Let's Have Some Discussions On The Other "99%"
Submitted by Appliance Stallion on Mon, 10/10/2011 - 2:28pm.
This is about those brave folks who have had enough of the 1% controlling all financial matters that think they are "entitled" to lower taxes. more benefits and bail outs when they fail with no responsibility for their actions.I will call them the "Entitled Divas" . Headed by Sean Hannity who is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound , lips faster than a speeding bullet and who disguised as Rush Limbaugh makes the case for those "job creators" who have not created any jobs through the "10 Year Tax Break". For "his"idea of taxes . for"his" idea of good vs.evil , for "his" new book. The representative for the 99%'ers yesterday spoke about how the common working man gets no representation at all either in congress on television or radio as the pundits and politicians are light years out of touch with middle America. What say you.
Best Bailout plan yet
One of the best government bailout plans I have heard yet came from Jesse Jackson. I am sure there are some major issues with his plan, but if the government is going to spend the billions regardless they should just hire everyone that is unemployed and make them show up for work. They could even "donate" the labor to corporations, have them maintain the parks, ect. This way the money actually goes to the people who will benefit from it - they could pay their mortgages and go out and shop. What the last two administrations have done was bail out big corporations and labor unions. Most of the stimulus money went to "prevailing wage" jobs that are a ripoff to begin with because they cost the taxpayer about twice what the actual wage is for that area.
Stallion so you
mention Ann Coulter. Did you read the book-Demonic- predicted all these losers protesting to a tee.
What Would ....
you expect ? These folks are just saying no to everything thus allowing the economic woes to continue. So if the economy is very bad , Wall Street wants no accountability and the dumb ass pundits cry for less taxes for the "job creators". Essentially Mickey Mouse could have predicted civil disturbance . Answer an important question. When Bush and more so the Republicans promised job creation when the Bush Tax Cuts were put in place back in 2001 , tell me ....where are the jobs ????? Now you call protestors losers ? I suggest they are exercising their American right to protest. Or can only the few privileged do that now ? I remember in the 60's when the civil rights people were called losers and those seeking rights for all Americans were called hippies. I call them patriots. I suggest you , Coulter and anyone who puts a damper on protesting smacks at being UnAmerican. I suggest you reread history and see where we would be without holding people accountable.You and others are asleep at the wheel.
In Agreement ...
... on lawful protestation !!! It is not only a Constitutional right, it is a responsibility ...
The problem is that they are in the wrong locations ... they ought to be in front of the White House, Congress, and Congressional offices ... a truly focused protest !!!
I Certainly.....
agree that the protests should also include our totally dysfunctional government. I have never in my life seen a group of politicians so isolated from one another. I also think they are out of touch with the people.. Talk about taxation without representation.Regardless of our preferences they better start working for the good of the people. All of them need to take heed. I would suspect that if the government got it's act together we would have better safeguards concerniing Wall Street and other investors who want to make a quick buck at other people's expense.
A balance look at this issue.....
Putting strong political viewpoints aside (you chose to bring Hannity into this argrument because he has money I guess) I don't believe this group will gain any traction because they don't have a unified message. They are supported and joined by many very wealthy people who are actually part of the 1%, not the other 99%. They are supported by unions whose leaders live a lifestyle that no one in middle America can even dream of. See this MSNBC article for an example. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44872639/ns/us_news-life/ Their attack on the banking industry is supported by celebs who do commercials for those very banks. If you look at pictures online of their camps they do not represent a future America that I would dream of. Attack successful people all you want but I would rather have them leading us then wining crackheads complaining that they have to repay their college loans. I didn't go to college, so I don't have to repay mine. These people may be brave, but they are also very confused.
Balanced ???
Steady, let's talk about balance...
Is this your idea of balance? The common argument against taxing the rich is that doing so would be a re-distribution of wealth. YES! Wealth has already been re-distributed and the ultra-rich got it. Is this the America that you dream of? Statisically, the middle class no longer exists.
middle class? what middle class?
