I Have To Say It

pb you asked me:

Momof3&3step&1gran, What did you think about the lawsuit in the link I posted?

-You Said "LAWSUIT IN THE LINK". You did not say nothing about A bailout VIDEO, and I did not know the Bail-Out was a LAWSUIT; so I went to the link you posted by the question you asked me, and their was no video on their, but their was something on their about a Lawsuit "Philip J Berg is appealing his lawsuit dismissal to the US Supreme Court that OBAMA IS NOT U.S. CITIZEN"!

http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/fox-news-s...

So I read up on it, and commented on what I thought about the lawsuit on the link you posted. Now do you understand. You must not be talking about that Lawsuit.

Momof3&3step&1gran,

for some reason the link will mess up.

It is actually easier to google the following:

blogsforjohnmccain.com/fox-news-saving-our-economy-what-caused-bailout-video-10-05-08

"Momof3&3step&1gran, What did you think about the lawsuit in the link I posted"?

http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/fox-news-s...

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 11:20 AM

-"Misinformation" pb since you do not know, I will tell you. In a court of Law it has to be "PROVEN", just like your case has to be proven that you are not guilty of Vehicular Endangerment for running over Chad Smotherman with your car. So to your question I say "PROVE IT".

"Momof3&3step&1gran and nathan.evans,

I did not intend for the reality of the video clip to destroy your whole argument. Evidently you can not think of how to answer for it yet. Quite revealing, wasn't it? Did you finally grasp what has been in the making for decades"?-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 1:45 PM

-pb, I have alot of other things to do than sitting here waiting to answer half-truths and misinformed questions you "Keep Regurtutating Out Over and Over again". Further more I did not know you even asked me a question about this video in the first place.

Listening to the video, it said the mortgages Failed through and begin collapsing in 2006 and 2007, and I assume it has alot to do with all of the jobs that have shut down and gone over seas, Lay-Offs and Down-Sizing, High rise in gas, food, and the cost of living, and cheap labor jobs with no raise increase to adjust with the rise in economy prices. Some people could no longer afford to make their mortgage payments. All of this took place when your Beloved Bush took office and lied to America to go into a pricey war. It all has to do with Oil, Greed, and the Wealthy Corporations that take from, steal from, and misuse the poor. "The rich gets richer- and the poor stays poor" Now it looks like the Middle Class will become a new class, "The Mid-Poor class. Does this answer your question? If not to bad!

We are both correct on this one. I do not believe that one party was to blame. There were many players involved in this mess including those that failed to pay on time as agreed, Alan Greenspan for calling for deregulation of the financial services industry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and of course the bankers that should have known better.

nathan.evans,

You still have avoided the question of the lawsuit in the video. Do you not have an answer for it?

Momof3&3step&1gran and nathan.evans,

I did not intend for the reality of the video clip to destroy your whole argument. Evidently you can not think of how to answer for it yet. Quite revealing, wasn't it?

Did you finally grasp what has been in the making for decades?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 1:45 PM

ROFFLES!

Momof3&3step&1gran and nathan.evans,

I did not intend for the reality of the video clip to destroy your whole argument. Evidently you can not think of how to answer for it yet. Quite revealing, wasn't it?

Did you finally grasp what has been in the making for decades?

"Yes but the root is relative. Your point of view is different than mine obviously. There are many people to blame from top to bottom, and there were some critical errors made by many people that should have known better. But the argument that someone forced banks to provide loans to people with bad credit is a lie. It just didn't happen. By the same token no one forced a single person to borrow more money than they could afford or enter into a dangerous loan".-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 12:34 AM

That is so true nathan.evans I have to agree with you. Also, other than Home Mortgages, there is "SO MANY PEOPLE" out there who have tons of "CREDIT CARDS" that are totally maxed out and are not getting paid as well. For the past several years people have been going into dept with using credit cards and not paying them back. They end up filing backruptcy and filing Chapter 13. "The credit line/credit market" is the Cause of our failed ecconomy (That I am in agreement with) but blaming it on Carter & Clinton I am not in agreement with. The lenders that fail to "Trully Examine" wether this person is capable of having credit cards, mortgage loans, car loans, etc. are the ones I feel are responsible for allowing this to happen. They send people credit card applications, loan applications in the mail for any and everybody now days, and people that have a job but don't keep and save money only spend it as soon as they get it charge what ever they want, but don't neccessary need to these easy access credit cards and can't pay it back.

Yes but the root is relative. Your point of view is different than mine obviously. There are many people to blame from top to bottom, and there were some critical errors made by many people that should have known better. But the argument that someone forced banks to provide loans to people with bad credit is a lie. It just didn't happen. By the same token no one forced a single person to borrow more money than they could afford or enter into a dangerous loan.

