You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[beagle9]

Reagan ended stagflation the wrong way, through supply-side, trickle-down economics, gutting our manufacturing base and stripping the working class of their right to effectively unionize and negotiate. Under Reagan's leadership in the 1980s, there was a shift towards a more laissez-faire approach to the economy, which always has disastrous outcomes in the long term for the working class.

• National Debt at the beginning of Reagan's presidency (January 1981): Approximately $930 billion.
• National Debt at the end of Reagan's presidency (January 1989): Approximately $2.7 trillion.

The so-called "national debt" that conservative Republicans are always raving about today, nearly tripled during Reagan's presidency, increasing by around $1.7 trillion. This significant increase was driven by a combination of tax cuts, increased military spending, and large budget deficits.

View attachment 1002210​

Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, he inherited a challenging economic situation characterized by stagflation, a combination of high inflation, high unemployment, and stagnant economic growth. This economic malaise had roots in several factors, including the Vietnam War and the 1973 OPEC oil embargo.

1. Vietnam War: The prolonged Vietnam War put significant strain on the U.S. economy. The war's costs led to large government deficits, contributing to inflation. Additionally, the war diverted resources from domestic needs, which hindered economic growth.
2. 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo: In response to U.S. support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an oil embargo on the United States and other nations that supported Israel. This embargo led to a severe oil shortage, causing energy prices to skyrocket. The sharp increase in oil prices contributed to inflation and slowed economic growth, as energy is a critical input for most industries.
3. Stagflation: The combination of these factors resulted in stagflation, a situation where inflation was high, but economic growth was slow, and unemployment was also high. Stagflation is particularly difficult to address because the traditional tools to combat inflation (like raising interest rates) can exacerbate unemployment, while measures to stimulate growth (like increasing government spending) can worsen inflation.

If Carter had adopted a more leftist or socialist approach to addressing stagflation, his policies might have included the following:

1. Nationalization of Key Industries

Energy Sector

Carter could have nationalized the oil and energy industries to control prices and stabilize supply, ensuring that essential resources were managed in the public interest rather than for corporate profit. This move would have aimed to prevent price gouging and reduce reliance on foreign oil, particularly in the wake of the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. He could've also improved relations with Arab countries after America's blind support for Israel in 73, improving oil prices for the American consumer.

2. Price Controls and Wage Regulation

Price Controls:

To combat inflation, Carter might have implemented strict price controls on essential goods and services, ensuring that corporations could not arbitrarily increase prices. This would have helped to keep living costs stable for ordinary Americans.

Wage Policies:

Carter could have introduced policies to raise wages across the board, such as a significant increase in the minimum wage or a living wage mandate. These measures would have increased consumer purchasing power, helping to stimulate economic growth.

3. Massive Public Works Programs

Government Employment Programs:

Drawing inspiration from the New Deal, Carter could have launched large-scale public works programs to create jobs and invest in infrastructure, renewable energy, and public housing. These initiatives would have provided employment, stimulated demand, and addressed long-term economic needs.

4. Creating A Social Safety Net for The Working-Class

Healthcare:

Universal Healthcare: Implementing a universal healthcare system would have removed the burden of healthcare costs from individuals and businesses, freeing up disposable income and reducing inflationary pressures.

Social Safety Nets:

Expanding social security, unemployment benefits, and other welfare programs would have provided financial security for those hit hardest by economic challenges, stabilizing the economy by maintaining consumer demand.

5. Progressive Taxation and Equitable Economic Policy

Increased Taxes on the Wealthiest Members Of Society:

Carter could have reintroduced the high marginal tax rates seen in the 1950s and 60s, where the top marginal tax rate was as high as 91%. This would have generated substantial revenue for public programs while reducing income inequality.

Fair Economic Distribution:

Carter might have framed these policies as "equitable economic policy," ensuring that the benefits of economic growth were shared more fairly across society, not just among the rich and powerful.

6. Comprehensive Economic Planning

Rather than leaving the economy to blind market forces (Adam Smith's imaginary "invisible hand of the free market"), Carter could have established a central economic planning body to coordinate investment, production, and distribution. This would have aimed to create a more stable and equitable economy, focused on long-term goals rather than short-term profits.

Empowering Workers:

Increasing support for labor unions and encouraging worker cooperatives would have given workers a greater say in how businesses were run and profits were shared, contributing to a more balanced economy.

7. International Solidarity and Trade Policy

Following China's Model:

China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, implemented gradual reforms that maintained strong state control over key sectors of the economy. This approach has allowed China to achieve remarkable economic growth and stability over the past few decades.

Avoiding Russia's Mistakes Of The 1990s:

In contrast to China, Russia's experience in the 1990s illustrates the dangers of abandoning state control of certain industries. Under the "Shock Therapy" economic program, Russia rapidly privatized state assets, leading to economic collapse and widespread poverty. By maintaining stronger state control of the major centers of economic power (the industries vital to the nation's infrastructure) and implementing gradual reforms, Carter could have quickly gotten us out of stagflation, but he decided to "pussyfoot" on the economy, essentially doing nothing effective. Reagan's actions got us out of stagflation and created a whole new crisis.

View attachment 1002224​

Why did we have an oil embargo crippling us during the Carter presidency, and now we as citizens learn that this nation has more natural resources than any other nation in this world ? Why have we been lied to for so many year's about all of this stuff, only to learn the truth now by the bull (Trump) who is inside wrecking the China shop as we speak ?????