Cohiba---Thanks for posting those stats! I have seen them all before but it is good to remind everyone of them. I agree that the wealth has already been distributed and the rich got it. Executives who cut employees wages or ship out jobs to China and then make $20 million a year need to have their wealth distributed. Look at Denmark, again determined to be the happiest country on the planet. Minimum wage there is $19, everyone does pay income taxes and they have a very progressive tax system but with good health, education and pension benefits. There are no real poor people to speak of, they have a balance of trade surplus (even with China most years) and the middle class is not in danger of extinction. Yes, the rich pay 55% income tax but they do it willingly because they can see the benefits of a more equal society where everyone has health coverage and no one loses their house because they get sick and no one is worried about financing their children's education. We, as Americans, need to know that our system is not the only one and indeed, is not the best one. At least for the bottom 80%. Raise taxes on the upper 10%, no one will invest less or innovate less because they will have to pay more taxes on expected profits.
PS
They also have some damn fine TV commercials in Denmark, too........
Green Monster
In the end this is what it is about. If you can't make it....Take it from someone who has. Very ugly if you ask me. Envy. Jelousy.
Here is some news. You don't have less because someone else has more. Taught it to my kids very early on. Our economy is not a zero sum game. The fact that we have leaned toward free market principles has led to one of the highest standards of living and made the US the envy of the world.
If we hit the reset button and started everyone on even footing and left the market mostly free, do you want to bet that in 10 years it would be mostly the same people in the top 40%?
Go to Cuba Cohiba. There you can experience the wonderful life you dream of. One class. Misery. You can roll your own cigars.
Not envy - pragmatism
Sorry Mookster,
Envy doesn't guide my opinions, empathy does. Personally, I'm quite comfortable in my retirement. But, I worry about the vast majority of my countrymen who won't have the same opportunity. And, don't count on that high standard of living when the scale tips even further toward the top one or two percent. A nation that has such a small percentage of its population controlling a high percentage of its wealth and income is not self sustaining. One percent of our population cannot consume enough goods and services to keep our economy growing.
Mookie....
I think you are missing the point. The Fox Group has done a good job of Marketing the fact that someone wants to take from the rich and give to the poor.The problem really started with the world economy. The owners and senior executives of the massive corporations have shifted most jobs to other countries. Taking wages from $20.00 per hour to under $2.00 per hour. All the while not touching their own salaries. That domino effect has left many service related jobs or retail jobs here which pay much less than durable goods manufacturing jobs. That has effectively taken the middle and working class down several notches. The large gap between CEO's and workers has become enormous. Not everyone can be a CEO , but most can be a good worker. How about a fair wage where the folks building the product make enough to purchase them. If someone is making $10.00 per hour when at some point they were making $20.00 that math would indicate less buying power , ergo less demand ,ergo less jobs. I have no problem saying get your head out of your ass and get a job. I had to do it. However too many jobs are exported. Then people see the pass given the banks and Wall Street. Think about the future for your children. I am just north of 60 and I can say that the kids today have it much tougher than I did. Less opportunity , more challenges. Most people I discuss this with are very pragmatic , not envious. Some just plain never have a chance these days. Should the President be talking like he is ? No. Should the republicans be talking like they are ? no.Greed seems to be the root of all this evil. Mookie let's look at this like we are both working class guys , not enemies. This situation as it stands needs to improve.
Cohiba...
you and I would be classified as "company men " But I agree with your well explained report here. I would guess that along with the wrongs on Wall Street are what is causing the upheaval. The arguments that will come back probably will include "well go out and get rich yourself" We know that will not happen but we certainly need to re-create a viable system to maintain a strong middle and working class.The underlying reason for the job problems relate directly to no demand. That is because people do not have enough resources to buy those goods. Strengthen the middle class strengthens the economy. As you know when we sit in board meetings and say business will grow by $15 million this year , no one and I mean no one says "don't increase sales because taxes are too high" That is just an irresponsible notion.Have a nice weekend.
Free Market
Stallion,
I couldn't agree more ! The backbone of this country has been a strong middle class, which is now rapidly fading. Folks like Mookie want to cure our financial ills by cutting programs that our desparately needed by that downtrodden majority. Their mantra is "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." But, they're forgetting that a big part of the problem was created when we "reduced revenue". The top marginal tax rate was 70% in 1980, 39.5% in 1994 and 33% now (this the lowest top rate in our lifetime.)
