Forum Thread

Does anybody owe you a living?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 29 1 2 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Consider that wages, standard of living and poverty have gotten worse over a measure of time. The government has allowed and made changes in laws that directly contributed to the overall decline. The biggest direct changes have to do with banking and stock trading. Nobody challenges that those changes have caused the market collapse . Observation shows that money has left business financing in favor of unregulated derivative trading. So who is liable for the decline of the lower classes? The government for allowing and enforcing the laws and the people that sponsored those laws. The Government and Wall Street owe us! The government and Wall Street need to make right the harm that came from those laws and changes. There was no redeeming moral or economic basis for the laws that allowed illegal trading to become legal. Those laws and changes only allowed specialized interest to divert money from the economy into unregulated trading requiring mass amounts of money to be stagnated. Yes , we are owed a living from the government and Wall Street. They took the life blood from our economy and used it to finance gambling thereby sucking the life out of the meaning of the country, the people. Pay up !!!

    Laws and changed laws that took money out of the Evonomy: Glas/Steagall was positive, negative CFMA, negative repeal of Glas/Steagall

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    No, but we do deserve protection from unethical employers and corporations and that is one of the jobs that government is failing at (thanks to our friends the Republicans).
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Consider that wages, standard of living and poverty have gotten worse over a measure of time. The government has allowed and made changes in laws that directly contributed to the overall decline. The biggest direct changes have to do with banking and stock trading. Nobody challenges that those changes have caused the market collapse . Observation shows that money has left business financing in favor of unregulated derivative trading. So who is liable for the decline of the lower classes? The government for allowing and enforcing the laws and the people that sponsored those laws. The Government and Wall Street owe us! The government and Wall Street need to make right the harm that came from those laws and changes. There was no redeeming moral or economic basis for the laws that allowed illegal trading to become legal. Those laws and changes only allowed specialized interest to divert money from the economy into unregulated trading requiring mass amounts of money to be stagnated. Yes , we are owed a living from the government and Wall Street. They took the life blood from our economy and used it to finance gambling thereby sucking the life out of the meaning of the country, the people. Pay up !!!

    Laws and changed laws that took money out of the Evonomy: Glas/Steagall was positive, negative CFMA, negative repeal of Glas/Steagall

    Chet, that is what you get if you live in a country were "greed" reigns; sorry to say we are an capitalistic country and only care about money and wealth; other things barely count. Socialism is a dirty word here. The statement that anyone can get rich is pure B.S. If that would be even possible we all would be broke because there is not that much money to go around; printing does not help either, it will devaluate what you already have. Sorry but this country caters to the rich mostly, not the poor. That is the objective of the Republicans.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Consider that wages, standard of living and poverty have gotten worse over a measure of time. The government has allowed and made changes in laws that directly contributed to the overall decline. The biggest direct changes have to do with banking and stock trading. Nobody challenges that those changes have caused the market collapse . Observation shows that money has left business financing in favor of unregulated derivative trading. So who is liable for the decline of the lower classes? The government for allowing and enforcing the laws and the people that sponsored those laws. The Government and Wall Street owe us! The government and Wall Street need to make right the harm that came from those laws and changes. There was no redeeming moral or economic basis for the laws that allowed illegal trading to become legal. Those laws and changes only allowed specialized interest to divert money from the economy into unregulated trading requiring mass amounts of money to be stagnated. Yes , we are owed a living from the government and Wall Street. They took the life blood from our economy and used it to finance gambling thereby sucking the life out of the meaning of the country, the people. Pay up !!!

    Laws and changed laws that took money out of the Evonomy: Glas/Steagall was positive, negative CFMA, negative repeal of Glas/Steagall

    Chet -- You make some good points, but let me reiterate a point that I have made in several other threads. We are the government that we elect. We the people have the power over what legislation is passed or not passed because we go to the polls and elect people who represent our values. If we choose not to vote (and 144 million voter eligible Americans chose NOT to vote in 2014) then we are yielding power to the 83 million people that did go to the polls and vote. When only 36 percent of voter eligible Americans vote, then we get the government that those 36 percent want...and not the 64 percent who went fishing on election day.

