BajaNomad - 'Double Wall Barrier' talk - Will GOP immigration rhetoric cost Latino votes?

'Double Wall Barrier' talk - Will GOP immigration rhetoric cost Latino votes?

Pages: 1 .. 4 5 6 7

Cypress - 11-4-2011 at 03:00 PM

Cypress is really from Mississippi. :yes:

And you two or three(MitchMan, mtgoat666, and Iflyfish)? I'm betting you're all the best that the West Coast of California has to offer. :yes:

Bajafun777 - 11-4-2011 at 03:54 PM

The teachers,firefighters, law enforcement and correctional officers are not the reason for California's financial problems. The 100% at age 50 cannot happen unless they have 30 years and OT does not add to the spiking of their salaries as it cannot be used. I did not work for the State but I know what they get, so these false numbers that keep being said over and over make people think it is true when it is not. The last three years you are talking about is the highest salary made during that time period excluding OT as it just does not go into the percentage of pay. After 20 years they do get up to 320 hours of vacation that has to be paid if not used when retiring but they earned it. The uniform pay is given and taxed as salary so that is included but does not add much to retirement it is the years of service that does.

The prison cost to the State is about 10% of the State budget but the attacks on prison unions goes on and on. I want these criminals locked up to prevent them from harming others. The minimum salary for a correctional officer is about $3,700 per month and tops out at about $6,200 which takes 20 years or more to get to. To hear these ads against prison staff they say all make over $100,000 is just not true. Have correctional officers made $100,000? Well, when they were understaffed and made to work large amounts of overtime probably but that is not the case now nor has it been for some time.

Look, I have done tours through the a couple of prisons and you need to tour one too! Walk the line these correctional officers have to and lets see if you think their base salary is too high. Again it is not the correctional officers but all of food cost, prison building maintance,medical, education, special holding areas of the worse of the worse etc that adds up. So, attacking the unions won't help California. Instead, how about watching what these politicians get paid and the benefits they continue getting when they leave office is just wrong.

I guess we won't even discuss how Big Business is playing this State or natural resources not being taxed appropriately when leaving our State. To say it is the all the unions fault is just not true but big corporations want to keep the lies going while they stuff their pockets. Again, I am not a union person but during my many jobs while working I did work in some union shops to which safety was a big plus when working in one.

Now, the big corporation take the jobs out of California and USA to China where the average monthly salary is $90 dollars and over 11 million Chinese still live in rural cave like homes. Even in the manufactoring they just pay top pay of $12 dollars a day, so who can compete with that slave labor?? Start putting tariffs on these goods these corporations are bringing back into this Country. Note, these same corporations were making profits with these companies here but greed and knowing they can get away with not paying taxes just keeps driving them to continue what they are doing! This also allows these corporation CEOs to be paid 100 million a year while calling union workers greedy and too expense, GET THE JOKE HERE?

Do you realize if not for unions what type of America we would have?? They paid the price to establish a living wage for the working class even if some of these working classes themselves were not in the union. The sweat shops women and kids worked in for big corporations were stopped cold. Now, they are practicing this again but in China, India and other Third World Countries. Don't attack what is not the real problem for California and the real problems are huge public assistance programs along with the high cost of education. The education system needs to get back to the basics and it is not the teachers salaries that are killing the goose with the golden egg. Look at the administrators and their management that is blowing big costs way out of line, especially in the colleges. Additionally, the facilities being built just to build them was nuts and is still nuts.

Just do some research on State costs, look at the cost graphs to which you will see the real costly areas of this STATE. In addition look at business write offs even though they are crying the blues and then bringing their products in ships from China right back into our ports to sell to California along with the rest of USA.

Now, can costs be cut in all areas of government you bet they can and need to be but they won't be due to politicians getting their own greedy little hands into the pot! Wow, I must step down from my preaching box, as I really did not intend to write this much. However, I did because I am getting tired of the finger pointing at those that keep the scumbags off the streets and out of our homes. When my house catches on fire I don't know one corporation or politician that will rush over to help or put their life at risk. Nor do I know any of them that will step up risking their lives to stop a criminal from harming our families on the streets or in our homes. Don't even think they will go out looking to take these dangerous pieces of crap off the street and in California it will probably be one of their relatives,LOL. Take Care& Travel Safe---------- "No Hurry, No Worry, Just FUN" bajafun777

MitchMan - 11-4-2011 at 04:12 PM

Cypress, are you the best Mississippi has to offer?

Bajafun777, well stated. Now, if only the righties could write like that. It'll never happen. Hasn't yet.

Quote:

David K
How long will any country last when the non-producers out-weigh what the producers can give?

Comment: I am going to guess that the reason you posited the above quoted question is because you want to point out and emphasize that, notwithstanding the ostensible inequity of one party (i.e., the haves) paying for and carry another party (i.e., the have nots), mathematically and objectively that circumstance leads to the certain collapse of the whole system. Well, I don’t think there can be any disagreement there.

Question to you… David K:

In the USA, how long do you think that the wealth of the top 10% could support the meager living of the non-producers (the unemployed at 9%)?

My calculation show 110 years.

Now, to all you hyperventilating right wingers out there in never never land, I post this not to suggest that the top 10% should hand over all their wealth. I just want to point out that in this country the concentration of the wealth at the top is so large that that wealth could potentially support the so-called ‘non-producers’ for 5.5 generations. I think that adds some perspective to David K’s question.

My point is to show that David K has the wrong focus.

The problem at hand is not that the wealthy are supporting the poor and that can’t go on forever, the problem at hand is that the wealth created in this economy of ours is going disproportionately to the top and away from the bottom, crippling the bottom and leaving the top with multiples more in wealth than they earned and multiples more than they can even begin to consume. A good and functioning economy is a more balanced economy where the working class’s compensation for their work enables them to buy and consume what they produce. Even Adam Smith is for that result. (Maybe not David K, though). That is not happening now and hasn’t happened at least since 1980.

[Edited on 11-4-2011 by MitchMan]

Cypress - 11-4-2011 at 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Cypress, are you the best Mississippi has to offer?
Not by a long shot! There's a whole generation of Mississippi born kids that'll clean your plow any day of the week. :biggrin:

[Edited on 11-4-2011 by MitchMan]

rts551 - 11-4-2011 at 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress

Quote:

[Edited on 11-4-2011 by MitchMan]

and that is literally speaking!

David K - 11-4-2011 at 07:36 PM

You know, I am here for fun and Baja information exchange... as a conservative, I strive to be a happy person. In these political exchanges, I get the 'feeling' that liberals are quite unhappy and always seem to resort to name calling and insults of their opposition.

Since my 'common sense/ conservative values' responses are gaining no ground with you who are posting on the left side... I will try and avoid this thread and stay with Baja related topics (lets see how long that lasts, LOL).