Folks like mookster also like to sing the praises of a "free market economy". We deregulated the financial sector and banks began making no-down loans to people who wouldn't have qualified under a more regulated industry. And Wall Street began packaging those bad loans and selling them as AAA securities. So, how's all that free market deregualtion working for you Mookster? Did ya see a lot of jobs created by this latest free market financial crisis?
Wrong Blame
For you to say that the financial crisis was caused by deregulation, or a faliure of the "free market" is 100% incorrect. The financial segment of our economy is mostly government. It should not be surprising that the most government regulated and controlled segment of our economy (Financial Services) has experienced the largest problems. If the financial market were less controlled it is highly unlikely we would have experienced the crisis as deeply, or at all. Can't wait to see what these dopes do to heathcare. So let's look at the key players and see if ANY of this sounds like the free market?
I can possibly give you that Credit Default Swaps and Mortgage Backed Securities were not sublect to much regulation, but only because they were new financial instruments. The fact is, they would not have existed if not for all the other regulations and interventions into the housing market beforehand.While this is certainly not all inclusive, there were many other government sponsored incentives and interventions that were designed to increase home ownership, that had very bad unintended consequences. Make no mistake, this crisis was due to the opposite of free market. You need to blame your good old Uncle Sam. Healthcare is next my friend.
You place the blame squarely
You place the blame squarely on Fannie and Freddie for the lending that took place. My question is this (and this is just a question as many of you seem more versed in this than I). By fannie & freddie making risky mortgages possible does that make them to blame for the predatory lending (primarily in teaser rates/ARM's that were prevelant at the time)? Would that make a gun manufacturer liable for anyone who uses the weapon on someone else? Weren't their HUD requirements forcing them to make higher risk loans possible by the banks? I am genuinely asking these questions for the sake of debate...
Joboxes
The financial sector is perhaps the most heavily regulated sector of our economy. Going back to the 1970's and the Community Reinvestment Act, government and banks in unison began to lower mortgage standards with the set goal of Home Ownership.
In the 1990's, the government started using CRA compliance as one metric to allow mergers.
In the late 1990's the Fed's primary bank regulator Laurance H Meyer, essentially the Bank's Boss, praised financial institutions making 100% loan to value loans in the nale of helping low and moderate income earners. What kind of signal is sent when your boss praises any specific behavior?
Shortly after, Andrew Cuomo, HUD Secretery, announces Fannie and Freddie are waiting in the wings prepared to purchase $2 trillion in "affordable housing" loans.
Essentially, the government sent the signal to make the loan, any way you can. We have you covered. We will assume the risk.
The blame falls 100% with Government Intervention in the housing market. Period.
In the early 2000's we had politician after politician touting affordable housing policy. These folks knew exactly what was happening. When home ownership increased from 64% to 69% they were taking the credit. When the bubble burst they were dishing the blame.
I Would Love .....
to know what you do for a living except listen to the kool aid of Sean Hannity.Affordable housing loans makes the assumption that the lenders are doing their job. What don't you get about that ? The lenders need to be held accountable for taking and qualifying the loans with essentially no risk. Just stretch the truth on qualifying someone. You don't see the wrong in that ? If not I would be stunned by your lack of following a practical solution to anything Mookie. I am a free market believer however there needs to be some sanity to what people do. As with children , the more you let them do the more they will do usually good or bad. They need some boundaries. I think your mistake is believing that everyone is as honest as you appear to be.
You don't seem to understand
What have I said all along. Greed is greed, a human condition. Because humans are greedy, when government institutions step in and remove risk and make it artificially profitable to lend money to people that otherwise could not afford it, look out. My guess is that your industry benefited as well, selling your products to people who could not afford it. Retailers too. The question was never can you afford thay Wolf kitchen package it was can I get you approved. The same type of greed.
My very simple point is that the free market addreses this. If you bear the risk you make the loan to those who can likely afford it. When the government (tax payers) bear the risk it distorts the market.
Mookie....