The problem was the Credit Default Swaps. The banks made bets that they could not cover on investments that were backed by nothing. If you loan money to someone and you have a house as collateral then if the borrower does not pay, at least you have a piece of property. The derivatives had nothing backing them. The insurance (bets) that banks sold had even less backing them. The borrowers did not pay for whatever reason, the loan failed, the derivative failed, the bet was called and the banks lost it all. This is where the money went.

"Then you went and said..." That is the usual Republican Party agenda,regurgitating half truths and misleading information". -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 8:54 PM

-This is a TRUE STATEMENT!

"Actually it was you who were presenting the usual Democratic Party agenda that regurgitates total non-truths and outright wrong information". -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 8:54 PM

-And what non-truths and outright wrong information was I presenting?

"Do you realize that the way you were describing the morgage industry was actually a perfect model of what Bush proposed we move to and Wall Street deemed it the Best Financial Reform since the Depression but Democrats shunned"? -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 8:54 PM

-Another "Half truth". What I described "Is what I feel the mortgage lenders should be doing in current time, and has done in past time. Except do without the discrimmination acts that were taking place. Which is what Carter and Clinton was trying to fix. (This is not saying give people mortgage loans that can not afford them.) It is saying no redlining. And no forcing minorities to pay higher downpayments and faster repament schedules.

"Bush did not condone these No Doc Stated Income Loans. Those things were nothing more than modified welfare with a loaded revolver. Stupidity proposed and created these". -- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 23, 2008, at 8:54 PM

-"Misleading information" Well neither did Carter or Clinton. That more than likely came from Greedy lenders trying to get more people to buy homes.

parkerbrothers, I am really trying to learn here, but you did not really address Dianatn's comment. I also think Habitat is a good program. So, what about the lenders not being forced to make the worst loans, and the demand for bundled mortgages inflating the supply of available mortgages and further relaxing the lax lending standards?

parkerbrothers

Give me a break here...please show me where any part of the CRA says banks must approve someone who did not qualify for a loan. Predatory lenders and house flippers are what started this bubble busting using practices that was untruthful.

There was a very high demand for mortgage securities from investors in the US and all over the world, way more than the supply. So, in order to create supply, the standards were reduced again and again. CRA's fault? I think not

Momof3&3step&1gran,

Sorry, you were trying to tell how the mortgage industry worked and describing a situation that was the total opposite of what Carter and Clinton produced.

Then you went and said..." That is the usual Republican Party agenda,regurgitating half truths and misleading information".

Actually it was you who were presenting the usual Democratic Party agenda that regurgitates total non-truths and outright wrong information.

Do you realize that the way you were describing the morgage industry was actually a perfect model of what Bush proposed we move to and Wall Street deemed it the Best Financial Reform since the Depression but Democrats shunned?

Bush did not condone these No Doc Stated Income Loans. Those things were nothing more than modified welfare with a loaded revolver. Stupidity proposed and created these.

pb. You sound very experienced. How many decades have you been a president of the USA, or a member of any Senate office? What did your office think about the laws, and programs that you passed? Do or did they think that the program held true or did they see any deviation from what was originally put in place?

parkerbrothers, I do not think someone needs decades of employment in the field as a prerequisite to understanding the reality of the situation. Actually, you represent someone with years of experience, yet lack the ability to fully understand what is happening, except through the manipulation of rubbish propaganda blaming Carter and Clinton. Or so it would appear anyway.

memyselfi,

Again - Why don't you just voluntarily let them redistribute your wealth?

"Isn't bailing out Wall Street bankers with tax payer dollars a redistribution of wealth? I too would rather see the government offer affordable home loans with the $700 billion dollars".-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 20, 2008, at 9:22 PM

nathan.evans, I believe you have a point.

"Carter and Clinton had it right Home ownership should be available for EVERY American, not just those who YOU feel is worthy".--Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 11:53 AM

Dianatn. I agree, and I do understand you are not saying everyone should have ownership, but that "opportunity" should be made available for every American that can afford to.