Seriously, can't we debate things friendly? Will the Left ever admit their views are seriously flawed and history paints this so true? (yes, you on the left will say the same... but conservatism is rooted in established, proven success for all Americans and we aren't about change for change's sake)

Thanks for your time and happy 2012!

Can't we ALL just get along ?

MrBillM - 11-4-2011 at 07:43 PM

The answer to Rodney's question is pretty obvious, BUT for ANYBODY still wondering about how the Left approaches Reasoned Political Discourse, I suggest watching the Video from Oakland's latest protest.

TMW - 11-4-2011 at 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Originally posted by TW
[1) dismantling of collective bargaining, especially in but not limited to education, police and fire protection which only serves to reduce the compensation of the working class]

I think all government unions should be done away with. The worse thing for the state of CA was allowing collective bargaining by prison guards etc. and for cities the police and firemen. It will bankrupt the cities and counties if not corrected. I do not think they deserve 100% retirement at age 50+ (3% at 50). I also don't think they should pad their income with OT the last three years to get even more. The percentage should be based on their regular pay. I also don't think they should accumulate vacation time so when they do retire they get paid for a year of vacation, 30 days max. I don't care how many bad guys they caught.

Just so I understand. At what age should they retire? and what percentage?

I think 2% at 50 is plenty generous. But it should be based on regular pay not OT and it should be based on the pay you earned each year not the last 3 years. If you started at $20,000 the first year then $400 would be used etc. when you are ready to retire the various individual amounts per year are added to provide for the annual retirement pay. Private companies use this system for pensions although they may use 1% with a 401K with matching funds for a certain amount. In Bakersfield the police were given a 3% at 50 in 2000 and it nearly bankrupt the system. Last year it was put to a vote because the city council could not or would not do their job and it was replaced with a 2% at 50. It still retained the last 3 years clause and I think OT was included. Our Fire Chief just retired after 33.3 years the last 2 as chief and his reitrement is higher by a few dollars than his annual salary $175,000. He most likely will file for a disability which means half his retirement is tax free. Now I don't begrudge him because that's what the system allows but I think it's too much.

TMW - 11-4-2011 at 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajafun777
The teachers,firefighters, law enforcement and correctional officers are not the reason for California's financial problems. The 100% at age 50 cannot happen unless they have 30 years and OT does not add to the spiking of their salaries as it cannot be used. I did not work for the State but I know what they get, so these false numbers that keep being said over and over make people think it is true when it is not. The last three years you are talking about is the highest salary made during that time period excluding OT as it just does not go into the percentage of pay. bajafun777

I was wrong in that Calpers does not use OT.

[Edited on 11-5-2011 by TW]

Agree to disagree

Ken Cooke - 11-5-2011 at 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You know, I am here for fun and Baja information exchange... as a conservative, I strive to be a happy person. In these political exchanges, I get the 'feeling' that liberals are quite unhappy and always seem to resort to name calling and insults of their opposition.

I have camped with David a few times, and although I am not a Conservative, I tend to be very happy and enjoy visiting with my Conservative friends. I don't like to bring up politics, because I know there will be disagreements. Instead, I like to argue about tangibles such as Jeeps vs. Toyotas.LOL

Backroad Baja with David K

mtgoat666 - 11-5-2011 at 08:31 AM

[Edited on 11-5-2011 by mtgoat666]

mtgoat666 - 11-5-2011 at 08:34 AM

rts551 - 11-5-2011 at 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TW

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Just so I understand. At what age should they retire? and what percentage?

average salary for police is $50,000 per year
average salary for firefighters is $41,000 per year

25 year career at 50, 25,000 and 20,500 respectively. Should we give them COLA's as well?

Well, they are above the poverty level of $14,710 for a family of 2 and at 50 maybe they can have a second career (security guard or Circle K). Hopefully they were able to save something over 25 years of raising a family.

On the Udder Hand

MrBillM - 11-5-2011 at 10:19 AM

Speaking of Bucks for the Bang:

Military spending as a percentage of GDP is at a historical low and continuing to decline.

Cypress - 11-5-2011 at 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Prohibit unions from contributing to political campaigns also!!

TMW - 11-5-2011 at 10:58 AM

There is a COLA adjustment for many if not all cities and counties. I looked at Fresno and LA on line. I think $25000 a year pension at age 50 for the rest of your life is a pretty good deal, especially when COLA is added. Unless you are disabled you still have 12 or more years left to work. The $50000 salary appears to be the median salary in most CA cities which means half make more and half less. Private sector jobs don't pay that to hourly employees and certainly not at age 50. If a cop or fireman retires and becomes a Walmart greeter or flips hamburgers at McDonalds that's up to him and also why he probably never rose any higher in rank while a cop.

rts551 - 11-5-2011 at 11:36 AM

Thar makes the median at 25000 a year as well. and 14710 for the FF?

And I hear this a lot "also why he probably never rose any higher in rank while a _____". As the head of a very large organization (1000+) I used to have to remind employees that no matter how good you are, not everyone can rise to the top (its a pyramid dummy).

krafty - 11-5-2011 at 12:12 PM

DK, how can you have a friendly debate when you follow that up with how "seriously flawed" the opposition is? You know what they say about opinions.....

TMW - 11-5-2011 at 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
Thar makes the median at 25000 a year as well. and 14710 for the FF?

And I hear this a lot "also why he probably never rose any higher in rank while a _____". As the head of a very large organization (1000+) I used to have to remind employees that no matter how good you are, not everyone can rise to the top (its a pyramid dummy).

Name a private company with a better retirement system for hourly employees. Only the military gets 50% of base at 20 years. The cops are getting 50% or better (3% at 50) at 50 years old for 25 years and you don't think it's a fair retirement? Maybe you need to work harder to get into that 1% level your so smart.

Bajafun777 - 11-5-2011 at 04:39 PM

It should also be said here that the biggest reason these wall street investors and big business corporations are pushing to break unions is for the retirement funds. Just like they raid other companies the main thing they are after are the retirement funding sources. The weak regulations allow them to steal them and then claim bad investments.

Public and Unions have to really be watching this issue no matter what or more people will have their retirements stolen right out from under them. Who do you think will be wanting to do grab these dollars that will be forced into 401 retirement investments?? This is a real deal breaker just like it was for Social Security that the wall street types and big corportations were foaming at the mouth waiting to pounce on. Be aware and Be Afraid, Be Really Afraid even if in private business retirements remember Enron?? Take Care&Travel Safe----------"No Hurry, No Worry, Just FUN" bajafun777

rts551 - 11-5-2011 at 04:44 PM

Why are you getting so nasty. I am only pointing out the facts. no one in gov't outside of the military gets 50% at 20. and 15k at 25 is not all that good for being a FF. TW chill. You can't have a civil discussion. never mind....

