The ..2012.... Political thread
-
Media's Presidential Bias and Decline Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE Oct. 24, 2008 ? The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates. The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer. But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist. You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian). My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license. So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul. complete article at link: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1
-
mustangsally10:
[I'm looking at the big pic again.....deregulation has been the policy for the republicans (you know less govt.) since Greenspan Reagan etc.. True Bubba did keep Greenspan but isn't it amazing that he was able even with a repub congress to set things straight and bush with a repub. congress has created the biggest mess (other than the great depression) that we have seen
From the White House and C-Span records:
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. 2001 April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." 2002 May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02) 2003 January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years. February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03) September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations. September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements. October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error. November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03) 2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore?should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83) February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04) June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04) 2005 April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America? Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05) 2007 July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse. August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07) September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August ? up 115 percent from the year before. September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month ? the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before. December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs ? and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07) 2008 January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide. January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value. February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/0 March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase. March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/0 April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by ? helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/0 May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/0 ""The government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that ? and Congress is making progress on this ? is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/0 "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/0 June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/0 July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
*******17 times he asked for regulation!!!!!!!************
-
jaipur:
mustangsally10:
beatlefan4ever:
mustangsally10:
BandontheRun:
mustangsally10:
BandontheRun:
mustangsally10:
Ummm.....are you referring to the very recent massive redistribution of wealth from the american taxpayers (mainly middle class) to the investors and FAT CATS of Wall Street? Or are you concerned that the middle class could possibly get their money back and the corruption and greed would be all for nothing?
What do you mean get their money back? Who took it and how?
I suggest you read up on the current financial crisis and bailout. You need to get up to speed.
Oh OK, I understand now, it was only the middle class that lost money in the financial crisis and bailout. :
Lots of people lost money in the crisis and bailout and we will all be paying for a very long time....all due to the failed economic policies of the republicans and Bu$h/McSAme
Sounds like a broken record....Look back to the Clinton administration if you want to see where things began to fail. This gets so old to have all the blame placed on the Bush administration. It shows a lack of true research on the matter.
ok ..here's another assignment go back as far as reading Ayn Rand, then read about her disciple Alan Greenspan , then Reagan. To be thorough you might even read about the great depression in the US and the monetary policies that led to it (very similar to today). Also you might read Greepspans mea culpa about his ideology and how it contributed to the current crisis. That should keep you busy.
Heh....seriously though, the monetary policies back then that lead to the great depression are no where near the monetary policies today. Back then, they did not have FDR and some of the things he did....now we do....big difference
Actually agree with you here about the fact that the policies that FDR instituted are making our situation now less serious than it was then. Can you imagine how things would be now without SS ? Many seniors are having enough difficulty as things are now. What I was referred to was the policies of less and deregulation that were prevalent before the great depression. Where we got the term The Robber Barons now we have the term Fat Cats of Wall Street.
-
Actually Mustang Sally, you have a good heart and I too many years believed alot of the retoric that comes out of the liberal faction of the democratic party....the horrible evil rich people...the fat cats on wall street.... and so on. I don't envy people who are wealthy. I think it's great that they are a success! I admire people who have worked hard or even people who have inherited money from the hard work of their parents and are now doing some great humanitarian works. And even if they don't - so what? It's there life and they are living the life that their loved one wished for them. And I think that is wonderful! Social Security? I think it was a good idea but it has been totally mishandled. And by the way, you do work for your social security - it's taken out of your paycheck. I've paid alot into social security but whose to say it will be there if I really need it someday? Everything that you and I have paid into it is gone! Before FDR and social security how did people retire? Well, it was a different time but those that did saved up for it and they alone decided how it would be invested, not the government. I firmly believe that each individual should decide how the money that they have earned is spent....not a bunch of politicians. What are the qualifications to be a politician? There are none except being a U.S. citizen. Why in the world would I entrust my hard earned money to people with little or no financial experience? Anyway, those are just my thoughts
-
deKooningartist:
Actually Mustang Sally, you have a good heart and I too many years believed alot of the retoric that comes out of the liberal faction of the democratic party....the horrible evil rich people...the fat cats on wall street.... and so on. I don't envy people who are wealthy. I think it's great that they are a success! I admire people who have worked hard or even people who have inherited money from the hard work of their parents and are now doing some great humanitarian works. And even if they don't - so what? It's there life and they are living the life that their loved one wished for them. And I think that is wonderful! Social Security? I think it was a good idea but it has been totally mishandled. And by the way, you do work for your social security - it's taken out of your paycheck. I've paid alot into social security but whose to say it will be there if I really need it someday? Everything that you and I have paid into it is gone! Before FDR and social security how did people retire? Well, it was a different time but those that did saved up for it and they alone decided how it would be invested, not the government. I firmly believe that each individual should decide how the money that they have earned is spent....not a bunch of politicians. What are the qualifications to be a politician? There are none except being a U.S. citizen. Why in the world would I entrust my hard earned money to people with little or no financial experience? Anyway, those are just my thoughts
YES - that's the point- are people so bewildered by others who hold political office to believe that those in political office are qualified to determine how YOUR money is spent or invested? Egads! - Declare the pennies on your eyes - cause I'm the TAXMAN!