You are making the analogy of the parent being blamed for stepping in and protecting the child. The child did the wrong but you want to blame the parent who thought the child would act in good faith.If the parent had rode the child tough that would have been too much interference , get that ? Since those greed infested days you now have government loans being looked at not only by the loan company but very well scrutinized by the underwriters who now have no trust...Ergo... not many loans being given. I go back to the fundamental value system that you have to be responsible for your own actions. You seem to want a free market but yet you claim everyone is greedy. How will that go over a second time ? Make up your mind. A totally free market in a greedy environment or some well balanced monetary regulations ?Just remember most of this could have been avoided on the Bush watch. The Bush watch had low taxes , less regulatory guidelines and a system that went out of control. Go back and blame Clinton or whomever but Bush could have stopped it but the republicans chose not to. Based on job exportation , 9% unemployment is probably the new 5%. As for our company , yes I often told the owner that this bubble would not last forever.He assumed the high sales were because we were better than everyone else. Little did he know they were growing at the same rate and they understood that better than he did. He chose to continue to build an unsustainable infrastructure after I left and now has some huge issues to deal with. I am now in three different market segments. Two of them are commodity products priced very well and that business is great after we cleaned up some issues. The one other segment is based on building and has been pretty enemic but is starting to turn around. Demand is up , get used to a higher % of unemployed since the jobs Bush allowed to go will not be back . Mookie you cannot have a totally free market because of greed. There needs to be balance. That is what some of us have been saying all along here.Money is starting to be loaned but slowly and carefully. If the right had their way things would be out of control again. No guidelines breeds contemptable behavior in the rich and greedy who are usually delusional to begin with. I know , I have worked for some of them.
Just curious
Mookster,
In responding to Stallion you said, "my guess is that your industry benefited as well ...". Are you not in the appliance industry? Have you ever been? It really doesn't matter one way or the other, but I am curious.
Do you have insight and input on appliance industry news, or do you simply like to use this site as a forum for your political views. Just curious
Cohiba
I am in the appliance industry. Stallion is not currently in the appliance industry.
Mookster
I just seems to me that all of your postings are political issues that are only tangently related to the appliance industry. You don't seem to add relevant or meaniful insight on appliance news (at least not that I remember). Forgive me if I have missed any relevant postings.
I really don't think our appliance industry news warrants constant political bantering from the left and right. Many of Stallion's postings include insight from a "boardroom" perspective that adds color to the stories reported on price increases, consolidations, mergers, etc. Now that I know you too are from the industry, I'll be more interested in your postings as well (sans political slant of course).
What Does....
that make you ? I have many friends in the business who are close to me and I pretty much still understand that business.You are not in government or in investments or job creation but you seem to think you know all about that. I am in job creation and investments and think government regulation at some level is good for the country. If you want to say I am not in the business then you better be prepared to stop commenting on things you are not "in" . Turnabout would be fair play. Careful where you tread.
Why so defensive?
Your insecurity is annoying. Cohiba asked a a question and I clarified my comment. We all know your history in the appliance industry as you have reminded us continually. Blah blah blah. I was simply clarifying my comment. You are currently in an industry other than home appliance. That was what I meant when I said "your industry".
Mookie Must Work ...
either for FOX or in Waste Mnagement. Perhap you have your own blog. Either way I am interested in what you really do . All kidding aside.
I Am Not ...
defensive. Just clarifying. I suspect you would have said something smart ass about me being out of the industry. If I would not have you then would have made a different type of negative comment concerning that. Can't win with you. You will always find something. I would suggest I am not insecure at all. What do you do in the appliance industry ? Trust me , unlike you I will respect what it is you do.
Investment Banking
Mookster,
While I don't entirely disagree with you (for a change), I think your analysis misses an important point about deregulation and the impact it had on the current crisis.
In 1932 the Glass-Steagal Act was passed that regulated banks and provided a seaparation between Commercial Banks and Investment Banks. This limited the exposure of the FDIC in providing insurance to depositors by requiring commercial banks to limit risk.
In 1999, Republicans seeking deregulation and a "free market" passed the Gramm-Leach-Bailey bill which repealed Glass-Steagel. As a result, Citigroup began underwriting mortgage-based securities and created SIVs that bought these securities. The rest is history.
Explain
Cohiba;
I don't really understand how this in itself was a major contributor to the housing bubble and the financial crisis. Can you explain?
