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.
Again, your right-wing ideology gets in the way of the fact that at the end of Bush/beginning of Obama presidency, after a fake, bubble real estate-based economy that you happily participated in, we were losing 750K jobs a month. Millions of those good-paying jobs are never coming back. Corporations have not re-hired because they're working the "leftovers" to the bone and sitting on a few trillion in cash. But it's the average American who should just "rise above" regardless of the economic circumstances (without massive government help it would've been Great Depression II) and greed of big business in America. But there are plenty of greeter jobs at Wal Mart, right?
And if you think the avg. New Jerseyan can live on unemployment, you've been smoking too much of the weed that the OWS hippies are passing around
So we agree then. You are linking Bush-Obama to a bubble-based real estate economy. Correct. That link should be severed. The government should be out of the real estate business in all forms. It should not be guaranteeing mortgages. It should not be bailing out banks. It should not be setting interest rates. It should not be protecting or defining unions or union relationships with corporations. It should be out of all of it lock, stock, and barrel.
And the good jobs you so desperately want to return will come back as soon as corporations stop fearing illegitimate confiscation of their assets by left-wing Obama types whose goal it is redistribute everything in the universe according to their own warped values. The left wing is so good at consumption, and so **** poor at production. Which explains why they are also so good at envy. And translating that envy into theft by accumulating the political power necessary to take from Peters they hate and give to Pauls they love.
And by the way, a corporation has a perfectly acceptable right to "sit on" trillions of dollars, or quadrillions of dollars, or one dollar. If the money was earned in the normal course of business, it is the corporation's money to spend, or not spend, as they see fit. It is a basic right that is central to a free society. It is nobody's business if someone doesn't want to spend their money. Your only right to decide on spending is with your own money.
Oh, also: There is no such thing as corporate greed. It is an anti-concept. A corporation is formed by people to conduct business and make as much money as possible by providing vital goods, services, and innovations. Corporations are a fantastic element of a Capitalist economy. They mostly turn evil when they are given access to illegitimate political power to gain from force what they cannot earn by conducting business. Another great reason for highly limited government.
I take it that your upset with people that were forced to pay for unemployment INSURANCE that lost their jobs most likey through no fault of their own now receiving the insurance. So if you get in an accident you wouldn't use your insurance. Some people have paid that insurance for 30 years and were thrown out the door by companies in the name of corporate profits.
No, what's ridiculous is unemployment benefits going on for 99 weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EBWick
Again, your right-wing ideology gets in the way of the fact that at the end of Bush/beginning of Obama presidency, after a fake, bubble real estate-based economy that you happily participated in, we were losing 750K jobs a month. Millions of those good-paying jobs are never coming back. Corporations have not re-hired because they're working the "leftovers" to the bone and sitting on a few trillion in cash. But it's the average American who should just "rise above" regardless of the economic circumstances (without massive government help it would've been Great Depression II) and greed of big business in America. But there are plenty of greeter jobs at Wal Mart, right?
And if you think the avg. New Jerseyan can live on unemployment, you've been smoking too much of the weed that the OWS hippies are passing around
No mention of how unemployment under Bush was at 5% for 6 years, no mention of how the unemployment rate started to rise after the Democrats took over the House and were spending money we didn't have? No mention of Bush calling for an overhaul of the Housing Finance Industry?
Well darn, video proof:
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown:
Corporations aren't hiring? why would they? this isn't a good environment at all for either expanding or starting a new business. And you bring up Walmart, what's the problem with Walmart? seems to me your projecting a snobbish elitist attitude when it comes to people working jobs at Walmart.
You see, this is the only way Democrats can envision themselves winning in 2012, they have a horrible record since 2007, they have nothing to boast about, so this is their plan, divide and conquer, let's play the class warfare card because that's all we have. It didn't work for McGovern and it won't work for Obama and the Democrats, and there's a good chance that Republicans will have a veto-proof Senate.
As far as unemployment goes, as someone previously mentioned, how many people collecting unemployment are working under the table jobs? Maybe it's a generational thing, but there've been hard times in the past, no comparison at all to what's going on today, it was harsher then because safety nets weren't in place then as they are now, these protesters with their cellphone and laptops and mp3 players have no idea how hard life can really be, they're use to asking for things and given them, these are the same kids who played sports where there were no winners and losers, these are the same kids who were lied to on a daily basis by telling them how wonderful they were and never put in their place when they were wrong, these are the same kids who for some odd reason thing they're owed something, who think when they graduate college they should be given a job as a CEO. They were never taught that there are consequences and there are struggles in life, how could they, they were raised to feel good about themselves, to have self-esteem, without a thought given that you need to work and strive for those things. We have a generation of people who are dumbfounded that the outside world doesn't view like their parents do.
I for one am against all of these bailouts. We should have let all those banks and big corporations fail. So what if we would have have had mass riots and even worse job loss. It would have been interesting to see people line up at banks to get money that just didnt exist anymore. Who needs bailouts?
sounds like socialism where the ultimate goal is for everyone to be equally poor (except to political elite).
Like in Cuba. We have the left touting Cuba's healthcare system, no idea why, the regular people are treated differently than the political elite in Cuba, and it can't be that good because Castro went to Spain when he had serious issues going on a few years ago.
I for one am against all of these bailouts. We should have let all those banks and big corporations fail. So what if we would have have had mass riots and even worse job loss. It would have been interesting to see people line up at banks to get money that just didnt exist anymore. Who needs bailouts?
where is the value in this position from present going forward? a lot of people were against bailing out various businesses, industries and governments. but whats done is done. if people want to have a message that catches on, they need one that involves actual purpose going forward.
No mention of how unemployment under Bush was at 5% for 6 years, no mention of how the unemployment rate started to rise after the Democrats took over the House and were spending money we didn't have? No mention of Bush calling for an overhaul of the Housing Finance Industry?
Well darn, video proof:
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown:
It's hardly surprising to see the Fox news channel engaging in revisionism of this sort. If this is the source you rely on for information, you are going to be sadly misinformed.
The video talks about concern over the system risk posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It doesn't talk about any "overhaul of the housing finance industry".
Imposing a regulatory bureaucracy upon Fannie and Freddie would not have made much difference for two reasons -- the first is that all the regulators of the day ultimately failed. Why would a different regulator demonstrate more foresight ? The credit rating agencies who serve as de facto regulators because of the special status granted to highly rated securities were also blindsided.
But also, the video is completely off base because the banking crisis did not begin or end with Fannie and Freddie. The two largest system risk time bombs were AIG who were selling excessive quantities of CDSs, and banks (Lehman who ultimately collapsed and other banks who took large hits) .
The meltdown began with subprime credit risk, which was primarily held by banks and AIG.
What was Bush's position on the accumulation of credit risk and highly leveraged banks ? As for McCain, I don't think he even understands the issues well enough to have had an opinion at the time.
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.
