Working class favor GOP by 58%

[MaggieMae]

Not one of you have even scratched a case for making far less regulation or an economic libertarian economy feasible or desirable.

So continue to chatter under the sheet and continue to amuse us.

I agree, and although I would love to finish reading all the comments, it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Enjoy the rest of the weekend folks!

 

[Revere]

There goes the false alternative of the "economic libertarian economy" again.

 

[Dogsbody]

on the 58% and


that you are puzzled.

I have a very large willow tree in my backyard. We call it the pissing tree ! Woof, Woof, Woof!

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are no "workers" in the US. That's a Stalinist concept. Obama wants everyone to enroll in community colleges and get associate degrees so they can be "workers" as he says.

What a piece of shit.

You are the piece of crap for such a statement. You are nothing but a fascist totalitarian that would sublimate the worker to the state and the corporations.

 

[Jack Fate]

There are no "workers" in the US. That's a Stalinist concept. Obama wants everyone to enroll in community colleges and get associate degrees so they can be "workers" as he says.

What a piece of shit.

You are the piece of crap for such a statement. You are nothing but a fascist totalitarian that would sublimate the worker to the state and the corporations.

You're a pusillanimous pissant prarie punk for breathing good clean air meant for human beings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow, you can use alliteration, though I doubt you would know what it is or how to define it.

Economic libertarians are the defenders of modern day economic slavery.

Not going to happen, kiddo.

 

[snjmom]

Public employees unions have as much money, and spend as much money on lobbying and political activity, as corporations.

Yet, they are not on the President's enemies list.

That's how a third world marxists operates.

Umm, nope.

Labor in total was outspent by every other sector.


2008 Presidential Election
Contributions by Sector

Nice try at a BIG lie.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, the Beard economic theory of colonial economic superiority in deconstructing the creation of the Constitution failed seventy years ago, as it does now. The Constitution is an organic document that adapts and modifies with each generation's social and moral conceits. To deny that is to deny the nature of humanity. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Shay's Rebellion is historical fact.

Daniel Shays was radicalized in part by watching a sick woman having her bed taken from beneath her because she was also unable to pay.

After being wounded and resigning from the Continental Army without pay, Shays went home to find himself in court for nonpayments of debt.

Indignities Madison and Washington avoided, I suspect.

Anecdotal evidence is fun to read but offers little else. Let me help you, because you clearly don't grasp the concept. Shays as the Spirit of 76 and Madison as the Spirit of 87. Do you get it now? Try arguing it that way.

What is it you "so clearly grasp" that Charles Beard (and Howard Zinn) did not?

"Another view of the Constitution was put forward early in the twentieth century by the historian Charles Beard (arousing anger and indignation, including a denunciatory editorial in the New York Times). He wrote in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution:

"Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government.

In short, Beard said, the rich must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates."

We are all entitled to our opinions, and we're also required to support our facts.

A Kind of Revolution

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution was an event so nuanced and sophisticated that a simple economic interpretation captures only a small and distorted window on it. Jefferson saw it as a war between capital and agriculture; Madison between central and state powers, and created a document he soon resented (not rejected); Hamilton as an opportunity to expand the powers of capital; the northeast fearing the south and west; and the crucial issue of representation. Those were only a few of the issues, and not all of them, not many of them, can be reduced by an economic interpretation.

 

[MaggieMae]

If Republicans succeed in defunding Obamacare and killing any EPA energy policy or tax increases, that will go a long way to reinvigorating growth.

They may succeed in defunding certain parts of Obama care, but as far as killing any energy policy (I assume you meen green technology), forget it. Just where do you think new jobs are going to come from? We can't continue expecting "service" jobs to make up for loss of manufacturing. When will there be nothing left to "service" if there is no new major market on the horizon? Pretty damned soon.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Disallow"?

You wouldn't have this problem if we didn't make it economic suicide for companies to remain in the us. Leave the companies alone and get rid of the unions. Watch our economy soar.