In the end, I think this was helpful during the 2008 crisis, allowing failing investment banks to merge with commercial banks to avoid bankrupcy. In addition, I think the more diversified institutions faired much better than those that were not.
SIVs
Invented by Citigroup, Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) provided a market for mortgage-based securities. SIVs sells short term secutities and use those funds to buy long term securities (such as mortgage based securities) at a higher interest rate, keeping the spread as profit.
Conventional (deposit) banks originated mortgages and were "stuck" with those mortgages for the long term, earning their profits from mortgage interest. Loans were scrutinized by bankers for credit worthiness, loan to value equity, etc. to limit the banks' risk. But, thanks to SIVs, banks were able to package thousands of mortgages into a single instrument. The bank or institution originated the loan but did not own the risk and made profits from commissions, rather than long term interest rates.
The packaging of risky loans fed the housing bubble allowing people who were not credit worthy to buy homes that were over priced with adjustible mortgages.
Still not clear to me.
Cohiba;
I am still not clear as to how Gramm - Leach - Bliley played a major part here. Maybe I am missing something. SIV's were around prior to GLB, no? It still seems GLB may have helped after the crash. SIV's were more a result of bad policy up to that point.
Don't think that I am absolving Wall Street. But the Uncle Sam set the framework for these guys to operate. My point has been that if banks were making decisions based on market factors, not this manipulated system created by Washington and Wall Street, we would not be in the downturn we are in today. Free Market forces would have kept things in line. Loans would have been given based on a customers ability to pay for them. Interest rates would be based on risk. The US Government set the framework to remove the risk, flooded the market with cheap money, guaranteed the loans, rated them AAAand made it artificially profitable to give money to everyone. The same outcome would happen in any industry given similar circumstances. This is not a free market.
Citigroup
Mookster,
It's true that SIVs were around long before Gramm-Leach-Bailey. But, the Glass-Steagal Act prohibited financial institutions from combining banking with securities or insurance. When Citibank merged with Travelers in 1998 it violated this law. They were given a couple of years to either repeal Glass-Steagel or conform to it. In November 1999 Republicans passed the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act which repealed Glass-Steagel, making the newly formed Citigroup merger legal. If Glass-Steagel had not been repealed the commercial banks would not have gotten into the securities business and end up with Billions of bad assets on the balance sheets from mortgage-based securities. Citigroup alone had over $ 300 Billion in bad assets on their books.
How would things have changed?
Cohiba;
In the end would not someone have owned these toxic securities? Did the only change was to shift who owned the problem? I don't think Glass - Steagel would have eliminated the problem. In fact, it seems quite possible to me that GLB helped soften the blow, allowing institutions to become more diversified. How do you think things would have been different had G-S not been repealed?
Bank Bailout
Commercial Banks use Money Markets to fund short term day-to-day operations. In September of '08, $140 Billion was pulled out of Money Markets by nervous investors who put their funds into US Treasuries, depressing the yield. The run on bank Money Markets caused the Seanate to pass the 2008 $700 Billion bailout bill to relieve banks like Citi, BofA and Wells of toxic assets (mortgage based securities). Half of that bailout money was used immediately and without it, there could have been failures by the big banks and an enormous payout by the FDIC.
Sure, if the big banks had not gotten into the mortgage-based security pool somebody else probably would have (and did). But, it definitely added to the problem and to the availability of mortgages that should have never seen the light of day. Those toxic mortgages fueled the housing bubble.
A Bold...
and risk free move by the industry. They found a way around the conventional wisdom of properly qualifying for a loan with a credit and income check. By the time this was understood they had bankrupted the system, made their money and off to another possible scam.We are still picking up the pieces. Good research Cohiba.
Misguided....
The only thing the government can control is the Federal Reserve , interest rates and to some extent the supply of money. They , then thinking the "free" market is doing their job correctly back loans. You have been brainwashed quite easily by those crooks and con men. The fact is you must want to be conned into believing the government caused all of this. Con men feed on the souls of those who think the con game does not exist.I suggest you rub shoilders with some Wall Street folks or some investors and you will see that they do not care about anybody or anything other than themselves. Consequently we have. an economy that is totally out of the control of honesty , ethics and the well being of the majority.The wealth in this country has taken a drastic jump into a smaller group of people and if you really look at a free , competitive market the end game does result in exactly what we have. The strong get stronger and everyone else loses since the strong don't care about anyone but themselves.You have a twisted view of a free market and the mindset of Wall Street . I suspect those on Wall Street bank on that naive mindset. You want to think we live in Mayberry and everyone is honest. Ain't happening. Do you reside in a small midwestern town where the most exciting thing of the day is who caught what fish or who killed Roger Rabbit?
