What if neither party can bring the jobs back?

[editec]

Neither party can turn back history.

The enormous advantage that the USA had post WWII is over.

Throw in the fact that techology has dramatically cahnged the business models and the means of production.

For the American middle class the US economy peaked in the early 70's, and the fate of the middle class is in doubt unless we change the social contract.

Why?

Because capital is now KING, folks, and labor is neutered by the laws that BIG CAPITAL now controls/

Capital is now freer to migrate anyplace where it can find a return on investment than ever in history.

Capital exists in an international unified world, like labor does not.

As a consequence of that change in geopolitical power, national prosperity is no longer as important to BIG CAPITAL as it once was.

The BIG CHANGE happened, of course, when the long faultering Soviet Empire collapsed.

Once the Soviet ceased being a real threat to the "FREE WORLD's" big capital class, FORTRESS AMERICA ceased to be something that BIG CAPITAL class really needed to support.

To be more precise, what big capital no longer really needs is the American people --to man their factories, and to man their armies or to pay for it, either.

And as we all know, that which capital no longer needs big capital no longer cherishes and protects.

So yes, I would say that the USA that we knew, that dfemocratic republic superpower of CITIZENS THAT MATTER, is over.

It's been going down for quite some time, really

The structure, that is to say the government, and its military might, are still in reserve (sort of, its funded by debts!), but what actually happens to the American people is only of some small interest to the MASTERS.

I suspect that US NATIONALISM is really what's dead.

Greed TRUMPS patriotism, folks.

 

[JoeB131]

Republicans don't want to.

I would hope not.

The OP is based on a lot of defeatism. He calls America's ascendency a historical accident. He discounts that our greatness is based on our values, our freedoms, our unique history.

I want leaders who believe in our greatness, not ones who think we should just follow Europe into socialism and banality.

Now, I do think the big problem with the GOP as a party is that they are too wedded to big corporations, which put profits above the good of the country. These people need to be called out and publically shamed.

That said, the Democrats seem to think that we would all be happier if we go on welfare, and just look at ways to "redistribute" wealth.

Both parties drink deep of the Free Trade Koolaid. Republicans because it increases the obscene profits of their corporate masters, Democrats because it makes more people dependent on GOvernment and thereby increases their base.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The only "party" that can create the number of jobs the OP is referring to is the American consumer.
As long as Americans use price as the primary factor in their consumer choices - NONE OF THESE JOBS WILL EVER COME BACK.

 

[asterism]

What if the era of American economic dominance is over? What if our rise was merely a wonderful historical anomaly that is now coming to and end?

Think about it. After WWII, both Europe and Japan were in a shambles. China was an isolated appendage of communism; India was still developing; and places like Vietnam and Taiwan had not been incorporated into the global market system (which system had yet to blossom).

Meaning: more money was coming in - a lot more. This enabled us to grow a large middle class of consumers who enjoyed rising living standards with each successive gerneration.

Energy was dirt cheap. Compare the price per gallon in 1950 to 2012. This meant that everything was cheaper to produce.

Those days are over. We are no longer manufacturer to the world, and cheap energy is gone. We are the most spread-out, auto-dependent nation on earth at the dawn of expensive energy. History no longer favors the energy-sucking suburban model. Why can't we take measure of the large storm collecting around our future?

But it's not just an over-reliance on a defunct energy model - it's a much broader entropy. Germany, India, and Asia are now out-producing us. We no longer make anything. We just borrow money from China and hand it out as credit so that jobless Americans can buy shiny plastic objects made somewhere else.

History replaced Roman and British Empires. Why are we so naive as to believe that we are not part of history? Nothing lasts forever. Nations rise and fall. Why can't we be adults and accept our limitations? Why do we have to blow sunshine up our own asses? - clutching after past greatness like an insecure actress who cannot face-up to her wrinkles. Why can't we grow old gracefully and accept our diminished role? Why do we act like an unstable global hegemon, dropping bombs on petty tyrants in order to prove our strength?