    We can bitch about Wall Street regulations all we want, but until we the people go to the polls and elect candidates that reflect our values, then we are stuck with the local, state and federal government policies and laws that they instate. Right now Bernie Sanders is the only presidential candidate pushing against the Wall Street agenda. I have not seen many state or local or other federal candidates riding with Bernie Sanders probably because it would hurt their fund raising with special interest groups. But that should not stop us from asking those running for office where they stand on the issues...attending town halls, writing letters, sending e-mails, etc. and otherwise becoming engaged in our democracy. It's so much easier to just stand back and bitch.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Consider that wages, standard of living and poverty have gotten worse over a measure of time. The government has allowed and made changes in laws that directly contributed to the overall decline. The biggest direct changes have to do with banking and stock trading. Nobody challenges that those changes have caused the market collapse . Observation shows that money has left business financing in favor of unregulated derivative trading. So who is liable for the decline of the lower classes? The government for allowing and enforcing the laws and the people that sponsored those laws. The Government and Wall Street owe us! The government and Wall Street need to make right the harm that came from those laws and changes. There was no redeeming moral or economic basis for the laws that allowed illegal trading to become legal. Those laws and changes only allowed specialized interest to divert money from the economy into unregulated trading requiring mass amounts of money to be stagnated. Yes , we are owed a living from the government and Wall Street. They took the life blood from our economy and used it to finance gambling thereby sucking the life out of the meaning of the country, the people. Pay up !!!

    Laws and changed laws that took money out of the Evonomy: Glas/Steagall was positive, negative CFMA, negative repeal of Glas/Steagall

    Chet -- You make some good points, but let me reiterate a point that I have made in several other threads. We are the government that we elect. We the people have the power over what legislation is passed or not passed because we go to the polls and elect people who represent our values. If we choose not to vote (and 144 million voter eligible Americans chose NOT to vote in 2014) then we are yielding power to the 83 million people that did go to the polls and vote. When only 36 percent of voter eligible Americans vote, then we get the government that those 36 percent want...and not the 64 percent who went fishing on election day.

    We can bitch about Wall Street regulations all we want, but until we the people go to the polls and elect candidates that reflect our values, then we are stuck with the local, state and federal government policies and laws that they instate. Right now Bernie Sanders is the only presidential candidate pushing against the Wall Street agenda. I have not seen many state or local or other federal candidates riding with Bernie Sanders probably because it would hurt their fund raising with special interest groups. But that should not stop us from asking those running for office where they stand on the issues...attending town halls, writing letters, sending e-mails, etc. and otherwise becoming engaged in our democracy. It's so much easier to just stand back and bitch.

    Schmidt, I fully agree with your points. Of course I'm a Bernie fan. However I give him little chance in winning. Don't forget elections are not won by the voters but by the "money" pushers who "buy" candidates. So the whole voting system here is corrupted. The major problem is the voters are not educated about the real world out there, football is more important. Regardless I'll cheer and vote for Bernie, but I'm afraid the media and others will do everything in their power to obstruct him. So you and I can bitch or do something else, it won't stop the bleeding.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Consider that wages, standard of living and poverty have gotten worse over a measure of time. The government has allowed and made changes in laws that directly contributed to the overall decline. The biggest direct changes have to do with banking and stock trading. Nobody challenges that those changes have caused the market collapse . Observation shows that money has left business financing in favor of unregulated derivative trading. So who is liable for the decline of the lower classes? The government for allowing and enforcing the laws and the people that sponsored those laws. The Government and Wall Street owe us! The government and Wall Street need to make right the harm that came from those laws and changes. There was no redeeming moral or economic basis for the laws that allowed illegal trading to become legal. Those laws and changes only allowed specialized interest to divert money from the economy into unregulated trading requiring mass amounts of money to be stagnated. Yes , we are owed a living from the government and Wall Street. They took the life blood from our economy and used it to finance gambling thereby sucking the life out of the meaning of the country, the people. Pay up !!!

    Laws and changed laws that took money out of the Evonomy: Glas/Steagall was positive, negative CFMA, negative repeal of Glas/Steagall

    Chet -- You make some good points, but let me reiterate a point that I have made in several other threads. We are the government that we elect. We the people have the power over what legislation is passed or not passed because we go to the polls and elect people who represent our values. If we choose not to vote (and 144 million voter eligible Americans chose NOT to vote in 2014) then we are yielding power to the 83 million people that did go to the polls and vote. When only 36 percent of voter eligible Americans vote, then we get the government that those 36 percent want...and not the 64 percent who went fishing on election day.