Quote:

Originally posted by TW

Quote:

Cypress - 11-5-2011 at 04:48 PM

Breaking unions? They're already broken. Be afraid? Of what? :yes:

rts551 - 11-5-2011 at 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TW

Quote:

Not in the 1% but happy where I am at. No need to work harder cause I worked smarter.

Iflyfish - 11-5-2011 at 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Cooke

Quote:

David was one of the first to welcome me on this board and sent me "Got Baja" stickers for my motor home, which I still proudly display. I too am of the agree to disagree school. I value Nomads and the folks on this forum. I also appreciate a reasoned and civil dialogue.

Iflyfishwithmynomadbuddies

Iflyfish - 11-5-2011 at 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
Speaking of Bucks for the Bang:

Military spending as a percentage of GDP is at a historical low and continuing to decline.

I think we can find some very useful and unbiased info. here.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
Iflyfish

Barry A. - 11-5-2011 at 10:49 PM

That's a good link, Fish. Very helpful, tho does not eliminate the arguments as is pointed out in the article..

It still comes back to phylosophy, and economic models as to how best to solve the problem of the high debt to GDP ratio.

Thanks.

Barry

Iflyfish - 11-6-2011 at 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
That's a good link, Fish. Very helpful, tho does not eliminate the arguments as is pointed out in the article..

It still comes back to phylosophy, and economic models as to how best to solve the problem of the high debt to GDP ratio.

Thanks.

Barry

Glad you found it useful. I did also.

As I have said before, the USofA is a Mixed economy and the solutions to these problems will require mixed responses. My fear is that radical forces in Congress, conservative idealogues, or if not them, then the Super Committee, driven by them, will cut spending with out providing stimulstion, a ticket to even more unemployment. Unemployment is a very real problem and after the turn of the year hundreds of thousands will no longer qualify for unemployment insurance, money that is pumped back into the ecomomy as soon as it is in the hands of the unemployed.

Time will tell.

I have appreciated this discussion and learned from it. I appreciate your allowing it to continue as you have.

Iflyfish

Cutting Stimulstion ?

MrBillM - 11-6-2011 at 09:43 AM

Please explain to what extent cutting Stimulstion affects the Budget Deficit and Debt ?

[Edited on 11-6-2011 by MrBillM]

wessongroup - 11-6-2011 at 10:17 AM

Thanks, liked the discussion too... and the link... does make one think hard on the realities "WE®" face going forward into this century .. Population, Climate, Resources, Sustainable economy's and toss in astroids for gee whizz ....

Good luck youngsters .... not sure we left it as we found it ... just saying...

MitchMan - 11-6-2011 at 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Prohibit unions from contributing to political campaigns also!!

Absolutely. All contributions from any and all Corporations, affilliations, organizations and associations including any all unions should be prohibited. Political contributions should come only from individual voters in small amounts (specific dollar amount limitation per voter).

[Edited on 11-6-2011 by MitchMan]

MitchMan - 11-6-2011 at 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by krafty
DK, how can you have a friendly debate when you follow that up with how "seriously flawed" the opposition is? You know what they say about opinions.....

I was just about to make the same point. Well stated Krafty.

Cypress - 11-6-2011 at 11:51 AM

Military spending= jobs in the USA. Shipyards, aircraft construction, and all the other misc. items that keep our military up and running require a skilled workforce.

Barry A. - 11-6-2011 at 12:17 PM

Below is from a fellow NOMAD via e-mail----------just sometning to think about.

Barry

> This is one of the most under-reported fact of all time ... I wrote this to you previously, but here it is with a more detail. The Dems took over the Senate and House on Jan 3, 2007 ... and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd took over Fanny and Freddy ... Not one bill or amendment of the Republicans made it to the floor ... (for the next four years) and fifteen months later ... R
>
>
> The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Before that date the democrats controlled Congress for almost 50 years.
> For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
>
> January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
>
> At the time:
>
> The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
>
> The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
>
> The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
>
> George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
>
> Again- Remember the day...
> January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
>
> The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
> BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
>
> Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco's!
> (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but the democrats would not listen and in fact Barney Frank stated there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie).
>
> And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
>
> Then Senator OBAMA.
>
> And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???
>
> OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.
>
> So when someone tries to blame Bush...
>
> REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... "THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
>
> Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal, the steering wheel and they were driving. Set the record straight on Bush!
>
> So, as you listen to all the commercials and media from the Democrats who are now distancing themselves from their voting record and their party, remember how they didn't listen to you when you said you didn't want all the bailouts, you didn't want the health care bill, you didn't want cap and trade, you didn't want them to continue spending money we don't have.
>
> I'm not forgetting their complicity in getting us into this mess, and I'll be marking my vote accordingly!
>
> "It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so" -Ronald Reagan

David K - 11-6-2011 at 12:24 PM

That's beautiful Barry.. but you know that FACTS only get liberals angry, as it spoils their concept of reality.

TMW - 11-6-2011 at 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
Why are you getting so nasty. I am only pointing out the facts. no one in gov't outside of the military gets 50% at 20. and 15k at 25 is not all that good for being a FF. TW chill. You can't have a civil discussion.

You are right it's getting a little carried away and I apologize.

MitchMan - 11-6-2011 at 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iflyfish

Quote:

As I have said before, the USofA is a Mixed economy and the solutions to these problems will require mixed responses. My fear is that radical forces in Congress, conservative idealogues, or if not them, then the Super Committee, driven by them, will cut spending with out providing stimulstion, a ticket to even more unemployment. Unemployment is a very real problem and after the turn of the year hundreds of thousands will no longer qualify for unemployment insurance, money that is pumped back into the ecomomy as soon as it is in the hands of the unemployed.

Most all respected economists on both sides of the political spectrum and big picture economic stats have pointed to the current economic malaise as being a product of inadequate consumer demand. That is, not enough money in the pockets of the working class, and most in the working class cannot even afford necessities. Ergo, economically and mathematically speaking, when you cure the inadequate purchasing power of the working class, you cure the malaise in our market based economy.

Since 1980, the big picture stats and data show that our economy’s GDP and the nation’s income and wealth has grown at a steady clip. Those stats and data also show that the proportional growth of the income and wealth at the top has grown disproportionately larger while the proportional wealth and income of the working class has disproportionately shrunk.
.

Mathematically and economically that accounts for the fact that the working class doesn’t have enough money to buy what they have produced and the corresponding and directly related fact that our economy suffers from lack of consumer demand. That, plus the near collapse of the financial sector and the related great recession having hit the working class much, much worse than the top wealth and income earners were hit (actually the concentration of wealth at the top actually grew as a result of the great recession) has further deteriorated working class consumer demand, and according produced the overall weak demand of our economy.

The long-term and short-term fix must involve a fix to the way our economy has disproportionately under compensated the working class.