Why can't we accept that the jobs and prosperity may not be coming back? Why do we keep promising the sheeple that everything will be ok? Why can't our politicians just treat us like adults and ask us to live within our means? Why can't they be honest and say that our children will have fewer opportunities, as they become paralyzed by the 30yr spending orgy we have just completed. It's time to prepare for a fundamentally different world, rather than cling to a mythological future based on past greatness. The coming generations will have to live with less. Period. Accept it and learn to take pleasure in simpler things, like family and god.

Why can't we face the truth? Even if jobs did come back, they would be low paying jobs because free market capitalism thrives on cheap labor. That is, we are not going to see the compensation model we had during the postwar years where the father's factory wage supported the entire family so that the mom could stay at home and raise the kids. [Don't you people get it: the postwar era (when government supported unions, high wages, & affordable college) was also the heyday of conservatism. High wages and generous social programs gave hard working parents more time to raise the children. The conservative notion of the nuclear family came from New Deal America, when the working class had artificially high wages. This is why the 50s was such a glorious decade - because capitalism had yet to lower the wages/benefits/entitlements of the working class to a level that made it impossible to support a family]

So yes, the good jobs are gone. And if manufacturing jobs do come back, they will be the sort seen in Asia and the 3rd world - ultra cheap wages with zero benefits, i.e., not like 50s union wages where the father could support the family so that the mother could stay at home and raise the kids. The new low wage model brings the highest profits to shareholders, and this is the model our political system chose when we freed-up our corporations to seek the cheapest labor markets overseas. Free Market Capitalism does not support a thriving middle class of high-wage-workers. It supports ultra wealthy owners and poor workers. The Free Market drive for low wages destroyed the Great America Conservative Family by forcing the Mother into the workforce, and forcing the father to work more for less - so he had less time to help raise his children. Because of this, children are raised by MTV, Hollywood, and gangs . . . (but at least the capitalist makes more because he enjoys ultra cheap labor).

Folks, the old postwar America where everyone had high paying jobs and great benefits is gone for good. The owners of business no longer want to support a well paid population. They want cheap labor - plain and simple. The old America is gone.

Why do we keep blaming our political parties for a problem that neither can solve? Each successive administration promises prosperity, but each fails because they refuse to admit a simple truth: the old wage and benefit structure of "managed capitalism" has been replaced by the low wages of free market global capitalism. Our politicians can't change structures this big and powerful. If Washington can't run a laundromat, they certainly cannot figure out a way to change the tectonic economic forces that sweep whole civilizations into the dustbin of history.

Why do we have so much faith that the next administration will solve everything? Where did we get this faith in government? Why did the Left buy into Obama's hope and change garbage? Why does each party's voters buy into this garbage?

What if the ride is over? Why can't we admit we had a good run and adjust to the coming mass poverty? Why do we believe that Dear Leader can fix a crisis that is well beyond the power of Washington? Sometimes history does what it wants, and sometimes you just have to man-up and accept it.

Maybe Gingrich is not the messiah any more than Obama was. Yes, I know he and Mitt promise to make government smaller so that business can re-grow our prosperity - but what if the problem is deeper? What if all this empty rhetoric about freedom and small government overlooks the reality that high wages are not coming back? Why are we so seduced by simple bumper stickers?

Why does the Right and Left have so much faith in their respective models... and the politicians who peddle them?

What say you?

The 50s were not a time of generous social benefits. Ever heard of LBJ and the Great Society?

 

[Katzndogz]

As has been pointed out before, employers are complaining that there isn't a workforce to take the jobs available. Jobs have to follow a workforce. There are many reasons why jobs have left the country. Over taxation, over regulation, a hostile workforce trained to treat the employer as the enemy. Employees with increasing drug use. Unskilled and worthless college graduates who want to make a lot of money but have nothing to offer.

It might take a generation or more to really bring jobs back.

 

[georgephillip]

Government cannot create jobs...and political parties sure as hell don't. Jobs will return when government and it's crony partners like the Fed get the fuck out of the way. Plenty of us are ready to invest in businesses that would require new US workers of all sorts but until we have some idea that big brother isn't waiting just around the corner to throw up obstacles and punish success, we're going to keep that money on the sideline or in well established companies making profit over growth. Sorry, but I'm not risking my capital in today's political/fiscal environment in big job-creating investments. In fact, just the opposite. You are of course free to invest your own money anyway you like.

