The myth of the job creator

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

What does nice stuff for themselves have to do with the share owed by the rich for roads etc? We just fought two land wars in Asia, a few years after Reagan's military boondoggling (still on the credit card) and before that the longest war to that date ever fought by us, in Vietnam. That for starters.
You are still confusing national with local stuff. The United States is a bunch of States, and most of the bad roads etc are State responsibilities. Getting from Federal income tax to State roads and bridges is a multiple step process.

You are also overlooking the sheer size of the infrastructure built up in the US. One of the reasons our stuff is in bad shape is that we have so much of it, and it covers such a large landscape - one of the places all those taxes went, instead of maintenance and repair, was building yet more new.

What does it have to do with the share owed by the rich for roads? Because that is exactly how your property tax works! If I live in a wealthy area I pay higher tax than if I were living in a working class area and so my public schools will have tennis courts, pools, computers and horse back riding while the school in a working class area will look like a prison with a concrete basket ball court. This is exactly my point. If you read my post to Parmalee you will note I remind him that his taxes are going to defense then health and pensions, not the substandard bridges being rated so poorly. So I don't see what is so fantastic about paying income tax if no one seems to know where it goes and where it does go is of little use or simply destructive. I'm just saying. The government doesn't have any money of its own whether it be the federal government or the individual states. All government money comes from you et tu and vous. Its all being payed for by the citizenry, its all out of their coffers. They should at least know how their money is being spent and wonder why they have such lousy infrastructure. I'm just saying. You say its the large scale that makes it so cumbersome, but each state must take care of their infrastructure and if its been crumbling for some 80 years or more then that means its been neglected for nearly a century, it isn't being neglected because of its size. If its a multiple step process then its too bureaucratic as well as inept. Government is not getting the job done with your tax dollars, which means Michael is correct in his assessment. Why do they deserve to live and grow from your labor? Trust me when I say I prefer a system as they have in Denmark as it seems more stable and fair compared to what I see here but then again there are at least obvious benefits from their tax dollars.

[Michael]

Why scrap it? We can amend it. Although I can understand your frustration, as constitutional amendments over the years have gone more my way than yours.

Your way? Such as what? What amendments are we talking about that are your way and not my way?

The 16th amendment yes - that was an abomination. I find it interesting what a wonderful job they did propagandizing the general public regarding income tax and, over the years, breaking from the gold standard and ultimately making all Americans, rich or poor, dependent on government. It works a little like this: I take 25% of your labor and give you back 5%. Then I beat it into your head that society is not safe. You are weak. Life is scary. You need me to protect you from your neighbors. I tell you the Communists will kill you. I tell you drugs will kill you. I tell you the Muslims will kill you. I regulate almost every facet of your existence. For your own good mind you. AND before long. We have you Tiassa. Telling me Michael, things have been amended YOUR war and not mine.

Oh, is that true? Do tell. Which amendments went your way and not mine?


You're being manipulated.

I don't want to live in a paranoid freak-show society where people are so worried about one another they feel that without government to protect them society would turn on itself. Because, if that's what we think, that's what we create.



Anyhow, we can agree 'job creator' is propaganda. How about The Life of Julia? What did you think of that propaganda? Out right blatant demagoguery. It's as if Julie lives in a bubble world with no community to help her, no family to help out, no friends, ends up pregnant and single and on welfare and her life would be horrid if not for Obama (who seems to be a Dictator as he stays with her for 70 years). There's no account of Julia's childhood. Of why she has no family, community or social network. Why she can't so anything for herself. And in the end she gets a degree doing a job she should have learned in highschool.

It's pure demagoguery. AND that's coming straight at you. It's staring you right in the eyes.

I hope you found it shockingly disappointing. It plays on every single stereotype there is. It creates a vision of a horrible place (that's the future USA). In Obama's world Julia will grow up over the next 50 years in a dystopia hellhole. The ideal place for Big Government. See, in a wonderful world we would feel secure, live prosperous and have community. There's no place for Big Government in that world. So, they'll never do anything to create that world. Actually the opposite. AS you know, poverty was going down at a reasonable rate of 1% a year. Then in the middle of the 60s the government stepped in. It didn't say "Hey! Poverty is going down at 1% a year". Actually, they said the exact opposite. Look at how many poor there are. We'll HELP them! And from then onward poverty has continued to grow.