I mean over the last 30 years of the nation’s GDP and Income and Wealth growth, what good does it do to have an economy that has an annually growing GDP where a disproportionate amount of the GDPs created wealth and income goes only to the few at the top while at the same time diminish the wealth and income of 97% of the rest of the country?

It’s like the growth of an iceberg. As the iceberg grows, 90% of that growth goes under water while only 10% gets to float above the water. The GDP growth over the last 30 years may define a growing economy, but its not growing for the working class that does all the work, it’s been shrinking for us since 1980.

The economy is producing warped results and needs to be fixed. While the nation’s GDP, Income and Wealth has grown over the last 30 years, the working class hasn’t gotten its earned share but the top holders of wealth and income got more than there share by the workings of a dysfunctional economic structure.

This is not to say that the wealthy are all to blame. Not so. The economy has been hijacked by certain relatively few monied special interests who were additionally successul in persuading complicity among some of the unwitted within the working class itself.

[Edited on 11-6-2011 by MitchMan]

Bill Moyers article in The Nation

toneart - 11-6-2011 at 01:32 PM

http://www.thenation.com/article/164349/how-wall-street-occu...

I am enjoying the civil tone of this debate. This is a remarkable turnabout from many past Nomad debates.

Although Barry and I differ I told you he is a good man. He presents his philosophy eloquently and with passion. In spite of differences in ideology, we are all occupying the planet together. You, whom have contributed so prolifically are to be commended. Thank you all! :light:

JoeJustJoe - 11-6-2011 at 01:32 PM

This is a stupid chain letter right-wingers send each others.

It's so ridiculous it's not even worthy of any comments.

The facts is the President(s) usually gets all the credit or all the blame. The puck stops with the President. Bush was President during the build up to the housing crisis, and the actual housing crisis bubble bursting. Sure things were OK for awhile because many Americans were using their house as a piggy bank, however compared to the Clinton Administration's economy Bush's administration was no match. The Bush administration didn't see this title wave coming, and Bush's regulators were asleep at the switch.

The fact is Barry A has admitted he lost over half the value of his stock market holdings during the Bush years, and didn't regain the value until Obama came in and stimulated the economy. Barry A should be on his knees thanking Obama, and cursing Bush:
________________________________

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco's!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?

OBAMA.

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???

OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving. Set the record straight on Bush!

So, as you listen to all the commercials and media from the Democrats who are now distancing themselves from their voting record and their party, remember how they didn't listen to you when you said you didn't want all the bailouts, you didn't want the health care bill, you didn't want cap and trade, you didn't want them to continue spending money we don't have.

I'm not forgetting their complicity in getting us into this mess, and I'll be marking my vote accordingly!

"It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so" -Ronald Reagan

http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/in-case-you...

rts551 - 11-6-2011 at 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TW

Quote:

You are right it's getting a little carried away and I apologize.

No Problem . I am taking a break from this thread anyway. I think we have gone full circle.

toneart - 11-6-2011 at 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TW

Quote:

You are right it's getting a little carried away and I apologize.

Thank you, TW. You too are a valuable contributor!

Cypress - 11-6-2011 at 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
FACTS only get liberals angry, as it spoils their concept of reality.

Do not feed the trolls!

toneart - 11-6-2011 at 01:45 PM

Cypress - 11-6-2011 at 01:53 PM

Evidently the latest posts are not in line with your political leanings. So they're trolls? You decide who's a troll? :lol:

Barry A. - 11-6-2011 at 03:56 PM

JoeJJoe said above--------"The fact is Barry A has admitted he lost over half the value of his stock market holdings during the Bush years, and didn't regain the value until Obama came in and stimulated the economy. Barry A should be on his knees thanking Obama, and cursing Bush:"

Partially correct, JJJ, but highly misleading interpretation of what I actually said------(why am I not surprised at this?) :lol:

I did lose "over half" (58%) of the value of my Stock investments ON PAPER as of April 2009. Despite what is normally thought, Presidents have very little to do with how the Market goes. Markets go up and Markets go down, influenced by countless things too numerous to even mention here, few directly connected to Government action. I neither condemn or applaud Obama's or Bush's tangible contributions to the puzzle of Market action--------it was a Market cycle, which ALWAYS happens. And yes, the cycle reversed (as always happens) and I did regain all my losses by Jan. of 2011 because I essentially remained fully invested, and have now gone on to very mild profits. Obama (and Bush) had little to do with it. Since roughly 50% of the Nation's folks are one way or another invested in the Stock Market, I am sure that they had a similar experience as I did IF they remained invested throughout that time period, and til today. Certainly almost all of the top 5% crowd are invested in the Market, and consequently have also make back the huge losses they suffered------when you have 100's of thousands of dollars invested in the Market, losses and gains are HUGE, possibly reflecting why the so-called "1%'ers" have accrued so much wealth over the years. It certainly pays to be in the Market.

The economy is different than the Market, tho, and that is another story.

But, I have made all these observations before within this thread, and now as somebody just recently said, we seem to be going full circle (again) and it is getting boring. (to me, at least).

Barry

mtgoat666 - 11-6-2011 at 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Military spending= jobs in the USA. Shipyards, aircraft construction, and all the other misc. items that keep our military up and running require a skilled workforce.

sounds like socialsim to me!

same $$ would be better spent creating jobs in elementary schools, homeless shelters, health care and parks/libraries.

Cypress - 11-7-2011 at 06:23 AM

Creating jobs in elementary schools? You mean a kick-back to the AFT. The rest of the jobs would only swell the ranks of the SEIU. Both unions are big supporters of the current administration. Which, by all standards, is the worse since Jimmy Carter.

Iflyfish - 11-7-2011 at 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
Please explain to what extent cutting Stimulstion affects the Budget Deficit and Debt ?

[Edited on 11-6-2011 by MrBillM]

Please excuse my spelling error. I am on a fishing trip and wrote in haste.

I can understand how the context would not help some readers understand what the writer was saying. I will try to do better.

How Stimulation affects the economy. I think Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton says it most simply. As a plus for those who have difficulty reading for context this is a video. You might actually enjoy the one liners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE

Iflyfishandwillwrite"stimulation"onehundredtimesontheboard

Barry A. - 11-7-2011 at 07:06 AM

Fish--------Robert Reisch appears almost daily on the LARRY KUDLOW show on CNBC at 4 pm arguing with Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal (executive editor I believe) and he (Riesch) does not make sense to me even in person.

Just totally different phylosophies as to how to get the economy going---------not sure who is right, but probably a combination of both their ideas, I suspect. We simply have to compromise in order to move forward----on both sides.

Barry

Iflyfish - 11-7-2011 at 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Creating jobs in elementary schools? You mean a kick-back to the AFT. The rest of the jobs would only swell the ranks of the SEIU. Both unions are big supporters of the current administration. Which, by all standards, is the worse since Jimmy Carter.