Is Trump the enemy of the establishment because he's just too damned honest as a big mouth New Yorker who wants to do the right thing for America, and do so too the best of his ability ?

 

[protectionist]

Obama the globalist was convinced that America had stagnated in the production or promise of anything new being possible in the future because of helping the world to catch up instead of America leading as the example on how to run a country.

In 2012, during the presidential campaign, Obama the GLOBALIST, made a speech in Germany, in which he proclaimed himself to be "a citizen of the world".
He got sharply contradicted and chewed out, by conservative presidential candidate Virgil Goode, who said "You're supposed to be a citizen of the United States, and as a US president, representing the American people, not the world."

 

[protectionist]

Todd, dismissing Trump’s proposals to cut essential programs as “just proposals” misses the bigger issue. The fact that these cuts were even considered shows where Trump’s priorities lie, certainly not with the working class. If those cuts didn’t fully materialize, it was thanks to Democrats who fought to protect these programs. Trump’s intent to gut Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies was clear, and just because he didn’t get everything he wanted doesn’t mean his policies didn’t hurt working people.

Beyond the threat of program cuts, let’s talk about the real expenses the working class faced, which wiped out any benefits from those modest tax cuts. Health insurance premiums continued to rise, and Trump's attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act only added to that burden. Housing costs surged in many parts of the country, making it harder for people to afford rent or buy homes (Trump is against rent controls and providing adequate rental assistance to working-class families that need it).

Childcare costs remained high, and for many, the cost of education, whether paying off student loans or saving for their kids, continued to be a heavy financial strain. Utility costs, transportation, and even food prices edged up, squeezing family budgets even tighter.

So, while you might downplay the impact of Trump's proposals as not being fully realized, the reality is that his policies and the expenses working-class families had to bear, far outweighed any small gains from tax cuts. The working class ended up with more bills and fewer protections, all while the wealthy and corporations enjoyed the lion’s share of the benefits.

You have made some very WILD CLAIMS in this post, while not presenting a shred of evidence.
This is typical of leftwingers who watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS, et al leftist media which throws crazy ideas around like pillows in a pillow fight.

Show something to back up your weird claims that >>>
1. "Trump’s intent to gut Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies"

2. "Trump is against rent controls and providing adequate rental assistance to working-class families that need it."

3. "the reality is that his policies and the expenses working-class families had to bear, far outweighed any small gains from tax cuts.

4. "The working class ended up with more bills and fewer protections,"
.

 

[protectionist]

There you go! China is at fault. Having said that, who was president when that happened and allowed it to happen to a higher degree than it should have? Trump! Trump failed to control or beat the Chinese. They were better than Trump. They caused over 1.4 million Americans to die and Trump was not good enough to beat the Chinese.

Hey, he was so bad that he raised tariffs on them and the tariffs cost us more than the Chinese.

Talk about proof of incompetency. Here it is and by your own words.

and you say it was the marxist libturds? Where they in power, or was Trump in power. If they were in power, then Trump was a stooge for them and if he was in power, he allowed them to do it to him.

How much more incompetent a person be? even libtards and Chinese beat him?

The pandemic and its economic negatives, are attributable to Democrats
1. Obama's NIH funded the Wuhan lab
2. Democrat governors kept the shutdowns going.
3. Pelosi blocked stimulus checks

 

[beagle9]

In 2012, during the presidential campaign, Obama the GLOBALIST, made a speech in Germany, in which he proclaimed himself to be "a citizen of the world".
He got sharply contradicted and chewed out, by conservative presidential candidate Virgil Goode, who said "You're supposed to be a citizen of the United States, and as a US president, representing the American people, not the world."

Absolutely right... Obama (I strongly feel) with him being this admitted so called "globalist or globalized citizen", just proved to me his great disdain and racist view's that him and his wife share and hold against America for nefarious purposes.

He figured that going global in his citizenship and views was going to empower him against American traditional cultures, standards, and traditions surrounding God, clingers and the standards invoked from it all when he would go about fundamentally changing it.

We absolutely must turn away from this globalist agenda that has divided America and Americans over these latter day's of modernization, and over the expectations of how we are supposed to graduate to a more modern day society without God leading us in the moral and decency department.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. Tax Cuts Favoring the Wealthy​

• Repeated tax cuts, such as those implemented under the Reagan, Bush, and Trump administrations, have disproportionately benefited the wealthy. These cuts reduce the tax burden on high-income earners and corporations, allowing them to accumulate more wealth while reducing government revenue for social programs that support the working class.

2. Deregulation of Industries​

• Deregulation, particularly in the financial sector, has allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to engage in risky and speculative activities that concentrate wealth at the top. This includes the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the rise of shadow banking, which contributed to the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath.

3. Decline of Labor Unions​

• The decline of labor unions due to anti-union policies, corporate resistance, and weakening labor laws has diminished workers' bargaining power. This has led to stagnant wages, reduced benefits, and less job security for the working class, while corporate profits and executive pay have soared.

4. Globalization and Outsourcing​

• Globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor have decimated many well-paying jobs in the U.S. The shift to a service-based economy has often meant lower wages and less stability for American workers, while corporations have increased their profits by cutting labor costs.

5. Rising Healthcare Costs​

• The rising cost of healthcare, exacerbated by the weakening of the Affordable Care Act and the lack of universal healthcare, has placed a significant financial burden on the working class. Meanwhile, healthcare corporations and pharmaceutical companies have seen their profits grow.

