Hillary claims that the middle class still isn't getting a fair shake..
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
You mean their policies? She was instrumental in using Her influence to help push that bullshit through.
They should not let her separate herself from him. Force her to completely abandon and trash him. It will cause division between the two of them as he will be forced to defend his position thereby trashing her as well.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
They should not let her separate herself from him. Force her to completely abandon and trash him. It will cause division between the two of them as he will be forced to defend his position thereby trashing her as well.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This is about the most stupid thing I keep hearing over and over
Everybody mocks this as if it isn't a valid statement. It is a totally valid statement (depending on how much credit/blame you give the president for the economy). The economy was atrocious when Obama took over. From 1950 until now, the GDP has been on an exponential curve (look it up) EXCEPT for a negative turn when Obama took over. Per capita GDP was dropping. We were losing an incredible amount of jobs per month. The DOW was in a dive. The deficit was rapidly increasing.
There wasn't a single metric used to measure the economy that was positive at that time.
It is an absolutely true statement that the economy was at a nearly unprecedented downturn when Obama took over. There's no way any rational person can deny that.
Now, having said all of that ... to place the health of the economy at the feet of the president, ANY president, is to ignore the role of the Federal Reserve.
The middle class isn't getting a fair shake. Just look at student loans as one example. If you're rich and can just write a check the cost of higher education is one price, but if you can't afford that the price of the higher education is a very different price when you factor in interest. If you're very poor, you can get grants. So this hits the middle class harder than anybody. Big banks that clear billions a year can borrow money practically for free, but middle class people trying to get an education have to pay 7%-8%.
The loss of manufacturing jobs over decades has hammered the middle class as well. It used to be that you could find a job at a plant and you had a career and a pension for life. It built a strong middle class. Those jobs and those kinds of benefits are all but gone now, and this has been going on for decades. (so it isn't W's fault and it isn't Obama's fault, although neither has done much to improve it other than bail out the auto manufacturers).
This isn't the same country our parents lived in. There aren't as many opportunities.
So, I agree with her that the middle class isn't getting a fair shake ... however, there's no way in hell that I trust her to fix it. Not in the least. I don't trust anybody from any of the 2 major parties because they are all bought and sold and beholden to lobbyists and big business.
What state was the economy in when Obama took over? Was it good or bad?Originally posted by Oracle Bill:
Don't you know? He inherited the problem(s) from Bush.
Everybody mocks this as if it isn't a valid statement. It is a totally valid statement (depending on how much credit/blame you give the president for the economy). The economy was atrocious when Obama took over. From 1950 until now, the GDP has been on an exponential curve (look it up) EXCEPT for a negative turn when Obama took over. Per capita GDP was dropping. We were losing an incredible amount of jobs per month. The DOW was in a dive. The deficit was rapidly increasing.
There wasn't a single metric used to measure the economy that was positive at that time.
It is an absolutely true statement that the economy was at a nearly unprecedented downturn when Obama took over. There's no way any rational person can deny that.
Now, having said all of that ... to place the health of the economy at the feet of the president, ANY president, is to ignore the role of the Federal Reserve.
The middle class isn't getting a fair shake. Just look at student loans as one example. If you're rich and can just write a check the cost of higher education is one price, but if you can't afford that the price of the higher education is a very different price when you factor in interest. If you're very poor, you can get grants. So this hits the middle class harder than anybody. Big banks that clear billions a year can borrow money practically for free, but middle class people trying to get an education have to pay 7%-8%.
The loss of manufacturing jobs over decades has hammered the middle class as well. It used to be that you could find a job at a plant and you had a career and a pension for life. It built a strong middle class. Those jobs and those kinds of benefits are all but gone now, and this has been going on for decades. (so it isn't W's fault and it isn't Obama's fault, although neither has done much to improve it other than bail out the auto manufacturers).
This isn't the same country our parents lived in. There aren't as many opportunities.
So, I agree with her that the middle class isn't getting a fair shake ... however, there's no way in hell that I trust her to fix it. Not in the least. I don't trust anybody from any of the 2 major parties because they are all bought and sold and beholden to lobbyists and big business.
This is how it is......Just watched the top of the hour headlines..
on CNN and and they said Hillary was in the race and she was standing with the middle class. Then they said Rubio was throwing his hat in the ring and they then played a woman's voice that said he was taking us back to the past.
on CNN and and they said Hillary was in the race and she was standing with the middle class. Then they said Rubio was throwing his hat in the ring and they then played a woman's voice that said he was taking us back to the past.
It has been stressed here before.