Where is all of the military hardware that was built for Iraq? Will it come home? Will it be melted into girders for new bridges? Will we get the expended cartridges back? What will we do with them? What will we do with all the napalm we dumped on the forests of Viet Nam? Where will the 4,500 men and women we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan work? Where will the 30,000 wounded find employment? What use will we put to all of the downed aircraft in the deserts of the Middle East? What public use will we put to the fuel we have burned to move, supply and transport our military? We have subsidized the largest Military Industrial Complex the world has ever seen, spent the largest part of our GDP on Military Hardware and support, built the world’s greatest war machine, become the world’s largest exporter of weapons and how has this contributed to our public schools, roads, bridges and infrastructure? Why is military spending a zero/sum game? When you touch off that rocket my friend it is GONE.

What do we have to show for our Military Industrial Complex and their Abrams tanks, redundant airplanes and on it goes? We have waved the flag and blown our horns and the sound has returned hollow and dead. You might require some help understanding that last line, it’s a metaphor but the spelling is pretty good.

As to the issue of the relative value of Military Spending compares versus infrastructure spending I will have to leave that to others, the salmon call! That too is a metaphor, of course we all understand that salmon don’t have a voice.

Others may post on the relative value of funding public education versus building private war manufacturing plants. I don't have the time right now.

Iflyfishsnarkysometimes

mtgoat666 - 11-7-2011 at 07:19 AM

Quote:

so, in your anger at teachers, you take it out on the kids. these are same kids that grow up and to be so stupid that all they can do is get a job in infantry as pawns in stanland.

why not support tem in youth, instead of buying gun to put in their hands in adulthood?

Cypress - 11-7-2011 at 07:59 AM

mtgoat666, Anger at teachers? What a crock! I taught school for several years, know all about the " We need more funds, more teachers, more...." mantra. Tell that to someone who hasn't been there.

oxxo - 11-7-2011 at 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
mtgoat666, Anger at teachers? What a crock! I taught school for several years, know all about the " We need more funds, more teachers, more...." mantra. Tell that to someone who hasn't been there.

I've taught school from 10 y.o.'s to 30 y.o.'s - all public institutions. Been there, done that. I agree with the ol' goat. Let the MILITARY hold a bake sale the next time they want a new bomber. I do support annual certifcation of teachers for competency and I oppose tenure. That would get rid of some of the riff raff who aren't up on current affairs, current events, history, and who can't support their arguments with facts.

Cypress - 11-7-2011 at 12:14 PM

oxxo, Why wouldn't you agree with mtgoat666? :biggrin:

MitchMan - 11-7-2011 at 01:42 PM

Quite sure there is room of for improvement in all business operations and social institutions including the teaching profession. Been surrounded by and connected to teachers all my adult life: x-wife career teacher, daughter-in-law math professor in MD, son-in-law teacher, personal friends as teachers and principals, and I have taught at local community college part time for 16 years.

What is also clear is that more focus on education is needed in this country if we are going to keep a strong position in this world in the future as we are well on our way to having our clocks cleaned by other countries. Our comparative advantage is most likely going to lie in our advanced technology and industry that requires better educated people than this country is generating now overall. We in California started our decline with the Reagan Governorship. Pretty obvious turn of events considering his disrespect for education and other social institutions.

Improvement in education will mean more money spent on education, but improvement in education is not limited to just spending more money. However, we as a people need to be careful that the privatization pushers don’t get enough control and clout to further erode public education beyond what has occurred by the defunding efforts of the right wing. It is my opinion that the upper socio-economic strata of the right wing will only improve their education for their kids, but not the general publics’ kids.

Cypress - 11-7-2011 at 01:56 PM

MitchMan, Ever heard of vouchers?

Barry A. - 11-7-2011 at 04:11 PM

Mitch---------have you been reading and watching the "Charter School" results??? Nothing short of miraculous---------and at a substantially lower cost than Public Education on a per-pupil basis.

Lots to learn out there for the Public School Admin. and teachers, and I wish they would pay attention instead of concentrating on protecting THEIR turf--------

-------It IS all about the kids, you know.

Barry

mtgoat666 - 11-7-2011 at 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
-------It IS all about the kids, you know.

actually, it is about 3 things, the kids, the teachers and the system. w/o good teachers and effective system, the kids are toast.

you can't pee on teachers and system and expect to recruit good teachers for the kids. i really can't fault the teachers unions politics given the political hostility of many people on the right (e.g. cypress).

nothing is perfect, and the system is better than in many countries.

Barry A. - 11-7-2011 at 04:49 PM

-------------Very true, Goat, but they (the Public Schools) have been given soooooo very much money, and sooooooo very much time, and the Public Schools CONTINUE to slip downhill--------a result, I think, of the control of schools being removed from the local community, as well as central planning gone amuk!!!!

Barry

rts551 - 11-7-2011 at 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Mitch---------have you been reading and watching the "Charter School" results??? Nothing short of miraculous---------and at a substantially lower cost than Public Education on a per-pupil basis.

Lots to learn out there for the Public School Admin. and teachers, and I wish they would pay attention instead of concentrating on protecting THEIR turf--------

-------It IS all about the kids, you know.

Barry

I know one of these successful charter schools. A friends child who could not make it in a regular school went to a "liberal arts" read touch feely, charter school. graduated with honors and now can not get into college. How are there scholastic test results? Maybe its just a problem in Arizona.

Barry A. - 11-7-2011 at 04:57 PM

Hopefully THAT charter school will fail and disappear (tho the kids will suffer in the meantime)----------but at least it's a start in "change" that we can all wish for. I have heard not much good about the Public Schools lately, either.

Barry

rts551 - 11-7-2011 at 06:20 PM

here barry. maybe this will provide more than anecdotal info

In 2009, the most authoritative study of charter schools was conducted by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. The report is the first detailed national assessment of charter schools. It analyzed 70% of the nation's students attending charter schools and compared the academic progress of those students with that of demographically matched students in nearby public schools. The report found that 17% of charter schools reported academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools; 46% showed no difference from public schools; and 37% were significantly worse than their traditional public school counterparts. The authors of the report considering this a "sobering" finding about the quality of charter schools in the U.S. Charter schools showed a significantly greater variation in quality as compared with the more standardized public schools with many falling below public school performances and a few exceeding them significantly.

Iflyfish - 11-7-2011 at 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
here barry. maybe this will provide more than anecdotal info

In 2009, the most authoritative study of charter schools was conducted by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. The report is the first detailed national assessment of charter schools. It analyzed 70% of the nation's students attending charter schools and compared the academic progress of those students with that of demographically matched students in nearby public schools. The report found that 17% of charter schools reported academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools; 46% showed no difference from public schools; and 37% were significantly worse than their traditional public school counterparts. The authors of the report considering this a "sobering" finding about the quality of charter schools in the U.S. Charter schools showed a significantly greater variation in quality as compared with the more standardized public schools with many falling below public school performances and a few exceeding them significantly.

