patrick.net

uomo_senza_nome says

The disparity actually declined during Clinton's second term.

Welfare reform.. thats because many had to work to get incomes. Work what a concept!

President Clinton: “It Is Now Clearly Better To Go To Work Than To Stay On Welfare—Clearly Better.”

CLINTON: “It is now clearly better to go to work than to stay on welfare—clearly better. Because of actions taken by the Congress in this session, it is clearly better. And what we have to do now is to make that work a reality.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks, Washington, D.C., 8/22/96)

All you got is hate.

he hates "personal success" is more in line with how his statements are being interpreted...

DukeLaw says

He hates success (a more nuanced view is acknowledging that our infrastructure is what allows success to happen)

Just wondering...why would you want non-citizens and dead people to vote?

DukeLaw says

He hates freedom (hmmm, who's supporting the suppression of voters? Read up on that issue please)

Whats absolutely true in that article is that any increase in costs from OC to businesses will be passed on directly to the consumer....
I don't think they will be "crushing" costs, but they will be passed on. You might as well just raise taxes...the effect will be the same.

Honest Abe says

http://moneymorning.com/ob/5-hidden-obamacare-taxes-that-will-crush-the-middle-class/

Just keep pretinding the government is telling you the truth. They mix it up with lies so it tastes real good, and you guys eat it up.

When it comes to corporate-friendliness, we just have to look at the actions our 'representatives' (including presidents) have taken over the years.
Who started the EPA?
Nixon
Who got us NAFTA?
Clinton
Who signed us up for forced payments to insurance corporations without representation on pricing?
Obama and a not-very-Democrat legislature, using a plan generated by Newt Gingrich to keep us all off the Medicare rolls (Hillarycare).

Obama was the best Republican in the Republican primary news stories. Everyone else was just trying to be Not-Obama. Romney won because he was the least insane (Ron Paul was blacklisted) Neo-Blue Dog Democrat in the race.

Now, look at the Republican platform, the Democrat platform, and the Green Party platform. Does anyone think that any of them are actually following their own ideologies or are they just spewing rhetoric while actually just trying to get in on the money that corporations have?

To make claims about what Obama hates or doesn't hate is useless when the direction of the country is governed by the flow of money, not ideology. It doesn't matter what they say or believe because they will DO what their handlers tell them to do.
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket. We all vote every day at the gas station and the grocery store: the ONLY votes that count.

Auntiegrav: the only sensible htought here today, thanks

uomo_senza_nome says

Mitt Romney says:

The gap between the rich and the poor has gotten larger under this president

I am for Romney however where this media crap about division and gains is concerned I want to know how much of this so-called gap is statistical based maybe a dreamers smoke and mirrors real estate guess'timent that their shacks are worth five times real value or potentially the pumping of a valueless IPO? I mean gains or outright manipulation of reality. I do not believe 99% of this. I do not see where this illusionary 1% has 300% gains. These rants about 1% are well-orchestrated and in my view are put out there en masse to bullshite the average moron into anger for an agenda.

The simple truth is this: obama has completly failed to deliver on his campaign promises. He's failed America once, why give him the chance to fail a second time.

IOW, he hasn't earned the right for a second term.

Honest Abe says

The simple truth is this: obama has completly failed to deliver on his campaign promises. He's failed America once, why give him the chance to fail a second time.

IOW, he hasn't earned the right for a second term.

I totally agree. If there were a candidate less scary than Romney I would vote for him/her in a heartbeat. Out of 320 million people the best we could come up with is Obama and Romney. That's pathetic. The nomination system is totally fkd.

Has anyone seen this movie yet ? "2016 The Movie" ?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/wUjAcK7KHvA

Funny chance photos make the President look like a teleprompter or a wizard, but in reality he is an imperfect person (as we all are) working in a difficult system (as we all know). I really wish the Republicans had nominated someone better, but instead they nominated someone clearly worse, who chose an even worse running mate. Ron Paul outpolled the President nationally, but alas not among Republicans. Romney and Ryan deserve to lose, more than anyone else does.

Call it Crazy says

bob2356 says

I totally agree. If there were a candidate less scary than Romney I would vote for him/her in a heartbeat. Out of 320 million people the best we could come up with is Obama and Romney. That's pathetic. The nomination system is totally fkd.

Everyone, Read that again... out 320 MILLION people, the best we could come up with is Obama and Romney... let that sink in for a minute!!

Absolutely Agree!!! This is the post of the year!!!!!!

It's not the candidates that are the issue, it's the structure they have to operate in. And if you think that was post of the year, I suggest you find yourself a new forum.

In all honesty, I wouldn't worry about partisan politics. In 15-20 years, everyone will be replaced by robots.

And then, those who didn't make their millions between now and then will be completely screwed.

Then, who will the Republicans represent? The owners of the AI/robotics companies?

Sirs:

The chart is flat until 1993-94 timeframe where the bigger economic mass was sent into motion; NAFTA. This is why the bottom 60% is down in comparison. Yes shifting 85% of non tech and tech manufacturing (~ 15 M Jobs) offshore in 18 years is more than a ripple effect.

Google "Youtube perot gore NAFTA debate"

uomo_senza_nome says

Mitt Romney says:

The gap between the rich and the poor has gotten larger under this president

Honest Abe,

Spare a moment as I let data get in the way of empty rhetoric.

Where is the empty rhetroic? Can you read a chart? There is a flow and where is this today? Don't cut off at '07. The direct severe jump was under the current administration not to mention the spending. You are losing site of the fact of how things flow and statistics are gathered.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

It's not the candidates that are the issue, it's the structure they have to operate in. And if you think that was post of the year, I suggest you find yourself a new forum.

My point was made to the lurkers on this forum and the other posters who think EITHER candidate will make a difference.

Sorry if that point went over your head and you didn't understand it...

I'll type slower for you next time so you can keep up.....

Presumably you don't know the meaning of the word everyone then, as in 'Everyone, Read that again.' You know perhaps you should reread your own posts before trying to act the smart arse.

so it was clinton's fault all along....

Entitlemented says

Sirs:

The chart is flat until 1993-94 timeframe where the bigger economic mass was sent into motion; NAFTA. This is why the bottom 60% is down in comparison. Yes shifting 85% of non tech and tech manufacturing (~ 15 M Jobs) offshore in 18 years is more than a ripple effect.

Google "Youtube perot gore NAFTA debate"

so i take it you two are roommates then....

Call it Crazy says

I'll type slower for you next time so you can keep up.....

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Presumably you don't know the meaning of the word everyone then, as in 'Everyone, Read that again.

Sorry, I didn't mean to include YOU in the "everyone" group.... I realize you are way MORE superior to us average posters here....

I'll try to do better next time and try not to include you in my posts..

Not quite the response you made in the previous post, is it?

And I've read plenty of your posts. I would be more than happy not to be included in them.

Reader says

The direct severe jump was under the current administration not to mention the spending. You are losing site of the fact of how things flow and statistics are gathered.

Are you nuts?
Is the severe jump under current administration Obama's fault? Why did it even trend that high since 2001? Were you asleep when Bush tax cuts happened?