Quantitative Easing

I agree Billy T.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I remember when Ross Perot commented that if we signed NAFTA we'd hear a great sucking sound as the manufacturing jobs left and the middle class was gutted.

He based this on the fact that this is exactly what happened to Canadians as their jobs migrated to the US where wages were $5 lower.

Guess what? Perot was correct. The middle class is gutted and we're f*cked.

Which POTUS signed NAFTA Joe?
Which POTUS repealed Glass-Stegal?
Which POTUS supported the first time homeowners grant? The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream


Couple more points I want to clear up.

1. When should a Bank be broken up?
A: When it's too big to fail.
Has Franks-Dodd done anything to address this. No. Why? Because Obama is in the pocket of the mega-banks who finance his election campaigns.

2. We can not know what things would have been like IF Bush would have let the banks go into Bankruptcy. One thing I do know, civilization would NOT have collapsed. To suggest it would have is asinine. Bush did nothing to break up the too big to fail banks. Why?
A: Because Bush Jr., like Obama, he's in the pocket of the mega-banks who finance his election campaigns.

3. WHY hasn't any of the Banking crooks who wrote these loans gone to jail? Why?
A: Because the POTUS and Congress are in he pocket of the mega-banks who finance their election campaigns.

4. Obama has done nothing to pull back our military and has actually done just the opposite - he's invading Libya! Why?
A: Good question. Probably because Libya has the world's largest reserves of sweet-crude. One thing we do know: it has nothing to do with "Terrorism". It has nothing to do with supporting "Democracy". Qaddafi is one of the most liberal leaders in the "Arab" world. He has probably done the most to promote women in education and employment. Not that this matters, we sure as hell don't mind Dictatorships in KSA or Bahrain. So why is Obama invading Libya? You tell me Joe. But, I'm sure you support Obama's invasion. I mean, he's a Democrat so you automatically give him a pass. Why? I have no idea? I voted Obama, I'm more than willing to admit that was a big mistake.

One thing I do know about Libya: Goldman Sachs Lost 98% of Libya's $1.3B Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment .

5. What did you think about Obama signing to continue Bush and Cheney's "Patriot Act"? Let me guess, you're going to give Obama a pass on that one too? I really want to know your answer on this one.




You just don't want to admit we were duped. The DEM and GOP are the same corrupt party.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As perviously stated, the POTUS was Clinton, the Congress was Republican. The previous Republican POTUS was also pushing NAFTA. But again, that does not prove your claim that all parties are the same on all issues and in equal degree. Nor does it prove that all elected officials are the same. At some point, one has to ask why are not the the voters admitting their culpability?

Clinton has voiced his regret for signing the repeal of Glass-Stegal. He claims he was misled. And he probably was misled. These guys are not experts and rely on others for advice. That is why special interests pay so much money for access to politicians. And that is one of the reasons why special interest money needs to be taken out of our political system.

Just what makes you think a bank should be broken up when it becomes too big? A bank should be broken up when it fails. Frank-Dodds lays out the blueprints for dismanteling the formerly "too big to fail" banks.

The problem with George II is that he was in everyone's pocket. That aside, your refusal to acknowledge what is very clear to everyone else (especially those with some knowledge of business, finance and economics) does not make it less true. The facts are unemployment would have been much higher and the recession would have been a depression. And managing the defaulting banks and the resulting double digit unemployment would have been very expensive to all levels of government - especially the Federal government. And we have history that proves the case.

You keep asking this question and keep ignoring the answer. As I said before, they are not in jail because they did not commit crimes. If you are big enough and have enough money in this country, you can write your own laws.

The only way around that is to take the special interest money out of politics. That means changing the way we elect our officials and enforcing a code of ethics with a change to the Constitution.

Well you claim just flies in the face of the facts Michael. One, Obama is on target to remove all troops from Iraq by the end of this year. And he has started to remove troops from Afghanistan and has promised to have all troops out of Afghanistan by 2014.