-
Andy_Shofar:
jaipur:
Andy_Shofar:
mustangsally10:
Andy_Shofar:
Obama: Yesterday & Today - a Bombshell (to say the least) When he says re-distribution of wealth - that's exactly what he means (take away from one to give to others)
Ummm.....are you referring to the very recent massive redistribution of wealth from the american taxpayers (mainly middle class) to the investors and FAT CATS of Wall Street? Or are you concerned that the middle class could possibly get their money back and the corruption and greed would be all for nothing?
Nope, I'm speaking reality - Obama voted to increase taxes on those earning $29,000 or more. He hasn't changed one spot - he's still going to stick it to lower wage earners. Take away from taxpayers & give away to people unwilling to work, even though they are physically & mentally capable.
uh, and how are you absolutely sure that "they" are physically & mentally capable, Andy?? Just curious.....
My prejudice - I've known people over the years cheating the taxpayers. I don't think anything has changed.
Ah, that's fair enough then.
-
YES - that's the point- are people so bewildered by others who hold political office to believe that those in political office are qualified to determine how YOUR money is spent or invested? Egads! - Declare the pennies on your eyes - cause I'm the TAXMAN!
Isn't there a song about about that???? Can't remember who wrote it though
-
BandontheRun:
jaipur:
beatlefan4ever:
BandontheRun:
It really is amazing that Obama supporters: 1) Really do think that they are entitled to other people's money 2) Have brushed off Obama's racism (what if McCain belonged to a racist church for 20 years?, What if McCain referred to someone as "a typical black person") 3) Don't acknowledge that Obama hasn't accomplished anything other than attaining positions (he never even WROTE anything for the Harvard Law Review, authored a bill as a Senator etc..) 4) Think that taxes are supposed to do more than afford to run the government (taxes are NOT supposed to provide for the people)
Exactly! Where, oh where are people getting the idea that this man has the experience to lead this country? Yes, he's for change but NOT the kind of change I want and not the kind of change that will be good for our country.
OK, I'll bite...what kind of change do you want and what kind of change do you think will be good for the country?? Not trying to bang you here, just curious.
Umm.. How about change for the better? Creating a thriving economic environment in a global economy? You know that kind of stuff.. that's the change I want. Sorry, nothing Obama says he wants to do supports that kind of change.
Fair enough, though how do you define "better" and what does a thriving economic environment look like to you?? Both have occurred before and I'm curious what it means to you.....
-
deKooningartist:
YES - that's the point- are people so bewildered by others who hold political office to believe that those in political office are qualified to determine how YOUR money is spent or invested? Egads! - Declare the pennies on your eyes - cause I'm the TAXMAN!
Isn't there a song about about that???? Can't remember who wrote it though
Taxman, Chairman Mao.... you ain't gonna make with anyone anyhow... we all wanna change the world..
-
business's shouldn't be taxed there should be a flat and equal percentage tax on all personal income we need free enterprise with the most effective and productive income distribution ratio possible
-
BandontheRun:
deKooningartist:
YES - that's the point- are people so bewildered by others who hold political office to believe that those in political office are qualified to determine how YOUR money is spent or invested? Egads! - Declare the pennies on your eyes - cause I'm the TAXMAN!
