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.
To claim that there is more class warfare now than any other time in American history is disingenous, to say the least.
The 60s were a time of great strife, on every level.
Class warfare, generational warfare, racial warfare, etc, et al.
How old were you in the 60s?
Old enough to remember them clearly.
I see your point (thanks for finally clarifying what you were insinuating by the way). That being said, that does not excuse fanning the flames of division and discord, class warfare and political impasses. We need an administration that works toward UNIFYING the American people - and our elected officials in a bipartisan mood of cooperation - in order to dig out of the mess our country is in. I am not sure that EITHER presidential candidate has what it takes to accomplish this.
I am a republican. I think it is great that you are doing well. I hope that all Americans do better financially than they are doing now.
Unfortunately, Obama is not the pathway to prosperity, but is part of the problem. A nation does not improve its wealth and prosperity through higher taxes, more regulations, and more litigation. In spite of your individual relative prosperity, the balance of the nation is suffering from the policies which Obama has instituted.
This is not a republican/democratic problem- it is one of fiscal policy and competence in leading the nation back to prosperity and reducing debt. Obama is clearly not the man for that job.
When in office, Bush found it challenging to keep his promise. The Bush campaign's figures had been based on the assumption that the high growth of the late 1980s would continue throughout his time in office.[8] Instead, a recession began. By 1990, rising budget deficits, fueled by a growth in mandatory spending and a declining economy, began to greatly increase the federal deficit
Do any conservatives know what the word "compromise" means?
I think not.
It was the lack of regulation in the derivative market that was the primary culprit for the recession. This expansion of the derivative market happened during the bush presidency and was not regulated which lead to the great bubble burst.
What helped to create the derivative market? Could it have been the housing bubble, which was primarily caused by increasingly lower interest rates?
The link you posted talks about an equation that was invented in the 70's. Derivatives are not a new idea, they simply weren't profitable until the housing bubble made housing seem like an investment.
Sure, if you could go back in time, you could regulate derivatives, and that might have slowed the bubble. But the bubble was forming regardless of derivatives or not. And would have busted regardless of derivatives.
Bush was no angel, but don't you find it silly to blame Bush for the economic crisis? He did absolutely nothing to cause the financial crisis. And if Gore had been elected in 2000, or if Kerry had been elected in 2004, do you really think the financial crisis would have been avoided? Get real man.
There were plenty of people warning constantly about the possibilities of what happened, one of which was Ron Paul, yet no one wanted to listen. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, no one.
The reality is that home-ownership had become an American value, and anything that might have made home-ownership more difficult, especially for minorities(sub-prime loans, community reinvestment act), would have been political suicide.
I'm not happy about the recession, but to blame Bush for it is just stupidity. It would have been impossible for Bush to have done anything to stop it. The man that played the largest role in the housing bubble by far, was Alan Greenspan. And the bubble started forming while Bill Clinton was still the president. Alan Greenspan was the only man that could have stopped the housing bubble, and all he did was to continue to feed the bubble.
You need to find out how "people of color" are doing under Obama. Look up the unemployment of black youth and the black community overall. Obama has moved more people into trailer parks and eating baloney sandwiches and living on welfare than the other president.
You are fortunate to be in Texas, where Dallas is fueled by oil money and illegal aliens.
Because of the permits GW. Bush issued, Texas and it's shale formations, are way above the rest of the nation. Almost double that of the next State.
You would be in a world of hurt, if you lived outside the State, unless you lived in North or South Dakota.
I'm not sure how you know that. I'm the OP by the way. I work from home for a New York based company. I would make the same anywhere I live. Taxes might be different is all.
Now you have the opportunity to pay more in taxes.
You can over-pay voluntarily.
Go ahead --- let's see you do it. If you're on the same page as Obama about wealth redistribution, here's your chance to give your money away. To the Government - which you are pleased with.
You clearly have more than you need.
"For of those to whom much is given, much is required."
Lol. You what. If it benefits my fellow man I plan to do just that.
How exactly did Obama help you in the last 4 years, but Governor Perry did not? You live in TX, one of two states (that I know of) that has prospered in this horrible economy! TX & ND. The other 48 (or 55 depending on who you ask) have not done so well. Here in NV, we've seen the worst of it. Our unemployment rate is the highest in the nation and our housing bubble burst the loudest! Do you know where most of the people I know who left here went? TX and ND!
First. I never said living in Texas under Perry was not a help. Second. I work at home for a company in New York. My hiring had nothing to do with the Texas economy. I realize there are some tax differences.
The answer to this question clearly indicates this is a troll thread.
Sorry to disappoint. You don't know me and I am not a troll. I'm getting exactly what I wanted which is good conversation. You could contribute or just make short little troll like answers.
I'm the OP and I love the conversation. I didn't realize my signature would be a point of debate but oh we'll.
I want to add a few points about my post. Some have mentioned that it's selfish of me to vote for Obama? I don't get that.
Look, I never once said that things were good for me because of Obama. I said that I'm voting for him because I have done better under his administration and I also tend to agree with him on some social issues more than Mr. Romney.
Romney may very well do great things for the economy but for me it would be like voting for a hypothetical situation. I know what's happened to me and my family under Obama.
If Romney is elected then he gets my support and I trust that he helps us all. If not. I would not vote for him 4 years from now.
I am fully aware that many people are hurting and I am not opposed to helping people anyway I can, if I can. I don't know what that says about me but it's the truth. I have have always given what I could to charities and causes my family believes in even when times were tougher and Lord knows they have been. The past few years I have been able to do a bit more. Politically I don't really care what people think. It makes me happy.
I want to add a few points about my post. Some have mentioned that it's selfish of me to vote for Obama? I don't get that.
Look, I never once said that things were good for me because of Obama. I said that I'm voting for him because I have done better under his administration and I also tend to agree with him on some social issues more than Mr. Romney.
Look, the idea behind electing a president, is to pick the best man for the job. If you think Obama is the best man for the job, that is fine, that is your opinion. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for.
The problem is, you come on here and say that basically you are going to vote for Obama because you have basically lucked out over the last few years, without actually asking yourself why you are doing so well.
Lets pretend that I started a gold buying/selling business back before the recession hit. I might have made millions during the recession. But why did I make so much money? Was it because of Obama? No. Its just situational, circumstantial, coincidental, etc. And if you base your vote simply on the basis that you are doing well without understanding why, or who or what policy was responsible. Then you aren't really voting for the best man, you are just voting for things to stay exactly as they are today.
But I have news for you, Obama has no plans of keeping things the way they are today, nor does Romney. So if you aren't voting with a real understanding of both the policies that each candidate advocates, and how they will affect you and the overall economy. Then in my opinion, you are unwisely and selfishly voting.
But again, if you agree with Obama, and you understand his positions, and you think he is the best man for the job. Vote for him.
But I would advise you. Before you start falling into the socialist utopian fantasies, please read about the works of Milton Friedman, or watch his many videos on youtube. And Milton Friedman is no Republican, he tears apart Republican dogma just as severely as he does socialism.
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.