    We can bitch about Wall Street regulations all we want, but until we the people go to the polls and elect candidates that reflect our values, then we are stuck with the local, state and federal government policies and laws that they instate. Right now Bernie Sanders is the only presidential candidate pushing against the Wall Street agenda. I have not seen many state or local or other federal candidates riding with Bernie Sanders probably because it would hurt their fund raising with special interest groups. But that should not stop us from asking those running for office where they stand on the issues...attending town halls, writing letters, sending e-mails, etc. and otherwise becoming engaged in our democracy. It's so much easier to just stand back and bitch.

    Schmidt, I sit in awe of the intellect and mind of the human race. Early astronomy, math and science show me that people have always been smart. Applying that thinking to the constitution and the framers I find the constitution an amazing comprehension of the rules of society. Then come the amendments coming from "smart people" also. I think the amendments fine tune the constitution and acknowledging brilliant minds allows some of the generosity of the articles of the constitution to be manipulated. Giving the right to chose their own government the 1st amendment allows powerful people to make sure they still have the last word. I campaigned for Clinton and thought we got what we voted for. Clinton was the biggest betrayal of trust ever perpetuated. So even when you do get what you want you can lose. Then to add insult to injury the right to address grievances assures that the wishes of the powerful are carried out. The only Democratic politician that acknowledged the country was a common and mutually owned entity was Frankln D. Roosevelt . The Democratic Party has distanced itself from the poor. Hooefully Bernie can change that.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As Nate Silver points out:

    "When F.D.R.took over the Presidency in 1933, the Democrats controlled 64 percent of the Senate seats and 73 percent (!) of the House seats, counting independents who were sympathetic to the party. And those numbers only increased over the next couple of midterms -- during their peak during 1937-38, the Democrats actually controlled about 80 percent (!) of the seats in both chambers."

    Comparisons are often made of how effective Roosevelt and Johnson were versus Clinton and Obama. When you have the overwhelming support of a Congress, then it is much easier to get legislation passed. Without the majorities, presidents by necessity have to compromise.

    Clinton never enjoyed a veto proof majority.

    Obama's slim majority in the Senate was very short lived. With Colman challenging the results in Minnesota, Al Franken was not sworn into the Senate until July 7, 2009. That gave Obama a veto proof 60 seat majority in the Senate if you count Josef Lieberman as caucusing with the Democrats. With Ted Kennedy's death on August 25, 2009 Obama again lost his majority. Patrick Kirk filled the vacancy on September 9th but only served until the end of the term. At that time, however, the more pressing issues were the decline in the economy (Great Recession) and the campaign to pass the Affordable Care Act.

    If Bernie Sanders is elected he will be ineffective as a president unless the stay-at-home voters turn out in huge numbers to give him not only majorities in both houses, but also a 60 vote veto proof majority in the Senate. The Republicans are absolutely ruthless and anything goes. They will filibuster, filibuster, filibuster.

    And then they will place the blame on Sanders for not getting his proposed legislation passed. And many of his liberal supporters in frustration will cry, "Sanders promised!!" And then they won't vote in the midterm of 2018.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    As Nate Silver points out:

    "When F.D.R.took over the Presidency in 1933, the Democrats controlled 64 percent of the Senate seats and 73 percent (!) of the House seats, counting independents who were sympathetic to the party. And those numbers only increased over the next couple of midterms -- during their peak during 1937-38, the Democrats actually controlled about 80 percent (!) of the seats in both chambers."

    Comparisons are often made of how effective Roosevelt and Johnson were versus Clinton and Obama. When you have the overwhelming support of a Congress, then it is much easier to get legislation passed. Without the majorities, presidents by necessity have to compromise.

    Clinton never enjoyed a veto proof majority.