To me that sounds just like "America should always be the land of opportunity, not become the land of entitlement". and "Only in America can anyone become anything they want to be. There is opportunity upon opportunity for all of us to be challenged with and rewarded for if we so choose".-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 16, 2008, at 5:27 PM

Most first time home buyers, buy a small home to start with, like a two bedroom 1 bath. Most lenders give the buyer a price bracket in which they can afford, and hopefully at a "Fixed Rate". Renters are paying anywhere from $450.00 a month to $600.00 a month. A wise first time homeowner can buy a 2 bedroom or even some 3 bedroom home with monthly mortgage rates in the same price range or lesser as they would if they were renting an apartment or home. I do not see this as a Carter or Clinton problem, I see this as a bank and lender problem. Before giving a buyer a loan, they need to see what they can afford to pay, if the buyer has any saved up to put down on the home, if the buyer has other debts and loans they are paying on, steady work history, and of course good credit. They need to explain every thing about the mortgage, ins., interest, etc. and make sure this person has a dependable job and is able to afford the home they are trying to buy.

parkerbrothers, Did you take an extra dose of Geritol today? I think Dianatn has a good grasp of the reality of the situation while you appear to be regurgitating half truths and misleading information that apparently came from a political propagandist directing their manure to an audience with more conviction than knowledge. Of coarse everyone does not deserve a mortgage, but everyone deserves the same opportunity to get one. -- Posted by memyselfi on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 11:32 PM

That is the usual Republican Party agenda,regurgitating half truths and misleading information.

parkerbrothers, There is no risk when you cannot lose. The bailout is much more sinister than the redistribution of wealth, it is a concentration of wealth. Whenever there is a loser, there is a winner on the other side. Who wins in this instance?

And it is a point that McCain nor Palin could ever dispute...

The government should not be in the home loan business or should it be buying up companies.

Linens and Things is closing ALL of it's store's, they filed for bankruptcy earlier this year and were unable to find a buyer. The store they opened at The Avenue was just a transfer of the one that was close to Walmart's.

Isn't bailing out Wall Street bankers with tax payer dollars a redistribution of wealth? I too would rather see the government offer affordable home loans with the $700 billion dollars.

After reading the numerous stupid posts from yourself, I would have to you rank pretty high on the list as well....

Blaming Clinton for 9/11 and the current recession is like Blaming "W" for Clinton's B.J., get a life.

Evil Monkey,

Even though indeed I am paid by building more homes I do not support the bad business decisions by any party, Republican or Democrat that encourages and gives false hope to people that they need home ownership.

If you think it through you will see that I am against what appears to be an improvement for me at the expense of others.

I just believe there is a time and place for everything and home ownership should not have been pushed. Let it occur naturally. A person should not be made to feel less of a person just because they do not own a home. Some people are simply more comfortable renting. It actually now appears they may have been smarter also.

Are you employed in the industry and have good basis for your comments?

Have you felt or been part of the current mortgage industry problem through a home loan? Were you pushed into a loan prematurely?

I work for one of these entities you are so ready to bash.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 9:34 PM

Dianatn,

So you are paid with your opinion? I can understand not wanting to knawl the hand that feeds.

I imagine that you are comfortable assigning the blame to Carter and Clinton with no mention of any of the other figures on the long list of people adding to the mess. Those 2 men must have had more power than any other presidents in history.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 11:32 PM

memyselfi,

Perhaps influence on proposals would be a better word than power in your comment.

Unfortunately to the two mens legacy it is most often given either credit or blame to the originators and pushers of proposals and programs. They proposed and pushed unhealthy financial programs.

It looks like neither. In case you have not noticed there is a bail out going on.parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 7:55

If you would try reading the entire statement I said in the past 8 years not the past month!!! And none of the banks CEO's seem to be doing so bad with their bonuses, it's the stock holders who are paying for the banks being corrupt.

I certainly am not wondering out loud neither do I have to search the internet for my information.

You may or may not know me but certainly know you.

I work for one of these entities you are so ready to bash.

I never once said Everyone deserves to obtain a mortgage..all I have ever said everyone who does obtain a mortgage to should be treated fairly. Regardless if it is sub-prime or prime. Sub prime has been around a long time but then HUD, FHA and Rural Development controlled these mortgages and set the standards. They were loans given to people who could not afford full payments. It wasn't until the banking industry started giving loans at Zero down, No Credit, Bad Credit with outrageous interest and ARM's did this crisis began. The Banks and Mortgage Companies made Billions of dollars on these High interest loans for many years because they over inflated the home prices (which in turn make housing prices soar) but then when the housing market begun to crash they saw they were not going to be able to turn these loans around quite as fast as they once did...thus homes were sitting empty, they were foreclosed on Banks could not sell these homes for the amount they had loaned the previous homeowner. The Money is not lost it was Never there they still own the home that is worth $60,000 but said it was worth $120,000. There is a Big difference in a sub-prime mortgage (which is when someone pays more interest than prime rate) and Predatory Lending.

If you don't think that is true then please feel free to look back over the past 8 years and tell me "who is it that has profited most from sub-prime loans, the Banks or the poor?"

Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 19, 2008, at 11:53 AM

Dianatn,

It looks like neither. In case you have not noticed there is a bail out going on.

You talk as if you have vast experience in this field. Unfortunately I have had to be right in the middle of it every day for the last 30 years. I know most everybody that is involved in the mortgage business around here but I do not know you. Do you have any experience or are you just wondering out loud?

Your thoughts seem to have been gathered from some internet site you found recently (last couple of years). Do you have to live and breath this industry everyday? Is your experience in the subject matter honestly measured in hours or decades?

The American Dream is becoming unreachable except by the rich. That's not much of a dream for 80% of America is it?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Oct 18, 2008, at 9:32 AM

Dianatn,

Do you not understand the reason behind that? We relied on a program that was actually started by President Carter and propelled further by President Clinton. Can you not look long term and understand the ramifications of what they created. All you have to do is open your eyes and ears and tune in your local news station. It is quite eveident to anyone that is not entrapped in denial.

Attached below is an email on an article by INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY I received this morning from a friend that says the same thing I have been trying to say. Maybe it will explain it better than I could.

______________________________

Profile In Incompetence: The Worst President In American History

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Jimmy Carter became our 39th president at the young age of 52. He was a one-term governor from Plains, GA, where he managed the family peanut farm and taught Sunday school.

He was also a graduate of the Naval Academy and served seven=2 0years in the Navy, leaving as a lieutenant --which is hardly a stellar record but more typical of lacklust er performance in the military.

He came to power in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the resignation of President Nixon. The public wanted change and someone new, and Carter was an ambitious, hands-on politician who promised better days. As good as his intentions were, however, the things he tried were not successful. In fact, he created far more serious problems than he ever solved.

The centerpiece of Carter's foreign policy was human rights, and he did achieve one noble success--a peace treaty between Egypt 's Anwar Sadat and Israel 's Menachem Begin.

Unfortunately, that later led to Sadat's assassination at the hands of Muslim radicals.

Many people felt Carter was a good man who worked hard and meant well. But he was naive and incompetent in handling the enormous burdens and complex challenges of being & nbsp;president.

He wrongly believed Americans had an 'inordinate fear of communism,' so he lifted travel bans to Cuba , North Vietnam and Cambodia and pardoned draft evaders.. He also stopped B-1 bomber production and gave away our strategically located Panama Canal .

His most damaging miscalculation was the withdrawal of U.S.. support for the Shah of Iran , a strong and longtime military ally. Carter objected to the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies who were working to overthrow Iran 's government. He thought the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini, being a religious man, would make a fairer leader.

Having lost U.S. support, the Shah was overthrown, the Ayatollah returned, Iran was declared an Islamic nation and Palestinian hit men were hired to eliminate opposition.

The Ayatollah then intro duced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization, paying $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to kill as many Israelis as possible by blowing themselves up in crowded shopping areas.

Next, the Ayatollah used Iran 's oil wealth to create, train and finance a new terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which later would attack Israel in 2006..

In November 1979, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranians stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Not until six months into the ordeal did Carter attempt a rescue. But the mission, using just six Navy helicopters, was poorly executed. Three of the copters were disabled or lost in sandstorms.

(Pilots weren't allowed to meet with weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.) Five airmen and three Marines lost their lives.

=0 A So, due to overconfidence, inexperience and poor judgment, Carter undermined and lost a strong ally, Iran, that today aggressively threatens the U.S., Israel and the rest of the world with nuclear=2 0weapons.

But that's not all.

After Carter met for the first time with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, the USSR promptly invaded Afghanistan. Carter, ever the naive appeaser, was shocked. 'I can't believe the Russians lied to me,' he said.

The invasion attracted a 23-year-old Saudi named Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan to recruit Muslim fighters and raise money for an anti-Soviet jihad. Part of that group eventually became al-Qaida, a terrorist organization that would declare war on America several times between 1996 and 1998 before attacking us on 9/11, killing more Americans than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

On Carter's watch, the Soviet Union went on an unrestrained ramp age in which it took over not only Afghanistan, but also Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua.

In spite of this, Carter's last defense budget proposed spending 45% below pre-Vietnam lev els for fighter aircraft, 75% for ships, 83% for attack submarines and 90% for helicopters.

Years later, as a civilian, Carter negotiated a peace agreement with North Korea to keep that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He also convinced President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to go along with it. But the signed piece of paper proved worthless. The North Koreans deceived Carter and instead used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear weapons and pose the threat we face today.

Thus did Carter unwittingly become our Neville Chamberlain, creating with his well-intended but inept, unrealistic and gullible actions the very conditions that led to the three most dangerous security threats we face today: Iran, al-Qaida and North Korea.