Isn't there a song about about that???? Can't remember who wrote it though
Taxman, Chairman Mao.... you ain't gonna make with anyone anyhow... we all wanna change the world..
Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman Taxation leads to inspiration Harrison was inspired to write "Taxman" when he discovered how much he was earning after accounting for taxes. As Harrison said, "'Taxman' was when I first realised that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes. It was and still is typical."[1] The reason for this was that due to how much The Beatles were earning, they were in the top tax bracket in the United Kingdom. In a 1984 interview with Playboy magazine, fellow Beatle Paul McCartney agreed with Harrison's depiction of the circumstances surrounding the writing of "Taxman": "George wrote that and I played guitar on it. He wrote it in anger at finding out what the taxman did. He had never known before then what he'll do with your money."
-
jaipur:
BandontheRun:
jaipur:
beatlefan4ever:
BandontheRun:
It really is amazing that Obama supporters: 1) Really do think that they are entitled to other people's money 2) Have brushed off Obama's racism (what if McCain belonged to a racist church for 20 years?, What if McCain referred to someone as "a typical black person") 3) Don't acknowledge that Obama hasn't accomplished anything other than attaining positions (he never even WROTE anything for the Harvard Law Review, authored a bill as a Senator etc..) 4) Think that taxes are supposed to do more than afford to run the government (taxes are NOT supposed to provide for the people)
Exactly! Where, oh where are people getting the idea that this man has the experience to lead this country? Yes, he's for change but NOT the kind of change I want and not the kind of change that will be good for our country.
OK, I'll bite...what kind of change do you want and what kind of change do you think will be good for the country?? Not trying to bang you here, just curious.
Umm.. How about change for the better? Creating a thriving economic environment in a global economy? You know that kind of stuff.. that's the change I want. Sorry, nothing Obama says he wants to do supports that kind of change.
Fair enough, though how do you define "better" and what does a thriving economic environment look like to you?? Both have occurred before and I'm curious what it means to you.....
A thriving economic environment looks to me like little government in a free market economy where the laws of supply and demand stnad true without government intervention in what is acceptable practice (i.e. you are a bad loan risk so NO LOAN). Companies are held to their own merit and seek to their stockholders to reaffirm their profit plans so everyone seeks to gain on a gain rather than gamble against a loss. Wages are paid based on supply and demand and what the market deems a fair wage rather than a government deeemed "living wage". I am for less government support and more Capitalism and free market. That, to me, is a thriving economic environment, where people work and compete for what they want and government does little more than enforce the law rather than to provide healthcare, "equality" and whatever else. I am for those who choose to work harder to be rewarded more and that those who choose to work less to reap fewer rewards (if any). Even if I do work hard, I expect to be challenged against those smarter and better than I am for that is my competition. I am entitiled to NOTHING other than the opportunity to work hard and succeed in competition with others. Please let me know where you disagree
-
BandontheRun:
deKooningartist:
Actually Mustang Sally, you have a good heart and I too many years believed alot of the retoric that comes out of the liberal faction of the democratic party....the horrible evil rich people...the fat cats on wall street.... and so on. I don't envy people who are wealthy. I think it's great that they are a success! I admire people who have worked hard or even people who have inherited money from the hard work of their parents and are now doing some great humanitarian works. And even if they don't - so what? It's there life and they are living the life that their loved one wished for them. And I think that is wonderful! Social Security? I think it was a good idea but it has been totally mishandled. And by the way, you do work for your social security - it's taken out of your paycheck. I've paid alot into social security but whose to say it will be there if I really need it someday? Everything that you and I have paid into it is gone! Before FDR and social security how did people retire? Well, it was a different time but those that did saved up for it and they alone decided how it would be invested, not the government. I firmly believe that each individual should decide how the money that they have earned is spent....not a bunch of politicians. What are the qualifications to be a politician? There are none except being a U.S. citizen. Why in the world would I entrust my hard earned money to people with little or no financial experience? Anyway, those are just my thoughts
YES - that's the point- are people so bewildered by others who hold political office to believe that those in political office are qualified to determine how YOUR money is spent or invested? Egads! - Declare the pennies on your eyes - cause I'm the TAXMAN!