6. Soaring Housing Costs​

• The cost of housing has skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to a combination of factors, including real estate speculation, gentrification, and a lack of affordable housing development. This has made it increasingly difficult for working-class families to afford rent or buy homes, while wealthy investors have profited from the real estate market.

7. Stagnant Wages​

• Despite increases in productivity, wages for the working class have remained largely stagnant over the past few decades. This is in part due to the decline in union power and the shift toward low-wage service jobs. Meanwhile, executive compensation and corporate profits have reached unprecedented levels.

8. Student Debt Crisis​

• The cost of higher education has soared, leading to a massive increase in student loan debt. This debt burden disproportionately affects the working class, limiting their economic mobility and delaying milestones like homeownership. In contrast, wealthy families can afford to pay for education without taking on debt.

9. Cuts to Social Programs​

• Cuts to social safety net programs, such as food assistance, housing subsidies, and healthcare, have left the working class more vulnerable to economic shocks. These programs are often targeted for cuts during periods of austerity, while wealthier individuals and corporations continue to benefit from tax breaks and loopholes.

10. Corporate Influence in Politics​

• The increasing influence of money in politics, especially after the Citizens United decision, has allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to shape policies that protect their interests. This often results in legislation that favors the rich, such as tax cuts and deregulation, at the expense of the working class.

Rent controls ensure housing remains affordable and people have housing. Of course, everything I say on these issues is assuming we remain with a market capitalist economy. Socialism will resolve all of these issues, quickly.

Repeated tax cuts, such as those implemented under the Reagan, Bush, and Trump administrations, have disproportionately benefited the wealthy.

The people who paid the most had the largest dollar benefit.

These cuts reduce the tax burden on high-income earners and corporations, allowing them to accumulate more wealth while reducing government revenue for social programs that support the working class.

These cuts resulted in the rich paying a much larger percentage of all income tax receipts.

Deregulation, particularly in the financial sector, has allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to engage in risky and speculative activities that concentrate wealth at the top.

What deregulation? What can the rich speculate on that the rest of us can't?
If the activities are risky, that means some fail. Should we remove all possibilities of success or failure, so commies can't whine about the rich anymore?

The decline of labor unions due to anti-union policies,

That reminds me, we should outlaw government worker unions.

Globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor have decimated many well-paying jobs in the U.S.

Maybe we should make it easier and cheaper for corporations to operate here?

The cost of housing has skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to a combination of factors, including real estate speculation, gentrification, and a lack of affordable housing development.

Not to mention the massive Biden/Harris border failures that let an additional 12-15 million illegal aliens walk or fly in.

The cost of higher education has soared, leading to a massive increase in student loan debt.

Obama had the government take over college loans. Why didn't that make college cheaper?

Cuts to social safety net programs, such as food assistance, housing subsidies, and healthcare, have left the working class more vulnerable to economic shocks.

What cuts?

The increasing influence of money in politics, especially after the Citizens United decision, has allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to shape policies that protect their interests.

Citizens United was terrible!!!
Why do people think it is ok to criticize Hillary, especially before an election?
Hillary must never be criticized. She's better than the regular people.
She's in no way a lowly deplorable.

Rent controls ensure housing remains affordable and people have housing.
I agree. Rent must be something everyone can afford. $500 a month, at most.
And those nasty rich people should be forced to build more places for us all to rent. I'll take a 4 bedroom with a 3-car garage near Lincoln Park. I'll pay $600 a month, tops. Git 'er done!!!

Socialism will resolve all of these issues, quickly.

Obviously. I miss Cabrini Green. Socialism at its finest. Very affordable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Glass-Steagall originally separated commercial banking from investment banking, which meant that banks couldn’t gamble with depositors' money in risky investment ventures. When it was repealed in 1999, it allowed banks to combine these activities, leading to the creation of complex financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were filled with bad subprime mortgages.

The real issue was that, without Glass-Steagall, commercial banks could now not only write risky mortgages but also package them into MBS and sell them off to investors. This created a feedback loop of ever-riskier lending practices because the banks no longer bore the full risk of those loans—they could offload that risk into the broader financial system. The result was a massive buildup of toxic assets that eventually collapsed the entire system.

As for the GSE mandates to buy subprime mortgages, it's a misunderstanding to pin the crisis solely on them. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did indeed play a role in the housing bubble by purchasing subprime loans, but they were far from the only players. Private lenders and Wall Street banks were even more aggressive in pushing subprime loans and creating risky financial products. The crisis was the result of a combination of factors, including deregulation, excessive risk-taking by private financial institutions, and a lack of oversight, all of which were exacerbated by the removal of Glass-Steagall’s protections. So, while the GSEs made mistakes, the root causes of the crisis went much deeper, and Glass-Steagall’s repeal was a significant part of the problem.

Glass-Steagall originally separated commercial banking from investment banking, which meant that banks couldn’t gamble with depositors' money in risky investment ventures.

I agree.
Banks should only be allowed to invest in safe ventures, like single family homes.
DURR

When it was repealed in 1999, it allowed banks to combine these activities, leading to the creation of complex financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were filled with bad subprime mortgages.

I know. Nobody lost any money on bad subprime mortgages unless they were securitized. Right?

As for the GSE mandates to buy subprime mortgages, it's a misunderstanding to pin the crisis solely on them.

Who said they were the only players? Or that the fault was only theirs?
I just thought it was interesting that during all this so-called deregulation causing harm, that there was an added regulation that caused a lot of harm.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did indeed play a role in the housing bubble by purchasing subprime loans, but they were far from the only players.