On the domestic side, Carter gave us inflation of 15%, the highest in 34 years; interest rates of 21%, the highest in 115 years; and a severe energy crisis with lines around the block at gas sta tions nationwide.

In 1977, Carter, along with a Democrat Congress, created a worthy project with noble intentions--the Community Reinvestment Act. Over strong industry objections, it mandated that all banks meet the credit needs of their entire communities.

In 1995, President Clinton imposed even stronger regulations and performance tests that coerced banks to substantially increase loans to low-income, poverty-area borrowers or face fines or possible restrictions on expansion. These revisions allowed for securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages.

By 1997, good loans were bundled with poor ones and sold as prime packages to institutions here and abroad. That shifted risk from the loan originators, freeing banks to begin pyramiding and make more of these profitable subprime products.

Under two young, well-intended presidents, therefore, big-government plans and mandates played a significant role in the current subprime mortgage mess and its catastrophic consequences for the U.S. and international economies.

Hardest-hit by the mortgage foreclosures have been the &nbs p;citizens that Democrats always claim to help most--inner-city residents who fell victim to low or no down payment schemes, unexpected adjustable rates, deceptive loan applications and commission-hungry salespeople.

Now we're having to bail out at huge cost Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the very agencies that were supposed to stabilize the system. In time, this should improve the situation.

But the party of Carter and Clinton that midwifed our mortgage mess now wants to be trusted to take over and have the government run our entire system of health care!

And now,20Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama offers us more of the same as a clone of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

So there you have your small History lesson for the day..

Eddie A. Smith

LOL . . . I have stated what I believe and can't get any simplier than that. People will choose whatever direction they want to go come Novemeber 4th. I dont have faith in most Americans to actually make an informed decision(look at who they voted the past eight years) so I am sure they will vote for Obama because he is shiney and new and makes a lot of promises and then they will reap what they sow and unfortunately they will drag me along with them when it all fails.

parkerbrothers, Yes, I have looked into different forms of communism, but find that they lack the basic motivational factors of capitalism. I agree that many of my socialist ideals resemble communism more than what we find in America today, but to put that into perspective, America today looks more like fascism than capitalism.

We do agree that any democrat that attains any power does inevitably appear to have the desire to keep the status quo. I believe that speaks more to our political system's problems than the ideals of democracy though.

I also have to say that to my way of thinking, the only people that were helped and enabled during the heated up housing economy you refer to were the only ones that are ever enabled and entitled in our society. Not the poor.

Where I work we have had price changes every other month for the last year... For example, one item we sell has gone from $5.99/can to $8.99/can in ONE YEAR! Now, my wages have not increased one red cent since that point, yet the price of this one particular product has increased 50%. That company is now making more money on a product that may cost them pennies more in processing, yet my wages fail to reflect this phenomena. Explain that.

Posted by Disturbia on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 10:04 PM

Disturbia,

I can relate to what you are saying. Up until recently (last year and a half) everytime we built and sold a home it would cost more to replace it than what we sold it for. To make matters worse it deceptively appeared that everyone building houses was becoming wealthy. This created a terrible situation where just about everyone that could spell the word house was claiming they were now builders. People were leaving there long time known occupations to be builders.

Of coarse the end result was builders (and claimed builders) were producing a product that was constantly increasing in price and actually driving more and more out the affordability of home ownership. All the while it appeared that builders were making profits when in actuality they were losing money with each home sale due to the fact that the overheated market was causing such a fast rise in cost that replacement cost was exceeding the sales prices.

What caused this situation to occur? The direct and proximate cause is none other than the programs initiated by Clinton and the Democratic theology that just because we are Americans we are all "entitled" to home ownership. They dumped 2.4 trillion dollars into programs that enabled anyone with a pulse to buy a home.

The old way of requiring someone to have skin in the game was abolished. In came all this "enabling" and "entitlement" and a shout that we are "helping" people. Wrong. They were in the long run deceptively marching people into financial suicide.

One thing I have learned over my life is that most true Democrats in power like to see the poor stay where they are at and use deceptive means to accomplish this. They promote programs that at first glance look like they are a saviour to the poor but when allowed to run their coarse eventually play out to be a set back to the ones that looked liked they were being helped. They tend to create programs that will place everybody at a comfort level they think everyone should be at. Republicans on the other hand lean toward providing someone only with the opportunity to "work" and try to reach your own individual comfort level no matter where that might be.

I have noticed that Democrats play and perhaps prey on people that they can convince to think short term. Republicans tend to appeal to people who think long term and look at end results of programs.