Punish success? Taxes haven't this good for Corporate America or the investors in modern history. And look at who's gaining most of the National Income, those who have been punished by success?
The OP is right and America must adjust! In order for the US to compete we have to invest in education to meet the completion head. Our completion is investing in education of their youth which is the opposite of the trend in the US. As John Huntsman has said, in order to compete in the new world, we have to focus on the economy and education. While we become less educated out rivals are becoming more educated. I guess that explains why they are gaining on us and set to surpass the US.
Our government should stop the politics and get on with making the US more competitive which should enhance most people's lives.

You're looking at federal corp tax rates only (still higher than most countries, BTW) and forgetting about the taxes, fees, and regulatory compliance expenses at all levels of government. These costs have increased dramatically and with the constant threat of even higher taxes and more regulatory agencies running amok, capital seeks safety...and that means fewer jobs.

Lastly, are you suggesting government should garner MORE control over education in America? Throw more money at it? How's that working out so far?

What role did government play in your education?

"Raise the tax rate on the rich to what it was before 1981.

"The top 1 percent has an almost unprecedented share of the nation’s wealth and income yet the lowest tax rate in 30 years. Meanwhile, America faces colossal budget deficits that have already meant devastating cuts in education, infrastructure, and the safety nets we depend on.

"The rich must pay their fair share. Income in excess of $1 million should be taxed at 70 percent – the same rate as before 1981.

— "Raise capital gains taxes to the same level.

"It’s absurd that the 400 richest Americans – whose wealth exceeds the wealth of the bottom 150 million Americans put together – should pay an average 17 percent tax on their incomes, the rate day laborers and child-care workers pay. That’s because so much of the income of the super-rich is considered capital gains, now taxed at only 15 percent. Close this loophole.

— "Tax financial transactions. A tiny tax on every financial deal would yield billions of dollars more. It would also slow speculators and reduce the wild gyrations of financial markets."

Robert Reich

 

[editec]

When one sees the tidal current of history changing, one either learns to swim with that current or one exhuasts oneself in a futile effort to defeat forces that will never be defeated.

The AMERICA we think we are hasn't existed since the early 70s.

The American we really are is being expressed in the economy we have today.

Adapt to reality.

All your faith-based AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM is a delusion.

 

[eflatminor]

What role did government play in your education?

During my K-12 education, government played the role of crushing competition, innovation and creativity in the education market...ensuring everyone got a crappy learning experience, or at least far less of a positive experience it could have otherwise been. Perhaps Carolyn Lockhead said it best: "Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

"Raise the tax rate on the rich to what it was before 1981.

Sure, because the economy was just so fantastic back in the late seventies? You couldn't be this stupid.

"Raise capital gains taxes to the same level"

A 70% Capital gains rate? Fantastic. That ought to spur a ton of investment in this country, right? You bitch about jobs going overseas and then suggest this? My goodness, no one is that dumb. You also forget that the money used to invest in capital ventures WAS ALREADY TAXED and that money represents SIGNIFICANT RISK. Tell us, when you clock in at your job, are you sure you'll get a paycheck or could you loose everything if your "risk" goes wrong? So, let's get this straight. You want to earn your income with little to no risk involved and be taxed at the lowest rates (or perhaps not at all...I'm assuming you support progressive taxation where nearly half of citizens pay nothing) while those that risk everything for their income should be taxed twice and at the highest possible rate. Got it.

Robert Reich

Reich is a Keynesian asshole with a central planner meddling mentality. You really need to read up on some real economists. Start with the Austrian school and go from there.

Lastly, you have an obvious hatred towards successful people, whether you are willing to admit that or not. Tell me, when a guy risks his life savings to start a business and creates a product or service that people want, he'll hire people in the process and if he makes good decisions, turn a profit. If his product or service is superior to that of his competitors, he just might make himself rich. Now tell me, who has this guy hurt? Stated differently, how was Steve Jobs, a 1%er, bad for other Americans?

 

[theunbubba]

I can do it within two months. It's a simple plan. I'll be releasing it to the GP in two weeks. It'll be on my blog.
Hint: It involves Social Security. It's a no brainer too.