The wealth re-distribution that both Obama and the Pope want is not to bolster the dwindling middle class and make everybody equal in the regard of Middle Class Utopia. It is to make 99% of the world "equal" in poverty with a wealthy 1% remaining. Take from the "rich and give to the poor" is actually "make essentially everbody equally as poor" and it couldn't be any clearer at this point. Their policies and stated goals are there for all to see.
If only some pea-brain like Alex Jones knew how close his minions were to being right, but only for the wrong reason .......... you know, lizard Illuminati and stuff. I bet they taste like chicken.
I have stated numerous times that both major parties are collectivists with the same goal and that is one umbrella with essentially the entire population herded underneath it. It is why ecumenalism has taken off to scary heights and why Rome is suddenly so interested in 'equality'. It is also why currency is either collapsing with the "stable" currency increasingly volatile.
This equality sounds good on the surface until you understand that this equality they seek is the final kibosh on the middle class. They sure have done a wonderful job taking a sledgehammer to what is left of it.
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!![/B]
The wealth re-distribution that both Obama and the Pope want is not to bolster the dwindling middle class and make everybody equal in the regard of Middle Class Utopia. It is to make 99% of the world "equal" in poverty with a wealthy 1% remaining. Take from the "rich and give to the poor" is actually "make essentially everbody equally as poor" and it couldn't be any clearer at this point. Their policies and stated goals are there for all to see.
If only some pea-brain like Alex Jones knew how close his minions were to being right, but only for the wrong reason .......... you know, lizard Illuminati and stuff. I bet they taste like chicken.
I have stated numerous times that both major parties are collectivists with the same goal and that is one umbrella with essentially the entire population herded underneath it. It is why ecumenalism has taken off to scary heights and why Rome is suddenly so interested in 'equality'. It is also why currency is either collapsing with the "stable" currency increasingly volatile.
This equality sounds good on the surface until you understand that this equality they seek is the final kibosh on the middle class. They sure have done a wonderful job taking a sledgehammer to what is left of it.
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!![/B]
Re: This is about the most stupid thing I keep hearing over and over
"I don't trust anybody from any of the 2 major parties because they are all bought and sold and beholden to lobbyists and big business."
I agree.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
"I don't trust anybody from any of the 2 major parties because they are all bought and sold and beholden to lobbyists and big business."
I agree.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Stop it .... just stop it
This isn't a problem that can be laid at the feet of any one administration or party. They all have been complicit.
If nothing else it's amusing how people can twist everything to somehow blame the other party. Or at least say "well they have done it too". When what we should really be saying is "why am I supporting a party that does this?"
Look at your own party, whichever that one is, and make it better instead of trying to tear down the other party. You aren't making your party look good, you are only saying that you just might not be quite as bad as the other.
As voters we should be demanding better. When you're only goal is to simply show that you aren't the worst? That's pretty bad.
But, we're stupid and keep re-electing the same nimrods over and over again. Or a different nimrod who is essentially the same as the last nimrod, but just has a different suit.
This post was edited on 4/14 9:47 AM by WhiteTailEER
This post was edited on 4/14 9:50 AM by WhiteTailEER
Manufacturing job loss chart
Manufacturing jobs were disappearing under Reagan, and then Bush 1, and then of course with the Clintons, and then more with Bush 2 and then more with Obama.
This isn't a problem that can be laid at the feet of any one administration or party. They all have been complicit.
If nothing else it's amusing how people can twist everything to somehow blame the other party. Or at least say "well they have done it too". When what we should really be saying is "why am I supporting a party that does this?"
Look at your own party, whichever that one is, and make it better instead of trying to tear down the other party. You aren't making your party look good, you are only saying that you just might not be quite as bad as the other.
As voters we should be demanding better. When you're only goal is to simply show that you aren't the worst? That's pretty bad.
But, we're stupid and keep re-electing the same nimrods over and over again. Or a different nimrod who is essentially the same as the last nimrod, but just has a different suit.
This post was edited on 4/14 9:47 AM by WhiteTailEER
This post was edited on 4/14 9:50 AM by WhiteTailEER
Manufacturing job loss chart
Where did I blame the other party? I simply stated the track record of....
someone who just announced they are running for the Presidency of the country. We all know that manufacturing jobs have moved overseas under many Presidents. The largest job loss to the Chinese occurred under the Clinton reign.
someone who just announced they are running for the Presidency of the country. We all know that manufacturing jobs have moved overseas under many Presidents. The largest job loss to the Chinese occurred under the Clinton reign.
Re: Stop it .... just stop it
Faulting the parties is only part of the problem. The unions have to accept a lot of the blame as well, their "entitlement" certainly didn't help matters. The pendulum swung back in the other direction and the workers are the ones that lost.
Re: How much of a difference does it make who it was lost to?