Democrats are Dreamers and Republicans are Realist.

The one thing that bothers me about this election is the fact that the pressure of the current times may lead people into a mild state of denial and they fall for the "dream" team.

memyselfi,

Have you ever considered Communism? It might just be the ticket you have been looking for to provide you with this better place you have mentioned wanting to find.

I believe it would be a lot closer to matching your perceptions than America.

greasemonkey, You appear to have the misconception that I am promoting a communist agenda. I am much more aligned with capitalism, but in its true form. What we have now is a concentration of power in the wealthy with virtually no power whatsoever within the labor force. In the last few decades, the lower (and ultimately middle) classes have lost any resemblance of market force. We have legislated away the strength of unions, we have destroyed the tradition of employment partnerships and the idea of a fair wage coupled with benefits. With the propagation of temporary jobs, and the influx of cheap labor, we have abolished any strength labor once had. At the same time, we have strengthened the role of management to the point that corporations have more protections than we citizens. Our government should not be in the business of favoring management at the expense of labor, but should act as a protector of both. When the people that were making the rules became the mouthpiece of the wealthy, our entire society lost. We are working harder for less than we have for many decades. Given this scenario, I support every social program being offered. All that being said, I have to repeat that money is not earned, it is distributed, and that the only true value is the labor and resources extracted to catch that money. There would be no middle or higher class without the lower classes.

jaxspike, Seriously, lets look at your comment. I have heard it before and I think many people believe the same as you. You said the wealthy were paying for us already and why should they pay more. I have 2 questions for you. #1) Where do they get the money? #2) If they are doing so much in our name and being put under such a burden for us, why is the average American's bank account shrinking, both in size and value, and the average wealthy American's bank account growing? It seems to me that this should be reversed, if what you are perceiving is an accurate picture of reality.

Not a flat tax but definetly the fair tax.

Yes memyselfi, the top 10% of earners are already paying for me and you and the other 90% of the population. Why should they pay more when they are already paying 70% of the tax burden?

That was sarcasm, PB.

Ok well lets just take their money then, they dont need it. Lets cap their profits and limit how much they can make. Lets give it all to people who havent done anything with their lives so they can blow it. Lets force them to lower prices and increase wages. They should only be allowed to make a middle class wage anyway, all they do is sit behind a desk and tell people what to do. While we are at it lets make them pay for peoples health care, theyve got plenty of money. Why should we look at the root causes of the skyrocketing health care costs whenever these people have enought money to take care of it. Its not fair they have more than others, they are evil. They should give it to me, I have had some bad luck and its their fault. I bought a big screen and a ps3 and now I cant pay my light bill, they should help me out.

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

the top 1% of people earn 19% of the money and pay 37% of the income tax. Thats fair.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 12:53 PM

greasemonkey,

What do you mean "that's fair"?

If you truly think that is fair I am withdrawing my support for you as president effective immediately. :)

Please respond as to your intent.

the top 1% of people earn 19% of the money and pay 37% of the income tax. Thats fair.

We can not continue to reward failure and punish success and expect people to desire a better way. Every time the govt gets involve in something they shouldnt it gets screwed up, and steadily gets worse.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 10:31 AM

Write in Greasemonkey for President! The man knows what he is talking about.

Hard work will almost always equal success. Now success is relative, for some people its just breaking even and being happy. For others they want it all, and their is nothing wrong with either view. Up to the past couple of years I have made nothing but bad decisions, and I am not successful. I am now starting to make more responsible decisions, and I am becoming more successful. We can not continue to reward failure and punish success and expect people to desire a better way. Every time the govt gets involve in something they shouldnt it gets screwed up, and steadily gets worse.

If hard work does not equal success, then what does exactly?

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 9:17 AM

That's the million dollar question.

If hard work does not equal success, then what does exactly?

PB, I'm not even going to try....I do hope you get an opportunity to do some extra-Biblical reading sometime though.

jaxspike, I am sorry if I appeared to be condescending above. That was not my intention, however I have tried to explain some realities (not theory) of economics and have had no success. I do not blame anyone but myself for not having the ability to do so. I really do wish people would learn the hows and whys. To not understand the world we live in necessarily undermines our ability to evaluate it. Economics are not some abstract theory. They are very real, concrete and specific, and they are chosen. We do not live in an accidental society. Things are the way they are for a reason. It is not about opinions and being right or wrong. It is about the philosophy of what is important to us as a society. I hate to disagree with you, but yes you do (as do we all) follow other people's ideas of what is the best society to live in and what is to be rewarded and what is not. These people's ideas may not have changed your opinions, but they certainly shaped the life you are living and helped to form your opinions in the first instance. I do agree with you that Utopia will never be achieved, but that is no excuse to discount the idea that Utopia must be the desired outcome.

