This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

10.2% Unemployment


It speaks for itself.

79 comments:

Sarkazein said...

More government mandates for business owners with threats of imprisonment and financial ruin, in the way of health-care reform, is economic sabotage. The intent is to collapse the free market as the bureaucracy collapsed the Soviet Empire. Economic treason occurring right in front of us.

Some Liberal POVs will tell you the unemployment rate never got over 8.5% just as Obama lied it wouldn't.

bridle said...

The last time unemployment hit double digits was in 1983 after Ronald Reagan had been president for two years. I remember that because after he "fixed" the tax code, our small business no longer could take many deductions and we had to shut down. We ended up paying too many taxes on an income of about 5,000$ per year and couldn't support the workers we had. That was also the time of the Reagan recession so business was terrible.
But as I recall the very rich did get substantial tax breaks.
Maybe you should give Obama two years to recover from the economic free-fall that was in full swing when he took the oath of office. And it would look good if you did give credit where credit is due. Evidence is clear that his stimulus saved many jobs.

Honest Debate said...

"Evidence is clear that his stimulus saved many jobs." -Bridle

Can I get you another glass of Kool-Aid?

bridle said...

HD - Are you saying no jobs were saved or created?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

You may find this hard to believe, but I agree with you on Reagan's tax code changes. He eliminated one of the most important tax deductions ever and that was the income averaging. Remember Reagan had only two years of a Republican Senate, the House was always Democrats.

But the saved jobs thing is beyond bogus. They were even counting pay raises in the "jobs saved".
The "jobs saved" thing is the weakest political smoke and mirrors I have ever witnessed. If anything, it wasn't the economy saving jobs anymore than it was the clunker deal increasing foreign car sales. It was bogus.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

The economic downturn was caused by the credit collapse caused by sub-prime lending. That is owned and operated (sole proprietor) of the Democrats.

Speaking of Democrats, Barney Frank has now been in a house for the third time the place he was in is busted by the police. First time gay-prostitution, second and recently third time, drugs. Between his connection with the Fannie and Fannie May executive getting mass bonuses, this guy is a true political criminal thug. And he is all yours.

Honest Debate said...

"HD - Are you saying no jobs were saved or created?" -Bridle

No, the czar business is booming.

Sarkazein said...

Only liberal sheep (including the MSM) could see the unemployment rate at 10.2% (over 17% actually) and believe it is an improvement on what it could be if there was no Obama economic sabotage.

bridle said...

HD - Nice snarkazm but not an answer.

Sark - You love that phrase and use it as if it validates your pointless comments. But recall last fall when Richard Burr was taking all his money out of the ATM; the message from our government was we were headed for another great depression (unemployment 25% or more).
http://www.abajournal.com/news/700b_bailout_alternative_another_great_depression_officials_say/
Remember, this was before Obama took office.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

"Sark - You love that phrase ..."


Any phrase in particular?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

What comment did I write saying I approved of the first bail-out?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

The "it would have been worse had we not (fill in the blank)" argument is a very hard one to make. On the flip side so is the "it would have been better if" argument. Look at the graph. It is not hypothetical. Obama justified the stimulus by saying it would create jobs, it hasn't or unemployment would be down as he claimed. To go back and say that they didn't realize how bad it was after the campaign they ran is ludicrous. Was it the worst economy since the depression? No, it is now but it wasn't then. Not even close. One could argue that it still isn't as bad as the 70's but in terms of length of recession it is and that seems to be the barometer so I'll cede that point. I believe the recession would have been much more shallow without the MASSIVE spending but that's making the "if not" argument. The question is "what is" not "what could have been".

Sark- Not just acting dumb said...

Bridle:
You liberal sheep! What phrase? LOL

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-


"Snarkasm" I do like that word.

bridle said...

Sark - When you use the phrase " liberal sheep" you are resorting to argument ad hominem. It's one of those stupid sound bites that cut short any possibility of real debate.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Do you play drums?

Honest Debate said...

What Recovery?

guy faulkes said...