How much subprime did they buy?

So, while the GSEs made mistakes,

Made mistakes by buying the subprime mortgages HUD forced them to buy?
Those mistakes?

 

[Luckyone]

The pandemic and its economic negatives, are attributable to Democrats
1. Obama's NIH funded the Wuhan lab
2. Democrat governors kept the shutdowns going.
3. Pelosi blocked stimulus checks

 

[Luckyone]

The pandemic and its economic negatives, are attributable to Democrats
1. Obama's NIH funded the Wuhan lab
2. Democrat governors kept the shutdowns going.
3. Pelosi blocked stimulus checks

I am so happy you said that (foot in mouth action by Protectionist). You have just proven that the Democrats did the right thing. South Korea shut down immediately after the pandemic started and guess what? percentage-wise, they were the nation with the smallest amount of Covid deaths and they were the very first nation to re-open business and everything else and within 3 months of shutting down.

As far as your statements about Obama funding the Wuhan Lab, show me proof.

As far as Pelosi blocking Stimulus checks. Show me proof.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Glass-Steagall originally separated commercial banking from investment banking, which meant that banks couldn’t gamble with depositors' money in risky investment ventures.

I agree.
Banks should only be allowed to invest in safe ventures, like single family homes.
DURR

When it was repealed in 1999, it allowed banks to combine these activities, leading to the creation of complex financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were filled with bad subprime mortgages.

I know. Nobody lost any money on bad subprime mortgages unless they were securitized. Right?

As for the GSE mandates to buy subprime mortgages, it's a misunderstanding to pin the crisis solely on them.

Who said they were the only players? Or that the fault was only theirs?
I just thought it was interesting that during all this so-called deregulation causing harm, that there was an added regulation that caused a lot of harm.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did indeed play a role in the housing bubble by purchasing subprime loans, but they were far from the only players.

How much subprime did they buy?

So, while the GSEs made mistakes,

Made mistakes by buying the subprime mortgages HUD forced them to buy?
Those mistakes?

First off, your sarcastic remark about banks only investing in "safe ventures, like single-family homes" ignores the real problem: the reckless bundling of risky subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments. The issue wasn’t that banks were lending for homes; it was that they were making risky loans to people who couldn’t afford them, then repackaging those loans into complex financial products and selling them as low-risk. When the housing market collapsed, it wasn’t just homeowners who suffered—it was the entire financial system because these so-called "safe" MBS were anything but. The repeal of Glass-Steagall enabled banks to take on these risks without sufficient oversight, which directly contributed to the financial meltdown.

As for your point about nobody losing money on bad subprime mortgages unless they were securitized, that’s precisely the problem. Securitization spread the risk across the entire financial system, turning what could have been a contained issue into a global crisis. Banks didn’t just hold onto these bad loans; they packaged and sold them to investors around the world, including pension funds, municipalities, and even other banks. When the housing market collapsed, those securities plummeted in value, leading to massive losses across the board. The crisis wasn’t just about bad mortgages, it was about how those mortgages were turned into ticking time bombs through securitization.

Regarding the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), yes, they were involved, but they were far from the main culprits. They did purchase subprime mortgages, but their involvement increased significantly later in the game, after private lenders and Wall Street had already flooded the market with risky loans. The idea that a single regulation, the GSE mandates, was responsible for the crisis is misleading. The real damage was done by private financial institutions that engaged in predatory lending practices and the creation of toxic financial products. Blaming GSEs alone ignores the broader systemic issues, including the deregulation that allowed private banks to act recklessly.

Finally, the truth is that under socialism, where banking is nationalized and not driven by profit, these kinds of crises can be prevented. Banks wouldn’t be incentivized to engage in risky behavior just to turn a profit; instead, they would lend to support the working class and the nation’s economic stability. The goal wouldn’t be short-term profits for a few, but long-term stability and prosperity for all. Under a system where banking serves the public good, rather than private gain, we could avoid the boom-and-bust cycles that are all too common in capitalist economies.

Thanks to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, it's inevitable that socialism will completely replace capitalism, in the near future. We're entering into a marketless, more democratic age of advanced automation and AI.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Repeated tax cuts, such as those implemented under the Reagan, Bush, and Trump administrations, have disproportionately benefited the wealthy.

The people who paid the most had the largest dollar benefit.

These cuts reduce the tax burden on high-income earners and corporations, allowing them to accumulate more wealth while reducing government revenue for social programs that support the working class.

These cuts resulted in the rich paying a much larger percentage of all income tax receipts.

Deregulation, particularly in the financial sector, has allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to engage in risky and speculative activities that concentrate wealth at the top.

What deregulation? What can the rich speculate on that the rest of us can't?
If the activities are risky, that means some fail. Should we remove all possibilities of success or failure, so commies can't whine about the rich anymore?

The decline of labor unions due to anti-union policies,

That reminds me, we should outlaw government worker unions.

Globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor have decimated many well-paying jobs in the U.S.

Maybe we should make it easier and cheaper for corporations to operate here?

The cost of housing has skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to a combination of factors, including real estate speculation, gentrification, and a lack of affordable housing development.

Not to mention the massive Biden/Harris border failures that let an additional 12-15 million illegal aliens walk or fly in.

The cost of higher education has soared, leading to a massive increase in student loan debt.

Obama had the government take over college loans. Why didn't that make college cheaper?

Cuts to social safety net programs, such as food assistance, housing subsidies, and healthcare, have left the working class more vulnerable to economic shocks.