For the most part, people believe what they do because of what they perceive, and what they perceive is played upon and manipulated by the political and economic systems we live in. Humans are not so complex as to not have a lot in common. There are many things I could point to that would get the same response from a vast majority of people in the same society. For example, look at the outrage expressed through the comments about the 79 year old molester. While I agree it is a terrible story and do sympathize with this child and her family, I wonder where the outrage is when these same people read that over half of this counties children live in poverty. I wonder why no one appears to understand that because of our beliefs and how we view society, that many of these children will be placed at a dis-advantage all of their lives, just as certainly, and with as many consequences as this poor child will have. I wonder where the outrage is when thousands of children die from wars fought to benefit the rich, with no concern for the common class. I wonder about a lot, but mostly I wonder how anyone can accept the environment that we see all around us, complaining about the expense of food stamps and social programs, when people are hungry and are in fact oppressed. Hard work does not equate to success in this country. I see many people working much harder than others and not being rewarded. I also see some who do very little, being rewarded greatly.

parkerbrothers . . . it was a joke. I was only joking about the fact we actually agreed about something. I was only talking about the topic at hand . . . nothing else.

I do not have the ability to explain to PB and greasemonkey why that is, as I have already tried.

I wish everyone would read some Friedman, and then decide where they stand on this same issue. I just do not understand how so many people can embrace our economic paradigm that has evolved into being an apparent legacy of Nietzsche's philosophy, with a healthy dose of Rand, and even Social Darwinism as advanced by Spencer, while they would likely reject this same world-view outright in every other area of their life.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 17, 2008, at 4:14 AM

memyselfi,

Unfortunately since I choose to "work" for what I needed I found no time to read much other than the Bible.

Maybe if I had chosen to particpate in some of the handed out entitlements instead of earning my living I would have had time to read some of these suggestions you proposed.

Dianatn,

Uncle Sam is no idiot. If he gives you a dollar of direct deduction you have suffered more than a dollar of indirect loss. (probably two)

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 16, 2008, at 9:33 PM

He is by no means an idiot but he is by no means fair either

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 16, 2008, at 9:40 PM

Dianatn,

I agree with you that he is not fair, but in what way do you see him as unfair?

Markets are never free. They have regulations. The regulations are, in most situations, biased and do promote inequity. I do not have the ability to explain to PB and greasemonkey why that is, as I have already tried. I wish everyone would read some Friedman, and then decide where they stand on this same issue. I just do not understand how so many people can embrace our economic paradigm that has evolved into being an apparent legacy of Nietzsche's philosophy, with a healthy dose of Rand, and even Social Darwinism as advanced by Spencer, while they would likely reject this same world-view outright in every other area of their life.

Dianatn . . . life isnt fair in general but you must decide whether or not you are going to make lemonade out of lemons.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Oct 16, 2008, at 10:16 PM

That is very true but we also have to decide if we want to make quality lemonade and use real lemons or just give our customers lemon water with a big price tag.

I don't expect businesses to be fair to customers but I do expect our government to be fair to all people regardless of income. Afterall they do work for all of us not just the rich and famous.

Dianatn . . . life isnt fair in general but you must decide whether or not you are going to make lemonade out of lemons.

Dianatn,

Uncle Sam is no idiot. If he gives you a dollar of direct deduction you have suffered more than a dollar of indirect loss. (probably two)

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 16, 2008, at 9:33 PM

He is by no means an idiot but he is by no means fair either

This is not about the redistributing of wealth.

If you will notice those who make more money already pay more in taxes. Ever work overtime and bring home less than you did in 40 hours? That's because it threw you into a higher tax bracket. Problem is come tax time those that make more money have more deductions than those of us who barely get by.. we end up paying more in the long run because we don't have those deductions. I have a friend who makes 3 times more than I do but yet I ended up paying more in taxes than he did..because of all the deductions he is allowed to take.

How much do you think the CEO's at Lehman Brothers or AIG are having to pay on those millions of dollars bonuses? Do you honestly think they were worth that kind of money?

I can bet you they didn't pay their "Fair" share of taxes on this money.

On the other end of this problem is those who make near nothing with 3 or 4 kids end up paying nothing in taxes because they get it all back plus even more than they paid in because of earned income credit.

It is us in the middle who are bearing most of the tax burden and it needs to be revised.