Two points.

Public schools must take ALL students and that includes an epidemic of Special Education Students. Any idea what it is like to teach in a traditional classroom with a couple of kids with ADHD and an Autistic child to boot? Let the Charter Schools take these students too and then compare apples and apples.

The elephant in the room as far as education is concerned is that children have less support at home now and parents are less engaged than they have been historicaly in reading to their children, eating meals at the table and backing the discipline of the school. We have many more single parent families and since our war in Viet Nam it requires two working parents to support a family and that means less parent/child time. Many families do not discuss the issues of the day and their child's experience of school over the dinner table. Few families eat dinner at the table any more.

In societies with more intact families, like Mexico, there are fewer disciplinary problems and more parental involvement. I know, this is a generalization, but I do have significant experience in this arena in both cultures.

READ TO YOUR CHILDREN!!! and GRANDCHILDREN

Iflyfish

Bajafun777 - 11-7-2011 at 08:07 PM

Unfortunately, Public Schools have taken on the role of parenting that they cannot do nor is it working. The system allows those students that do not want to learn but to disrupt, as they take up prime teaching time. In they past when we were kids this resulted in sending them to the office and then on their way but this is no more. The almighty ADA, average daily attendance, monies for the school keeps those trouble makers disrupting all day long.
We need parents to definately step up with involvement in the schooling of their children and not crying their B.S. of blaming the teachers and the world for their poor parenting skills.
Why any professional would want to teach today with all of the low starting pay along with endless State testing which does not increase anything is beyond me. Teachers deserve more credit than they are given for having to teach using every new crazy idea that hits some politician's head. Reading is the main steps to better school achievement that is for sure! Note that tenure will not always protect the bad teachers, as I have seen them fired or voluntary resigning more than once. However, the tenure and unions do try their hardest to defend even the known bad teachers that they all talk about when others are not around,LOL> Take Care&Travel Safe---------"No Hurry, No Worry, Just FUN" bajafun777

Barry A. - 11-7-2011 at 09:21 PM

rts551----------so lets study the 17% that are doing "significantly" better in educating our kids, and implement their ideas and practices???

By the say, I challenge the notion that it "takes 2 working parents" to support a family since the Viet Nam era-----------neither of my wives ever "worked" at a paying job until after our kids were long gone. And my daughter-in-law is a teacher in CA now, and she is the sole supporter of her family------my son is a stay-at-home-Dad raising my two younger grandkids (6 & 8). I think that 2 parents work because they have made a decision that they "want more stuff".

Barry

oxxo - 11-8-2011 at 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
rts551----------so lets study the 17% that are doing "significantly" better in educating our kids, and implement their ideas and practices???

That's easy, the Charter schools are culling the highest achieving students from the general public school population.

Quote:

By the say, I challenge the notion that it "takes 2 working parents" to support a family since the Viet Nam era................And my daughter-in-law is a teacher in CA now, and she is the sole supporter of her family

Hold on there a minute pardner! The average salary for a California teacher is $60K per year (http://www.teacherportal.com/salary/California-teacher-salar...). A single working parent earning minumum wage earns about $20K a year. Even if both parents work at minimum wage jobs, they make a combined $40K per year, much less than the average California teacher. Plus the teacher works less than 9 months a year so they have more time to devote to to their children! You are comparing cherries to watermellons

Quote:

I think that 2 parents work because they have made a decision that they "want more stuff".

I would agree with that statement at the higher wage scales like California teachers. I disagree with that statement at the lower wage scales. Both parents work just to support a family and pay basic bills with two children.

To quote Rick Perry, your analysis above is "heartless."

And to bring this discussion back on topic, the philosophy stated by Barry above (which is typical for a large number of people in the US) is exactly why the Hispanic population is likely not to support conservative Teapublican politics in any great numbers.

message for david k and other zombie partisan sheeple

mtgoat666 - 11-8-2011 at 08:53 AM

[Edited on 11-8-2011 by mtgoat666]

message for the sensitive types here that find civil disobedience disconcerting

mtgoat666 - 11-8-2011 at 08:56 AM

Barry A. - 11-8-2011 at 08:57 AM

When I retired from the Feds I was making, after 30 years, $40K a year and we lived just fine and even managed to save 30% of it and invest.

I am not convinced the "2 parents have to work to make ends meet", and stick to my guns in saying that " 2 parents work so that they can have more stuff".

If the Latinos don't like that, then so be it. But I cannot and do not blame unthinking "minimum wage earners" from wanting Dems in power since they do get more stuff and services under Dem Administrations, but of course we will go bankrupt down the line. Pretty short sighted, if you ask me.

Barry

David K - 11-8-2011 at 08:59 AM

Goat, you are the biggest partisan here... I am a consrvative more so than a Republican. That means I vote on the issues not the letter next to the name.

By and far, the ones with a D are for MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, more TAXES. The ones with an R are for MORE PRIVATE CONTROL, more FREEDOM.

But, like in 2007, if the Rs loose their way they don't get re-elected. The Ds have been in carge of spending since 2008... Look how good that has been for us!!!

Barry A. - 11-8-2011 at 08:59 AM

Goat------leaders are leaders, no matter the politics involved. You are going to get the same result after the "revolution" as history has long proved.

What is accomplished??? (other than long lasting chaos)

Barry

Alan - 11-8-2011 at 09:10 AM

Unfortunately we keep throwing good money after bad. Everytime we give the politicians more money they squander it (both parties) to curry favor and buy more votes.

I watched in pure amazement and disgust when our local school district decided to build a new Intermediate school. Their first step was to seize private property through the imminent domain process. After several of years in the courts and finally winning their case at the cost of nearly $1,000,000 (legal fees only, property price not included) they changed their mind and decided to build elsewhere.

Then for the school they ended up building, they designed a circular 15,000+ sq ft auditorium. (Is there any more expensive way to build a wall?). In that auditorium was a stage about 2 ft tall. Rather than desgning a ramp (for which there was more than adequate room) they installed an elevator to travel the 2' up to the stage for handicap access. Finally they topped the whole thing off with a copper roof! Additionally they purposely underbuilt the size of the school so they had to bring in portable classrooms before they even opened. (apparently they get even more funding from the Feds if they have to use portable classrooms).

When do we finally say "Enough is enough! You have to live within your means". Instead we keeping giving them more and somehow tell ourselves they aren't going to screw us "this time". It's like everyone is suffering from the battered wife syndrome, continually believing that this time he is going to change. Hmmm, how did the bank bailout and Solyndra work for us?

mtgoat666 - 11-8-2011 at 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
The ones with an R are for MORE PRIVATE CONTROL, more FREEDOM.