What cuts?

The increasing influence of money in politics, especially after the Citizens United decision, has allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to shape policies that protect their interests.

Citizens United was terrible!!!
Why do people think it is ok to criticize Hillary, especially before an election?
Hillary must never be criticized. She's better than the regular people.
She's in no way a lowly deplorable.

Rent controls ensure housing remains affordable and people have housing.
I agree. Rent must be something everyone can afford. $500 a month, at most.
And those nasty rich people should be forced to build more places for us all to rent. I'll take a 4 bedroom with a 3-car garage near Lincoln Park. I'll pay $600 a month, tops. Git 'er done!!!

Socialism will resolve all of these issues, quickly.

Obviously. I miss Cabrini Green. Socialism at its finest. Very affordable.

Todd, your responses are loaded with sarcasm but short on substance, so let's get to the heart of the matter.

First, your claim that "the people who paid the most got the largest dollar benefit" from tax cuts misses the point entirely. The working class does indeed pay the most, not in taxes, but in their labor, their lives, and their health. They create the wealth that capitalists skim off the top, leaving workers with just enough to survive. When tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy, it’s not just a matter of dollars and cents; it’s about perpetuating a system where the rich get richer by exploiting the labor of others.

The wealthy should pay more because they owe their fortunes to the workers who actually produce the goods and services that they profit from. Allowing them to hoard wealth undermines democracy by concentrating power in the hands of a few, who then use that power to bend the rules in their favor.

​

You also asked about what deregulation allows the rich to speculate on that the rest of us can't. Let’s be clear: deregulation turns the financial markets into a rigged casino where the house always wins, and that house is owned by the wealthy. Speculative trading, enabled by deregulation, allows the rich to generate massive returns without producing anything of real value.

Meanwhile, these activities destabilize the economy, leading to boom-and-bust cycles that hurt the working class the most. When the inevitable crash comes, it's the average people who lose their jobs, homes, and savings, while the wealthy often get bailed out by the government (they get bailed out by socialism).

​

Regarding your comment about government worker unions, it’s ironic that you want to weaken the very institutions that give workers a fighting chance. Under a more democratic system, the working class should have complete power over the government. Workers should have the right to unionize, to strike, and to ensure their interests are represented. If the government fails to meet the needs of the people, workers should have the power to recall and replace their representatives.

In the workplace, unions are essential for securing fair wages, safe working conditions, and benefits. This isn't about making things easier for workers at the expense of everyone else; it's about creating a system where the economy serves the many, not just the few.

As for your suggestion that making it easier and cheaper for corporations to operate here would solve outsourcing, that's just wishful thinking. The problem is greed. Corporations don’t move jobs overseas because they can’t make a profit here; they do it because they want to maximize profits at any cost, even if it means gutting the American workforce and our nation's manufacturing base. Instead of bending over backward to accommodate these corporations, we should be holding them accountable. If they want to move production overseas to exploit cheap labor, they should face steep tariffs and lose any tax breaks or government subsidies like these:

Rank	Parent	Subsidy Value	Number of Awards
1	Boeing	$15,496,865,703	958
2	Intel	$8,421,707,656	135
3	Ford Motor	$7,742,056,086	703
4	General Motors	$7,524,714,800	792
5	Micron Technology	$6,790,131,915	21
6	Amazon.com	$5,823,705,434	460
7	Alcoa	$5,727,691,764	134
8	Cheniere Energy	$5,617,152,523	43
9	Foxconn Technology Group (Hon Hai Precision Industry Company)	$4,820,110,112	74
10	Venture Global LNG	$4,338,702,441	8
11	Texas Instruments	$4,286,328,869	69
12	Volkswagen	$3,977,630,513	217
13	Sempra Energy	$3,828,022,782	51
14	NRG Energy	$3,415,751,518	266
15	NextEra Energy	$3,008,691,129	116
16	Sasol	$2,836,049,845	72
17	Tesla Inc.	$2,829,855,494	114
18	Stellantis	$2,795,436,436	213
19	Walt Disney	$2,543,219,673	265
20	Nucor	$2,538,761,123	176
21	Iberdrola	$2,380,558,984	110
22	Rivian Automotive Inc.	$2,364,054,012	7
23	Hyundai Motor	$2,349,743,470	18
24	Oracle	$2,272,418,288	96
25	Shell PLC	$2,211,676,001	132
26	Mubadala Investment Company	$2,124,035,097	62
27	Nike	$2,104,917,829	153
28	Meta Platforms Inc.	$2,098,261,272	82
29	Toyota	$2,071,010,689	239
30	Alphabet Inc.	$2,054,325,527	125
31	Brookfield Corporation	$1,979,408,388	288
32	Paramount Global	$1,974,249,897	342
33	Comcast	$1,927,402,844	405
34	Exxon Mobil	$1,917,119,478	241
35	Samsung Electronics	$1,891,136,597	41
36	Apple Inc.	$1,845,004,670	63
37	Nissan	$1,842,814,165	98
38	Berkshire Hathaway	$1,830,986,253	1,200
39	Summit Power	$1,783,593,414	6
40	JPMorgan Chase	$1,740,972,699	1,151
41	Energy Transfer	$1,736,836,843	175
42	Cleveland-Cliffs	$1,705,497,604	129
43	Southern Company	$1,694,958,172	45
44	General Electric	$1,645,135,367	958
45	Vornado Realty Trust	$1,623,857,336	33
46	Duke Energy	$1,580,421,869	86
47	Wolfspeed Inc.	$1,563,595,610	64
48	General Atomics	$1,510,875,891	112
49	IBM Corp.	$1,497,901,697	368
50	Lockheed Martin	$1,462,674,082	325
51	OGE Energy	$1,427,570,182	15
52	SCS Energy	$1,419,011,796	5
53	Corning Inc.	$1,391,603,359	401
54	Panasonic	$1,384,147,584	61
55	Microsoft	$1,366,243,159	113
56	Sagamore Development	$1,320,000,000	2
57	Northrop Grumman	$1,284,014,883	285
58	Vingroup	$1,254,000,000	1
59	Continental AG	$1,244,875,478	111
60	RTX Corporation	$1,193,950,954	797
61	CF Industries	$1,134,394,215	131
62	Valero Energy	$1,053,812,692	207
63	Dow Inc.	$1,049,354,213	640
64	AES Corp.	$1,039,510,135	136
65	Air Products & Chemicals	$1,025,557,482	88
66	Exelon	$986,892,877	98
67	Pyramid Companies	$973,565,278	93
68	SK Holdings	$960,550,283	8
69	SkyWest	$944,296,654	339
70	Centene	$916,607,054	60
71	Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.	$900,000,000	1
72	Apollo Global Management	$897,750,089	594
73	Delta Air Lines	$871,485,833	13
74	Jefferies Financial Group	$871,137,335	16
75	SK Hynix	$866,700,000	2
76	Bayer	$852,475,226	217
77	Honda	$849,832,301	93
78	Shin-Etsu Chemical	$828,683,936	106
79	Enterprise Products Partners	$826,988,371	89
80	SunEdison	$817,425,725	115
81	Goldman Sachs	$800,873,386	253
82	Bank of America	$798,426,128	956
83	E.ON	$786,865,473	40
84	Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.	$786,835,708	219
85	EDF-Electricite de France	$774,590,441	36
86	Triple Five Worldwide	$748,000,000	4
87	EDP-Energias de Portugal	$733,674,868	14
88	Related Companies	$714,675,504	8
89	Koch Industries	$683,066,388	510
90	Caithness Energy	$672,688,888	30
91	Dell Technologies	$658,417,951	185
92	Wells Fargo	$657,333,216	542
93	FedEx	$647,035,546	633
94	Entergy	$638,533,387	235
95	OCI N.V.	$627,879,406	5
96	Eli Lilly	$623,326,368	79
97	Chevron Phillips Chemical	$619,839,444	20
98	Bedrock Detroit	$618,000,000	1
99	Dominion Energy	$615,436,089	79

Download results as CSV or XML or Save your search (Click here for information on download subscriptions)

No more socialism for the rich, if the wealthy don't reciprocate by providing good-paying jobs or doing what's best not just for them, but for America. Our long-term success economically relies upon us having a robust manufacturing base and an economy that rewards, not just wealthy capitalists, but also those who sell their labor power (their lives, health and safety, their time and presence) to capitalists, i.e. the American working class. The people who actually produce everything, as opposed to those who exploit them for a profit, leeching off of the labor of others like leisure-seeking parasites.

This would incentivize the big-money capitalists, to keep jobs in the U.S., pay decent wages, and contribute to the long-term health of the US economy. If you're not a patriot, you shouldn't be in business. If you don't love America and care about its workforce, then again, you shouldn't be trying to start a profit pursuing, privately owned business enterprise, because you're not serving the public good, but your own personal ambitions, at everyone else's expense. I am my brother's keeper, I don't live in a vacuum, I must care for my neighbor, my community, and my country.

On the issue of housing, you’re acting as if the rich are the only ones who can build homes and that they should be left to do so without any government intervention or oversight. In reality, housing should be a basic human right, not a luxury that only the wealthy can afford. The government has a role to play in ensuring that everyone has access to affordable, safe, and decent housing.

This isn't about giving people mansions for next to nothing; it's about creating a society where people aren’t forced into poverty just to keep a roof over their heads. In a functioning system, the wealthy would benefit when their workers and customers can afford to live near their jobs, which ultimately supports economic growth.

Do you want your workers living an hour or more away from your business establishment in a small town where housing is cheaper, requiring your employees to drive their cars for at least an hour, on bumper-to-bumper, traffic-packed highways, or just a few minute's drive away in the same city where you conduct business? Maybe even a city bus or train can transport your employees from their homes to the workplace, in a few minutes. The answer is, I would rather have my workers living close to my business, durrr. Housing must be affordable for everyone.

Finally, your dismissive reference to Cabrini Green reveals a deep misunderstanding of what socialism aims to achieve. Socialism is not about creating substandard housing projects; it’s about ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality, affordable housing that meets modern standards.

​

With advanced automation and AI, we have the capability to eliminate the inefficiencies and inequalities of capitalism, providing a higher standard of living for everyone, not just the wealthy.

Your sarcastic remarks don't change the reality that capitalism, as it stands today, is failing the majority of people. It’s time to consider a system that actually serves the interests of the working class, rather than perpetuating a cycle of exploitation and gross, extreme inequality.

​

 

[TruthNotBS]

FALSE!
After Obama started racking up back to back recessions (wound up with 7), Democrats started doing what Democrats do > INVENT a new definition for the word "recession".

Trouble is, only THEY , and a few easily duped non-Democrats went along with it, Well, I sure don't. The definition of a recession is still the same as it has been for the past 50 years. You dont get to come along and create your own definition of a recession, here in 2024, when the standard definition (Shiskin), has been the accepted standard for 50 years.