You "kids" do realize that taxes were much higher than they are now, don't you?? The UK was much worse, hence the song..... Before social security, people really didn't retire as you were most likely dead by the time you were 55 Next time the movie "Titanic" is shown, you'll see a couple of "robber barons": J.J. Astor and his buddy Guggenheim...
-
jaipur:
BandontheRun:
deKooningartist:
Actually Mustang Sally, you have a good heart and I too many years believed alot of the retoric that comes out of the liberal faction of the democratic party....the horrible evil rich people...the fat cats on wall street.... and so on. I don't envy people who are wealthy. I think it's great that they are a success! I admire people who have worked hard or even people who have inherited money from the hard work of their parents and are now doing some great humanitarian works. And even if they don't - so what? It's there life and they are living the life that their loved one wished for them. And I think that is wonderful! Social Security? I think it was a good idea but it has been totally mishandled. And by the way, you do work for your social security - it's taken out of your paycheck. I've paid alot into social security but whose to say it will be there if I really need it someday? Everything that you and I have paid into it is gone! Before FDR and social security how did people retire? Well, it was a different time but those that did saved up for it and they alone decided how it would be invested, not the government. I firmly believe that each individual should decide how the money that they have earned is spent....not a bunch of politicians. What are the qualifications to be a politician? There are none except being a U.S. citizen. Why in the world would I entrust my hard earned money to people with little or no financial experience? Anyway, those are just my thoughts
YES - that's the point- are people so bewildered by others who hold political office to believe that those in political office are qualified to determine how YOUR money is spent or invested? Egads! - Declare the pennies on your eyes - cause I'm the TAXMAN!
You "kids" do realize that taxes were much higher than they are now, don't you?? The UK was much worse, hence the song..... Before social security, people really didn't retire as you were most likely dead by the time you were 55 Next time the movie "Titanic" is shown, you'll see a couple of "robber barons": J.J. Astor and his buddy Guggenheim...
Not sure if your comments are supposed to be reassuring or an acknowledgement that current politics are out of touch with modern times
-
BandontheRun:
jaipur:
BandontheRun:
jaipur:
beatlefan4ever:
BandontheRun:
It really is amazing that Obama supporters: 1) Really do think that they are entitled to other people's money 2) Have brushed off Obama's racism (what if McCain belonged to a racist church for 20 years?, What if McCain referred to someone as "a typical black person") 3) Don't acknowledge that Obama hasn't accomplished anything other than attaining positions (he never even WROTE anything for the Harvard Law Review, authored a bill as a Senator etc..) 4) Think that taxes are supposed to do more than afford to run the government (taxes are NOT supposed to provide for the people)
Exactly! Where, oh where are people getting the idea that this man has the experience to lead this country? Yes, he's for change but NOT the kind of change I want and not the kind of change that will be good for our country.
OK, I'll bite...what kind of change do you want and what kind of change do you think will be good for the country?? Not trying to bang you here, just curious.
Umm.. How about change for the better? Creating a thriving economic environment in a global economy? You know that kind of stuff.. that's the change I want. Sorry, nothing Obama says he wants to do supports that kind of change.
Fair enough, though how do you define "better" and what does a thriving economic environment look like to you?? Both have occurred before and I'm curious what it means to you.....