Who's been duped??
Blaming "greed" for the financial crisis is like blaming gravity for airplane crashes. Greed is a human condition, prevalent in every segment of the population. The free market deals with greed. Had the finacial markets been less controlled, less shaped by the government, we would not be in this mess.
If banks were able to make decisions on loans based upon the individuals ability to pay them back they would not have taken the risk and made many of those loans. Period.
Fannie and Freddie waiting in the wings to take away the risk has to be the largest single factor here. You throw other factors, such as low interest rates, increased money supply, pressure resulting from a bogus study that some groups had their loans approved at lower rates than other groups. It all adds up to what we all saw. And how are we attempting to fix it? By propping up the same failed system. Of course, that is the government solution.
And please don't forget these other greedy people. How about the people buying houses they knew deep down inside they couldn't afford? Trust me, there were a lot of those. How about the people who could still afford their mortgage payment but just walked away becouse their hose lost value? Plenty of greed to go around. THe free market would have dealt with these situations. They would not have been approved for loans!!!
Stallion, seriously, you are the dupe here. If you believe:
The government inserted itself into the housing market every step of the way. Is was essentially a government program!
Mookie....
please explain to me your comment of less control would have stopped more greed ? The safegaurds put in place for many years protected those smaller investors and working people like you.Fannie and Freddie's only mistake was assuming the loans were given to people who could pay them back. Either way when the bank gave the loans...no problem , they were bailed out and have their money back and the people like you suffer. The free market did approve the loans. All those financial folks who opened businesses and sought out people to buy homes got the investors to approve loans. There was no magical government man behind a large curtain approving them Mookie. One would suggest that given your stance you must be a multimillionaire. Nevertheless I really suspect you have a very parochial knowledge of what you speak about.I will suggest that investors are not investing because of taxes , they are not investing because there is no demand. I work with that every day. The one government area of concern is the EPA and smothering regulatory do gooders that we can agree on. Back to the loan situation , there were several times when creditors came to me to falsify employees wages so they could qualify. We refused and reported that to authorities. How many investors were duped by the "free" market financial firms who approved loans ? Now who was duped Mookie ?
Greedy Free Market...
I could not agree more than I do with you Cohiba. We have people who just refuse to understand what has happened over the past 30 years. We know that it shows in diminishing consumer demand. I see people riding bikes to work because they cannot afford even the cheapest of cars. Gotta give credit for that to the unregulated insurance industry.How about those gas prices ? The only new jobs are those folks waving signs on the corner to come and get that $6.00 haircut.What a future.
Which Brave Folks?
Which brave folks are you referring to? The Tea Party (who you previously have condemned) that have had many, many non-violent protests numbering in at least one case in the hundreds of thousands or the "brave folks" crapping on police cars, "doing it" with whoever in the alleys and behind the dumpsters, flocking for the cheap drugs and enjoying the smoked salmon meals provided all while being funded by SEIU, George Soros, The Tides Foundation, Code Pink and Michael Moore? If you were referring to the latter, what makes them brave and the Tea Party stupid? Most of them don't even know what they are protesting. I agree with you last point about the lack of representation, but that is what the Tea Party is all about.
Steady
Don't be too concerned about debating any subject that this one horse poster has to comment on. Any post that he injects himself in, is just to stir the pot and push his left wing agenda. His only recourse is to belittle and demean anyone who does not follow lockstep with his way of thinking. There is no such thing as an open minded discussion with him. He epitomizes why this country is in the state that it is, we don't listen to each other. It's who shouts the loudest and longest wins. "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill
Kind Sir
Roadwarrior, it appears you hit a nerve with our dear friend. I dug up an old quote of his "At least Fox wouldn't.They will discredit every leader who does not agree with their rhetoric." Seams like he has something in common with Fox. He chooses to call these law breaking hippies "brave" for protesting while denouncing the Tea Party movement for protesting. He says he hears they may have some wife beaters, racists, ect. in their ranks but ignores the actual news reports of the rampant lawbreaking from his "brave" heroes. He attempts to claim he is a Republican (which is ironic because I am not one) but we all know that is a lie. He is a very interesting individual whose rants flip flop based soley on ones political position. And he probably doesn't appreciate that I am talking to you about this and not him.
roadwarrior...