The unemployment rate is more like 20%. Many self employed that are out of work cannot sign up for unemployment benefits. The unemployment rate is calculated from these figures. When one adds these people to those that may get to work one day a week, the number is staggering. The lack of job and the deficient spending caused by the Obama administration will cause a huge political backlash in 2010. The problem will be in electing true conservatives instead of liberal Republicans. We have to reduce taxes, become energy independent, and get the government out of control of the free market.

bridle said...

HD - No, why?

Honest Debate said...

I worked with a horse riding drummer from Blowing Rock 100 years ago. It's probably not good form on my part to get to nosy, just curious.

bridle said...

My pen name is purely random and meaningless. I couldn't come up with anything clever or significant.

Nobody said...

Bridle said, "Sark - When you use the phrase " liberal sheep" you are resorting to argument ad hominem. It's one of those stupid sound bites that cut short any possibility of real debate."

Bridle,

Be sure to take LPOV to task for the same thing! Know nothing, Grumpy Old Men, Tea Baggers, the list goes on....

Honest Debate said...

Bridle you wrote: "Sark - When you use the phrase " liberal sheep" you are resorting to argument ad hominem. It's one of those stupid sound bites that cut short any possibility of real debate."

I certainly don't need to defend Sark but I feel compelled to chime in. Did you read Blogger's most excellent post, "More Probing of the Liberal Psyche"? The article metaphorically describes sheep, wolves and shepherds. It doesn't mention wolves in sheep's clothing but I digress. The point is, the idea that Obama's policies didn't live up to their billing but did prevent Bush's policies from being as bad as they could have been is laughable. There is zero evidence to support it save one ridiculous claim: Obama said it so it must be true. This is the definition, according to Blogger's current and relevant post, of "sheep".

USS Rodger Young said...

bridled,

You are a liberal socialist sheep similar to a couple of other amoebas who have no rational basis for their belief systems. Would you please explain how Hussein Obama's stimulus package has "saved" jobs? The jobless rate continues to climb, yet you liberal socialist sheep continue to stick your collective heads in the sand.

I find it absolutley amazing that you don't find a common solution to adding more jobs to the American economy by rounding up and deporting the milliions of illegal aliens in this country who are taking jobs from Americans. Don't belive it? Perhaps you should ask the out of work house painters, stonemasons, and carpenters in Watauga County who cannot get a job because illegal aliens are working for half price. Or maybe you could touch base with the carpenters in Ashboro who saw their wages cut from $30.00 an hour to $15.00. Funny how you liberal socialist sheep can never seem to address this easily fixable situation. Then again, maybe you are the contractor who is making big bucks from the criminals (illegal aliens) that he/she hires.

LOL!!!!

That was easy

Your ole pal

Sam
USS Rodger Young

USS Rodger Young said...

silenced I see. Like I said, "that was easy".

USS Rodge

Billy A.

bridle said...

HD - Do you remember when Richard Burr was telling his wife to take all their money out of the ATM before the economy went under? Or how about this headline http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5166956/IMF-warns-over-parallels-to-Great-Depression.html
Or this interview with then-president Bush. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=6356046&page=1
The depression so far has been avoided.Someone deserves some credit, no?
Yes unemployment sucks and is dreadful and many people are suffering. We need more jobs creation, another WPA perhaps.
But also recall the last time we were in such dire straits, Ronald Reagan had been two years in office. Why don't you give Obama a chance? Tell you what, if in 3 years we are still at 10% unemployment, I'll admit you were right. If we are down to normal, will you concede that Obama isn't the anti-christ?

bridle said...

Dear Roger,
The great depression had 25% unemployment. We were heading for another great depression (see previous post). Now we have 10% unemployment. 10% is better than 25%. That means 15% of the jobs were saved. It's math. very complex. Don't worry too much if you can't comprehend.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

If Obama cuts taxes, reduces the size of government and makes dramatic cuts in spending not only will we recover pronto, I'll have his image tattooed on my chest.

bridle said...

