“The best social program is a job”Agreed. So when are the Republicans finally going to start focusing on bringing quality manufacturing jobs back to the US?
Wow. This looks more like a parental control issue more than a political one. Also, Bruce, injecting the word ‘facts’ into any discussion involving contemporary, right-wing GOP politics is totally inappropriate.
Better spend a little time studying history. The major causes of the loss of jobs were the Bush Tax cuts, the war in Iraq (and to a lesser extent, the war in Afghanistan), and the lack of regulation of the financial sector.
Where do people get the idea that liberals don’t approve of jobs? I speak from a position somewhat to the left of the democrats, and I would argue that good work is fundamental to one’s interaction with the world. But the work should be good, in so far as that’s possible.
If you look at private sector jobs, Bush over his entire term averaged 66,000 per month. Romney just said it ought to be 500,000 per month, and 4% unemployment. And to do that, he’s going to bring back the Bush policies (many of which are still in effect due to GOP obstruction) and make them even more extreme. Surely, this time lower tax rates on the rich will create jobs! It’s never worked before, but at least our donors get more money when we do it!
The rich have convinced the poor that they can make it, too. Just work hard, save and go to school. However, the ladder is no longer available for people to climb. It was repossessed by the banks, chopped up into kindling to keep the rich warm and screw the rest of you. Liberals work hard, because they don’t have trust funds and corporate welfare. The things the poor buy are taxed (cloths, gas, shoes). The things the rich buy are not taxed (stocks and bonds). The rich have their money work for them. It’s a clean job and takes less effort than having to show up for that McJob. And a hell of a lot more rewarding.
You took the words right off my keyboard. You have to wonder if these intolerant, narrow minded conservatives posting on these blogs and fantasizing that being liberal means being unemployed or lazy are sitting around in a self-righteous funk making it up to elevate their own low self-esteem. Democrats Warren Buffett and Bill Gates must be an embarrassment to them. .They would probably label me a liberal, although I dislike labels, and I’ve worked or studied for two degrees and supported myself from the age of seventeen. I have never not worked and of course never needed U.I. or welfare, although I have no objection to paying taxes and possibly helping those who have not been so fortunate. I am now retired and still do some contract work for the fun of it.
Ketira, I’m not in a position to answer your question but I’d like to ask you one.
Don’t you think there is a wide spectrum of answers to your question- about as wide as the response would be if it was “What would a Democrat do if their child wants to be a Republican”?
Wow. So much anger. I think you folks need to step back and look at the bigger picture.Yes. Bush made mistakes. Yes, he did some things that weren’t helpful. No, he is not the sole reason for the financial meltdown. No, mathematically speaking, the two wars did not cause the recession. If anything, wartime spending props up an economy, but nevermind that (see WW1 and WW2, etc.). Yes, Obama has made mistakes. Yes, he did some things that weren’t helpful. No, he is not the sole reason for the prolonged recession. No, mathematically speaking, Obamacare did not solely prolong the recession. See how those two are similar? You guys need to cool it with the personal attacks and name-calling. We are not going to agree. But at least let’s be honest with ourselves. Both Bush and Obama bungled the economy. Bush’s economy created fewer jobs than Obama. However, Obama’s economy lost more jobs than were gained. Under Bush, there was no such thing in the BLS reports called “Chronic Unemployment.” There is such a thing under Obama. Very few people, if any, under Bush were unable to find work by the time their unemployment benefits ran out. That’s not the case today. These are facts.@ cfortunato: Since when did anyone get forced into buying a home and getting a mortgage? Personal accountability has to come into play. Yes, banks are partly to blame here. However, don’t just take the fact that they had mass foreclosures in a vacuum. They were encouraged/coerced into lending to people, for fear of being portrayed as discriminating towards people who didn’t make a lot of money… by the federal government. They were allowed to mix investments and banking (repeal of the glasman-stegal, iirc). Party affiliation aside, that was monumentally stupid. The underwriting process should have been left alone, and banks (not the government) should decide who gets a mortgage and who doesn’t. I do believe in non-discriminatory lending, but income level should define who can get a loan. And as the risk was increased, lenders increased the interest rate on those loans, and to encourage that lending they created ARM’s. But that’s when an educated consumer MUST step in. Caveat Emptor MUST be applied. Let’s do some simple math: If you make $30,000 a year, and you apply for a $250,000 home for 30 years, assuming no interst, your monthly payment is 700 bucks, not counting for PMI, land taxes, and insurance. Figure that will bring the cost up to 1k a month for your morgage. Keep in mind, that’s without interest. At 30k a year, you make 2500 a month barring any taxes. That’s nearly half your income GONE just for your mortgage. People weren’t asking how this could impact their income level. They weren’t doing the math. People need to be responsible for their own actions. Yes, some banks were acting in a predatory manner. No, that wasn’t appropriate. But it takes two to tango, as they say. What’s the old adage? “If it seems too good to be true, it usually is.” I think that applies here. To answer the question on if my children turned out liberal? That’s their own perogative. I teach my children how to think for themselves, not what to think. If they turn out to be liberal, as long as they are honest with themselves, then fine. I just have one rule when it comes to government programs: How do we pay for it without stealing from people? Because “they can afford it,” is a bullcrap answer. Just because you “can” doesn’t mean you “should.” Everyone needs to be treated the same. That’s why lady justice is blind. You shouldn’t look at people in a biased manner; everyone needs to be the same under the eyes of the law. And yes, Taxes are law. Maybe more people should start looking at “equal,” not “fair.” Because equal is objective, where fair is subjective. Remove emotion from the mix, folks, and you’ll see where both sides of bad ideas.