I would think if you had something to say you would say it directly to me boy.You right wing elitlist dictator type. You have no clue as to what I prefer in politics. I can tell you it is not the group of nine dummies they put up for show on Fox. None of them could manage their way out of a wet paper bag. You got something of substance to discuss..bring it. I'm game. Don't hide behind an indirect response.What's wrong with America is you , who does not like any argument of substance or rage against the machine. Get it ?
fair weather politicis?
Stallion, I am a bit confused. In almost every post I have seen from you, your position is on the side of the corporations. Is that not a right wing stance? If corporations are rightfully protecting themselves, that is a pro-profit stance. Or are you pro-worker / union, pro-protection from other foreign influences, and businesses looking to make profits are bad and we should all work for the common good of society? You speak as if you are from the left, but your corporate ideas are of the right. I am very confused.
tagoneo
My beef is with Wall Street and unregulated money washing. First loans became very easy to acquire , second that allowed financial institutions to just about give money to everyone they wanted to as long as they were breathing. Both Clinton and Bush allowed this. Then the financial insitutions decided to bundle these loans and sell them in large quantities to other financial institutions. Banks bought them , the government backed them and Wall Street knowingly bought and sold the derivatives with the knowledge the bottom would drop out.That is my beef. Wall Street crooks. Therefore I feel that this group if they can organize the right message may eventually get to someone who can change this viscious circle.Most leaders on Wall Street should have been charged with fraud , embezzlement , you name it. They got off scott free and put Madoff in jail thinking that would divert the real issues with who did what.I am responsible for quite a bit and my allegiance is profit , sustaining jobs for people and respecting the working class.So for those of you who only think people can be one or the other , I am not. There is good in the right but some people became delusional similiar to the guy in Indiana that thought he was untouchable according to posts here. Yes the people protesting , some of them are pretty lame but there is a clear message somewhere in all that. they need to explain it better.
Rage?
I rest my case. Maturity is a wondedrful thing.
Dumbing Down ...
of America. I am completely under control and look forward to your intensely educated comments. Only dogs get mad. I suggest you don't have the stomach for a good argument.You make the same assumptions and mistakes that the Fox News people do. You are not dealing with a person who will back away from a good argument or be afraid to call you out.
I Suppose That....
there are people like you who feel some people don't have the right to protest ? I would imagine from people I have talked to that the Tea Party has it's share of racists , drunks , wife beaters and others who don't live up to your standards.Read some of their quotes or Coulter's book or Gingrich who was run out of congress. We could go on Steady. People like yourself are very good at deflecting from the real problem. That is 1....No jobs created over ten years even with the biggest tax cut in history. 2..Wall Street running with little regard for the working class people , their money or now the big bad social security check they want to strip from the working class.3...Still no job protection as jobs continue to be exported. 4..Eric Cantor and his out of touch cronies saying we need to suppress protesting.This country with the big split between the advantaged and workers is getting so big that soon there will be no turning back. Morals , ethics ? Don't confuse the right wingers as being holy joes and the left as devil worshippers. That would be your first mistake. The fact is no one represents the working class.Sure I make a good wage but I make no bones about the fact I need to work like most of us here. Don't fall for the right wing 'I will create jobs for you 'bible thumping heretics. The devil will come to you looking like a savior remember that.Then before you know it he will make a servant of thee.The Tea party reminds me of that church scene in 'Oh Brother ,where art thou' where Charles Durning plays to the crowd and is portaying a back stabbing , power hungry bigot with no regard for the people. Homer had that one right. Kind of reminded me of Newt baby.
Impact on the Appliance Business.
I think that although some may think this to be a passing fad I feel this will affect the appliance business as any other business economically.These are real systemic issues.