Suppose he raises taxes on the rich and creates more government oversight on venal contractors and corporations, creates more jobs in alternate energy (all the things we elected him for) and the economy recovers. Will you concede being wrong?

Honest Debate said...

Absolutely. Why wouldn't I?

It's precisely because of the threat of those policies that jobs are being LOST not created. What business (especially small business') in their right mind would hire with the pending assault?

USS Rodger Young said...

Unbridaled idiot:

If you were trying to answer to my truth post, you once again failed miserably. Here it is again, you know, the part about all the illegal aliens taking American's jobs.

I find it absolutley amazing that you don't find a common solution to adding more jobs to the American economy by rounding up and deporting the milliions of illegal aliens in this country who are taking jobs from Americans. Don't belive it? Perhaps you should ask the out of work house painters, stonemasons, and carpenters in Watauga County who cannot get a job because illegal aliens are working for half price. Or maybe you could touch base with the carpenters in Ashboro who saw their wages cut from $30.00 an hour to $15.00. Funny how you liberal socialist sheep can never seem to address this easily fixable situation. Then again, maybe you are the contractor who is making big bucks from the criminals (illegal aliens) that he/she hires.

Now that you have been put back into reality, how about answering to it. LOL!!! This is both easy and interesting.

Your ole pal

Samanantha

USS Rodger Young

bridle said...

HD - Recall that when Mr. Bush took office he immediately cut taxes on the richest people and corporations, and spent his entire administration gutting government oversight and regulation of business.
Please note the headline of the NYT for July 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/business/02jobs.html?_r=1&hp
You can't blame that on Obama's policies.
Also note the following:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/steny-hoyer/rep-steny-hoyer-claims-there-were-more-job-losses-/
I seem to recall that the Bush administration ended its first 4 year term with a net job loss also. It appears to be clear evidence that the paradigm of laissez faire government is proven to be wrong.
(How can I put clickable links in these posts, do you know?)

bridle said...

Roger, taunts and name-calling don't become you. You are showing your...uglier side.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-
Your comment linking to the NYT should prove to you the MSM is Leftist sheep.
President Bush's economy received 100% negativity from the MSM as clearly displayed in your NYT link while Obama's gets coverage that searches high and low for a positive slant to a much worse economy.

USS Rodger Young said...

Unbridaled idiot: (third attempt)

I have not called you any names. The name I gave you is a truth, not a name per say. If the shoe fits, wear it.

If you were trying to answer to my truth post, you once again failed miserably. Here it is for a third time, you know, the part about all the illegal aliens taking American's jobs.

I find it absolutley amazing that you don't find a common solution to adding more jobs to the American economy by rounding up and deporting the milliions of illegal aliens in this country who are taking jobs from Americans. Don't belive it? Perhaps you should ask the out of work house painters, stonemasons, and carpenters in Watauga County who cannot get a job because illegal aliens are working for half price. Or maybe you could touch base with the carpenters in Ashboro who saw their wages cut from $30.00 an hour to $15.00. Funny how you liberal socialist sheep can never seem to address this easily fixable situation. Then again, maybe you are the contractor who is making big bucks from the criminals (illegal aliens) that he/she hires.

Now that you have been put back into reality, how about answering to it. LOL!!! This is both easy and interesting.

Your ole pal
Rodge

Sarkazein said...

USS Rodger Young-

The liberals complained constantly about President Bush's deficit spending. They compliment Obama on his ability to increase that deficit spending four fold.

So Bridle's answer to Illegals taking jobs will be to bring in four times more Illegals and increasing the unemployment to 40.8%. Unemployment was only bad during the Bush administration that occurred after the Democrats took over Congress.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Economics is multi-faceted and complex, for that reason people are easily misled. I will assume you agree with a few things. When talking about tax policy, the benefits and detriments, deficits are irrelevant. The issue in determining the success of tax policy is how much money is generated. What is done with that money is a different matter entirely. For instance, if someone wins the lottery and is broke a year later then it cannot be said that the problem was a lack of money. The problem is an excess of spending. Taxing and spending are two completely different things.