That is when 2 consecutive quarters show a DECLINE in GDP.

Because Democrats control the mass media (which of course goes along with all their concoctions), many people have been duped into believing it.

"Data" WHICH IS FRIENDLY TO DEMOCRATS, is used by them (and YOU) like a sledge hammer, while data which says what you dont want to hear, is given some wacko word salad to try to DODGE reality. Like the reality of the V-GRAPH which clearly shows Obama's awful 2 recession 2015, and 2016 not much better.

The V-GRAPH also shows Trump's 2017/2018 with continually RISING GDPs. The V-GRAPH is the "evidence" of Obama's pitiful economic failure, and Trump's success.

I don't need "snarky, infantile one-liners", I have FACTS, and what you need is to not try to spin your way out of a discussion.

Protectionist, your attempt to rewrite history by claiming Obama racked up "back-to-back recessions" is simply false. The official definition of a recession, as you've correctly noted, is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. By that standard, there were no recessions under Obama after 2015. The fluctuations in GDP growth during that period, which you’re exaggerating into “recessions,” were normal economic variations typical of a recovering economy. These fluctuations don’t meet the criteria for a recession and trying to redefine them as such is misleading.

You also mention the "V-GRAPH" as if it’s some definitive proof of Obama’s failure and Trump’s success. Let’s be clear: the recovery that continued into Trump’s term was a direct result of the policies implemented during Obama’s presidency, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Trump inherited an economy that was already on a growth trajectory, and his early GDP numbers benefited from the momentum built during Obama’s years. Claiming that Trump single-handedly "rescued" the economy ignores the reality that the recovery was well underway before he took office.

As for your dismissal of "data," it’s telling that you accuse Democrats of selectively using data when the reality is that economic data is neutral, it simply reflects what is happening in the economy. The data shows that Obama’s policies helped stabilize and grow the economy after the Great Recession, and the economy continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace, as it transitioned from recovery to expansion. The real issue here isn’t the data itself, but your refusal to accept it when it doesn’t fit your narrative. Instead of attacking the data, you should consider what it actually says about the economy during Obama’s and Trump’s presidencies.

 

[Faun]

Your embedded link didn't take directly to the source you claimed, see my posted with a corrected and easier to use link/URL.
Your embedded link only showed a spreadsheet page, but no clear indication it was from a government website.
Since you didn't, and often still don't, provide clear and unambiguous proof and documentation you are suspect of fabrication.
We've seen such often in your past posting record.

LOLOLOL

You're such an idiot. Moron, you could have looked at my link and seen the URL went to:

https://apps.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xlsx

So yes, my link absolutely went to the source I claimed. Clearly, the BEA website.

But even worse for you, you downloaded that same file, posted irrelevant numbers from it, then accused me of posting fake numbers, even though the file you downloaded from the BEA had the same numbers I posted.

You're a proven, lying cretin.

 

[Faun]

Part Two;
Because earlier DebtClock pages don't show as much data and tallies as the current one, and other data at the US Debt Clock shows declines and worsening economic situation in past couple of decades;

https://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

................. U.S. Debt Clock shows ..................................
............................................................ NOW .......................................... 2000

Not In Labor Force: 100,240,564 82,533,593
Manufacturing Jobs: 12,954,097 17,165,332
Median Income 39,677 31,967
Average New Car Price 48,989 22,440
Median New House Cost 405,973 166,274
........................................................
As we see with these sample data, new car price more than doubled, new home costs almost tripled, yet wages/income only increased about 25%.
Meanwhile less manufacturing jobs (went to China and other countries) and larger percentage not in labor force (living off of others).
One could also compare growth in Federal Debt, especially as percent of GDP; and the economic situation is even more worse.
Collectively the USA economy is in a tailspin and most citizens are grossly penalized now.

Still posting data from the debt clock even though it's been proven to be unreliable??

Explain this...

Why do their figures from 2000 keep changing?

 

[Faun]

FALSE!
After Obama started racking up back to back recessions (wound up with 7), Democrats started doing what Democrats do > INVENT a new definition for the word "recession".

Trouble is, only THEY , and a few easily duped non-Democrats went along with it, Well, I sure don't. The definition of a recession is still the same as it has been for the past 50 years. You dont get to come along and create your own definition of a recession, here in 2024, when the standard definition (Shiskin), has been the accepted standard for 50 years.

That is when 2 consecutive quarters show a DECLINE in GDP.

Because Democrats control the mass media (which of course goes along with all their concoctions), many people have been duped into believing it.

"Data" WHICH IS FRIENDLY TO DEMOCRATS, is used by them (and YOU) like a sledge hammer, while data which says what you dont want to hear, is given some wacko word salad to try to DODGE reality. Like the reality of the V-GRAPH which clearly shows Obama's awful 2 recession 2015, and 2016 not much better.

The V-GRAPH also shows Trump's 2017/2018 with continually RISING GDPs. The V-GRAPH is the "evidence" of Obama's pitiful economic failure, and Trump's success.

I don't need "snarky, infantile one-liners", I have FACTS, and what you need is to not try to spin your way out of a discussion.

Hey, gramps, why no response to my post #1,009?

"That is when 2 consecutive quarters show a DECLINE in GDP."

That's correct, that is the classical definition of a recession.

So why the fuck are you posting annualized GDP GROWTH RATES and not the actual GDP figures??