And finally, with respect to Libya, he did not invade Libya. He attacked Libya. There is a difference. That great Republican icon did something similar while he was POTUS. And I think you know as well as I do, Obama attacked Libya at the behest of our allies and to prevent the murder of many Libyians by their leader.

I think the real reason is Europeans were concerned about a refugee problem. And there is concern of a broader destablization of the Arab world. And we don't want to wind up on the wrong side. But in the end, this issue of little consequence.

Well if it did, shame on them. Attacking Libya is not going to help that fund.

I don't like it. But it is not the single issue that is going to decide how I act and the decisions I make on other non related issues.

No the two parties are not the same nor in the same degree. Both parties have problems. But that is no excuse for inaction. As I have said many times before and no doubt will say many times again, we really need to change the way we elect our officials by removing the special interest money from our political system. We need an educated and well informed voter base, and we need a strong code of ethics for our elected officials.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Changes to the rates at what workers make will be increased so that they earn enough to pay for their children's schooling. By making companies pay what is needed by everyone else that has children going to private schools would be only proper for the lawmakers to do.

 

So you are going to force corporations to pay a wage that will allow workers to send their kids to the best schools? Keep in mind, the best private schools now charge 40K+ per year for tuition alone. For elementary school, tuition at private schools costs about 20k per year per student.

 

Why not, those that want good education and want their workers to be able toi do the job correctly should be more than willing to pay what is needed to insure that it happens.

 

Because the economics just don't support that kind of expense. Imagine McDonald's paying 80K or more per employee. There is not enough money in the business to cover that kind of expense.

 

Likewise, there is not enough available money in poor neighborhoods to support quality education in locally funded schools. - Thus we need, in this age when there are few jobs that only require a strong back, national funding of quality education for ALL.

One of the many reasons why the US is doomed to become a second-rate, relative unimportant nation, is that most Asian nations do give better education to almost all their populations in the productive areas of science and math.

The proof of this is in their consistently higher achievements in tests, unless you subscribe to the idea that Asian are inherently more intelligent.

 

Producerism is a dangerously stilted perspective, useful mainly for political demogoguery.

Scientific and technological achievements are not made out of standardized tests.

One thing that we've noticed here in the USA, specifically in CA, is that these supposedly high-achieving Asians don't actually do so well once they're out of college (i.e., once they're no longer advancing solely on the basis of test scores). There's also the flipside, which is that the over-emphasis on test scores incentivizes cheating. Back when I was a teaching assistant, I caught about a dozen students cheating over the years. Every single one was either an Asian immigrant, or the child thereof.

 

But businesses expect the workers to :

1. Pay for their own transportation, maintenance and insurance with it.

2. Pay for their own health insurance.

3. Pay for their own children's education.

4. Pay for their own retirement.

5. Pay for their own housing and insurances.

6. Pay for their own dental care.

7. Pay for their own tools if a mechanic or tradesman.

8. Pay for their wives needs as well as their own, like food, entertainment and clothing just to name a few.

9. Pay for their own education.

So with what little the workers earn today in the majority of jobs I don't see how anyone could survive with the little wages they actually receive after taxes.

 

Cosmic every product has a price and every job has a value, especially now in the age of globalization. In capitalism it is all about profit. And there is no profit in paying 20k to 30k per year for each kid of a fast food restaurant employee. Would you pay 300 dollars of a fast food meal?

Billy T is right we need an upgraded educational system. In my view, education involves a lot factors not all of them related to cost;

- family stability and mental health
- economic security
- family values
- teacher abilities and education
- quality of the school board.

 

So now with prices rising even higher so that the average citizen cannot afford to own a home, send their children to school that costs anything or other things that they once could afford you don't think that their wages should keep pace with inflation so that there remains a middle class? Or do you want to see the middle class become the next poverty class?

 

Everyone I know that budgets for fuel and food are complaining about how expensive everything at the store is (and how much it costs getting there).