Also, I must amend your statement about Bush's tax cuts. He didn't just cut taxes for the rich he lowered tax rates across the board, he lowered the capital gains tax as well which affects all incomes. He also returned surplus money to taxpayers in the form of $300 checks. Everyone got a tax cut even people that didn't pay taxes. However, it is true that the tax cuts for the rich benefited the economy disproportionately to the others.

Soon after Bush took office the dot com bubble burst. The dot com bubble was a big reason for the Clinton surplus. On a side note, a surplus is different than a recession and both were in play when Bush took office. The Enron and other scandals also falsely inflated inflated the economy. That cookie crumbled when Bush took office. Then 9/11. The financial capital of the world in shambles. Bush cut taxes and the recession he inherited from Clinton compounded by scandal and 9/11 was shallow. This is because record revenues came into the coffers. It worked. Was the money squandered? Yes, but that's a different matter. The money came in. The exact same thing happened when Reagan cut taxes, more money came into the coffers. The same thing was true when Kennedy cut taxes. He explained it this way: "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

So you're wrong to say that history shows that it failed.

Now it's your turn. I've given 3 examples (Bush, Reagan and Kennedy's tax cuts) that produced more money. Give me one example where Keynesian economics worked.

RV said...

Rodger, according to the article about wolves and sheep, the liberals are not the sheep - they are the shepherds who are trying to save the sheep from the wolves. So you will have to change your name calling to "liberal socialist shepherds".

Maybe $30.00 an hour is too much. Maybe that is one reason the price of new homes became so inflated. The same thing happened in the US auto industry. High labor costs meant that our cars could not compete with foreign cars.

There has to be a middle ground between exploitation of labor (like in the countries where all our manufacturing jobs have gone)and excessive labor costs that have ruined our ability to compete.

Public health insurance would take a huge burden off employers. I don't understand why people are opposed to required health insurance but not to required auto insurance. In both cases, we are paying for something when we don't know whether we will ever need it.

guy faulkes said...

RV has inadvertently admitted something we all knew. The liberal leadership consider themselves the shepherds of the rest of us. They actually think they are so much smarter than we are that it is their duty to control us. As Meyer said, we are to stupid to know what is good for us,so this control is for out own good. The funny thing is that somehow the manner in which they control us is always advantageous the them, not us.

Honest Debate said...

RV,

Reread the "sheep" article.

Address the illegal aliens in regards to your labor cost argument.

Rethink the absurd auto insurance thing.

Then try again.

Sarkazein said...

"Public health insurance would take a huge burden off employers. I don't understand why people are opposed to required health insurance but not to required auto insurance. In both cases, we are paying for something when we don't know whether we will ever need it."-RV


Has government required auto insurance brought down your annual insurance bill?
Has Government required auto insurance brought down the cost of body collision work?
Are people that don't own a car or drive a car required to have insurance?
Is threatening people with prison and or fines going to take a burden off of employers.

Everything government requires inflates the cost.
Houses went up because of supply and demand.
By lowering the lending standards (Fannie-May..Etc) millions more could buy houses so prices sky-rocketed. Now that those houses are re-entering the supply through foreclosure or distress sales, and fewer people qualify for mortgage loans, the market supply is increased and the prices dropped.

Government gives "cash for clunkers" and the purchase price of the cars goes up (less dealer and manufacturer discounts) also tax costs go up.

RV said...

This is what the article says:

"And then there is the third group, those few, those happy few, that band of brothers, the educated and enlightened liberals, who understand what is really going on and want to help the members of the first group to live a better and more satisfying life. Unlike the establishment, which supposedly cares only for itself, liberals supposedly care for society as a whole and have no personal self-interest.

Thus the liberal paradigm divides the American body politic into sheep, wolves, and would-be SHDPHERDS. The shepherds must defeat the efforts of the wolves."

Anonymous said...

Guy Faulkes - I am not admitting to anything. I am just trying to help you understand what the article said.