Sure, everyone would be paid less and our standard of living would be lowered. Historically, unions have demanded wages that management had to match if they wanted to keep a union out. But both of those situations have contributed to the high standard of living we still enjoy, in spite of the economic downturn.

Union membership in the private sector is plummeting in Obama faster than ever. It is surpassed by union membership in government. Why should private industry be forced to have to compete with that?

Why shouldn't they? If you want the private sector to rule, then they need to pay wages people can live on and still afford the material things Americans are accustomed to having.

 

[Annie]

If Republicans succeed in defunding Obamacare and killing any EPA energy policy or tax increases, that will go a long way to reinvigorating growth.

They may succeed in defunding certain parts of Obama care, but as far as killing any energy policy (I assume you meen green technology), forget it. Just where do you think new jobs are going to come from? We can't continue expecting "service" jobs to make up for loss of manufacturing. When will there be nothing left to "service" if there is no new major market on the horizon? Pretty damned soon.

Now we are linking health care and enviro-friendly jobs, 'created of saved?' Maggie, another shocker, I'm for Mother Earth. I want a great environment left for my children's childrens children. I am against littering, I recycle and have for years. Whenever possible I've composted and gardened. I plan my trips to waste less gas, both for money and environment.

Oh did you notice that many conservatives also think it's a good idea to feed the hungry?

What I have very little patience for are politicians that use well-meaning people's feelings to create sock puppets. Define green jobs and how do they save any aspect of the environment or money or time?

If you do so, your way ahead of the administration that's playing games with such from the beginning:

Obama team uses flimflammery to inflate job numbers | Washington Examiner

Obama team uses flimflammery to inflate job numbers
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 23, 2010
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis (AP)

Are you a financial adviser? You may not know it, but you've got a green job. Are you a wholesale buyer? You've got a green job, too. Or maybe you're a newspaper reporter. You, too, have a green job -- at least according to the Obama administration.

For months, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley has been pushing the administration to substantiate its claims of having created nearly 200,000 green jobs. More fundamentally, Grassley has asked Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to state clearly what a green job is. So far, he hasn't gotten an answer.

Now, Grassley has learned that, in lieu of a settling on a straightforward definition of a green job, the administration has adopted an extraordinarily broad description of such jobs that could include not only financial advisers, wholesale buyers, and reporters, but also public relations specialists, marketing managers, and many more occupations that have nothing to do with protecting the environment.

If federal money has created any of those jobs, then the administration can claim to have created a green job...

If solar/wind could reduce energy consumption or costs significantly enough, don't you think people would pay the upfront costs? We know that nuclear plants will save the output of CO2 and use less resources, but can't get permits to build.

 

[MaggieMae]

Who just happen to be average American's...good one there, what next? Condemn corporations for existing at all, while your Obama sucks corporate cash up his ass during his election campaign.

The stockholders are not just "average Americans". You have not contested the point, hipeter924, so you concede that corporations are destroying the middle class and appropriating its wealth.

Stockholders are average Americans...401Ks, pensioners, etc.

You're really running out of people to hate now.

Whichever stockholder(s) own 51% have the say in a company's activities. That's usually one or two people or partnerships, with the other 49% the "small" people and those are usually non-voting shares.

 

[MaggieMae]

Stockholders are average Americans...401Ks, pensioners, etc.

You're really running out of people to hate now.

Yep, he is, he generally just finds new ones (tea party,etc), he will never stop hating people.

The US Chamber of Commerce, Koch Industries...

These are third world marxists here.

Neither one of which supports Obama's policies. Your point? Or did you just make ours?

 

[MaggieMae]

Public employees unions have as much money, and spend as much money on lobbying and political activity, as corporations.

Yet, they are not on the President's enemies list.

That's how a third world marxists operates.

Then why do they always lose against said corporations? Since unions have been around for decades, and since you assert that there are currently more public employees belonging to unions than ever before, then why isn't the county already being run like a Marxist state?