^The real trick is “educated consumer” whether it be a house or “politics”. The cons were done to people who didn’t know what they were getting into, with mortgages, diet, or politicians.
What was the name of that romney staff member. The one who was gay. The ones the american “family” association are still cheering about?Nope, nothing drastic…
Well, at least you tried to answer, but your sample is pretty small for such a big conclusion. I bet, I just bet, there are a few republicans out there who don’t have a good work ethic.
“Dems don’t allow dissenters into their tent.”-Are you kidding!?! Have you seen how the Democratic party operates? It’s all squabbling and everyone going their own way! If they were as in-agreement as you suggest, they would have had their way in the first 2 years of Obama’s administration when they had the congress locked up. But they had to beg, threaten, promise and horse-trade to get things done which were clearly on the Democrat’s agenda. That isn’t a model of not allowing dissent, it’s yet another example of how chaotic their party is.
conservatives are failing across the world. uk is in double dip recession. france elected a socialist president who is saying no to austerity. spain has 23% unemployment under a conservative govt. and, greece is in political turmoil when voters rejected the conservatives and pro-austerity parties. supply side economics still doesn’t work.
Am I wrong? Pretty sure I’m not.And I’ll be the first to admit that Bush screwed up. But that’s why I say people need to stop looking at Obama with rose-colored glasses and recognize his faults.
Ketira about 12 years ago
Now I’m curious…. what would you Republicans do if you found out your daughter wants to be a Democrat?…just curious…. .
SmoothTopSide about 12 years ago
Too gruesome to explain in this forum!… she’ll eventually see the light…we have our ways….
Jason Allen about 12 years ago
“The best social program is a job”Agreed. So when are the Republicans finally going to start focusing on bringing quality manufacturing jobs back to the US?
ArmyVetFlorida about 12 years ago
Wow. This looks more like a parental control issue more than a political one. Also, Bruce, injecting the word ‘facts’ into any discussion involving contemporary, right-wing GOP politics is totally inappropriate.
PlainBill about 12 years ago
Better spend a little time studying history. The major causes of the loss of jobs were the Bush Tax cuts, the war in Iraq (and to a lesser extent, the war in Afghanistan), and the lack of regulation of the financial sector.
lonecat about 12 years ago
Where do people get the idea that liberals don’t approve of jobs? I speak from a position somewhat to the left of the democrats, and I would argue that good work is fundamental to one’s interaction with the world. But the work should be good, in so far as that’s possible.
Heavy B about 12 years ago
Earth. This universeNow CONservative “thinking” on the other hand…
ARodney about 12 years ago
If you look at private sector jobs, Bush over his entire term averaged 66,000 per month. Romney just said it ought to be 500,000 per month, and 4% unemployment. And to do that, he’s going to bring back the Bush policies (many of which are still in effect due to GOP obstruction) and make them even more extreme. Surely, this time lower tax rates on the rich will create jobs! It’s never worked before, but at least our donors get more money when we do it!
petergrt about 12 years ago
If you are under 20 and are not a liberal, you have no heart..If you are over 25 and are still a liberal, you have no brain.
joe vignone about 12 years ago
The rich have convinced the poor that they can make it, too. Just work hard, save and go to school. However, the ladder is no longer available for people to climb. It was repossessed by the banks, chopped up into kindling to keep the rich warm and screw the rest of you. Liberals work hard, because they don’t have trust funds and corporate welfare. The things the poor buy are taxed (cloths, gas, shoes). The things the rich buy are not taxed (stocks and bonds). The rich have their money work for them. It’s a clean job and takes less effort than having to show up for that McJob. And a hell of a lot more rewarding.
ronpolimeni about 12 years ago
@ Jeff Kiser – I grew up, worked all my life in non government jobs, am retired now and still a liberal Democrat.
Gypsy8 about 12 years ago
You took the words right off my keyboard. You have to wonder if these intolerant, narrow minded conservatives posting on these blogs and fantasizing that being liberal means being unemployed or lazy are sitting around in a self-righteous funk making it up to elevate their own low self-esteem. Democrats Warren Buffett and Bill Gates must be an embarrassment to them. .They would probably label me a liberal, although I dislike labels, and I’ve worked or studied for two degrees and supported myself from the age of seventeen. I have never not worked and of course never needed U.I. or welfare, although I have no objection to paying taxes and possibly helping those who have not been so fortunate. I am now retired and still do some contract work for the fun of it.