RV said...

HD, do you think requiring people to buy auto insurance is absurd? How is that different from requiring people to buy health insurance? If nothing happens, you don't need insurance. But if it does, you need it desperately. Who pays for the medical costs of people who don't have health insurance? We, the taxpayers. I am just trying to promote self-responsibility. I thought you would like that concept.

If government-run health insurance would bring costs down, then why would you want to pay more to private, profit-driven companies? If it doesn't, then we can change the law. That is what government by the people is all about. Do you like the health care mess we have now? If we never change anything, nothing will ever change.

RV said...

Sarkazein, the houses were being sold for way more than they were worth. I was astonished at the home prices I was seeing. Builders, realtors, and bankers were lining their pockets in a frenzy of greed.

RV said...

For the illegal alien question, all I can say is that workers will go where the jobs are. I'm sure a lot of them have gone back home now that the building frenzy is over.

Reader said...

RV, why would you blame realtors, bankers and so on? This is where people need to be accountable for their own actions. Don't buy what you can't afford. I don't blame others for what I buy...if I can't afford it, I sell it. Common sense, which thankfully my husband and I posess.

By the way, look around town and see how many illegals are out for the Christmas tree season. Gone home? No, don't think so. If the gimme crowd would get out and do the things the illegals are doing, the unemployment rate would go down. You know it and I know it. Laziness is worthless.

Sarkazein said...

RV- Are you writing that it wasn't a government instigated supply and demand? If bankers and realtors (you may have been right about Realtors) and home builders can cause the market to do what will line their pockets, WHY are they not doing it now, no more room in their pockets? Have they turned kind all of a sudden?

Honest Debate said...

RV,

Really dude, can you read? The article is about the "Liberal paradigm" being divided into three groups. The wolves, sheep and shepherds are ALL liberals according to the article. Don't bother rereading it, just reread your OWN POST!

"HD, do you think requiring people to buy auto insurance is absurd? How is that different from requiring people to buy health insurance?" C'mon man! I'm loosing patience. Requiring people to insure THEIR CARS is not absurd. It's not apples and oranges its apples and jackhammers.

Finally you wrote: "If we never change anything, nothing will ever change." Sure, it sounds cute but things change all by themselves.

You disappoint me, I thought you had a clue there for a few minutes.

RV said...

Sarkazein, they are not doing it now because their little house of cards fell down.

RV said...

Isn't it amazing that intelligent people can read the same article and get such completely different meanings? I still think the article says there are three groups of people, and the liberals are the "would be shepherds". By the way, it was not a liberal that wrote the article and coined the phrase, "the liberal paradigm".

Sarkazein said...

RV-

You would be right (liberals are the shepherds), if the shepherds were known for forcing all the villagers to watch their flocks for them or suffer fine and/or imprisonment.

Sarkazein said...

RV- Oh, by the way, I don't need or want no stinkin' shepherds. Problem with liberalism is that once the shepherds get their way, there is no choice. The shepherds sic the dogs on you if you don't comply.

RV said...

Wait til the wolf attacks. Then you will wish you had a shepherd. Remember Bridle's Somali pirate analogy? No shepherds there.

Sarkazein said...

RV- I'll take that last comment as your agreement with the article.

I am a heavily armed sheep, and can blow the wolf away if it attacks me or family or neighbor. I haven't needed a shepherd since I was 17. You are writing that you believe you are a sheep and need to be shepherd ed (sp). Again, if I wasn't part of the flock you are in (the general public) that would be fine, but by law, I am forced to be shepherd ed. You do know what the shepherd does to the sheep at night don't you? Well get ready. Clinton was a shepherd. Can you say " no-oo-oo-oo-oo-, no-oo-oo-oo-!

guy faulkes said...

As I said before, RV is admitting that liberal "shepherds" want to rule the rest of us for their own purposes. It does not matter what is the will of the people. An individual that takes responsibility for himself and his family is the liberal's worst nightmare.

RV said...

