« Changeling |
| Insight 2009 »
March 03, 2009 | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is terrific!I can't wait for others to see this too.
March 03, 2009 at 01:26 PM
This clip ignores the fact that the economy did exceptionally well while Clinton was in office.
If Obama's policies lead us back to the Clinton-era economy (as the video states they are the same), then I'm all for it.
Patrick Austin |
March 03, 2009 at 01:59 PM
How soon we have forgot that Clinton's successful economy had a lot to do with all of the SPENDING on the Y2K hype, which was temporary, not long term, just like Obama's plan. It's not creating a long term job for anyone unless you are in government.
March 03, 2009 at 07:05 PM
Clinton looks like a conservative compared to BO. For example, he seemed to care enough about the people that he shut down govt a few times to save money. Good for him.
No one wants to talk about how filthy rich people who never had money before became under GWB. Markets were never so high under anyone and unemployment was the lowest in history.
People want to blame everything having to do with this economic meltdown on Bush and the GOP. Well, I do blame them to a point for not having the balls to stand up to groups like ACORN and the Dems who basically said to the banks and govt, "Lend to everyone or you're a racist."
Now, I'm supposedly racist and I supposedly hate poor people because I can only afford to pay my own bills and not everyone else's.
Anyone here who runs a business knows full well how accurate the portrayal of the govt taking money from the business man is. Let's say my customers don't pay us once a job is done, which happens WAY to much these days. Well, I stillhave to pay employees wages, the company side of the taxes(ss, med), state taxes, work comp insurance, self employment taxes, sales taxes on materials used for the job(even if I don't get paid ever) and last but not least, unemployment taxes to the state(9.9% of the total payroll amount, i.e. if my payroll is 100,000.00, 9900.00 is the tax) and to the feds. And if we dont have the money because we weren't paid, we still have to pay all those things I just listed, and with deadlines imposed by the govt.
So then what happens when you don't have the money to pay all these taxes because you never got paid by the customer? you have to borrow the money to do it, which is very hard to do now as no bank I've talked to will extend lines of credit to small businesses AND we have spectacular credit!!!!! The govt then is not the least bit forgiving, charging stiff penalties for being even ONE DAY LATE and nasty insterest rates.
All that BS to do an honest days work, provide jobs for people, 8 in my case, and then get stiffed by customers AND nailed by the govt.
Somethings gotta change. maybe it will.
March 03, 2009 at 08:38 PM
@Patrick The Clinton economy was affected because almost immediately after Bill & Hill moved to the WH the honeymoon was ended ...the gays in military issue and WH budget proposal... oh, and a little side project of Hillary's health-care reform. The Dem controlled congress defected, and eventually passed a more moderate deficit-cutting budget. What followed in 1994 was the 54-seat gain by GOP in the mid-term election.
Obama's little-piggy Dems in Congress are spending this country to the poor house... with help from a number of Rinos. A house, I might add that was previously occupied by the USSR. It took them 77 years to learn it wasn't a house of prosperity.
March 03, 2009 at 09:50 PM
"Now, I'm supposedly racist and I supposedly hate poor people because I can only afford to pay my own bills and not everyone else's. "
No, you're racist and hate poor people because you'd rather blame them than accept reality.
Reality is that democrats haven't been in charge for a while. Reality is that those empty condos in Las Vegas and Miami weren't for poor people. Reality is that America hasn't lived up to what it was supposed to for the past 2 decades. We don't produce, we aren't technological leaders, our healthcare system is a waste of money, and everything that you thought was good during the Bush years was just phantom wealth. Now we have to pay the price for America lying to itself for 20 years about just how well it was doing.
March 03, 2009 at 10:20 PM
"and everything that you thought was good during the Bush years was just phantom wealth. Now we have to pay the price for America lying to itself for 20 years about just how well it was doing."
Have you not been listening to anything that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have been involved in?????
Have you NOT heard of the community reinvestment act?
You need to start looking at things for what they are and not what you want them to be. Concrete facts still matter.
March 03, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Gee, maybe some day Derek can say, "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of America." One can only hope.
March 03, 2009 at 11:13 PM
The community reinvestment act, a law that's over 30 years old, doesn't explain the housing bubble starting in 2003. Greenspan's cheap credit fueled economy and Bush's ownership society do.
And that's ignoring the fact that banks like Bear Sterns or Lehman brothers aren't even under the community reinvestment act because they are investment banks.
You guys blame poor people and minorities because it's reflexive for the conservative movement. Not because you actually know what you're talking about.
March 04, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Derek, after all of the blame game dies down, you and I both know that it was regulation that got us here, and it's regulation that will keep us here. We could be out of this recession this year without a bailout.
March 04, 2009 at 02:28 AM
@Joyce, the point remains the same. The economy did exceptionally well while Clinton was in office.
Why even turn that into a debate?
I submit a large reason why the Republicans took over Congress during that time frame wasn't because of fiscal issues, but because of Republicans winning over "values" voters who were more concerned about legislating morality rather than a healthy economy.
As came up during the recent election, values voters have voted against their own economic self interests. And that was proven when Bush was reelected even after he resided over America's first decline in the standard of living in ages and the rapid consolidation of wealth at the top.
Patrick Austin |
March 04, 2009 at 03:47 AM
I'm a racist. didn't you know that? Derek knows me so well that he can trow bombs like that.
I also hate poor people. that's why I give away much of whatever we have left every month to people who need it. That's why my family mentors at risk families and kids. It's because I hate them.
