Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock. He's a moderate Democrat. We could stand a few pragmatic, centrist leaders for a change. Bill Clinton was not very far to the left. He was a decent President. Obama made a few leftist moves that weren't the executive's to make, but overall he was probably better than Clinton. I voted for Clinton in the last election even though she was more to the left of her husband, because I felt/hoped Sanders artificially pulled her that way.
However people like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand who want a Federally guaranteed job for everyone, and Bernie Sanders who wants the government to pay for everything are very scary to me. If the Dems nominate a socialist-lite and keep moving leftward, my vote goes for Trump. I won't like it, but we can recover from a blow-hard idiot. I'm not so sure we can recover from socialism.
I hope those of you in early states can find someone acceptable to most. Remember, most conservatives aren't bringing their guns to church in order to double with KKK meetings and abortion clinic burnings afterwards. I think most conservatives would likely dump Trump in a second if a strong contender pops up that they believe will win, but the risk of loss to a far left candidate means they will stay put unless they can be lured by a moderate. It's up to us to see through this non-stop news parade and see each other.
The only way the Democrats lose this next race is if they run someone too far to the left. I'd get the most centrist Democrat tolerable and run that person.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock. He's a moderate Democrat. We could stand a few pragmatic, centrist leaders for a change. Bill Clinton was not very far to the left. He was a decent President. Obama made a few leftist moves that weren't the executive's to make, but overall he was probably better than Clinton. I voted for Clinton in the last election even though she was more to the left of her husband, because I felt/hoped Sanders artificially pulled her that way.
However people like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand who want a Federally guaranteed job for everyone, and Bernie Sanders who wants the government to pay for everything are very scary to me. If the Dems nominate a socialist-lite and keep moving leftward, my vote goes for Trump. I won't like it, but we can recover from a blow-hard idiot. I'm not so sure we can recover from socialism.
I hope those of you in early states can find someone acceptable to most. Remember, most conservatives aren't bringing their guns to church in order to double with KKK meetings and abortion clinic burnings afterwards. I think most conservatives would likely dump Trump in a second if a strong contender pops up that they believe will win, but the risk of loss to a far left candidate means they will stay put unless they can be lured by a moderate. It's up to us to see through this non-stop news parade and see each other.
The only way the Democrats lose this next race is if they run someone too far to the left. I'd get the most centrist Democrat tolerable and run that person.
Federally guaranteed jobs arent far leftist, FDR actually had that.
Federally guaranteed jobs arent far leftist, FDR actually had that.
My grandfather worked one for a time. We have an old letter he'd sent home from his Conservation Corps job he had for a summer. Very different times those were. The jobs meant people didn't starve as quickly and he wrote the letter because he was working a couple hundred miles away. There wasn't the welfare net there is today. There wasn't the understanding in our banking system. Unemployment was 30% and the banks were bust. You've got a lot of sole breadwinners that needed to not have idle hands.
Drastic times called for drastic measures. This is not one of them.
My grandfather worked one for a time. We have an old letter he'd sent home from his Conservation Corps job he had for a summer. Very different times those were. The jobs meant people didn't starve as quickly and he wrote the letter because he was working a couple hundred miles away. There wasn't the welfare net there is today. There wasn't the understanding in our banking system. Unemployment was 30% and the banks were bust. You've got a lot of sole breadwinners that needed to not have idle hands.
Drastic times called for drastic measures. This is not one of them.
You could actually diminish the welfare state with CCC type programs, that actually would free up the part time and low income full time jobs those people have and give it to others who need it.
We measure unemployment and under employment as 2 different things. So whether we are in a drastic time really just depends on who you are talking to.
The single mom who works 2 jobs and still qualifies for welfare probably thinks this is a very desperate/drastic time.
You could actually diminish the welfare state with CCC type programs, that actually would free up the part time and low income full time jobs those people have and give it to others who need it.
We measure unemployment and under employment as 2 different things. So whether we are in a drastic time really just depends on who you are talking to.
The single mom who works 2 jobs and still qualifies for welfare probably thinks this is a very desperate/drastic time.
You don't get it. The 20's were roaring for stock market, but they were horrible times for farmers in terms of drought. That's when people learned about tree belts and such. When the banking system froze up at the end of the decade, no more loans could be made. The banks themselves were bankrupt. There was no FDIC so if your bank went bust, your money was gone too back when bankers were personally liable. Also gone were commercial accounts for businesses. So if your company's bank goes broke and you need to make payroll that week....and no other bank can give you a loan...suddenly you have a lot of people failing because of things that are protected today. That spreads through an economy. Banks that had been solvent but lent money to other banks that were also solvent, but had lent money to an insolvent bank...suddenly all 3 could be closing their doors.
One of my great grandfathers lost his bank at that time, and sold most of his farms for very low rates in order to cover his depositors.
So these people had no jobs. They had a job. The company perhaps was making money, but the financial system swept the rug out of all of them....to what degree....to 30% unemployed...forget underemployment. At those levels, economies come unwound. With so many consumers not consuming, expectations drop for all, so you get rid of workers and slow the materials you buy....its a self reinforcing whirlpool sucking the country down. You have entire migrations of "Okies" moving to California to take the migrant picking jobs where they worked for enough wage to get a poor meal.
Now enter FDR. He wanted to something for people to do from the only place in America that didn't need a bank to pay out. These were not get off welfare jobs. These were....don't die today jobs. Because they didn't have welfare then. You didn't work, you have no money, you can't buy food, you die. That equation was just known for your entire life. You don't save...ok, you work, until you can't work, then you die. That's retirement. Now the conditions for social security to enter for the (at that time) "very old" hopefully make more sense. It would be the equivalent today of saying....geez, do we really need to make 85 year olds work for their daily bread, or as a nation, maybe we can just give them some food.
Back to the no job, no security as this started happening to otherwise fine people, a lot of men (breadwinners) got put in the vice of losing the money, the job, the wife and kids, the home, possibly his life... for nothing that was his fault. The company was doing well, he did save his money, he was a good employee, he was a good husband, he did pay his (5 year) mortgage.
No matter what is said, we are nowhere close to the challenges faced when FDR did what he did. There are no lines of skilled workers in suits desperately looking for a job as if their life depended on it. It no longer does. We have welfare now. There aren't people lining up to run to areas with <2% unemployment.
The idea that someone is DC can find you a better fitting job for yourself faster than you can find one for yourself in this time of low unemployment should seem absolutely silly to yourself.
I absolutely get it, that doesnt change that there are people struggling. Arguing that someone had it worse 80 years ago doesnt change that.
Thats my point.
The idea that someone is DC can find you a better fitting job for yourself faster than you can find one for yourself in this time of low unemployment should seem absolutely silly to yourself.
Better fitting job =/= better paying.
You are arguing based on an entirely different concept. Federally funded jobs arent meant to be the most "fitting(heart's desire)" job.
Israel does not have a right to wall in Palestinian communities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
