Comments on: Obama's Prime-Time Appeal To Voters
Democrat's Half-Hour Infomercial Appears On Numerous Networks In Campaign's Final Stretch
Add a Comment See all 1168 Comments
- so melnycgirl-1,
Do you you go to the most expensive shops in town and buy things at higher prices so that you can help keep people employed as those stores ? - Reply to this comment
- melnycgirl-1,
Finally a new act....
Question....Who pushed the banks and the mortgage industry to make loans to peole who could not afford to pay them back? Since you hav enot answered my questions in the past here, I will pretend to be a good liberal here...and help you ...
The answer is Barney "The Riddler" Frank, Chris "Here is my hand" Dodd. - Reply to this comment
- So bug off, I''''m here and will say what I like, when I like. If you don''''t like it - even better.
~B(i)tchslap~
Posted by kimcon22000 at 03:58 PM : Oct 30, 2008
You sound like a very unhappy individual. Anything that I post here, I can back up with references. All you do it B-slap people, so your credibility is worth nothing.
As a matter of fact, I have people on McCain''s side willing to talk to me in a civil manner because they can see that I am an intelligent person who is willing to have a thoughtful discussion. Has anyone offered you the same? No? I didn''t think so. So go B-slap yourself in the mirror, little girl. You are hereby dismissed and I have no intention of paying any attention to you in the future until you decide to grow up. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by AJMarine111 at 04:34 PM : Oct 30, 2008
Worse, the "New Deal" created the WPA where people could get jobs working for the government building roads, bridges, etc. Nearly all of that construction was in the North East. The New York Troughway, the Merrit Parkway, etc. Was government PORK for New York. Direct from the New Deal.
Posted by Machineguy at 04:43 PM : Oct 30, 2008
Careful there,........if you keep talking like that, someone will say you are uneducated. - Reply to this comment
- For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, ...
FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that''''s what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.
Sorry you don''''t like this "Garbage" but you can read it for yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by AJMarine111 at 04:34 PM : Oct 30, 2008
Worse, the "New Deal" created the WPA where people could get jobs working for the government building roads, bridges, etc. Nearly all of that construction was in the North East. The New York Troughway, the Merrit Parkway, etc. Was government PORK for New York. Direct from the New Deal. - Reply to this comment
- Mike_C_NH,
Was there a problem with rich people in 1982? Because in 1982 people still made more money but the CEO was fine with 42 times more than the average worker. In 2004, the CEO is making 431 times more than the average worker. If there is not enough to go around as you say, why did the GOP make it go only in one direction?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by whatithink10
I graduated in 1982, my starting salary was 25K. My dad had never made that much in one year in his life.
Im glad noone back then was setting a line at 100K saying thats more than enough for you. If you go over that line, we are going to take your money.
First of all....do you know how many CEO''s there are?
Making an arguement based on an exremely small number of people is not going to work.
2006 the upper 1% was from 388K and up in AGI
2006 the upper 5% was from 153K and up in AGI
Tnot exactly CEO levels.....
the people having 153K AGI & up paid 60% of the taxes....
Now, Obama''s been screaming 95% for this entire campaign....yet 95% means 153K...NOT 250K
So now, exactly who is it that is going to be contributing to this big pot of money you think is out there?
Lets take the case made earlier about Gates & Buffet.
Lets take 50% of their wealth....opps...a vast majorit of their wealth is their stock!!!! What happens when bill gates dumps 50% of his stock im microsoft ? - Reply to this comment
- Be very wary of a politician who tells you everything you want to hear.
- Reply to this comment
- ....
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------
Posted by whatithink10 at 04:21 PM : Oct 30, 2008
PS.
I would never leave anyone out because they have a low salary. These statistics count EVERYONE. I respect each individual regardless of pay level and tax contribution. I just dont want to pay the kid at McDonalds to stay home instead of flipping burgers. - Reply to this comment
- You should really do some research on what the country was like for the majority of people before The New Deal...before you continue with that garbage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by whatithink10
It''s optimistic of you to assume that any of these guys have even a basic "liberal arts" (ha ha ha I love my own puns sometimes) education. They will continually spout off about matters of which they clearly have no knowledge (nor any desire to learn).
And the Republican party has happily used this against them for the last 30 years by filling their heads full of even more nonsense. We have a long way to go bringing our educational standards back up to par. - Reply to this comment
- You should really do some research on what the country was like for the majority of people before The New Deal...before you continue with that garbage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by whatithink10
It''s optimistic of you to assume that any of these guys have even a basic "liberal arts" (ha ha ha I love my own puns sometimes) education. They will continually spout off about matters of which they clearly have no knowledge (nor any desire to learn).