 

[Flopper]

As has been pointed out before, employers are complaining that there isn't a workforce to take the jobs available. Jobs have to follow a workforce. There are many reasons why jobs have left the country. Over taxation, over regulation, a hostile workforce trained to treat the employer as the enemy. Employees with increasing drug use. Unskilled and worthless college graduates who want to make a lot of money but have nothing to offer.

It might take a generation or more to really bring jobs back.

We speak of jobs as if they were a commodity but the job market in the US is incredibly diverse. Jobs in many of the heavy manufacturing industries have all but disappeared. Demand for unskilled labor continues to fall, yet very low paying jobs in service industries are fairly plentiful. On the other end of scale, their is shortage of skilled technical professional in a number of areas as well as high paid financial professionals.

 

[uscitizen]

As has been pointed out before, employers are complaining that there isn't a workforce to take the jobs available. Jobs have to follow a workforce. There are many reasons why jobs have left the country. Over taxation, over regulation, a hostile workforce trained to treat the employer as the enemy. Employees with increasing drug use. Unskilled and worthless college graduates who want to make a lot of money but have nothing to offer.

It might take a generation or more to really bring jobs back.

It took the corporations a generation to kill worker loyalty by various means.

 

[Dragon]

Think about it. After WWII, both Europe and Japan were in a shambles.

Untrue.

 

[georgephillip]

What role did government play in your education?

During my K-12 education, government played the role of crushing competition, innovation and creativity in the education market...ensuring everyone got a crappy learning experience, or at least far less of a positive experience it could have otherwise been. Perhaps Carolyn Lockhead said it best: "Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."

"Raise the tax rate on the rich to what it was before 1981.

Sure, because the economy was just so fantastic back in the late seventies? You couldn't be this stupid.

"Raise capital gains taxes to the same level"

A 70% Capital gains rate? Fantastic. That ought to spur a ton of investment in this country, right? You bitch about jobs going overseas and then suggest this? My goodness, no one is that dumb. You also forget that the money used to invest in capital ventures WAS ALREADY TAXED and that money represents SIGNIFICANT RISK. Tell us, when you clock in at your job, are you sure you'll get a paycheck or could you loose everything if your "risk" goes wrong? So, let's get this straight. You want to earn your income with little to no risk involved and be taxed at the lowest rates (or perhaps not at all...I'm assuming you support progressive taxation where nearly half of citizens pay nothing) while those that risk everything for their income should be taxed twice and at the highest possible rate. Got it.

Robert Reich

Reich is a Keynesian asshole with a central planner meddling mentality. You really need to read up on some real economists. Start with the Austrian school and go from there.

Lastly, you have an obvious hatred towards successful people, whether you are willing to admit that or not. Tell me, when a guy risks his life savings to start a business and creates a product or service that people want, he'll hire people in the process and if he makes good decisions, turn a profit. If his product or service is superior to that of his competitors, he just might make himself rich. Now tell me, who has this guy hurt? Stated differently, how was Steve Jobs, a 1%er, bad for other Americans?

You have an obvious hatred for political equality.

In the 2012 election cycle, 26,783 individual contributed an average of $28,913 to federal election campaigns in a country where the median individual income was $26,364.

Less than one in ten thousand of your fellow citizens determined who you got to cast your vote for in 2010. Possibly your "free-market" authoritarian economists would approve. Robert Reich doesn't nor would anyone who attaches more significance to political sovereignty than to their net worth.

What I remember most about the 70s, Slick, was how a single minimum wage job paid the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay for and maintain a six year old Chevy. In those days the richest 1% of Americans took home about 8% of US income. Today they take over 20% and the assholes still want more.

Why don't you tell me how much more private debt we should nationalize in order to keep rich parasites happy?

 

[Samson]

If the best days are behind us and neither party can bring us back, it's time to evaluate our country for what we bring to the table and how we have to change to be competitive again.

Just like an addict reaching and hitting bottom, they will rise out of the dust after a time of rectification. We may just have to do that. Our wages may have to be lower, the spending sprees done, and we will have to sacrifice and set forth our American determination.

I think we could do that.

I agree.

We should invade Iran.

 

[pete]

If the best days are behind us and neither party can bring us back, it's time to evaluate our country for what we bring to the table and how we have to change to be competitive again.