Who do you think wrote the 16th amendment? Who would write an Amendment to the US Constitution giving the control of our money supply to 12 private banks who sit on a board in New York. Oh, but I'm sure they have our best interests in their hearts. It's not like BANKERS would be greedy or anything. Oh, and the Great Depression that happened just afterwards, that had nothing to do with our Central Bank... oh no, they "HELPED" us. Oh, and WWII "HELPED" us. War is Good. Central Banks 'prevent' Depressions. Communist are 'bad'. Terrorist's are 'everywhere'. You NEED government to keep you safe.


Go back and watch the Julia video. The last thing the government wants is a safe, secure, prosperous society. The very LAST thing.

[Grumpy]

Mrs.Lucysnow

Even if you can say the rich don't pay their share, which doesn't seem correct to me if only because their neighborhoods tend to have nicer schools and streets etc than the rickety rackety mess you would find in poorer neighborhoods.

You do know that under Obama we are paying the lowest rates of taxation since Carter, don't you? And it is these lower rates that are restricting the government's ability to deal with the country's needs. Even on roads the states receive Federal money for repairing our roads and bridges(the transportation bill). It was Eisenhower that built our interstate system with Federal dollars. Strangely enough, it is the red states that get the most Federal dollars, not the blue ones.

But that the rich take care of themselves and to hell with the rest is also a problem(as your post illustrates). Their schools have tennis courts while blocks away children are attending schools in trailers. Once upon a time in this country we all thought "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", but the rich have decided that the country should be run for their benefit. Or do you think it's just fine that Mittens pays just 15% while a school teacher or secretary pays more than twice that? And I don't have any Swiss bank accounts and cannot legally get my 401k to 221 million dollars(neither can anyone else, but Mittens did).

The bottom line is that the free ride and handouts to the wealthy is coming to an end. Either they step up and pull their weight for the country or they will face some of those "Second Amendment Remedies" some of their puppets have mentioned(or they can flee the country with all the cash they can carry, we could call it "Outsourcing"). They can denigrate Denmark and Sweden all they like, but their system is doing much better than the Vulture Capitalism we have in the US today.

Grumpy

[pjdude1219]

If you control your own currency you will not become a debt-slave. If you don't, you surely will.

all currencies are already controlled. adding more will cause more problems not less.

Pure Capitalism has never existed. Although the internet is starting to give us a taste of what life might be like free. Think Skype. Can you imagine how governments much droll looking at Skype. If only they could regulate it, tax it, milk it. Ruin it. They HATE Skype.

the theoretical pure capitalism never existed and can't exist because its based on a fantasy. but real actual pure capitalism has existed its what the prevailent economic system was from the end of mercantilism to about 1920. it failed as there was no check on economic power. the wealthy had the power and used and abused it. I have never understood why you all on the right( liberatarianism is a right wing idea) seem to think governmental power is inherently evil why economic power is inherently good. power is power. how it is gained doesn't change the morality of its use how it used does.

Anyway, if you look out your window and see hostility and view humanity with fear and untrustworthiness - then you'll end up with a society that needs a big government, a police state, to keep you safe. If you look out your window and see oppertunity and view humanity with hope and trustworthiness - then you'll end up with a society that needs no government. Only individuality, rule of law and private property rights.

Which world do you WANT to live in?

neither because both are fantasies. if men we angels we would need no government but we aren't angels. humanity is hard wired to be hostile to those outside of our group. its a primate thing. no amount of wishful thinking on your part is going to change biology. our groups have expanded but we are still millions of years away from having a chance of living in a society with out some level of governmental control. the sooner you realize you want a fantasy that ignores human nature the happy you will be.

[pjdude1219]

um one quick comment on the infrastructure thing. it didn't go to shit because of economics but politics. it is not a sexy issue so it doesn't get attention.

[Edward M. Grant]

um one quick comment on the infrastructure thing. it didn't go to shit because of economics but politics. it is not a sexy issue so it doesn't get attention.

Indeed. If you want infrastructure that works, the last organisation you want in charge of it is the government.

The latest wheeze seems to be running the infrastructure into the ground, then privatising it, then blaming THE EVIL CORPORATIONS when it falls apart.

[Michael]

all currencies are already controlled. adding more will cause more problems not less.