 

[Faun]

In 2012, during the presidential campaign, Obama the GLOBALIST, made a speech in Germany, in which he proclaimed himself to be "a citizen of the world".
He got sharply contradicted and chewed out, by conservative presidential candidate Virgil Goode, who said "You're supposed to be a citizen of the United States, and as a US president, representing the American people, not the world."

You know they're not mutually exclusive, right?

 

[Faun]

You have made some very WILD CLAIMS in this post, while not presenting a shred of evidence.
This is typical of leftwingers who watch CNN, MSNBC, PBS, et al leftist media which throws crazy ideas around like pillows in a pillow fight.

Show something to back up your weird claims that >>>
1. "Trump’s intent to gut Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies"

2. "Trump is against rent controls and providing adequate rental assistance to working-class families that need it."

3. "the reality is that his policies and the expenses working-class families had to bear, far outweighed any small gains from tax cuts.

4. "The working class ended up with more bills and fewer protections,"
.

Read project 2025.

 

[GWV5903]

You chose the one part of my response that helped you and ignored the rest.

Actually I chose the the relevant part, your baby picture is something only your mother could appreciate

Your ability to cherry pick is extraordinary.

You’re rebuttals are weak…

 

[jc456]

Read project 2025.

you've read all 900 pages? wow, why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First off, your sarcastic remark about banks only investing in "safe ventures, like single-family homes" ignores the real problem: the reckless bundling of risky subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments. The issue wasn’t that banks were lending for homes; it was that they were making risky loans to people who couldn’t afford them, then repackaging those loans into complex financial products and selling them as low-risk. When the housing market collapsed, it wasn’t just homeowners who suffered—it was the entire financial system because these so-called "safe" MBS were anything but. The repeal of Glass-Steagall enabled banks to take on these risks without sufficient oversight, which directly contributed to the financial meltdown.

As for your point about nobody losing money on bad subprime mortgages unless they were securitized, that’s precisely the problem. Securitization spread the risk across the entire financial system, turning what could have been a contained issue into a global crisis. Banks didn’t just hold onto these bad loans; they packaged and sold them to investors around the world, including pension funds, municipalities, and even other banks. When the housing market collapsed, those securities plummeted in value, leading to massive losses across the board. The crisis wasn’t just about bad mortgages, it was about how those mortgages were turned into ticking time bombs through securitization.

Regarding the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), yes, they were involved, but they were far from the main culprits. They did purchase subprime mortgages, but their involvement increased significantly later in the game, after private lenders and Wall Street had already flooded the market with risky loans. The idea that a single regulation, the GSE mandates, was responsible for the crisis is misleading. The real damage was done by private financial institutions that engaged in predatory lending practices and the creation of toxic financial products. Blaming GSEs alone ignores the broader systemic issues, including the deregulation that allowed private banks to act recklessly.

Finally, the truth is that under socialism, where banking is nationalized and not driven by profit, these kinds of crises can be prevented. Banks wouldn’t be incentivized to engage in risky behavior just to turn a profit; instead, they would lend to support the working class and the nation’s economic stability. The goal wouldn’t be short-term profits for a few, but long-term stability and prosperity for all. Under a system where banking serves the public good, rather than private gain, we could avoid the boom-and-bust cycles that are all too common in capitalist economies.

Thanks to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, it's inevitable that socialism will completely replace capitalism, in the near future. We're entering into a marketless, more democratic age of advanced automation and AI.

First off, your sarcastic remark about banks only investing in "safe ventures, like single-family homes" ignores the real problem: the reckless bundling of risky subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and selling them as safe investments.

The problem was the bad loans, not that some of them were bundled.
Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented a single bad mortgage from being created. And that was the crisis. Too many people who couldn't make the payment getting mortgages on homes they couldn't afford.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall enabled banks to take on these risks without sufficient oversight, which directly contributed to the financial meltdown.


You're wrong. The risk was the mortgage. Banks that didn't securitize a thing lost billions. Lehman and Bear Stearns would have still failed under Glass-Steagall. Non-bank firms like Countrywide could still have securitized mortgages under Glass-Steagall.
Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US, didn't securitize their subprime mortgages and they failed. Biggest bank failure in history, not an MBS in sight. Still allowed under Glass-Steagall.

When the housing market collapsed, those securities plummeted in value, leading to massive losses across the board. The crisis wasn’t just about bad mortgages, it was about how those mortgages were turned into ticking time bombs through securitization.


Bad loans lost big money. As stand-alone mortgages and as MBS.
Bad loans which were allowed under Glass-Steagall.


Regarding the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), yes, they were involved, but they were far from the main culprits. They did purchase subprime mortgages,


How much did they purchase?


the idea that a single regulation, the GSE mandates, was responsible for the crisis is misleading.


Did Jeff say that? He's such a jerk.


Blaming GSEs alone

You're funny. Nobody blamed the GSEs alone.

including the deregulation that allowed private banks to act recklessly.

You're hilarious! Which regulation, that you feel existed before the crisis, was removed to allow banks to suddenly start making these bad loans?
If anything, new regulations, partially due to the CRA, forced banks to make more bad loans to poor credit risks and in minority areas.
Clowns like Obama got their start forcing banks to make more subprime loans.

Finally, the truth is that under socialism, where banking is nationalized and not driven by profit, these kinds of crises can be prevented.

It worked for student loans. The government took over and only safe loans were made to good students for useful degrees. Not a single loan defaulted.
Socialist banking is wonderful!

Really, you're hilarious.
You should write for SNL.