Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: While "both sides" point fingers the wars continue; unemployment and jobs without a living wage. A letter

Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 16, 2012, 11:20 p.m. EST by gsw (3406) from Woodbridge Township, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Please feel free to use the template to respond to cons or dems pointing fingers and complaining.

writes in the News: “ELECTION: An America I no longer recognize” 8/16

__ is rightly concerned for:“the administration that has had 30-plus months of over 8 percent unemployment...etc”.

However, "we the people" own “our administration”: Both Parties and branches of government: lobbyists; media, advertisers, individuals with money who control the messages, process, and results of the election, and provoke strong feelings of helplessness. What if, to broadcast a political add in the main media, a commensurate fee went to PBS or public radio to sponsor “non-corporate” candidates. While "both sides" point fingers the wars continue; unemployment and jobs without a living wage.

The people together: businesses, colleges and interested volunteers should implement the paths to continued education, work and skills needed by society.

The people seek positive leadership, opportunity to give back to the country and get it back on a right track.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." John F Kennedy Then, one nation, we can grow together. Visit: http://www.voterocky.org/ for more.

Please feel free to take these words or ideas and meld them to reply in letters to the editor to your public, when the duopoly points fingers and blames the sad state of affairs on either party.

You may even make drafts of your letters below.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

What we have in the U.S. is about 33% of the total voters, evenly split between neo conservatives and ultra liberals, dictating content on every story.

A couple of news story examples, the union battle in Wisconsin, and Gay Marriage. NEITHER STORY was intelligently dissected and and discussed by any cable news network as far as I know.

All the nation got out of it was that liberals are for gay marriage and unions, and neo conservatives are against gay marriage and for big business.

the problem is there was another 67% of the voting poplulation that is a either a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal, and they require more intelligent information on both topics before making a decsion.

However, out of panic, the moderates flock to either the progressives or the neo conservatives because the other side is painted so horribly by the polarizing media.

And that is why gridlock exists. The Moderate majority is pushed aside and most news stories are sensationalized by progressives and neo cons.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3406) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 11 years ago

There were divisions before, but without such bluster: compromise and action were not dirty words, work of congress coul get done. Now it is much worse, because of the money and sound bites

The reasoned voice and common good is what we should have.

People are fed up with congress. We want a vision of working toward a meaningful purpose as a nation of people with common goals and basic values.

But if everyone is moderate, seems like more would be around in politics.

Obama was center, tried to get along, and it got him little traction, even in his first term,.

I recall dems were way more gracious, gave bush a chance at first when elected.

Yea deficit was stupid, but why wasn't it addressed in good times. Cheney said they don't matter. I think the people would have allowed deficit reduction, via Simpson-bowls, but where was the willingness to compromise.

So, you will be treated as you are treated, and you will hear ideas from the left, cause it is time to do something different.

There were jobs bills, tax breaks for business, ideas to get people to work, but nothing can get done cause people feel they can stop the government and score points with their base, especially on the right. They have nothing to loose. Except the faith and good will of the people.

Now, the liberals had been silent and got along in the hope free trade, and lower taxes would juice the economy, but they see it has been a lie. Fewer jobs created when wealthy keep their money. It doesn't tricle down.

So we will be doing some trickle up, and new ideas are going to be offered, up.

We want people to be able to work, and more opportunity for the American dream. If that means volunteering at habitat for humanity, businesses working with universities and schools more collaboratively, bring it on.

Let's work together again. Let us attempt to figure solutions. Why does there have to be hatefiull division. Are we not like one family. One nation. Let ideas have a chance. Don't just shut them down with closed mind, doing the same is insanity.

So be prepared to deal with the left. We are coming out to stand for justice and good, and progress and health, and caring too. We've had it with the conservative, and the moderate figure out how to get the sides speaking, if they are paying attention.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

I have a different take on Obama's first term. He was so conceited he applied for a Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything of note, wanted the Olympics in Chicago for the end of his second term as a way to top off his 8 year fantasy island trip where it's all about him.

Then at the start of his presidency, he wanted to reward his supporters with huge stimulus packages. Yes, the republicans would probably have done the same thing with the military.

I don't think that Hillary Clinton would have done what Obama did, and what Romney will proably do. Obama was not a centrist, Bill Clinton was liberal turned centrist and that really upset the progressive liberals,which is why Hillary Clinton was bounced out in 2008.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3406) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 11 years ago

Hillary was my champion till Obama had primary won. Not my first choice.

Stimulus was bush too. Thernwerevgood things from stimulus: google Time magazine "yes more solyndras" michael gunwale August 28 2012 to see it wasn't a complete waste, as is prpogandized. There were inventions of new batteries, we increased wind production manufacturing.