That's probably not true. More currencies will give people more control over their lives. Unlike fiat currencies, natural currency arise organically. As an example: Town in Ireland are using the punt because they need a currency to trade and conduct business but due to austerity there's no currency. This is happening organically. Spontaneously. Without force or coercion. But through voluntarism. Notice that they're not killing one another in streets.

Anyway, let the free-market determine what will and will not work. No one can know until it is tried. On paper Communism seems to work. In theory. But in the real world is fails.

Multiple candy bars are better than only one.
Multiple cars is better than only one.
Money is no different. Choice is good. It lets you pick those you value and use that which you choose.

In a free society people should have the choice to choose to use which every money they want.

the theoretical pure capitalism never existed and can't exist because its based on a fantasy. but real actual pure capitalism has existed its what the prevailent economic system was from the end of mercantilism to about 1920. it failed as there was no check on economic power. the wealthy had the power and used and abused it. I have never understood why you all on the right( liberatarianism is a right wing idea) seem to think governmental power is inherently evil why economic power is inherently good. power is power. how it is gained doesn't change the morality of its use how it used does.

Well, you should look at the history of the USA. As productivity increased there was a continuous deflation in prices (which pissed off farmers but was good for consumers) and the standard of living continued to rise naturally. Within a decade of having the Federal Reserve central bank our nation was plunged into the worse Depression in the history of humanity. Within 40 years of breaking away from the gold standard we've lost >95% of the purchasing power of the USD and are in the worse recession in nearly 100 years. And, if Japan is anything to go on, it will last decades and decades with no end in sight.

In October they (Japan) runs out of money. Interesting.

The only way to pay off our debts is through inflation.
The most effective way to create inflation is through war.
You may want to keep that in mind as we enter the 5th year of the Recession/Depression with no end in sight.

Austrian School of Economics mathematically explains everything we are seeing. Keynesianism is failing. QE1, 2, and soon 3 will only cause more problems. Try as you might, you can not push a string....

neither because both are fantasies. if men we angels we would need no government but we aren't angels. humanity is hard wired to be hostile to those outside of our group. its a primate thing. no amount of wishful thinking on your part is going to change biology. our groups have expanded but we are still millions of years away from having a chance of living in a society with out some level of governmental control. the sooner you realize you want a fantasy that ignores human nature the happy you will be.

You have a very negative view of humanity. I don't. I think humans act in a manner in which they were raised. Good evidence for this exists in some small Mennonites communities in the USA. They practice peaceful parenting, do not act violently, are self reliant and crime is pretty much unheard of.

I also think of Japan. Crime is next to zero in their huge cities crammed with people. A 9 year can get on a subway and travel all throughout the city, walking through neighborhoods alone, with next to no worry of being harmed. I see kids walking alone all the time.

Humanity is NOT inherently evil. The human brain is extremely plastic and even begins adapting prior to birth. When raised in a peaceful surroundings with a good family humans of all walks of life become caring peaceful people. Are there rare exceptions to the rule. Yes, and they are very rare.

[Asguard]

What a load of crap there isn't one former goverment service which became more expensive with less services when it was sold. From the commonwealth bank, to QANTAS, to the electricity and gas providers to public transport

The comonwealth bank makes obseane profits while cutting staff, cutting services increasing fees and screwing customers

The busfires on black sat can partially be tributes to out of date under services transformers caused by the privatisation of electricity in Victoria

Gas and electricity prices are going through the roof with little investment in green technology

QANTAS ships it's maintance overseas and has 2 near disasters in the space of a year from the airline who could brag that they have NEVER had a plane crash

The trains and trams in melbourne are in desperate need of major work

The only thing improved by private ownership is profits and is that REALLY what's good for the country?

[pjdude1219]

Indeed. If you want infrastructure that works, the last organisation you want in charge of it is the government.

um no it be the only organisation in charge of it.

The latest wheeze seems to be running the infrastructure into the ground, then privatising it, then blaming THE EVIL CORPORATIONS when it falls apart.

Where would that happen.

the politics comes into play not because government is inherently bad but due to the partisan infighting everyone is focusing on shit that gets votes and not the important shit.

[pjdude1219]

That's probably not true. More currencies will give people more control over their lives. Unlike fiat currencies, natural currency arise organically. As an example: Town in Ireland are using the punt because they need a currency to trade and conduct business but due to austerity there's no currency. This is happening organically. Spontaneously. Without force or coercion. But through voluntarism. Notice that they're not killing one another in streets.