Freedom? ha, ha! The GOP routinely places restrictions on people, using govt to rerstrict freedoms:
DOMA
Patriot Act
School testing/school uniformity
anti-choice for women
most recently, the GOP went crazy on defining life in mississippi, and GOP in House are defending DOMA in court.
ya, sounds like freedom brigade!

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
The Ds have been in carge of spending since 2008... Look how good that has been for us!!!

the post-2008 spending did not cause the recession. the recession was unregulated wall st run amock! who deregulated every 1%er they saw? GOP.
the post-2008 spending has moderated the recession, kept it from being worse than it would have been in w/ no spending.

Iflyfish - 11-8-2011 at 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
When I retired from the Feds I was making, after 30 years, $40K a year and we lived just fine and even managed to save 30% of it and invest.

I am not convinced the "2 parents have to work to make ends meet", and stick to my guns in saying that " 2 parents work so that they can have more stuff".

If the Latinos don't like that, then so be it. But I cannot and do not blame unthinking "minimum wage earners" from wanting Dems in power since they do get more stuff and services under Dem Administrations, but of course we will go bankrupt down the line. Pretty short sighted, if you ask me.

Barry

I understand that from the perspective of a successful person like both of us it is hard to imagine that the cost of the Viet Nam war was that it required two parents to work in order to support a family. I think OXXO responded clearly and well to that issue. Where did the money come from for that war??? Out of thin air??

Please read the following for an analysis of the real cost of war done by a Nobel Prize winning economist.

Our national treasure and that of our children has been squandered on wars of choice that we did not need to wage. We are paying the cost. The Soviet Union was bankrupted by its 10 year war in Afghanistan and its arms race with the USofA. Wars have serious consequences, most not calculated in the run up. Who do you think paid for that great light show in Iraq we called Shock and Awe and watched on our TVs. Hope every one enjoyed the show, our grandkids will be paying for it.

We have made choices as a country and there are real costs to those choices.

Iflyfish

I'm with Barry

MrBillM - 11-8-2011 at 09:46 AM

During the many years I worked for GTE, the VAST Majority I saw of those with BOTH parents working were doing so for MORE and BETTER "STUFF". Truly amazing (to me) were the number of Upscale vehicles in the parking lot each day owned by hourly "Clerks", including BMWs (a favorite) and Jag XJ6s. No shortage of Motor Homes and GREAT Boats, either.

It was difficult not to laugh at times when I'd hear some of those "stuff" owners wail and moan about the daily grind and their inadequate pay.

NEVER appreciated was my oft-repeated comment that "they should get down on their hands and knees at the entrance and give thanks that they're working for GTE because their job skills bring about half what they're now making in the REAL World".

I had NO friends among the Unionists.

Iflyfish - 11-8-2011 at 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
During the many years I worked for GTE, the VAST Majority I saw of those with BOTH parents working were doing so for MORE and BETTER "STUFF". Truly amazing (to me) were the number of Upscale vehicles in the parking lot each day owned by hourly "Clerks", including BMWs (a favorite) and Jag XJ6s. No shortage of Motor Homes and GREAT Boats, either.

It was difficult not to laugh at times when I'd hear some of those "stuff" owners wail and moan about the daily grind and their inadequate pay.

NEVER appreciated was my oft-repeated comment that "they should get down on their hands and knees at the entrance and give thanks that they're working for GTE because their job skills bring about half what they're now making in the REAL World".

I had NO friends among the Unionists.

You and I ate the heart of the water melon and it was very, very good. Excellent in fact. Try not to rub it in on those who are not as fortunate to have lived in the time that we did. You cannot blame the unemployment of the Great Depression or the unemployment of today on lazyness. Oh, you just did!?! Did you skip school the day they tought about the Great Depression?

Iflyfish

wessongroup - 11-8-2011 at 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

[Edited on 11-8-2011 by mtgoat666]

thanks... as that is really the bottom line... the people/citizens of this "Republic" .... called the United States of America ..

Unfortunately ..................

MrBillM - 11-8-2011 at 01:36 PM

On Major Issues, a Victory or Loss by the Dems or Reps, DOES Constitute a Victory or Loss for the Republic.

There IS a reason why, at election time, 45 percent of the Electorate will be SOLIDLY on one side or the other with roughly Ten percent at issue.

wessongroup - 11-8-2011 at 02:44 PM

Kinda interested in voter turn out in this election .... if the turn out get into the 80-90% range ... the results might get surprising ... for some ...

Should really prove interesting... given the current conditions of the Republic... and that would be that approximately 40% of folks below 65 years of age net worth is zero (0) or less ... and there is not much on the horizon for those looking for work... in the fields which had supported them until the "sub-prime" hit the fan...

Toss in the "shadow" inventory of ever increasing amounts of homes which will be coming on the already glutted market ... does not really sound all that great at this time.... some say another 5 million homes, just what ya need ...

If this election's turn out, in 2012, is once again like most other Presidential elections.. one should be able to draw some pretty good conclusions about the ...WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN questions for this Republic...

Maybe we need another "super committee" HUH !! how many has it been... two... in three years... and who has followed the recommendations coming out of either ... nada...

Alan - 11-8-2011 at 05:00 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0&feature=share

Depression Lessons

MrBillM - 11-8-2011 at 08:06 PM

From FishFly:

"Did you skip school the day they tought about the Great Depression"?

Well, there was a lot TAUGHT about the Depression in school and from relatives who lived through it. For me, I thought it interesting that my Maternal Great-Grandfather and his Brother-in-law (both cabinet-makers) were never out of work during that time. In addition, I ended up being given the 1936 Chevrolet bought new at the height of the Depression.

They were all dedicated Republicans till they died.

On the other hand, my Paternal Grandmother, with no marketable skills, struggled through and remained a devoted Dem who idolized FDR.

It's all in your point of view and ALWAYS easier to blame your fate on something else.

[Edited on 11-9-2011 by MrBillM]

oxxo - 11-9-2011 at 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
For me, I thought it interesting that my Maternal Great-Grandfather and his Brother-in-law (both cabinet-makers) were never out of work during that time. In addition, I ended up being given the 1936 Chevrolet bought new at the height of the Depression.

They were all dedicated Republicans till they died.

On the other hand, my Paternal Grandmother, with no marketable skills, struggled through and remained a devoted Dem who idolized FDR.