 

[MaggieMae]

You will have to show the numbers and the relationships. Right now you are shilling for the corporations and the Big Dogs. You have nothing, son.

Only third world marxists whip up war between imagined classes for their own self-aggrandisement.

Anyone who is anti-business is anti-American.

Truth is that socialists are nothing more than frauds cock sucking the establishment, they want a dictator* to rule over and control them.

PS: National Socialism = Socialism + Nationalism. So they are not that far away from Hitler* as they claim to be.

Anyone who doesn't know that German Socialism did NOT evolve into Nazism can hardly be deemed credible on this particular subject. Get educated, bud. Once in power, Hitler's subservient legislature quickly passed The Enabling Act, which allowed him to Nazify the bureacracy, the judiciary, the media, replace all unions with one Nazi-controlled German labor front, and ban all political parties except his own.

 

[MaggieMae]

There are no "workers" in the US. That's a Stalinist concept. Obama wants everyone to enroll in community colleges and get associate degrees so they can be "workers" as he says.

What a piece of shit.

Looks to me like you finally gave up and resorted to silly shit. If that's what you really believe, then you hold no more credibility than...hmmm...can't think of someone comparable...Oh yeah, Sarah Palin.

 

[MaggieMae]

Self interest, not government, best serves a free society. It made the best soceity on earth for at least its first 200 years.

Is demanding banks make loans to uncreditworthy customers and then securitizing them because government guarantees them "unreguated governance?'

Would you make or buy a crap mortgage unless government guaranteed it?

I guess that last question is one for, say, Lehman Brothers.

And who "demanded" that banks make loans to uncreditworthy customers? Please don't refer to the old CRA, which demanded no such thing: It demanded that banks stop NOT lending based purely on a potential mortgagee's geographic residence address at the time. By the time mortgage securites were being packaged, the majority of them were not being done by "banks" at all (including Fannie & Freddie), but by fly-by-night "mortgage companies" who lured unsuspecting clients in with promises of lower payments just as soon as they could refinance.

Wrongheaded government policies to encourage homewnership.

Banks were threatened with fines and more if they did not set aside traditional underwriting requirements such as source of income, source of downpayment, and credit history.

Here's something you will never learn from your favorite right-wing blogsite or conservative analyist:

CRA Thought Experiment | The Big Picture

They also don't like to talk about this, which is what REALLY set the ball in motion for the housing crisis:

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.
...
In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.

American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD

 

[MaggieMae]

Shay's Rebellion is historical fact.

Daniel Shays was radicalized in part by watching a sick woman having her bed taken from beneath her because she was also unable to pay.

After being wounded and resigning from the Continental Army without pay, Shays went home to find himself in court for nonpayments of debt.

Indignities Madison and Washington avoided, I suspect.

Anecdotal evidence is fun to read but offers little else. Let me help you, because you clearly don't grasp the concept. Shays as the Spirit of 76 and Madison as the Spirit of 87. Do you get it now? Try arguing it that way.

What is it you "so clearly grasp" that Charles Beard (and Howard Zinn) did not?

"Another view of the Constitution was put forward early in the twentieth century by the historian Charles Beard (arousing anger and indignation, including a denunciatory editorial in the New York Times). He wrote in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution:

"Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government.

In short, Beard said, the rich must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates."

We are all entitled to our opinions, and we're also required to support our facts.

A Kind of Revolution

So much for "WE THE PEOPLE"... And here I thought that meant me, too.

 

[boedicca]

Public employees unions have as much money, and spend as much money on lobbying and political activity, as corporations.

Yet, they are not on the President's enemies list.

That's how a third world marxists operates.

Umm, nope.

Labor in total was outspent by every other sector.


2008 Presidential Election
Contributions by Sector

Nice try at a BIG lie.

This is incomplete data and misleading data. Unions contributed far more than what is categorized as labor, probably due to being spread among the sectors.


Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. Already, unions have contributed $6.5 million to the 2010 elections, and $6 million has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.


Obama Thanks His Friends: Government Spending and Union Support