Anyway, let the free-market determine what will and will not work. No one can know until it is tried. On paper Communism seems to work. In theory. But in the real world is fails.

Multiple candy bars are better than only one.
Multiple cars is better than only one.
Money is no different. Choice is good. It lets you pick those you value and use that which you choose.

that's just it multiple currencies has been tried. it was a clusterfuck of epic proportions and that was when everything was nominally dollars. the whole reason we have a national bank and all that was a direct result of the idea of multiple currencies failing.

Well, you should look at the history of the USA. As productivity increased there was a continuous deflation in prices (which pissed off farmers but was good for consumers) and the standard of living continued to rise naturally. Within a decade of having the Federal Reserve central bank our nation was plunged into the worse Depression in the history of humanity. Within 40 years of breaking away from the gold standard we've lost >95% of the purchasing power of the USD and are in the worse recession in nearly 100 years. And, if Japan is anything to go on, it will last decades and decades with no end in sight.

I have and inflation always happened. your taking correlation and assuming causation.

In October they (Japan) runs out of money. Interesting.

Austrian School of Economics mathematically explains everything we are seeing.

the fact you think the austrian school is right only shows just how ignorant of economics you are. it doesn't predict anything. it isn't based on any real economic data its just a bunch of theories based on flawed ideas. all you done by mentioning that is show no one should take you seriously on anything pertaining to economics. now maybe if your ideas were based on the chicago school of economic thought but the austrian is just shit.

Keynesianism is failing.

no people aren't following it.

[Tiassa]

Your way? Such as what? What amendments are we talking about that are your way and not my way?

Well, there are Thirteen through Fifteen. I mean, your objection is already on the record. And I did enumerate the Fourteenth in my prior post. I'm of the opinion that the Nineteenth should not have been necessary, though I can see how you might want to leave that to market forces.

How about The Life of Julia?

What about it? Is there something you object to about pointing out that government has had its positive influences in people's lives?

Here's an interesting video (I like to watch every now and again).

You know, the ironic thing is that Chaplin was a flaming leftist. "Look Up, Hannah" is, indeed, one of the greatest speeches ever. He kept it in the film despite advice that it would cost him five million dollars.

But your vision of society has nothing to do with what Chaplin was trying to say. The society you advocate, in which everything is left to the whims of greed, is the antithesis of what Chaplin hoped to communicate and encourage.

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised. The right wing has turned Christ into an icon of greed, as well. At least in Chaplin's case, though, we can hear the words from his own mouth.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Mrs.Lucysnow

You do know that under Obama we are paying the lowest rates of taxation since Carter, don't you? And it is these lower rates that are restricting the government's ability to deal with the country's needs. Even on roads the states receive Federal money for repairing our roads and bridges(the transportation bill). It was Eisenhower that built our interstate system with Federal dollars. Strangely enough, it is the red states that get the most Federal dollars, not the blue ones.

But that the rich take care of themselves and to hell with the rest is also a problem(as your post illustrates). Their schools have tennis courts while blocks away children are attending schools in trailers. Once upon a time in this country we all thought "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", but the rich have decided that the country should be run for their benefit. Or do you think it's just fine that Mittens pays just 15% while a school teacher or secretary pays more than twice that? And I don't have any Swiss bank accounts and cannot legally get my 401k to 221 million dollars(neither can anyone else, but Mittens did).

The bottom line is that the free ride and handouts to the wealthy is coming to an end. Either they step up and pull their weight for the country or they will face some of those "Second Amendment Remedies" some of their puppets have mentioned(or they can flee the country with all the cash they can carry, we could call it "Outsourcing"). They can denigrate Denmark and Sweden all they like, but their system is doing much better than the Vulture Capitalism we have in the US today.

Grumpy

It doesn't matter if people are paying lower or higher taxes if the money is constantly being misspent; as in endless wars for example. Its not that people are paying taxes its how the government uses this money to bloat itself. I fail to see how the "free ride" and "handouts/bailouts" are coming to an end when the relationship between banks, wall street and government are becoming more entrenched. Maybe you should take the time to look at this as it explains the point better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVDTA0uHsA

@PJ

You may also find the above link of interest.

[Michael]

You know, the ironic thing is that Chaplin was a flaming leftist.

