more careful and specific on what he wants changed with the present laws, so that we don't return to those bad old days of child sweatshops. And children still need to get an education first, which they can't really do while working at Newt's menial jobs, like being janitors. Of course, if Newt is a true Republican, he wants to scrap public education. So only kids from parents with money will get that education. It's a win, win for him and his corporate cronies. Little ready made workers to take advantage of. The rest of the poor kids will have to work just to survive in Newt's world, because they sure won't get paid enough to make it OUT of poverty. Besides, do you want kids competing for the already scarce jobs in THIS economy?

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:31 pm**

Lol, if you think our factories would suddenly fill up with young kids doing all of the work…hell they don’t even do chores anymore.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:43 am**

CUDA wrote:you didn't read the explanation to why he said did you what he said did you. seems you just took his comments at their distorted face value.

yes, I did. In fact, I think I've now heard 3 or 4 various 'elaborations' by Newt and his minions. Facts are, what he is doing is trying to feed subtle 'red meat' to folks like you, CUDA, who are convinced that people are poor only due to bad work ethics. Never mind that Newt went on an inner city tour in 2009 with Rev. Al Sharpton and never mentioned this sort of thinking. Also, I find it fascinating that, at least so far, few in the GOP seem ready to bring up the facts that:

1. Newt supported health insurance on the Federal level with a purchase mandate
2. Newt supported the tax code in place before Bush's cuts ruined the balanced budget Newt worked for(to his credit,BTW).

all in all, Newt is seemingly antithetical to what most Repub supporters claim to want. He is a consummate Washington wheeler-dealer, is pretty liberal on immigration, very open to compromise on both taxation and healthcare reform. He certainly has always seemed to be the brains in the group(leaving aside Huntsman, who is in the wrong party altogether). Not a hard task, mind you, competing with the likes of Perry, Cain(oops!), Santorum and Bachmann, but still clearly superior. It would be interesting, should he prevail, to see the debate between Newt and Obama. I think the assessment of his 'wiping the floor' with Obama is way premature, sort of the same way Dems assumed that Edwards would do likewise in his debate. You might, and I emphasise the word "might", get a chance to see a debate over the very moral compass of the US going forward. Are we to be a nation of compassion towards our poorest, or aim to return to sweatshops and workhouses? Do we continue to spend half our disposable income on defense, or rebuild our infrastructure? Do we need even less regulation or more sensible regulation? It is high time the US public had this debate on a serious level, not TV sound bites. Just maybe, this time?

oh, and good to see you accept the Newt spin on his noble family values during one of his two divorces. I'll pass. The guy is a lowlife adulterer, if morals count for anything. Now, personally, I'd rather take the view that personal sex lives don't count for all that much compared to executive skills, leadership and intelligence. However, it seems as if the GOP has pinned their identity to moral high ground, in which case, Newt is problematic.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:08 pm**

callmeslick wrote:Facts are, what he is doing is trying to feed subtle 'red meat' to folks like you, CUDA,

Hardly! I might have been born at night but I wasn't born last night.

who are convinced that people are poor only due to bad work ethics.

WRONG but I am convinced that there are many people that are poor that do have bad work habits.

It would be interesting, should he prevail, to see the debate between Newt and Obama. I think the assessment of his 'wiping the floor' with Obama is way premature,

I for one would be very interested in that debate

Are we to be a nation of compassion towards our poorest,

this IS a nation of compassion to the poorest, but its also a human nature to do the least possible to obtain results and that is something that this nation has also become. I suggest we become a nation of hand ups NOT hand outs

or aim to return to sweatshops and workhouses?

BS statement and you know it. try not to stoop to the DNC talking points.

Do we continue to spend half our disposable income on defense,

define "disposable" income.?

or rebuild our infrastructure? Do we need even less regulation or more sensible regulation?

I expect the federal government to do what the framers of the constitution intended it to do and nothing more,

1. Defend the shores

2. Establish a system of currency

3. Deliver the mail

4. Protect individual rights

and Key among those things is defense. and I do not see welfare stated in those original intents, of the federal Government. it is a state issue, and I expect the states to make the choices on how it's citizens should be provided for

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

the federal government is in violation of this amendment on SOOO many levels

oh, and good to see you accept the Newt spin on his noble family values during one of his two divorces. I'll pass.

oh and it's good to see you accepted the Lies put forth by the left on this issue. the FACTS say different then what you claim. Facts from Gingrich (call it spin if you like) Facts from his children that were there. facts from his NOT DEAD ex-wife who was as reported by you and the left media was "on her death bed" when he "asked" her for the divorce. So I ask you which one of us has accepted the "spin"

The guy is a lowlife adulterer, if morals count for anything. Now, personally, I'd rather take the view that personal sex lives don't count for all that much compared to executive skills, leadership and intelligence. However, it seems as if the GOP has pinned their identity to moral high ground, in which case, Newt is problematic.