Once again, the writer of the article said liberals are the shepherds. The writer of the article thinks liberals want to control you. First you put up an article by a conservative, and then you think that liberals came up with the ideas in the article. I'm sorry you are so confused. I will not try to help you understand it anymore.

guy faulkes said...

I did not refer to the author of the article. I referred to my own opinion. The difference between liberals such as RV and conservatives is that conservatives think for themselves. We do not need shepherds telling us what to think. My idea of what constitutes a liberal shepherd is certainly as valid as the author of the article or that of RV. As a matter of fact, I flatter myself by thinking it is better.

RV said...

"An individual that takes responsibility for himself and his family is the liberal's worst nightmare."

That is so wrong. The goal is to get everyone to that point. Do you know any conservatives who do not have health insurance? What will happen to them and their family if they become seriously ill or injured? They will not receive timely medical care, and the care they receive will be more costly than it would have been if they were covered by insurance. What happens when they cannot pay their bill? After losing everything they own, the taxpayers will be left with the tab. It is a broken system. I don't understand why you conservatives don't want to fix it.

Sarkazein said...

RV-

"That is so wrong. The goal is to get everyone to that point"-RV

How many generations do you need? How many generations decreasing in their ability to take care of themselves do you need to see? (since the mid sixties).

RV said...

How is requiring people to buy health insurance taking care of them? It is requiring them to take care of themselves.

Sarkazein said...

RV-

Oye ve!

guy faulkes said...

RV, I know several conservatives that do not have health insurance. They choose not to have it, largely because they cannot buy the coverage they want due to state monopolies on the kinds of insurance one can buy. Ending this system so that one can buy the type insurance one desires makes sense. A rationed government health care system does not.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

Obama will have them put in prison to get their minds right. It's in the bill.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"My idea of what constitutes a liberal shepherd is certainly as valid as the author of the article "

I may have to agree with you but that's because I think the author was taking a lot of liberty.

This was my original post on this subject.
The writer of your post seems to have taken some liberty with his stereotypes.
While I may agree there are the three groups many in the personal gain group are the people that make up Pimps, drug dealers, con artist, arms dealers, welfare cheats, thieves, corrupt Political leaders just to name a few.
Kinda like you with medicare you got yours and the hell with everyone else in need of affordable health care.

The group in the middle can find their self interest motivated by excess greed from the personal grain group unless they're receiving a reasonable share of the bootie.

Those in the liberal paradigm are often successful business people that are compelled to do the right thing by those that made his or her wealth possible.
Lowes Hardware was willed to the employees when the owner died leaving them one small town hardware store in North Wilkesboro, NC. Look at what it is today. What better legacy could this man have left? Thousands of employees have retired wealthy not just one family of super rich.
This group also includes those with very little means that take spend hours volunteering, or kids that will pool their money to buy grandpa an Ice cream cone. This group does tend to see a bigger picture. These are the people that pick up the trash personal gain group throws on the street or pushes the shopping cart out of the middle of the parking lot group one left after loading his or her car.

guy faulkes said...

POV, your posts are all the same. Somehow, in your twisted mind, you feel that it is not only permissible but desirable for the government to steal through taxes that which some people have earned and give this money to those that have not earned it. All this does is remove the incentive to earn and produce.

A professor once performed an experiment. He told his class that they would all receive the same grade which would be the average of all their grades. The entire class failed as there was no incentive for anyone to work hard. Their efforts would be dragged down by those that wanted the fruits of their labor without producing good grades on their own.

Are there people that need help? Yes. Will they get help? Yes, especially if the people that are fully capable of providing for themselves are removed from the entitlement roles. Who gets to decide whether you need help or not? Local government, not federal. Where will the money come from? Mostly donations for tax breaks under our present tax system. Also, people that produce would be able to afford to help those in need if they were not being robbed by the government in its efforts to create a liberal voting block through entitlements.