Yes, I know Chaplin was a leftist THEN. Back then the left was more Libertarian than the left today. Society was very very conservative and so Left was more center or center right today. If Chaplin saw the mess the Left have made (and the right) of today, the demagoguery in both sides, he'd puke.

You watched the Life of Julia and thought it was fine?!?!?

Are you nuts? Where the hell was her entire childhood??? She goes from zero to 18 in the course of one slide and then it's as if family, community, friendship... even outreach, the church, nothing is there. It's one big black nothingness and hence ONLY the government is there for Julia.

That's f*cking sick evil 100% pure demagoguery no different than Bush Jr when he marched us off to war.



Now why is it you can see one side and not the other?

[iceaura]

What does it have to do with the share owed by the rich for roads? Because that is exactly how your property tax works!

And exactly why we need to levy income, not property, taxes, to pay for this stuff.

If I live in a wealthy area I pay higher tax than if I were living in a working class area and so my public schools will have tennis courts, pools, computers and horse back riding while the school in a working class area will look like a prison with a concrete basket ball court.

The area we are talking about is the US. All the wealthy in the US live in the area under discussion. (the wealthy often pay lower mil rates for their property taxes than the lower classes, btw)

So I don't see what is so fantastic about paying income tax if no one seems to know where it goes and where it does go is of little use or simply destructive.

We know where it went, and I told you where it went - boondoggle military, land wars in Asia, medical insurance company overhead, interest on the public debt, etc.

You say its the large scale that makes it so cumbersome,

No, I say it's the scale that makes it so expensive - the reason we can't get by with such low income taxes on rich people.

but each state must take care of their infrastructure and if its been crumbling for some 80 years or more then that means its been neglected for nearly a century, it isn't being neglected because of its size.

It hasn't been crumbling for that long - if the water systems etc had been addressed in the late 70s and 80s that would have been right on time, if the roads and bridges had been kept up starting in the 80s that would have served well. But instead income taxes on the rich were cut, and military buildup to war siphoned much of the rest.

So no jobs to speak of, and infrastructure derelict - and rich much richer.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Iceaura

I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. What difference does it make if taxes are higher or lower if its being misspent? You were paying taxes the entire time the infrastructure was being neglected so where exactly did that go? Do you have even a say where that goes? Can you decide as a citizenry that you don't want to fund a boondoggle military? If not why? If yes then why didn't you force that change? My point is Michael was speaking of a certain choice and he's catching hell for it. I'm asking you do you have a choice? If no then why is he wrong in calling it a kind of forced thievery? Remember for one that the rich, the very rich are able to live anywhere, proven by the fact that the wealthy, the very wealthy tend to have property in more than one country and live just as well and still have whatever they want. You seem to think that the problems in the US are based solely on the fact that the rich are not taxed, I don't believe this to be true. I think you have a more insidious system in place whereby your entire government whether it be made up of the right or the left serve the same financial interests which is why they were bailed out by both Bush as well as Obama. Its also why you had deregulation under Reagan as well as Clinton. And yet you believe this same government just needs more money except it should be from the rich and then it will somehow become more efficient. I'm not sure that's true. Here, you too may find this of interest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVDTA0uHsA

[iceaura]

What difference does it make if taxes are higher or lower if its being misspent? You were paying taxes the entire time the infrastructure was being neglected so where exactly did that go?

The rich were not. And I see no reason to keep repeating myself about where it went.

My point is Michael was speaking of a certain choice and he's catching hell for it. I'm asking you do you have a choice? If no then why is he wrong in calling it a kind of forced thievery?

He is wrong in thinking that there is no such thing as a social contract, community role, or political dimension to adult life. He thinks he can grow up educated and healthy and heir to the benefits of his society without having incurred obligations. He's about ten years old, mentally.

Look at it this way: I didn't consent to give my neighbor the right to fence me off some piece of land and call it "his" and make me walk all the way around it without paying me for my trouble. Nobody asked me. So property is theft, according to Michael? It's an argument you'd find on a playground.

You seem to think that the problems in the US are based solely on the fact that the rich are not taxed,

Please. Grow up.

I think you have a more insidious system in place whereby your entire government whether it be made up of the right or the left serve the same financial interests which is why they were bailed out by both Bush as well as Obama. Its also why you had deregulation under Reagan as well as Clinton.