I agree he is an adulterer. and Morals do matter to me., but I see it's has become an issue with you and other Democrats now that he could potentially become the next President. but where was the outrage from you about Morals when Clinton was in office?
Many on the "religious right" want to cry foul when anyone "slips up", Fair enough and I am not against that TO A POINT. but that must be tempered with the act of forgiveness, which was demonstrated to us and is required of us. while I am neither condemning or forgiving Gingrich for his actions I will look to the scriptures for my position on this issue, . can a man be an adulterer and be a Godly leader. the Answer is Yes. and you need only to look no further than King David.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:27 pm**

um cuda? I may just be one guy, but I can attest to the fact I have a solid work ethic, but i'm still poor as crap. just letting you know.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:59 pm**

I wrote:but I am convinced that there are many people that are poor that do have bad work habits.

I just wanted to re-read that to make sure that I didn't say Ferno had a bad work Habit .

NOPE I didn't point a finger at anyone when I said it. so if you took personal offense at my comment I cannot help you. sorry

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:24 pm**

Just as there are ultra wealthy people with bad work habits. Inheriting money does not mean you worked hard for it. You were lucky to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth and that's about it. Becoming wealthy in this country is more about luck than hard work...occasionally there are exceptions to the rule but it takes money to make money.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:44 am**

CUDA wrote:
I wrote:but I am convinced that there are many people that are poor that do have bad work habits.
I just wanted to re-read that to make sure that I didn't say Ferno had a bad work Habit .

NOPE I didn't point a finger at anyone when I said it. so if you took personal offense at my comment I cannot help you. sorry

na, it's not that. just trying to tell you there are people like me out there who do push as hard as possible and still can't manage to get ahead.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:30 pm**

I understand that. it was not an indictment of anyone in particular. my situation is not much different.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:13 pm**

CUDA wrote:I understand that. it was not an indictment of anyone in particular. my situation is not much different.

Most of those lovely new jobs created last month were in the service and retail sectors and not very high paying. Most of those are probably temp too. What would you suggest for solutions? Kinda curious.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:38 am**

Zuruck wrote:

Obama hasn't done near enough. That's why his numbers are so low on even the Democrats side of the aisle. He's tried to work with the GOP far, far too much in my opinion. But that's the way the Democrats always are. I tip my hat to the GOP; they make come up with the most bat-★■◆● crazy ideas but they get their people in line and make it sound so incredibly appealing.

You are right about not doing enough. Perhaps if Obama stopped taking so many vacations, get off the golf course and really try to do something useful might be a step in the right direction.

As to bat-★■◆● crazy, you mean something like a hanging chad determining who should be president?

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:55 am**

callmeslick wrote:
got WHAT done? Especially W, who managed to be asleep at the switch and allow 3000 citizens to die,

Speak about bat-★■◆● ideas. For pretending to be well informed, you are now coming across as just another dumb ass democratic operative who thinks everyone is a stupid as they are. I suggest you read up on Jamie Gorelick, The Wall, what the wall prevented, under whose administration it was implemented and lastly....why was it implemented. Here's a little help to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelick

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:00 am**

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Put it this way, the deadlock we now have in Congress is MOSTLY due to intransigent Republicans,
you're Delusional. you want to blame the GOP for everything. OPEN YOUR EYES. both side will stop at nothing to make the other side look bad. Both side will do what ever they can to "NUKE" and obstruct the other, the DNC did EXACTLY the same thing when your favorite President ever was in Office, and you are a fool if you think otherwise.

You failed to add one caveat CUDA. Those "intransigent republicans" were voted in by a landslide because the voters were tired of what the Dem. controlled congress was getting away with (cough Obamacare cough)

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:12 am**

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:the question remains.