A thriving economic environment looks to me like little government in a free market economy where the laws of supply and demand stnad true without government intervention in what is acceptable practice (i.e. you are a bad loan risk so NO LOAN). So you believe that the laws of supply and demand always work "perfectly" benefiting individuals equally.......hmmm, I think not. Banks make loans....sometimes they work, sometimes they don't...that's the nature of the business because you don't have complete control over all events. Companies are held to their own merit and seek to their stockholders to reaffirm their profit plans so everyone seeks to gain on a gain rather than gamble against a loss. In general, I agree....however, it don't always work that way . Was it profitable for Wal-Mart to pay some of their workers such low wages that they applied for food stamps?? Sure it was! Was it right to do so? Not if I'm a taxpayer and I need to "subsidize" a multi-billion dollar company. Wages are paid based on supply and demand and what the market deems a fair wage rather than a government deeemed "living wage". Wish that were still true (sigh)....the market deems that a "fair wage" so that a company can make a profit are the wages based in China and India....as those economies are developing and not fully matured as the US, are you willing to make what the Chinese and Indians make and live in the US?? Good luck! I am for less government support and more Capitalism and free market. That, to me, is a thriving economic environment, where people work and compete for what they want and government does little more than enforce the law rather than to provide healthcare, "equality" and whatever else. Smaller government does work for me as well......you do know that the countries we compete with provide healthcare in some manner? I am for those who choose to work harder to be rewarded more and that those who choose to work less to reap fewer rewards (if any). Even if I do work hard, I expect to be challenged against those smarter and better than I am for that is my competition. I am entitiled to NOTHING other than the opportunity to work hard and succeed in competition with others. Can't disagree with you here, except to say at some point after you bust your ass and not get the rewards you believe you should, your perspective might change a little. Please let me know where you disagree Well I think you'll find a couple of spots
-
BandontheRun:
jaipur:
BandontheRun:
deKooningartist:
Actually Mustang Sally, you have a good heart and I too many years believed alot of the retoric that comes out of the liberal faction of the democratic party....the horrible evil rich people...the fat cats on wall street.... and so on. I don't envy people who are wealthy. I think it's great that they are a success! I admire people who have worked hard or even people who have inherited money from the hard work of their parents and are now doing some great humanitarian works. And even if they don't - so what? It's there life and they are living the life that their loved one wished for them. And I think that is wonderful! Social Security? I think it was a good idea but it has been totally mishandled. And by the way, you do work for your social security - it's taken out of your paycheck. I've paid alot into social security but whose to say it will be there if I really need it someday? Everything that you and I have paid into it is gone! Before FDR and social security how did people retire? Well, it was a different time but those that did saved up for it and they alone decided how it would be invested, not the government. I firmly believe that each individual should decide how the money that they have earned is spent....not a bunch of politicians. What are the qualifications to be a politician? There are none except being a U.S. citizen. Why in the world would I entrust my hard earned money to people with little or no financial experience? Anyway, those are just my thoughts
YES - that's the point- are people so bewildered by others who hold political office to believe that those in political office are qualified to determine how YOUR money is spent or invested? Egads! - Declare the pennies on your eyes - cause I'm the TAXMAN!
You "kids" do realize that taxes were much higher than they are now, don't you?? The UK was much worse, hence the song..... Before social security, people really didn't retire as you were most likely dead by the time you were 55 Next time the movie "Titanic" is shown, you'll see a couple of "robber barons": J.J. Astor and his buddy Guggenheim...
Not sure if your comments are supposed to be reassuring or an acknowledgement that current politics are out of touch with modern times
Actually, things aren't very different at all.
-
SurSteven:
business's shouldn't be taxed there should be a flat and equal percentage tax on all personal income we need free enterprise with the most effective and productive income distribution ratio possible
Legally there's no difference between individuals and corporations (small businesses and the like). Tax one, tax the other.
-
jaipur:
SurSteven:
business's shouldn't be taxed there should be a flat and equal percentage tax on all personal income we need free enterprise with the most effective and productive income distribution ratio possible
Legally there's no difference between individuals and corporations (small businesses and the like). Tax one, tax the other.
I agree with SurSteven provided that the business' and/or corporations employ people. Money should not be taken off the top from business' when it should first go to the people. I don't think that's what Obama has planned - he wants to take money that could go to the employees off the top. That is pure evil The corporations are not evil, it's what some people in government places of power that do to corporations that's where the evil lies. True, CEO's should not have all the golden parachutes & salaries far above others - that's evil too. I want more pay available to the employees. The employees then pay taxes - and more if they are paid more.
-
-
nellie apple:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot God Forbid!
Nellie you did know this was a real possibility. It will be even greater when he is elected. However Skin Heads may be arrested it won't be them but another country head of state of within our own government who behind it. I stongly belive this is why Biden was picked over Clinton. Clinton as VP would of sealed his fate. Change will not come easy! A lot of power at risk here.