All your examples there are of government made up of the right, taking actions consistent with rightwing ideology. In addition, your comparisons are deceptive - Clinton did nothing comparable to Reagan, Obama did nothing comparable to W.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Iceaura

And what of the money they DID receive?

As someone who has lived outside the US I do agree that the community role, social contract and an effective political dimension is much more lacking in American life, if you believe that he doesn't believe there are social obligations then you have not been properly reading his posts. He's not against all taxes, he's not against social obligations. He's not a rugged individualist who doesn't believe in giving back to society. Telling me to "grow up" is not an adequate response to my questions. And what of the government made up of the Left? Clinton is the one who revoked Glass-Steagal. Did you watch the link I asked you to watch? No. You wouldn't dare! It would crush your partisan fantasy. And when you watch it remember that Moyer's is the BEACON of the democratic party and its ideals and values in terms of consistency and legitimacy. He's respected and respectable and not interested in DOGMA, his interest is TRUTH. You're interest is blinding yourself to your own party while you point fingers at the other. In that sense you are no more insightful nor useful than the dogmatic republican who believes every pre-digested propaganda framed by a Limbaugh or a Hannity. You are ignoring a larger issue because you want to frame all issues around party politics when the system is beyond party politics. Both parties serve the same master. A democrat continues war and you blame a republican for all war, a democrat deregulates and you can only acknowledge that of the other party. A democrat panders to bankers and all you can see is that the other side favors too-big-to-fail banks and oh yeah they don't want to tax the rich. Let me ask you, did the democrat Obama tax the rich? NO! ITS PATHETIC. And sad and why things will not change in the United States of America.

[iceaura]

As someone who has lived outside the US I do agree that the community role, social contract and community role is much more lacking in American life, if you believe that he doesn't believe there are social obligations then you have not been properly reading his posts. He's not against all taxes, he's not against social obligations. He's not a rugged individualist who doesn't believe in giving back to society. Telling me to "grow up" is not an adequate response to my questions.

Yes, he is. And yes, the response to that particular childish rhetorical question was completely adequate, and more civil than earned.

And what of the government made up of the Left? Clinton is the one who revoked Glass-Steagal.

Clinton was not "of the Left". He is and was a center-right politician, described by more than one analyst as "the best Republican President of the twentieth century". He pushed NAFTA and GATT, for chrissake - Reagan's agenda. But even so, trying to claim that Clinton revoked Glass-Steagal is misleading to the point of dishonesty - Phil Gramm and his fellow Reaganite Republicans worked for that for years, wrote the law, hounded Clinton for two terms and pressured Clinton for years and finally impeached Clinton before getting enough leverage to get his signature on some omnibus budget bill they had tacked it unto. That disaster was none of Clinton's doing. Likewise the 2008 crash bank bailout was W's baby all the way, not Obama's - despite Obama's generally rightwing authoritarian stance on things.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Yes, he is. And yes, the response to that particular childish rhetorical question was completely adequate, and more civil than earned.

Clinton was not "of the Left". He is and was a center-right politician, described by more than one analyst as "the best Republican President of the twentieth century". He pushed NAFTA and GATT, for chrissake - Reagan's agenda. But even so, trying to claim that Clinton revoked Glass-Steagal is misleading to the point of dishonesty - Phil Gramm and his fellow Reaganite Republicans worked for that for years, wrote the law, hounded Clinton for two terms and pressured Clinton for years and finally impeached Clinton before getting enough leverage to get his signature on some omnibus budget bill they had tacked it unto. That disaster was none of Clinton's doing. Likewise the 2008 crash bank bailout was W's baby all the way, not Obama's - despite Obama's generally rightwing authoritarian stance on things.

God you're so full of shit! Tell me Iceaura who is the "of the Left" politician? Why are you ignoring the charges I have claimed against supposed Democrats? And did you watch the video? Did you? CAN YOU? AND WHAT WEIRD HISTORICAL UNIVERSE DO YOU BELONG TO WHERE CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED? Clinton was NEVER impeached!!!!! The 2008 crash was precipitated by Clinton's rejection of Glass-steagal, it was ENCOURAGED by that deregulation but you cannot admit it. Have you eve watched Inside Job? You should. But you wont. Watch it. It'll by lack flax seed for your mind http://www.documentarywire.com/inside-job

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I'm getting so sick of the partisan puppies. I mean really. WAKE THE FUCK UP ALREADY!!!