Are we better off then we were 3 years ago.

that answer is a resounding NO..

well, except for the fact that the auto industry is more solvent, the financial system didn't melt down as it very well could have, we have some banking regulations in place, it will be easier for most people to obtain health insurance, we have better cooperation with a lot of key allies and have managed to eliminate most of the Al Queda leadership as well as Ghadafi, I'd hasten to agree with you. But, if you consider the above, given ZERO help across the aisle, and roadblocks to even basic administrative appointments, not too shabby. You may as well root for him to be re-elected, CUDA, because the other side has no one remotely close to being competent and it would give you 4 more years of whining about silly quibbles(see comment above about a million bucks and complaining about stepping on the lawn.....I agree). Then, you can brace yourself for the Hillary years

Lets see:
Govt. Motors overturned 300 years investment law by putting bond holders at the end of the line and giving the UAW free stock

The banking system would not have faced a crisis if Barney Frank didn't keep insisting the regulations were just fine every time Bush suggested the banking system needed a overhaul

Obama care will now make it easier for companys to stop giving health care coverage to their employee's, forcing the employee to turn to the death panel ridden govt. insurance plan cost the tax payer trillions more in debt.

Key allies like whom?

AQ leadership eliminated due to intel gathered by the Bush admin. and used to further what was gathered under Obamas watch. Gaddafi was eliminated due to Libyans uprising...nothing to do with Obama.

As to zero help, I suggest you look back during the latter Bush years where both the house and senate were Dems.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:20 am**

callmeslick wrote: The guy is a lowlife adulterer, if morals count for anything. Now, personally, I'd rather take the view that personal sex lives don't count for all that much compared to executive skills, leadership and intelligence. However, it seems as if the GOP has pinned their identity to moral high ground, in which case, Newt is problematic.

And when Obama was asked about abortion he could only reply it was above his pay grade. So I guess while adultry is the game breaker, killing of 3rd trimester human beings is applauded by those on the left and acceptable.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:24 am**

tunnelcat wrote:
CUDA wrote:I understand that. it was not an indictment of anyone in particular. my situation is not much different.
Most of those lovely new jobs created last month were in the service and retail sectors and not very high paying. Most of those are probably temp too. What would you suggest for solutions? Kinda curious.

I'd suggest looking at becoming self employed. 1000's of things you can do that given some time, you will make more than what you are doing now.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:09 pm**

woodchip wrote:I'd suggest looking at becoming self employed. 1000's of things you can do that given some time, you will make more than what you are doing now.

A pipe dream. That's not going to solve things for the majority of unemployed people. You're assuming that everyone is smart, creative, reasonably healthy and has the time and start-up money to do it. But most people don't have the skills or smarts to even come up with something that could turn into a profitable business, let alone get going at it in the first place. If everybody had a great idea or skill, everyone would be well off, but that's just not reality. Also, don't forget those who are sick or disabled and can't find work in the normal workforce sectors.

Most of our problems are not because workers are lazy and unproductive. It's mostly because big business is not hiring or investing in the American worker, which they consider too expensive to hire. Business is fat and happy in record profits right now, so why are American workers getting the short end of the stick. Three words; cheap, foreign labor. There's a NYTimes article out that's quite interesting. The title says it all: For Business, Golden Days; For Workers, the Dross. Here's the link. You may have to copy and paste. They throw a cookie once you go there and force a log-in screen the second time around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/busin ... e-now.html

Well, I say to all those corporate business morons, if you want people to have extra disposable income to buy your products, and not just for survival, you're going to have to pay a good living wage. And they need to quit lowering the quality of their products to chase a lowering pay scale. It's only creating diminishing returns for all of us.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:39 pm**

Yea it’s always business’s fault…

This is a 70% consumer driven economy, so just who do you think is in the driver’s seat…no, wait I just answered that.

It works both ways, you have to be willing to spend your money (the consumer) on good old well paid American labor. Business doesn’t really have a choice…they can pay high wages, and you can go right to Wal-Mart.

The main problem is there is no proper consumer education in this country, and both the right and the left have their reasons to lie like the devil.

The connection between cheap goods and wages has been broken in this country, just like the connection between taxes and services has been broken in Europe…how else can someone believe in “free healthcare” or you have a “right” to cheap goods.

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:39 am**

TC, I think you are defeated before you start. How much start up money does it take to to get a paint brush and a drop cloth and go out painting houses for people ? How much does it take to get a broom, a mop and some cleaning supplies and clean peoples houses? The story goes Angelo Diponio started what is now a large road building and construction company with nothing more than a wheel barrow and a shovel. I started my business with nothing more than a few carpentry tools and worked my way up to where I received and completed million dollar contracts and was a union contractor to boot. So no it is not a pipe dream. The nightmare is thinking you can't do it because it takes a lot of "start up" money when all it really takes is a little determination and a willingness to get your hands dirty.