Man, tutoring young people who's parents are struggling to make it in math, clearly, is a sign that I hate people who are different than me.
Selling one of my company trucks to a hispanic guy last year for less than half of the nada blue book value because he was trying to start a seal coating business, and then sending him a bunch od business that I made no money on, CLEARLY SHOWS MY HATRED OF THOSE WHO HAVE LESS THAN ME.
Shoot, driving around all day for two days meeting with attorneys, clercks, the dmv, etc and paying money out of my pocket to help a guy I hired who had been down and out, ALL BY HIS OWN DOING AND BAD DECISIONS, then giving him a vehicle after helping him get his license back, and then connecting him with a group of people that will help him get his life on track, ALL BECAUSE I HATE THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT THAN ME.
Liberals would have you believe that you have to give everything you have to the govt to take care of those in need. heck, maybe all of my charity to the people I just mentioned should be taxed as income with they way our govt is headed.
Derek, maybe you should come with me on my hate filled excursions where I take time and what little money I have left to help others. Your eyes might be opened.
March 04, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Those are the type of invesments that make way more of a different than throwing money we don't have at the govt monster.
March 04, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Clinton's tenure ended with the economy in a recession. It wasn't as bad as the current recession but it was still a recession. Many people seem to forget that fact.
The Community Reinvestment Act didn't have a lot of teeth until 1990s when Clinton and his cronies amended it. So yes, it has been around for 30+ years but it wasn't that effective until Clinton entered the picture.
March 04, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Well said, once again, Bartman. I wish Derek would take you up on your offer. He could use a little eye-opening about the good that conservatives do.
Derek, you are totally missing the point. No one is blaming the failing economy on the low income people that TOOK OUT the bad loans, they are blaming it on the fools that ALLOWED them to! There was a time when you had to prove that you had the income and the ability to repay a loan before you were approved. That's the way it should be. Anything else is a no-win situation.
Patrick, as for your comment about "values voters", thank God some of us are still willing to vote with our consciences. After all, "What profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?"
dana michelle |
March 04, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Bartman, I couldn't respect you more if I met you in person. I know you didn't post all of that to get a pat on the back, you are showing the reality of many small business owners. And you are showing that many people are always willing to help out others. Don't let derek get to you, he is a gnat.
derek is too young to be taken seriously. A lot of his posts are to aggravate people and use arguments that make no sense.
The day will come when derek and people like him have to reap what bo is sowing he will be singing a different song then.
March 04, 2009 at 12:11 PM
@ Dana, how is forcing your brand of morality onto others any different than what the Taliban wants to do?
I'd most likely take your brand of morality over the Taliban's any given day, but the prospect of legislating it is a slippery slope.
Patrick Austin |
March 04, 2009 at 02:33 PM
"Derek, you are totally missing the point. No one is blaming the failing economy on the low income people that TOOK OUT the bad loans, they are blaming it on the fools that ALLOWED them to! There was a time when you had to prove that you had the income and the ability to repay a loan before you were approved. That's the way it should be. Anything else is a no-win situation."
Are you saying that the CRA caused this because that would be innacurate.
March 04, 2009 at 03:07 PM
"but the prospect of legislating it (morality) is a slippery slope."
And the prospect of doing absolutely nothing while our once great nation descends into an "anything goes" society is an even slipperier one.
dana michelle |
March 04, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Give Derek time. He is young and inexperienced. His generation will feel the brunt of the next great depression. There is nothing like experience to sober the idealistic mind.
James T. |
March 04, 2009 at 04:45 PM
Davidb, there are so many guilty parties in the mortgage mess, it would be unfair to hang it squarely around the neck of any one of them.
My point was that regardless of what Derek would have everyone believe, pointing out that low income people had no business getting mortgages they could not possibly afford to repay does not automatically make you a racist or a classist.
Derek says: "No, you're racist and hate poor people because you'd rather blame them than accept reality".
Well, here's some reality. As nice as it would be if it were possible, the simple truth is that not everyone can afford to own a home. Period.
This mess was created by the bleeding hearts who refused to accept that reality, and the greedy lenders that worked in tandem with them.
dana michelle |
March 04, 2009 at 04:45 PM
@Dana. I like your points, but if that's your stand, then my side can legislate limiting the distribution of hand guns. Yes?
I see it as a moral issue and I don't believe the framers of our constitution had handguns and automatic weapons in mind when they mentioned the right to bear arms.
Whose morality should be the basis for the legislation you seek?
Patrick Austin |
March 04, 2009 at 05:07 PM
"Give Derek time. He is young and inexperienced. His generation will feel the brunt of the next great depression."
And just like the first great depression it will come after a republican ignored financial collapse and will usher in an era of people in government that actually know what they are doing. Until the next time America gets fat and lazy and thinks tax cuts solve all our ills then votes in a GOP government to wreck the economy.
March 04, 2009 at 07:46 PM
The irony of your approach to ban hand guns, automatic weapons or any gun of any kind is that those who tend not to follow the law anyway end up with having illegaly weapons in their possession.
Study after study in state after state show the adoption of concealed carry leads to a REDUCTION in violent crime.
We need to find ways of empowering the good, honest, hardworking people of our society rather than pandering and promoting the lowest common denominator.
March 04, 2009 at 09:55 PM
Derek, I love your sense of humor. People who know what they are doing.
My sides hurt!
Because we all know that the more money the government spends, the greater the wealth and the more jobs that are created in our country.
Your a hoot!!
March 04, 2009 at 10:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.