Nobody has ever said you can not work hard and make as much money as you are capable of..Nobody ever said you must share your wages with anyone who is hungry. All anybody ever said was, even though you make more money than Joe Six Pack doesn't mean you should be able to get all theses deductions and end up paying the same thing or less in taxes as Joe.

parkerbrothers said, "Only in America can anyone become anything they want to be. There is opportunity upon opportunity for all of us to be challenged with and rewarded for if we so choose."

Sorry, you've been into the idealistic hog-wash too long my friend. One of my best friend's 26 year old son with Down's syndrome has wanted to be a physician most of his life. It just ain't gonna happen. Not everyone can become what they desire. This absurd dogma has been part of our downfall. People should be encouraged in their aptitude not in their whims.

Not all the people on the top have "earned" their pay. Just think about the current "bail-out" and see what brought us to the brink of disaster. Did the men responsible for this embarrassment earn their pay?

So the govt should go to every business owner and force them to pay there employees more? That sounds like an entitlement to me. If you want to make more money, get a better job, or excel at yours so you are worth more to your company. If a company does not pay there employees a liveable wage then they will not have employees long. If the govt comes in and forces the employers to pay more, they will not have employees long. Not everyone will be able to own a home, that is not a right.

I am in total agreement that things are hard right now, and it sucks. It will get better, it will work itself out. Unless our govt continues to act retarded and try to get involved in every aspect of the economy with multi billion dollar bailouts and corporate welfare. If they continue down this road, which they will under Obama, it will not get better.

Amen jaxspike.

I know if my taxes went up I would sure spend less, thats easy. You have less you spend less. Thats not the liberal way of thinking, you create more jobs by taxing the wealthy and putting caps on their profits.

They will have to start expecting a lower standard of living until they can begin to make more money. The american dream is still there it is just a whole lot harder. It also has to do with this society expecting everything to happen 5 min ago. It is made harder by way way way to much govt involvement, and way way way to much taxation.

So the people who want to have more without earning it are not greedy? The people who say I am poor, you are not, give me your share you can afford it, thats not greed?

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Oct 16, 2008, at 2:32 PM

It is not greed when a person does their fair share and cannot afford the basics in life. A deadbeat reap what he sows, but a person that works hard should also reap what they sow. It is unjust when a CEO pays himself hundreds of millions of dollars while many others work as hard if not harder and just gets by. I understand that the CEO did lots of work to get through college and become an educated man, but there is a point where one can have too much at the cost of others having too little. It is my understanding that in Japan the highest paid person in a company is not allowed to earn higher than eight times that of the lowest paid employee. This system seems very fair and maintains a balance between classes.

So the people who want to have more without earning it are not greedy? The people who say I am poor, you are not, give me your share you can afford it, thats not greed?

2 neighbors are having a barbeque, one neighbor worked all summer to have 1 huge blowout bbq, spared no expense. He cant count the overtime hours and the sacrifices he made to afford to have this big bbq so he and his friends could enjoy it. The other neighbor, well he just decided to have a bbq with no planning or saving, he doesnt cook enough food for his bbq, so should it be ok for him to go over to the neighbors and demand food from him? Why not call the homeowners association and have them make the neighbor give over his food?

It is NOT everyones God given right to have everything they want. This is the land of opportunity, all they have to do is get off their butts and go to work and work hard. I get sick and tired of all this envy and hatred of the rich.

Greed is good, to a point. Whenever you start hurting people, thats crossing a line. This is supposed to be a free country, I know its not, but its supposed to be. Greed is what grows an economy, not redistribution of wealth. Greed can be a horrible thing if one takes it to far, I agree.

just had to do it. the following speaks to this pre-9/11, bush-hating mentality that liberals have reverted back to without regard for this country. thank goodness we've been kept safe by a no-nonsense president and some terrific men and women in uniform.

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start locally. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics. This nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. Then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did all of you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you dumbasses with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2012.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, can kiss my a#%.

PS - You just might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

How is giving tax breaks to anyone, regardless of their worth a bad thing?

It is not just large companies that are driven by greed, all people are. The only reason they are utilizing efficient technolgy and robotics, is that their is a demand to have a high quality product and the consumer has to have it now. It is also puts more dollars in their pockets, which is the reason they started the business in the first place. When a business no longer becomes profitable, whether by taxes or a lessening of demand for the product or service, the business changes or goes under (or our socialist govt buys them). I cant see the reasoning for wanting to punish a company that is supplying some jobs with taxes. I believe wholeheartedly that we should not be expprting so many business, but they leave because of lower labor and taxes. I also believe we should stop trading with china, we should not support a govt such as theirs, especially when their products are proving time and time again to be dangerous. The labour unions play a huge part in business leaving also.

Greed is good, it is what makes people strive to do better, and pull themselves out of poverty.