***edited to add the qualifier***
This post was edited on 4/14 10:51 AM by DvlDog4WVU
Rand Paul (Seems to) but I'm a defense guy so it doesn't work for me.
***edited to add the qualifier***
This post was edited on 4/14 10:51 AM by DvlDog4WVU
Agree with you completely there
I worked in a union shop once. (I started college, quit, then started back again and finished) I was a machinist and I made the mistake of cleaning all the metal shavings out of my machine once. That was ____'s job. However, ______ was busy doing something else, so I had to stand there doing nothing until he could come and clean out the machine. There are huge inefficiencies when the unions hang on to those kinds of notions.
And why does somebody deserve $40/hr just because they've been there for XX years when a HS kid can learn the same job and do it just as well in less than a week?
There were good and legitimate reasons for unions at one time, but it seems that labor laws eventually covered the majority of those original reasons.
I believe that unions have destroyed themselves to a large degree.
I worked in a union shop once. (I started college, quit, then started back again and finished) I was a machinist and I made the mistake of cleaning all the metal shavings out of my machine once. That was ____'s job. However, ______ was busy doing something else, so I had to stand there doing nothing until he could come and clean out the machine. There are huge inefficiencies when the unions hang on to those kinds of notions.
And why does somebody deserve $40/hr just because they've been there for XX years when a HS kid can learn the same job and do it just as well in less than a week?
There were good and legitimate reasons for unions at one time, but it seems that labor laws eventually covered the majority of those original reasons.
I've said a few times ...
There's a long list of deregulatory acts that span back into the 80s that combined to help lead to the 2008 collapse. All of which stripped a little bit away from the Glass-Steagall act. And then you have the unregulated derivatives growing through the 90's and then getting 5X as big in the early 2000's
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
Garn-St. Germain Act
Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
That the 2008 downturn wasn't solely Bush's fault. Even in this thread I believe I mentioned at least once if not twice that to lay it all at the feet of any president is to ignore the role of the Federal Reserve.
There's a long list of deregulatory acts that span back into the 80s that combined to help lead to the 2008 collapse. All of which stripped a little bit away from the Glass-Steagall act. And then you have the unregulated derivatives growing through the 90's and then getting 5X as big in the early 2000's
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
Garn-St. Germain Act
Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Whitetail, you make a lot of good points, but please don't...
misquote me. This is what is wrote: "The largest job loss to the Chinese occurred under the Clinton reign." Somehow you twisted it into "but Clinton was the worst". The link I made was the direct connection to the sleep over scandal and the vast amounts of money that poured into the Clinton coffers from the Chinese. Show me where anything comparable occurred under Reagan or Bush. One can argue that NAFTA, which was put together by Bush and was signed into law and championed by the Clintons has led to many lost USA jobs. Remember what Ross Perot said: "You're going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country." How ever, Reagan or the Bushes did nothing that rises to the level of the blatant pay to play tactics of the Clintons.
misquote me. This is what is wrote: "The largest job loss to the Chinese occurred under the Clinton reign." Somehow you twisted it into "but Clinton was the worst". The link I made was the direct connection to the sleep over scandal and the vast amounts of money that poured into the Clinton coffers from the Chinese. Show me where anything comparable occurred under Reagan or Bush. One can argue that NAFTA, which was put together by Bush and was signed into law and championed by the Clintons has led to many lost USA jobs. Remember what Ross Perot said: "You're going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country." How ever, Reagan or the Bushes did nothing that rises to the level of the blatant pay to play tactics of the Clintons.
I did do that ... I misunderstood, I apologize
I still don't see how it matters WHERE the jobs went (although I now recognize the significance you were placing on HOW they got there). They aren't here anymore, and it can't be blamed on any one administration.
We have decades of inaction regarding the loss of these jobs (or in your case, actively shipping them). Some say it's just market forces and there's nothing we can do, but I disagree when it destroys our middle class.
Another Economics joke "How many free market economists does it take to change a light bulb?" "None, if the bulb needed changing the market would have changed it already"
Or for the Democrats "How many Keynesian Economist does it take to change a light bulb?" "All. Because then you will generate employment and increase consumption"
I see what you were getting at now, so I apologize for misunderstanding and subsequently misquoting.
I still don't see how it matters WHERE the jobs went (although I now recognize the significance you were placing on HOW they got there). They aren't here anymore, and it can't be blamed on any one administration.
We have decades of inaction regarding the loss of these jobs (or in your case, actively shipping them). Some say it's just market forces and there's nothing we can do, but I disagree when it destroys our middle class.
Another Economics joke "How many free market economists does it take to change a light bulb?" "None, if the bulb needed changing the market would have changed it already"
Or for the Democrats "How many Keynesian Economist does it take to change a light bulb?" "All. Because then you will generate employment and increase consumption"