    Obama's slim majority in the Senate was very short lived. With Colman challenging the results in Minnesota, Al Franken was not sworn into the Senate until July 7, 2009. That gave Obama a veto proof 60 seat majority in the Senate if you count Josef Lieberman as caucusing with the Democrats. With Ted Kennedy's death on August 25, 2009 Obama again lost his majority. Patrick Kirk filled the vacancy on September 9th but only served until the end of the term. At that time, however, the more pressing issues were the decline in the economy (Great Recession) and the campaign to pass the Affordable Care Act.

    If Bernie Sanders is elected he will be ineffective as a president unless the stay-at-home voters turn out in huge numbers to give him not only majorities in both houses, but also a 60 vote veto proof majority in the Senate. The Republicans are absolutely ruthless and anything goes. They will filibuster, filibuster, filibuster.

    And then they will place the blame on Sanders for not getting his proposed legislation passed. And many of his liberal supporters in frustration will cry, "Sanders promised!!" And then they won't vote in the midterm of 2018.

    My view is that Sanders being ineffective will subsequently call attention to negative government. Voluntary austerity will highlight the willingness of the GOP to let the country suffer. Hillary or Biden validate DINO. Their willingness to pass the credit card bill shows their true colors and willingness to let the poor and unrepresented suffer the cost of greed. Why did the Affordable Care have to compromise the poor with a hundred dollar charge. To people without money a hundred dollars might as well have been a hundred thousand. The affluent Democratic Politicians cannot comprehend no discretionary money.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The Affordable Care Act is a "compromise bill". The Obama administration had to make several concessions to Republicans and the bluedogs like Josef Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu to ensure its passage. The biggest concession was to the Big Pharma, the group that single handedly scuttled HillaryCare when the Clintons tried to pass universal health care in the 1990s. Big Pharma owned those bluedogs with their campaign contributions.

    The Affordable Care Act certainly needs some improvements, but it is a hell of a lot better than the status quo. It was deal or no deal. Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Will liberals stand in their way? And what I mean is that if liberals don't want to go back to the status quo before ObamaCare was passed, then they need to engage in our democracy by not only writing to their representatives in Congress, but also VOTE.

  • Libertarian
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Clearly the government, as sponsor of the monetary system and manager of the macro economy, is responsible. The main cause of poverty is joblessness, and "unemployment is the evidence that taxes are too high for the size government we have." (Warren Mosler). It is government budget austerity that is hurting the economy, not just in the US but worldwide. Monetary policy cannot make up for failing fiscal policy.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    MMTJohn Wrote: Clearly the government, as sponsor of the monetary system and manager of the macro economy, is responsible. The main cause of poverty is joblessness, and "unemployment is the evidence that taxes are too high for the size government we have." (Warren Mosler). It is government budget austerity that is hurting the economy, not just in the US but worldwide. Monetary policy cannot make up for failing fiscal taxes are too high for the size government we have.
    Austerity is not the answer. If the government is too small then progressively expand the government to fit the tax revenue. Do not cut government.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This election will not be won by a populist vote,but by the Electoral College.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    MMTJohn Wrote: Clearly the government, as sponsor of the monetary system and manager of the macro economy, is responsible. The main cause of poverty is joblessness, and "unemployment is the evidence that taxes are too high for the size government we have." (Warren Mosler). It is government budget austerity that is hurting the economy, not just in the US but worldwide. Monetary policy cannot make up for failing fiscal policy.

    "unemployment is the evidence that taxes are too high for the size government we have." (Warren Mosler)."

    Unemployment is also the result of the deviated mutation of a significant part of the stock market into purely market uninterested speculative gambling. As a matter of fact I would say that is the primary cause of unemployment.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: This election will not be won by a populist vote,but by the Electoral College.
    Notable prediction from before the election.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    "Does anybody owe you a living" and "Right to work" are phrases and wording tossed around by the right. The bigger question is: " Does anybody have the right to deny you a living?" The stock market and big money have successfully diverted significant money from jobs producing ventures into pure speculative gambling. Conditions that are atrocious caused by big money greed and right wing selfishness are a 1.2 Trillion Dollar Student Loan Liability and a totally unfair low class healthcare system. Seems like the right is denying a living in every sense? It is easy to blame the voters for lack of participation but I haven't seen ant politicians calling attention to the short comings. Getting people to vote is difficult but that is no excuse to quit trying.