To expand on what Spidey posted, our educational system is geared to making you a employee. To much focus on getting a pay check and not a thing on developing entrepreneurial ability. There are plenty of ways to make money in this country. If you can't find a job, go out and build up a small business while you are collecting your unemployment or welfare check. Don't just sit there and be a victim because the liberal agenda says it is OK if you are.

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:18 am**

Fail.

For one, a person has to have disposable income in the first place. If a family has wages no higher than the poverty level, around $22,350 in the U.S., they aren't going to have enough left over disposable income to buy those extra things that drive the economy. If business doesn't pay their workers at least something above the poverty level, then they just won't create a good consumer base. Families will be too busy trying to survive. Families with extra money doesn't grow on trees.

Two, not every person in the U.S. is going to succeed at starting a business, period. Grabbing a mop or paint brush and trying to start a business assumes that there are people with enough money to hire them. In this economy, it's getting fewer and farther between those opportunities. Then you have the question of liability. How many of those down and out people can even afford insurance? I certainly wouldn't hire anyone driving around without liability insurance and no references. They're screwed before they start. It's still a pipe dream.

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:47 pm**

There's another factor to consider too: do we really want (or even need) millions of people trying to start up painting/carpentry/cleaning services? I mean, these are obviously essential and valuable jobs to society, but they're far from the only thing that we need, and far from the only thing that people want to do with their lives. What about the desperate need for well-trained scientists and engineers and doctors, or the perhaps-more-desperate need for good teachers to start kids off down those paths? These fields are going to be the big players in national progress as we head through the 21st century, and they're the sorts of things that you can't just "start up" out of nowhere.

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:59 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:Fail.

For one, a person has to have disposable income in the first place. If a family has wages no higher than the poverty level, around $22,350 in the U.S., they aren't going to have enough left over disposable income to buy those extra things that drive the economy. If business doesn't pay their workers at least something above the poverty level, then they just won't create a good consumer base. Families will be too busy trying to survive. Families with extra money doesn't grow on trees.

Two, not every person in the U.S. is going to succeed at starting a business, period. Grabbing a mop or paint brush and trying to start a business assumes that there are people with enough money to hire them. In this economy, it's getting fewer and farther between those opportunities. Then you have the question of liability. How many of those down and out people can even afford insurance? I certainly wouldn't hire anyone driving around without liability insurance and no references. They're screwed before they start. It's still a pipe dream.

Fail.

I grew up a poor child of a poor preacher with no mother in what was basically a log cabin with a wood stove. I started working in the hay fields at a very young age (around 8-9) and earned enough money to buy a computer, something I really, really wanted, where you all met me on the internet with the Descent game. After that I hit the road long before I was an adult with nothing but a guitar and a backpack and looked for work, struggled for years until I (...wait havent I said this before??...) I got a job in Alaska. I moved up in said job through the years and now I'm #3 in the company. I took this money back to Montana, and now I own property, I rent several traliers, I own a ferrier business, and I'm starting pouring the foundation for my brewery in the spring and have the capital to furbish it with the equipment I need. I have never taken a business loan. I have never taken a personal loan. What I did was struggle and sacrifice for over a decade, bleeding, sweating, dealt with sleep deprivation and the treachery of those looking for an easy buck off of my sweat-slicked back. I'm fine. The American dream still works. You just have to never, ever, ever, give up. I spent my life, including my childhood, working. The only advantage I had was disadvantage. Try and tell me you can't do it.

People nowadays, espacially those my age, don't understand that that's what it takes. They want ★■◆● handed to them and wonder why they can't get ahead. My only issue now is that the people who didn't dedicate their lives to success, who want me to take care of them, are going to ruin me.

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:05 pm**

Silver wrote:and I'm starting pouring the foundation for my brewery in the spring and have the capital to furbish it with the equipment I need

you mean your going to be a job creator?!?!?!?!?!?!?

GASP

a 1%er

Posted: **Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:05 pm**

The only problem with your theory tc is…there is no way to guarantee that when you pay people good wages, they will reciprocate and pay that money back to the industries that provide those good wages.

The proof is in the past…go back to a time when we had all those good middle class jobs, and foreign cheaper goods entered the market…like Japanese cars and cameras…well guess what…it was those well paid Americans that dropped this country’s products, and began consuming the cheaper goods in mass.

This kind of thing is nothing new, just study some American history.

DescentBB

Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?

Re: Is newt going after the hispanic vote?