The difference is whether you want to be a sheep that is ruled by the shepherds because you take no responsibility for yourself and therefore take whatever is given you, a shepherd that makes his living off the backs of the sheep and enjoys ruling them, or someone that takes responsibility for himself and provides for himself and his family. If that makes me a wolf, I am a wolf.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

You're admitting to being in the same group that make up Pimps, drug dealers, con artist, arms dealers, welfare cheats, thieves, loan sharks and corrupt political leaders that pray on the weakest in our society.

Lets say the government takes action that cost a segment of our society their livelihood. This could be NAFTA, that cost Mill workers jobs, or tax incentives to wal-mart that puts mom and pop main street stores out of business, Clean air act or more fuel effecient homes and businesses that reduces demand for coal putting coal employees out of work. Sending soildiers from a military base to Iraq costing local military towns thousands of customers and job loss. Economic policies that result in a massive recession or depression. Does the government need to help those out of work through no fault of their own?

RV said...

Making it possible for everyone to provide affordable health care for themselves and their children is the goal of health insurance reform. I think if people can afford it they will do the right think and protect themselves and their families.

I don't think the wolves are necessarily people. They are also unfortunate circumstances that can befall anyone, liberal or conservative, such as illness, loss of job, or death of spouse. Wolves are preditory lenders and unscruptulous credit card companies.

Sarkazein said...

RV-

I remember when I was forces to accept bank loans and credit cards or have to serve jail time and/or pay fines.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

" I was forces to accept bank loans and credit cards or have to serve jail time and/or pay fines."

May karma and life have fun with your arrogance and callousness.

Be patient life may yet force you to be desperate enough to be on the receiving end of predatory lenders and unscrupulous credit card companies.

Sark you are just the kind of person I think of when I think of Republicans.

HD is this the type of humanity the conservative movement is proud of?

Sarkazein said...

POVerty-

Tell me about the times the evil credit card companies made you charge stuff. Tell me about the time the bankers threatened you with jail if you didn't barrow from them. In fact, tell me about the time you didn't pay them back and you had to serve in debtor's prison.

Sarkazein said...

What, it never happened? How can that be.
Don't get health insurance and be threatened with prison time. It's in the bill.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

like I said:

Sark you are just the kind of person I think of when I think of Republicans.

Lots of people are lock behind bars with more humanity than you.

guy faulkes said...

POV, lots of people are in mental hospitals that are more sane than you. What is your point?

Sarkazein said...

POV-

So "humanity" now consists of opinions on credit card companies and bankers and their legal power to make you write bad checks.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

No, we're talking about men and women who's car just broke down on the way home. The need another repair costing $400.00 to keep their job or their child had an illness that cleaned out the bank account and they must have gas for work and also pay the rent.
Millions live day to day just like this and people like you and blogger use your energy to keep them a desperate possible. The sad thing you can't begin to understand what its like for these people. That were your humanity fails you.

Sarkazein said...

POV-

No, that is what you were discussing, you didn't comprehend the subject at hand.

RV- " Wolves are preditory lenders and unscruptulous credit card companies."

My point is/was that these guys (accept for fraud) can not put you in prison for your choice of using them. They can not force you to use them with threat of jail.
They can not even put you in prison for not paying them back. There is no debtor's prison.
The government can, and threatens so in the bill, if you choose not to comply and do have debtor's prison disguised as non payment of fines. It will be run by the IRS.

You went off in another direction because you did not comprehend the points.
Unless you believe that anyone disagreeing with Obama care has no humanity, and is a racist, and has never experienced any of life's hardships.

That's as patient as I can be...not one of my political virtues.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

I notice you dodge those tuff questions that deal with reality and not Conservative propaganda and myths like the poor being the people to blame as they have little power to fight back.

Sarkazein said...

Stimulus job boost in state exaggerated, review finds
Errors, incomplete data, estimated positions go into federal report

Revere spent $485,500 in stimulus funds to install solar panels on the roof of the Beachmont School and claimed to have created 64 jobs on the project.
By Jenn Abelson and Todd Wallack
Globe Staff / November 11, 2009
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.///