Oh Cow Chips! You are the only one that finds it interesting. Each of us has a boring, personal, inconsequential, anecdotal story to tell. My paternal grandfather and grandmother owned a mom and pop grocery store in Kansas during the depression. They were both dedicated Republicans at the start. They went "bankrupt" as a resullt of giving store credit to their friends and neighbors who had no food. They moved to California in 1936 to start a new life because they now had no way to pay for their own food. Eventually they turned their lives around their as a result of FDR's policies. They never voted Republican again. In the 1970's my grandfather showed me a shoebox full of IOUs he had saved from the store. The people who owed him money and bought new 1936 Chevrolets never paid him back. It was a bitter experience for both of them and they never returned to Kansas.

Cypress - 11-9-2011 at 05:32 AM

The dems don't enforce immigration laws and the Latinos will vote for 'em. Guess all Nomads will vote for whichever Mexican political party that refuses to enforce Mexican immigration laws.

Iflyfish - 11-9-2011 at 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
From FishFly:

"Did you skip school the day they tought about the Great Depression"?

Well, there was a lot TAUGHT about the Depression in school and from relatives who lived through it. For me, I thought it interesting that my Maternal Great-Grandfather and his Brother-in-law (both cabinet-makers) were never out of work during that time. In addition, I ended up being given the 1936 Chevrolet bought new at the height of the Depression.

They were all dedicated Republicans till they died.

On the other hand, my Paternal Grandmother, with no marketable skills, struggled through and remained a devoted Dem who idolized FDR.

It's all in your point of view and ALWAYS easier to blame your fate on something else.

[Edited on 11-9-2011 by MrBillM]

Yet another spelling error, I am very sorry, was on a fishing trip and in a hurry. I am glad you were able to understand what I was saying this time. Whew!!!

You are right, my mistake. Those who were unemployed during the Great Depression were just lazy and looking for a handout. Your family on the other hand displayed great virtue and moral strength so did not suffer during those times. I guess I just have a Liberal Bias from talking with my family, who lost their bank, during the Great Depression. I am also certain that everyone who is not working today is immoral, lazy and looking for a handout. I stand corrected.

I come from North Dakota, the only State with its own State Bank, which has remained one of the best and most solvent in the nation. Those Socialist farmers were sure stupid; they didn't want to be part of a system of banks that would ever again swindle them! Those Dumb Socialist/Communist Farmers are sure Un-American.

Please accept my apology if I have misspelled any words.

Iflyfish

gotta love bill moyers!

mtgoat666 - 11-9-2011 at 09:37 AM

Barry A. - 11-9-2011 at 10:48 AM

No, Goat--------I barely tolerate Bill Moyers------------as he is sooooo left and sooooo exagerates his points ("for effect", no doubt.)

I am always amazed (well, not really) that the left gets so angry when someone tells a 'family' story and immediately starts throwing stones at the narrator. REAL EXPERIENCES are so aggravating and do muddy the water when they are counter to the quoted "facts" and "stats" out of left-wing publications and think-tanks.

Here is another of those "stories" that Oxxo hates-------my paternal grandfather, a Naval Officer, was badly injured in an accident and forced to retire as a Lt. Cmdr. on disability at 43 and never was able to work again. He took a percentage of his pension and invested it in the Stock Market during the Depression, and ended up being a millionair, all from his gains in the Market. It took a while, but it sure payed off------------. But of course he was "just lucky". :rolleyes:

He was a rabid-Republican all his life, and constantly preached against the policies of FDR as he believed it would lead to a "dependent society"--------wow, how COULD he think that??????

Barry

si, se puede!

mtgoat666 - 11-9-2011 at 11:02 AM

Barry A. - 11-9-2011 at 11:03 AM

Excellent!!!!!!!!!!! Well done, Goat.

Barry

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

mtgoat666 - 11-9-2011 at 11:11 AM

Quote:

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

Barry A. - 11-9-2011 at 11:27 AM

Goat---------lots of quotes from Republicans are out of context, etc etc. but the main and simple point I would make is ALL THIS IS A RESULT OF THE CONGRESS NOT REDUCING SPENDING. What has been happening for years is a strategy to keep the Government from bankrupting the Country, and in a Democracy (Republic, actually) it is tough to do when the people demand "more services" when there is really no way to pay for them long term. (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland---------who is next???? USA?????)

So the beat goes on----------------------

Barry

wessongroup - 11-9-2011 at 11:55 AM

Some good stuff guys...

Cypress - 11-9-2011 at 02:48 PM

mtgoat666, Funny! Stick it to the rich guy! The rich guy being anyone that has worked for and acheived a higher standard of living than the you?

mtgoat666 - 11-9-2011 at 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
mtgoat666, Funny! Stick it to the rich guy! The rich guy being anyone that has worked for and acheived a higher standard of living than the you?

it's a free country, you can infer whatever you want... of course, doesn't mean you are correct,...

Cypress - 11-9-2011 at 03:09 PM

It's a free country? Depends upon what your definition of "free" is.

Alan - 11-9-2011 at 03:42 PM

That seems to be the problem today with everyone thinking that everything is free and also that it is somehow owed to them. The freedoms we enjoy today didn't just happen, they were earned and fought for. Our National Cemetaries are filled with those who paid the ultimate price for our freedoms.

Why does anyone feel it is appropriate to penalize success and reward failure? Ultimately it robs people of their aspirations and rewards those who have surrendered their entire future to the goverment.

Those that know me will attest that I am always willing to lend a hand up to those in need but today that supporting hand-up has become a hand-out. Rather than teaching a man how to fish, our government has decided these people are too stupid to learn so they steal fish from all the other fisherman so this person will now become dependent on their generosity. There in lies the question, "Are you really being generous if it was never yours to give?"

Skeet/Loreto - 11-9-2011 at 03:46 PM

Why do not you Blamers and Whimps start Changing Congress????????

Do as they did in Arizona, Go to the Polling place and replace some of these Spendy Senators and congress People. Arizona proved it can be Done. do it and shut Up !!!!!

mtgoat666 - 11-9-2011 at 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
It's a free country? Depends upon what your definition of "free" is.

only a marooon would think the expression was used to imply free goods rather than free speech/thought :lol:

[Edited on 11-9-2011 by mtgoat666]

Cypress - 11-9-2011 at 03:54 PM

Skeet/Loreto, Blamers and Whimps? :biggrin:

And what catagory do you belong in? :lol:

Alan - 11-9-2011 at 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
only a marooon would think the expression was used to imply free goods rather than free speech/thought :lol:

[Edited on 11-9-2011 by mtgoat666]

Actually I think they consider themselves more of a purple :lol:

Skeet/Loreto - 11-9-2011 at 04:03 PM

Cypress:

I belong in the Honest, Moralistic, Kindness, Hard Working, with a beleif in Tempurence, Prudence, Foritude, and Justice.

Iflyfish - 11-9-2011 at 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Cypress:

I belong in the Honest, Moralistic, Kindness, Hard Working, with a beleif in Tempurence, Prudence, Foritude, and Justice.

and don't forget Rick Perry!

Pages: 1 .. 4 5 6 7