Just like an addict reaching and hitting bottom, they will rise out of the dust after a time of rectification. We may just have to do that. Our wages may have to be lower, the spending sprees done, and we will have to sacrifice and set forth our American determination.

I think we could do that.

So go back to the founding principals .... easy

 

[Samson]

If the best days are behind us and neither party can bring us back, it's time to evaluate our country for what we bring to the table and how we have to change to be competitive again.

Just like an addict reaching and hitting bottom, they will rise out of the dust after a time of rectification. We may just have to do that. Our wages may have to be lower, the spending sprees done, and we will have to sacrifice and set forth our American determination.

I think we could do that.

So go back to the founding principals .... easy

Good to see that regurgitating platitudes never goes out of style.....now...run along after the other lemmings

 

[asterism]

What role did government play in your education?

During my K-12 education, government played the role of crushing competition, innovation and creativity in the education market...ensuring everyone got a crappy learning experience, or at least far less of a positive experience it could have otherwise been. Perhaps Carolyn Lockhead said it best: "Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."



Sure, because the economy was just so fantastic back in the late seventies? You couldn't be this stupid.



A 70% Capital gains rate? Fantastic. That ought to spur a ton of investment in this country, right? You bitch about jobs going overseas and then suggest this? My goodness, no one is that dumb. You also forget that the money used to invest in capital ventures WAS ALREADY TAXED and that money represents SIGNIFICANT RISK. Tell us, when you clock in at your job, are you sure you'll get a paycheck or could you loose everything if your "risk" goes wrong? So, let's get this straight. You want to earn your income with little to no risk involved and be taxed at the lowest rates (or perhaps not at all...I'm assuming you support progressive taxation where nearly half of citizens pay nothing) while those that risk everything for their income should be taxed twice and at the highest possible rate. Got it.

Robert Reich

Reich is a Keynesian asshole with a central planner meddling mentality. You really need to read up on some real economists. Start with the Austrian school and go from there.

Lastly, you have an obvious hatred towards successful people, whether you are willing to admit that or not. Tell me, when a guy risks his life savings to start a business and creates a product or service that people want, he'll hire people in the process and if he makes good decisions, turn a profit. If his product or service is superior to that of his competitors, he just might make himself rich. Now tell me, who has this guy hurt? Stated differently, how was Steve Jobs, a 1%er, bad for other Americans?

You have an obvious hatred for political equality.

In the 2012 election cycle, 26,783 individual contributed an average of $28,913 to federal election campaigns in a country where the median individual income was $26,364.

Less than one in ten thousand of your fellow citizens determined who you got to cast your vote for in 2010. Possibly your "free-market" authoritarian economists would approve. Robert Reich doesn't nor would anyone who attaches more significance to political sovereignty than to their net worth.

What I remember most about the 70s, Slick, was how a single minimum wage job paid the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay for and maintain a six year old Chevy. In those days the richest 1% of Americans took home about 8% of US income. Today they take over 20% and the assholes still want more.

Why don't you tell me how much more private debt we should nationalize in order to keep rich parasites happy?

$15K per year will still allow someone to live in a 1 bedroom apartment and drive a six year old car.

 

[Flopper]

During my K-12 education, government played the role of crushing competition, innovation and creativity in the education market...ensuring everyone got a crappy learning experience, or at least far less of a positive experience it could have otherwise been. Perhaps Carolyn Lockhead said it best: "Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."



Sure, because the economy was just so fantastic back in the late seventies? You couldn't be this stupid.



A 70% Capital gains rate? Fantastic. That ought to spur a ton of investment in this country, right? You bitch about jobs going overseas and then suggest this? My goodness, no one is that dumb. You also forget that the money used to invest in capital ventures WAS ALREADY TAXED and that money represents SIGNIFICANT RISK. Tell us, when you clock in at your job, are you sure you'll get a paycheck or could you loose everything if your "risk" goes wrong? So, let's get this straight. You want to earn your income with little to no risk involved and be taxed at the lowest rates (or perhaps not at all...I'm assuming you support progressive taxation where nearly half of citizens pay nothing) while those that risk everything for their income should be taxed twice and at the highest possible rate. Got it.



Reich is a Keynesian asshole with a central planner meddling mentality. You really need to read up on some real economists. Start with the Austrian school and go from there.