Kylop about 12 years ago
Ketira, I’m not in a position to answer your question but I’d like to ask you one.
Don’t you think there is a wide spectrum of answers to your question- about as wide as the response would be if it was “What would a Democrat do if their child wants to be a Republican”?
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
Wow. So much anger. I think you folks need to step back and look at the bigger picture.Yes. Bush made mistakes. Yes, he did some things that weren’t helpful. No, he is not the sole reason for the financial meltdown. No, mathematically speaking, the two wars did not cause the recession. If anything, wartime spending props up an economy, but nevermind that (see WW1 and WW2, etc.). Yes, Obama has made mistakes. Yes, he did some things that weren’t helpful. No, he is not the sole reason for the prolonged recession. No, mathematically speaking, Obamacare did not solely prolong the recession. See how those two are similar? You guys need to cool it with the personal attacks and name-calling. We are not going to agree. But at least let’s be honest with ourselves. Both Bush and Obama bungled the economy. Bush’s economy created fewer jobs than Obama. However, Obama’s economy lost more jobs than were gained. Under Bush, there was no such thing in the BLS reports called “Chronic Unemployment.” There is such a thing under Obama. Very few people, if any, under Bush were unable to find work by the time their unemployment benefits ran out. That’s not the case today. These are facts.@ cfortunato: Since when did anyone get forced into buying a home and getting a mortgage? Personal accountability has to come into play. Yes, banks are partly to blame here. However, don’t just take the fact that they had mass foreclosures in a vacuum. They were encouraged/coerced into lending to people, for fear of being portrayed as discriminating towards people who didn’t make a lot of money… by the federal government. They were allowed to mix investments and banking (repeal of the glasman-stegal, iirc). Party affiliation aside, that was monumentally stupid. The underwriting process should have been left alone, and banks (not the government) should decide who gets a mortgage and who doesn’t. I do believe in non-discriminatory lending, but income level should define who can get a loan. And as the risk was increased, lenders increased the interest rate on those loans, and to encourage that lending they created ARM’s. But that’s when an educated consumer MUST step in. Caveat Emptor MUST be applied. Let’s do some simple math: If you make $30,000 a year, and you apply for a $250,000 home for 30 years, assuming no interst, your monthly payment is 700 bucks, not counting for PMI, land taxes, and insurance. Figure that will bring the cost up to 1k a month for your morgage. Keep in mind, that’s without interest. At 30k a year, you make 2500 a month barring any taxes. That’s nearly half your income GONE just for your mortgage. People weren’t asking how this could impact their income level. They weren’t doing the math. People need to be responsible for their own actions. Yes, some banks were acting in a predatory manner. No, that wasn’t appropriate. But it takes two to tango, as they say. What’s the old adage? “If it seems too good to be true, it usually is.” I think that applies here. To answer the question on if my children turned out liberal? That’s their own perogative. I teach my children how to think for themselves, not what to think. If they turn out to be liberal, as long as they are honest with themselves, then fine. I just have one rule when it comes to government programs: How do we pay for it without stealing from people? Because “they can afford it,” is a bullcrap answer. Just because you “can” doesn’t mean you “should.” Everyone needs to be treated the same. That’s why lady justice is blind. You shouldn’t look at people in a biased manner; everyone needs to be the same under the eyes of the law. And yes, Taxes are law. Maybe more people should start looking at “equal,” not “fair.” Because equal is objective, where fair is subjective. Remove emotion from the mix, folks, and you’ll see where both sides of bad ideas.
Dtroutma about 12 years ago
^The real trick is “educated consumer” whether it be a house or “politics”. The cons were done to people who didn’t know what they were getting into, with mortgages, diet, or politicians.
Heavy B about 12 years ago
What was the name of that romney staff member. The one who was gay. The ones the american “family” association are still cheering about?Nope, nothing drastic…
lonecat about 12 years ago
Well, at least you tried to answer, but your sample is pretty small for such a big conclusion. I bet, I just bet, there are a few republicans out there who don’t have a good work ethic.
CasualBrowser about 12 years ago
“Dems don’t allow dissenters into their tent.”-Are you kidding!?! Have you seen how the Democratic party operates? It’s all squabbling and everyone going their own way! If they were as in-agreement as you suggest, they would have had their way in the first 2 years of Obama’s administration when they had the congress locked up. But they had to beg, threaten, promise and horse-trade to get things done which were clearly on the Democrat’s agenda. That isn’t a model of not allowing dissent, it’s yet another example of how chaotic their party is.
vwdualnomand about 12 years ago
conservatives are failing across the world. uk is in double dip recession. france elected a socialist president who is saying no to austerity. spain has 23% unemployment under a conservative govt. and, greece is in political turmoil when voters rejected the conservatives and pro-austerity parties. supply side economics still doesn’t work.
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
Am I wrong? Pretty sure I’m not.And I’ll be the first to admit that Bush screwed up. But that’s why I say people need to stop looking at Obama with rose-colored glasses and recognize his faults.