Patrick.net

After The 8 Years Of The Bush/Cheney Disaster, Now You Get Mad?

By Clarence 13X   Follow   Tue, 26 Oct 2010, 12:24pm   5,639 views   94 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

After The 8 Years Of The Bush/Cheney Disaster, Now You Get Mad?
You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden. You didn't get mad when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks.

You didn't get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades.

You didn't get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.

You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.

You finally got mad when a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick...Oh, Hell No!!

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 15-54 of 94     Next »     Last »     See most liked comments

1. American in Japan Follow Befriend (28) 149 threads 1,398 comments

   15   4:51am Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ray- If you really did get mad at some or most of these things, at least I'll say you seem to be more consistant than some. Many Neocons said not a peep or even supported the Iraq War or the Patriot Act. Just my 2¥. cheers.

2. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

   16   9:00am Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   American in Japan .... not only didn't the Neocons not say a peep, they were the very ones that maneuvered us into these illegal wars. As a matter of fact, I just finished last night a very well documented book on that very subject and highly recommend it. "The Transparent Cabal" by Stephen J. Sniegoski By the way, I personally know numerous conservatives that very much opposed the wars. Bush's own father, along with numerous former members of administration (Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Colon Powell, etc.) opposed the war and attempted to convince Bush Jr., against the advice of the Neocons, not to invade Iraq. This is all covered extensively in the book.

3. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

   17   9:01am Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Clarence 13X says Let me hear you say it “DEY TUK OUR JERBS!”…..come on, just one time. You're not biased at all, are you Clarence? You think everyone that doesn't fall on the ground every time a Black man speaks just has to be a red necked racist. I honestly feel sorry for people like you that are so full of hate and bitterness.

4. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

   18   1:36pm Sat 30 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   OK, if it wasnt going to be Bush in 2000, would you have preferred Al Gore, who had been promoting invading Iraq years before ? WMD, Terrorism, etc etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE&feature=related

5. APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich Follow Befriend (28) 170 threads 4,175 comments Premium

   19   10:46pm Sat 30 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Cheney made money on it. That's what matters. You're free to get control of your own advanced democracy and manipulate it for personal profit. And freedom is what America is all about.

6. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   20   1:32am Sun 31 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   thomas.wong1986 says would you have preferred Al Gore Gore's actual speech was a bit more nuanced than Hannity's pull quote: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html I don't think Gore would have gone into Iraq as we did. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" and all that.

7. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   21   1:35am Sun 31 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   but helping fellow Americans who are sick…Oh, Hell No!! healthcare is a zero sum game. The more the poor have access to it, the less the rich can monopolize it. Plus it's really a bottomless pit as far as they are concerned. Everybody needs a $50,000 hip replacement, and the rich know that they're going to be stuck with the bill in the end. Much better if granny just learns to hobble.

8. CBOEtrader Follow Befriend (2) 26 threads 502 comments Chicago, IL

   22   8:59am Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Troy says Everybody needs a $50,000 hip replacement, and the rich know that they’re going to be stuck with the bill in the end. Nonsense. The rich will make tons of money off of the new government healthcare plans, just like they have been doing for the past 30 years. For the time being the bill is being split between the middle to lower upper classes and the Chinese.

9. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

   23   6:44pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   CBOEtrader says For the time being the bill is being split between the middle to lower upper classes and the Chinese. Somebody better tell the Chinese that: China, Mainland Aug 2009 $936.5 Aug 2010 $868.4 http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

10. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 273 threads 12,502 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    24   8:48pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Look at the United Kingdom on that chart, and people wonder why gold is $1350 an ounce.

11. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    25   8:55pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   It's my general impression that the UK holdings are arab petro dollars held offshore.

12. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    26   6:01am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   elliemae says I’m still pissed about New Orleans. How could we allow that to happen? If it had happened to an “important” city, such as Washington DC or Los Angeles, we’d have saved their asses. How could we allow what to happen - a levee to break? The Federal government is restricted by law from taking over a local response until asked. The local and state governments are primarily responsible for emergency plans. But it is easier to blame bush than the Democrats in charge who utterly failed. Brown, the FEMA fall guy, complained to Bush that he could not get a "unified command" established. That is not a touchy feely buzzword but an actual structure under the Incident Command System process. That he couldn't was more evidence that the local government didn't do it's job. Meanwhile, the part of the Federal government that was NOT restricted by the Stafford Act from unilaterally taking action, did so immediately and saved thousands of people. The head of that organization - the Coast Guard - ultimately ran the Federal response and was credited for doing a good job. Go to the FEMA website and walk through the IS700 and 800 courses if you wish to actually understand why some things occurred as they did.

13. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    27   6:06am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   American in Japan says Ray- If you really did get mad at some or most of these things, at least I’ll say you seem to be more consistant than some. Many Neocons said not a peep or even supported the Iraq War or the Patriot Act. Just my 2¥. cheers. The vast majority of Democrats in Congress at the time voted FOR the Patriot Act. The crying and whining about the Patriot Act from the left seemed to die down substantially after Jan 2008, despite it being substantially extended. Why isn't anyone on the left "angry" about that, or maybe these claims about who is angry about what and why are simply histrionics?

14. Paralithodes Follow Befriend 1 threads 530 comments

    28   6:08am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Clarence 13X says @RayAmerica Let me hear you say it “DEY TUK OUR JERBS!”…..come on, just one time. More evidence that despite claimin to be for the common or working folks, many on the left look down upon the same. Bloody peasants!

15. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 273 threads 12,502 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    29   8:41am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Protected   Paralithodes says The vast majority of Democrats in Congress at the time voted FOR the Patriot Act. The crying and whining about the Patriot Act from the left seemed to die down substantially after Jan 2008, despite it being substantially extended. Why isn’t anyone on the left “angry” about that, or maybe these claims about who is angry about what and why are simply histrionics? The majority of Democrats voted against the Patriot act in 2006. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

16. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,497 comments

    30   10:56am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Paralithodes says The vast majority of Democrats in Congress at the time voted FOR the Patriot Act. The crying and whining about the Patriot Act from the left seemed to die down substantially after Jan 2008, despite it being substantially extended. Why isn’t anyone on the left “angry” about that, or maybe these claims about who is angry about what and why are simply histrionics? The majority of Democrats voted against the Patriot act in 2006. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml Read you own link. The majority of the democrats in the HOUSE voted against the patriot act in 2006. The majority of democrats in the senate voted for it. Only 10 senators voted against, 9 dems 1 independent. The majority of the democrats in both the house and senate voted FOR the patriot act in 2001. A technically true but incorrect statement from IWOG. Who would have thunk it.

17. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    31   10:59am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   bob2356 says A technically true but incorrect statement from IWOG. Who would have thunk it. I literally fell off the chair. I'm totally shocked ... SHOCKED !

18. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 273 threads 12,502 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    32   11:24am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   bob2356 says A technically true but incorrect statement from IWOG. Who would have thunk it. Technically true but incorrect? WTF does that mean? All I said is that a majority of Democrats voted against the patriot act in 2006 and gave a handy link so people can check for themselves.

19. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    33   11:49am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The PATRIOT act was and has been No Big Deal. Anybody railing against it is trying to sell you something. Feingold's lone vote against it in 2003: http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm was a principled stand, but Principle and two dollars will get you a cup of coffee in this country. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Feingolds_last_stand.html

20. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    34   10:18pm Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Troy says I don’t think Gore would have gone into Iraq as we did. “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread” and all that. How he did it may be different, but we would have invaded Iraq anyway. Frankly we should have occupied Iraq totaly in the early 90s, ousting Saddam from power.

21. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,497 comments

    35   9:40am Wed 3 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says bob2356 says A technically true but incorrect statement from IWOG. Who would have thunk it. Technically true but incorrect? WTF does that mean? All I said is that a majority of Democrats voted against the patriot act in 2006 and gave a handy link so people can check for themselves. I really admire you ability to phrase things to carry your agenda without really meaning what they seem to mean. If you count all the democrats in congress it's technically true, but the house and senate had very different voting results which isn't reflected in your statement. The majority of democrats in the senate did not vote against the patriot act. So in one chamber the majority of democrats voted against it and in the other the majority voted for it. I say that has a very different meaning than your aggregate counting of both the chambers as if congress were some monolithic single voting bloc which implies that both chambers the majority democrats voted against.

22. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    36   12:04pm Wed 3 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   RayAmerica says Clarence 13X says Let me hear you say it “DEY TUK OUR JERBS!”…..come on, just one time. You’re not biased at all, are you Clarence? You think everyone that doesn’t fall on the ground every time a Black man speaks just has to be a red necked racist. I honestly feel sorry for people like you that are so full of hate and bitterness. Actually, that was a poke from South Park which was a parady on Mexicans taking the middle class, blue collar workers jerbs. How is it that you feel so comfortable siding with rednecked racists and rich narcissists if you in fact are not one of them?

23. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    37   12:09pm Wed 3 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   CBOEtrader says Troy says Everybody needs a $50,000 hip replacement, and the rich know that they’re going to be stuck with the bill in the end. Nonsense. The rich will make tons of money off of the new government healthcare plans, just like they have been doing for the past 30 years. For the time being the bill is being split between the middle to lower upper classes and the Chinese. I agree, now they simply have more customers to feed from. It still costs 40k for a emergency room visit and 10-20k for the birth of a child. Reform didnt tackle those issues....who is the heck makes 40k in one day for 8 hours of service?

24. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    38   12:11pm Wed 3 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   bob2356 says iwog says bob2356 says A technically true but incorrect statement from IWOG. Who would have thunk it. Technically true but incorrect? WTF does that mean? All I said is that a majority of Democrats voted against the patriot act in 2006 and gave a handy link so people can check for themselves. I really admire you ability to phrase things to carry your agenda without really meaning what they seem to mean. If you count all the democrats in congress it’s technically true, but the house and senate had very different voting results which isn’t reflected in your statement. The majority of democrats in the senate did not vote against the patriot act. So in one chamber the majority of democrats voted against it and in the other the majority voted for it. I say that has a very different meaning than your aggregate counting of both the chambers as if congress were some monolithic single voting bloc which implies that both chambers the majority democrats voted against. The folks in congress voted against it because it was the safe thing to do, prolly thought it would get them re-elected.

25. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

    39   3:05pm Wed 3 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Clarence 13X says The folks in congress voted against it because it was the safe thing to do, prolly thought it would get them re-elected. Indeed. Most of the Dems who voted against healtcare reform are now gone. They thought it would buy them some credit with their constituents but it did not. There is no gratitude for actual compromise. GOP has no interest in that.

26. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    40   4:01pm Wed 3 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Vicente says Clarence 13X says The folks in congress voted against it because it was the safe thing to do, prolly thought it would get them re-elected. Indeed. Most of the Dems who voted against healtcare reform are now gone. They thought it would buy them some credit with their constituents but it did not. There is no gratitude for actual compromise. GOP has no interest in that. Their only concern is big business profits, war spending and crushing the middle class. That being said, I assume the Dems only concern is major health care company profits, spreading homosexuality and increasing the middle class. I choose to vote Dem because of the history of FOCUSING on equal opportunity, voting rights, and civil rights....now if blacks could get them to focus on EDUCATION and PARENTING.

27. WillyWanker Follow Befriend (1) 9 threads 194 comments Beverly Hills, CA WillyWanker's website

    41   12:14am Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Clarence 13X says Vicente says Clarence 13X says The folks in congress voted against it because it was the safe thing to do, prolly thought it would get them re-elected. Indeed. Most of the Dems who voted against healtcare reform are now gone. They thought it would buy them some credit with their constituents but it did not. There is no gratitude for actual compromise. GOP has no interest in that. Their only concern is big business profits, war spending and crushing the middle class. That being said, I assume the Dems only concern is major health care company profits, spreading homosexuality and increasing the middle class. I choose to vote Dem because of the history of FOCUSING on equal opportunity, voting rights, and civil rights….now if blacks could get them to focus on EDUCATION and PARENTING. 'PARENTING'???!!! Let 'PARENTS' focus on 'PARENTING'. Since when is the government responsible for 'PARENTING'? I'm an Independent because I vote for the man or the woman whom I believe to be best for the job they are running for. I expect 'parents' to 'parent' their off~spring. And I'm extremely glad with the results of the elections. No more rubber~stamping Imam0bama's agenda. Let both parties hammer things out. It's best for the country. And best for the economy.

28. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 273 threads 12,502 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    42   12:29am Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   WillyWanker says And I’m extremely glad with the results of the elections. No more rubber~stamping Imam0bama’s agenda. Let both parties hammer things out. It’s best for the country. And best for the economy. Obama's agenda was to reverse 30 years of wealth redistribution to the rich and an attempt to bring higher wages and a higher standard of living to the working class. The CBO predicted that the health care bill would actually save money in the long run. Are they correct? I have no idea but I know they did a DAMN sight more research on it than you did. You helped sabotage his agenda. Government is now effectively shut down and the Republicans are going to hold a 1.5% tax cut for the working class hostage unless they can get 4% for the richest Americans. I have no idea what class YOU belong to, but you've made life harder for the vast majority of working Americans.

29. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    43   10:37am Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Obama’s agenda was to reverse 30 years of wealth redistribution to the rich and an attempt to bring higher wages and a higher standard of living to the working class. Shot! someone forgot to tell that to the 3 Billion Asian workers who earn less but still have a job they can count on ! And how exactly are we going to increase wages and higher standard of living for the working class ?

30. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 273 threads 12,502 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    44   10:47am Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   thomas.wong1986 says Shot! someone forgot to tell that to the 3 Billion Asian workers who earn less but still have a job they can count on ! And how exactly are we going to increase wages and higher standard of living for the working class ? By taking money away from the aristocracy through progressive taxes and inflation like we did from 1946 to 1980. We need to go back to what works.

31. Fisk Follow Befriend (1) 8 threads 242 comments

    45   1:44pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says thomas.wong1986 says By taking money away from the aristocracy through progressive taxes and inflation like we did from 1946 to 1980. We need to go back to what works. In those times, USA/Canada/AU and a handful of Northwest Europe countries were the only in the world with modern production capacity, operating a market economy. Thus they faced little competition for raw resources (oil, etc.) which were thus cheap and same little competition when selling final products which were thus expensive. This "monopoly on modernity" is what worked, along with rapid population growth and shorter lifespan that allowed fast economic growth, meaning much lower retired/working population and thus lower unproductive expenses on the elderly, and steady appreciation of stocks and RE. And brutal discrimination against women and non-whites didn't hurt (WASPs, that is), either. To start "going back to what works", how about firing all women, coloreds, and hispanics (including the pres.) from any career or professional job, or elected position? Then white anglo christian males would again enjoy great employment prospects and rapid career and economic progression, just like in blessed 1950-s.

32. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    46   1:59pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says By taking money away from the aristocracy through progressive taxes and inflation like we did from 1946 to 1980. A very good illustration of the radical thought pattern of one Iwog (Infatuated With Our Government).

33. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 273 threads 12,502 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    47   3:20pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   RayAmerica says A very good illustration of the radical thought pattern of one Iwog (Infatuated With Our Government). So you thought this country sucked from 1946 to 1980? Or is that simply another thing you refuse to talk about?

34. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    48   5:42pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says So you thought this country sucked from 1946 to 1980? As is typical, you judge the prosperity of post war America primarily on what you perceive to be a singular cause; "by taking money away from the aristocracy through progressive taxes and inflation..." I wish I could think in such simplistic terms. Life would be so much easier.

35. Fisk Follow Befriend (1) 8 threads 242 comments

    49   5:50pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   By taking money away from the aristocracy through progressive taxes and inflation like we did from 1946 to 1980. We need to go back to what works. In those times, USA/Canada/AU and a handful of Northwest Europe countries were the only in the world with modern production capacity, operating a market economy. Thus they faced little competition for raw resources (oil, etc.) which were thus cheap and same little competition when selling final products which were thus expensive. This “monopoly on modernity” is what worked, along with rapid population growth and shorter lifespan that allowed fast economic growth, meaning much lower retired/working population and thus lower unproductive expenses on the elderly, and steady appreciation of stocks and RE. And brutal discrimination against women and non-whites didn’t hurt (WASPs, that is), either. To start “going back to what works”, how about firing all women, coloreds, and hispanics (including the pres.) from any career or professional job, or elected position? Then white anglo christian males would again enjoy great employment prospects and rapid career and economic progression, just like in blessed 1950-s.

36. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    50   6:26pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Notice how Liberals like Iwog always want to "take money away?" Why don't they ever talk about creating wealth by creating allowing capitalism to work? JFK once said: "A rising tide raises all ships." What Liberals want is to drain the bay so there isn't any water to float any ship, precisely what happened to the Liberal Utopia AKA the Soviet Union.

37. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 273 threads 12,502 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    51   9:41pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Fisk says In those times, USA/Canada/AU and a handful of Northwest Europe countries were the only in the world with modern production capacity, operating a market economy. Thus they faced little competition for raw resources (oil, etc.) which were thus cheap and same little competition when selling final products which were thus expensive. This “monopoly on modernity” is what worked, along with rapid population growth and shorter lifespan that allowed fast economic growth, meaning much lower retired/working population and thus lower unproductive expenses on the elderly, and steady appreciation of stocks and RE. And brutal discrimination against women and non-whites didn’t hurt (WASPs, that is), either. To start “going back to what works”, how about firing all women, coloreds, and hispanics (including the pres.) from any career or professional job, or elected position? Then white anglo christian males would again enjoy great employment prospects and rapid career and economic progression, just like in blessed 1950-s. I fully acknowledge that this sounds good, but it's absolutely false and has nothing to do with United States prosperity between 1946 and 1980. 1. adjusted for inflation, oil was MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper in the 1990s and most of the 2000s than in the 1940s. 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Same goes for nearly every other natural resource. It's not even close. 2. Modern production capacity was exported to Japan and Germany with great success and by the 1960s both nations were fully industrialized with large export markets. They weren't a big factor in the United States because of strong tariffs. Blaming a high standard of living in 1980 on an industrial advantage in the early 1950s doesn't make any sense. 3. You claim the United States had an advantage due to value added from manufacturing and a large spread between raw materials and finished goods. This is measured through a combination of GDP and productivity. The increase in per capita real GDP is an ever increasing straight line. Our increase in productivity is also a straight line that actually starts to accelerate upward in the last 15 years or so. Therefore you have MORE TOTAL WEALTH BEING GENERATED THAN EVER BEFORE!!! PER PERSON, this nation has more wealth than ever before. As a nation we can afford a BETTER lifestyle, a LARGER house, MORE cars, BETTER food, HIGHER education and MORE medical care than we did in 1950, 1960, 1970, or 1980 for EACH and every American alive today. FACT! Why don't we? Why did one man earn enough money in 1950 to afford a house, a wife, a car and 2.5 kids? Yet TODAY when there is more wealth generated per person than ever before, it takes two incomes to live paycheck to paycheck? THERE is the issue!! You point to advantages between 1946-1980 then say things are harder today because we had it easy back then. Your premise is false. Any advantages between 1946 and 1980 are IRRELEVANT because this nation generates more wealth per person than it did anytime in previous history. Things are EASIER today. We can take bits of sand, turn them into an IPhone, and sell them for $600. 1950 has NOTHING on 2010 USA. Do I even have to say it? It takes two adult wages to barely survive in America today because most of the wealth we create is going to the rich. The economy is grinding to a halt today because a rich billionaire can drive one car while 100,000 workers splitting a billion dollars can drive 100,000 cars. If you let one man accumulate a billion dollars, the people who USED to have jobs making 100,000 cars can no longer earn a living.

38. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 273 threads 12,502 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    52   9:48pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   I purposely ignored your comments on race and sex as it relates to the workplace. The employment prospects for a black man in 1950 were far better than they are today. The employment prospects might have been worse for women, however women no longer have the option of staying home and raising kids. I don't think any of it is relevant. The United States generates more wealth per person, but the wealth is being sucked to the top and hoarded. Until that is fixed, things will continue to get worse. It is so incredibly simple!!!! The game of Monopoly is finished. There are a few winners and there are hundreds of millions of losers. We got along for awhile by having the winners loan money back to the losers, but even that remedy has run its course now. I'm not exaggerating what happens now. Either we redistribute the wealth through taxes, or we redistribute the wealth through inflation, or we die as an economic power. Period.

39. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    53   10:12pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Do I even have to say it? It takes two adult wages to barely survive in America today because most of the wealth we create is going to the rich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

40. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    54   10:13pm Thu 4 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says We got along for awhile by having the winners loan money back to the losers, but even that remedy has run its course now. Indeed http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

« First     « Previous comments     Next comments »     Last »