And the Republican party has happily used this against them for the last 30 years by filling their heads full of even more nonsense. We have a long way to go bringing our educational standards back up to par. - Reply to this comment
- Where do you get that number UNLESS you are including children?
I read somewhere that 40% are not paying taxes, but that''''s because their incomes are so low that there is almost nothing to tax. These incomes are kept so low in order to make goods less expensive, so even though they are not paying taxes, they are doing a service to us all by not paying taxes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by whatithink10 at 04:21 PM : Oct 30, 2008
I got it from Googleing the US Government labor statistics. There are several reports but here is a link to one: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf I have found some that are easier to read but look around. This one says that in 2007, 63% of the population over 16 looked for work and 4.6 % couldnt find any. I total that to get 40%. now some of those are not employable (disabled, too old, felons, etc.) But I will bet we could get that up to 75% employed if we tried.
It gets worse, other statistics suggest up to 30% of that 63% are in government service. Its no wonder our country isnt running well enough to provide for everyone. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by AJMarine111 at 04:28 PM : Oct 30, 2008
You should really do some research on what the country was like for the majority of people before The New Deal...before you continue with that garbage.
Posted by whatithink10 at 04:31 PM : Oct 30, 2008
For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn''t see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.
Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).
FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that''s what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.
Sorry you don''t like this "Garbage" but you can read it for yourself. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by AJMarine111 at 04:28 PM : Oct 30, 2008
You should really do some research on what the country was like for the majority of people before The New Deal...before you continue with that garbage. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by melnycgirl-1 at 04:18 PM : Oct 30, 2008
ARE YOU NUTS???
Its about truthfulness, not about associations.
McCain and the GOP have never denied these associations. Why does Obama deny he has any friends? Why do we have pictures and video that say otherwise?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Machineguy
Dont bother with her, she is just an Obama robot posting the same boring hash of lies over & over.
She has no desire to actually discuss the issues, she evades, baits, and then calls those who disagree with her racists. Not worth your time
On the other hand, I enjoy the discussion with you and ofbyfor3 - Reply to this comment
- I think we may need a New Deal redux.
Posted by ofbyfor3 at 04:20 PM : Oct 30, 2008
New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.
What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn''t increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.
http://tinyurl.com/5mkxvf - Reply to this comment
- Mike_C_NH,
Was there a problem with rich people in 1982? Because in 1982 people still made more money but the CEO was fine with 42 times more than the average worker. In 2004, the CEO is making 431 times more than the average worker. If there is not enough to go around as you say, why did the GOP make it go only in one direction? - Reply to this comment
- Thanks for a rational and provoking post. Hers my thoughts.
6. If you consider pure economics theory we need to have as many people working as possible so our country out does foreign competitors. When corporations save money they usually expand, creating more jobs.
7. You are right, our economy will fail when the middle class can no longer buy things. But the fix for that is not having the government buy instead. The fix is to find a way to get our businesses back again. They truly are dying.
Posted by Machineguy at 03:45 PM : Oct 30, 2008
You have some valid points to make and I am enjoying having a civil dialogue with someone ''from the other side'' for a change. ;)
I would be interested in knowing your suggestions as to how to get the economy back on track if not for reducing taxes on ther middle class. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by ofbyfor3 at 04:01 PM : Oct 30, 2008
Many of us have trouble with "spread the wealth" for three reasons:
1. There isnt enough to go around if we spread it perfectly even. i kow the rich guys have a lot, but there arent enough of them to pay for it all.
2 Worse, who will modernize and update our factories if each of us has, say $70k?
3. A large portion of able bodied Americans will not work if the eat anyway. The examples are boundless and span all classes. So, if we spread the wealth, even more people arelikely to stop helping those of us who do work.
4. If we all get the same amount (or close to it) smart people will sell ideas to foreigners so they can make money somewhere else.
your #2 point is dead on, This past week it was brought up on "This week With G.S." that that auto manufactoring in the south is doing much much better compared with detroit. One of those reason''s was a differnce in pay for assembly workers. You can''t make a product that is viable to the masses with a highly over paid work force.
Imagine what grogercies would be if your local Stop''N''Stop or what ever your chain is, had to pay the cashiers $25 to $30 per hour! - Reply to this comment
- Machineguy,
What do you know about McCain''s car accident in 1964 where someone was fatally injured that has been covered up by the military?
What do you know about the $70K donation from a foreigner that McCain received in one month? - Reply to this comment
- Posted by melnycgirl-1 at 04:18 PM : Oct 30, 2008
ARE YOU NUTS???
Its about truthfulness, not about associations.
McCain and the GOP have never denied these associations. Why does Obama deny he has any friends? Why do we have pictures and video that say otherwise? - Reply to this comment