Lastly, you have an obvious hatred towards successful people, whether you are willing to admit that or not. Tell me, when a guy risks his life savings to start a business and creates a product or service that people want, he'll hire people in the process and if he makes good decisions, turn a profit. If his product or service is superior to that of his competitors, he just might make himself rich. Now tell me, who has this guy hurt? Stated differently, how was Steve Jobs, a 1%er, bad for other Americans?

You have an obvious hatred for political equality.

In the 2012 election cycle, 26,783 individual contributed an average of $28,913 to federal election campaigns in a country where the median individual income was $26,364.

Less than one in ten thousand of your fellow citizens determined who you got to cast your vote for in 2010. Possibly your "free-market" authoritarian economists would approve. Robert Reich doesn't nor would anyone who attaches more significance to political sovereignty than to their net worth.

What I remember most about the 70s, Slick, was how a single minimum wage job paid the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay for and maintain a six year old Chevy. In those days the richest 1% of Americans took home about 8% of US income. Today they take over 20% and the assholes still want more.

Why don't you tell me how much more private debt we should nationalize in order to keep rich parasites happy?

$15K per year will still allow someone to live in a 1 bedroom apartment and drive a six year old car.

Substitute exist for live, and I might agree.

 

[eflatminor]

What role did government play in your education?

During my K-12 education, government played the role of crushing competition, innovation and creativity in the education market...ensuring everyone got a crappy learning experience, or at least far less of a positive experience it could have otherwise been. Perhaps Carolyn Lockhead said it best: "Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."



Sure, because the economy was just so fantastic back in the late seventies? You couldn't be this stupid.



A 70% Capital gains rate? Fantastic. That ought to spur a ton of investment in this country, right? You bitch about jobs going overseas and then suggest this? My goodness, no one is that dumb. You also forget that the money used to invest in capital ventures WAS ALREADY TAXED and that money represents SIGNIFICANT RISK. Tell us, when you clock in at your job, are you sure you'll get a paycheck or could you loose everything if your "risk" goes wrong? So, let's get this straight. You want to earn your income with little to no risk involved and be taxed at the lowest rates (or perhaps not at all...I'm assuming you support progressive taxation where nearly half of citizens pay nothing) while those that risk everything for their income should be taxed twice and at the highest possible rate. Got it.

Robert Reich

Reich is a Keynesian asshole with a central planner meddling mentality. You really need to read up on some real economists. Start with the Austrian school and go from there.

Lastly, you have an obvious hatred towards successful people, whether you are willing to admit that or not. Tell me, when a guy risks his life savings to start a business and creates a product or service that people want, he'll hire people in the process and if he makes good decisions, turn a profit. If his product or service is superior to that of his competitors, he just might make himself rich. Now tell me, who has this guy hurt? Stated differently, how was Steve Jobs, a 1%er, bad for other Americans?

You have an obvious hatred for political equality.

In the 2012 election cycle, 26,783 individual contributed an average of $28,913 to federal election campaigns in a country where the median individual income was $26,364.

Less than one in ten thousand of your fellow citizens determined who you got to cast your vote for in 2010. Possibly your "free-market" authoritarian economists would approve. Robert Reich doesn't nor would anyone who attaches more significance to political sovereignty than to their net worth.

What I remember most about the 70s, Slick, was how a single minimum wage job paid the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay for and maintain a six year old Chevy. In those days the richest 1% of Americans took home about 8% of US income. Today they take over 20% and the assholes still want more.

Why don't you tell me how much more private debt we should nationalize in order to keep rich parasites happy?

By all means, we should base our economy on what YOU remember from the 1970s. Great plan.

You ducked my question there completely. How is the guy that make himself wealthy bad for anyone else? You bitch about income inequality. First tell us why the guy that was more successful than you was bad for other citizens. Explain that first without simply referring to the fact that there are more successful people today than at some point in the past. Again, how is being wealthy bad in an of itself...or is this all just jealousy?

I of course have the balls to answer your question...I in NO WAY support any nationalization of any private debt. End the Fed.

Now, answer my question.

 

[PredFan]

It depends on who gets elected in 2012.

If it's Obama, Romney, or Newt, the jobs aren't coming back quickly if at all.