If business would create jobs, reinvest some of the record profit they have amassed, and we could get business to partner with community college, or university to get the type of skilled labor, and if people had money, it would get back into economy. We are tapped out, spent out, paycheck to paycheck everyone I know, we have nothing left to give. Now we see some have not sacrificed, they have enjoyed thevsuccessvof the capital model, and we.re going to put safeguards to protect ourselves, cause no one is looking out for us. So this is why the giant will be awakened. Karma will balance all.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

Obama did not really win the democrat primary in 2008. There were several huge delegate manipulations behind the scenes that allowed Obama to end up with a tiny majority.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

What I've wondered is if exposure to Obama's politics has not pushed Hilary further right. There is no doubt that she has adopted a centrist image.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

Hillary Clinton knows what would work and what would not work. Obama might know, but if he does know, he is so beholden to wall street he won't implement real reform. Heck, the Glass / Stegall reimplementation was taken off the democrat platform by Obama operatives even though it had over 50% support among all democrat platform members.

Plus, Obama has all kind of personal issues about his own life that cloud his judgement. Because of his own life, including a missing dad and an inattentive mom, Obama MUST get credit for any economic success during his time as president.

Obama's idea of putting more money credit out into the economy (which then turns into more debt on people's backs) to create the illusion of prosperity for a very short while is what he is about first and foremost. Obama is a banker, he looks like a Banker, he dresses like a banker, he acts like a banker, Obama thinks like a Banker.

Banker, Banker, Banker.

I think Hillary Clinton would have been, and still would be, more about financial responsibility where possible, and financial forgiveness of the kind that gives people a chance, but not a freebie.

Bill Clinton had many successes during his terms in office, however, conservatives take the credit for certain things that helped the economy, like workfare, while progressive democrats lambasted Bill Clinton for workfare. Yet, overall, workfare was probably a good thing, and Bill Clinton kept sending it back to the senate before he finally signed it.

Don't ask, Don't tell. Another excellent compromise at that time. Republicans grudgingly accepted it, Progressives spat on it as an insult.

And yet, to use a gang example for the Military version of Don't ask Don't tell, if street thugs never asked, "where are you from", there might be less gang killings, so Don't Ask, Don't Tell was brilliant for its time as a way to protect gay soldiers from inquisitions.

Health care, Hillary Clinton tried, and the Clintons gave up when they realized there were other more pressing problems to deal with. Obama has made it a centerpiece of disruption and look over here while both parties rob mainstreet through outrageous consumer debt levels with no incentive programs to help main street pay down their debts.

Parallel Foreclosure, Obama thinks this violation of the constitution IS LEGAL! NO WAY Hillary Clinton would have let parallel foreclosure stand.

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

My overall impression of the Clinton political history is not good at all; on the other hand they too are self-made individuals.

There were memorable high points and low points in the Clinton Presidency: I still believe don't ask, don't tell, is the best policy, then or now, but watching him shake hands with Arafat really threw me; I know the insincere handshake is the way of politics, and that it occurs everyday, but this was a man we believed to have American blood on his hands - a really despicable act and a very sad moment in our history. If rumors of Arafat's demise are to be believed, than I willfully recant that statement.

Obama is a non-Constitutionalist, more accurately - he is an anti-Constitutionalist - this administration has violated American rights on various fronts and it will continue to do so.

I don't think there is any way possible that a female could possibly screw things up more, or introduce any more anti-americanism, or any more moral, ethical, political or lawful corruption than past presidencies have. But she's going to have to be a centrist, she must be a centrist if she is to attract and command any respect at all.

[-] 0 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

I think Hillary Clinton is a centrist. It's Obama that is so liberal that he cannot deal with the republicans at all.

[-] -2 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

Well she's certainly closer to center than he is and she has the benefit of failure as her experience.

[-] -1 points by jbgramps (159) 11 years ago

My rule is to never vote for the incumbent; in any election. Last time I voted for the black guy, this time I’m voting for the white guy. This rule applied by the masses would fix a lot of problems.

[-] 0 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 11 years ago

Actually the real war is in Afghanistan. Yet I here nothing about it from either campaign.


[-] 2 points by gsw (3406) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 11 years ago

So we should just hunker down. The great depression was a long time in healing too.

I'm doing my part by working less days a week.

I can't spend as much, now. Benifit = Less Driving

And time to agitate for system change. The rulers are not working for us, but the poor rich guys, so they should have a change of scenery. Ban L obbysts!

Buffet rule: if deficit is more than 3 percent of GDP, none of the legislators can be reflected.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 11 years ago

It helps to consider "working less" in the context of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/sales-of-luxury-goods-are-recovering-strongly.html

“If a designer shoe goes up from $800 to $860, who notices?” said Arnold Aronson, managing director of retail strategies at the consulting firm Kurt Salmon, and the former chairman and chief executive of Saks.

“This group is key because the top 5 percent of income earners accounts for about one-third of spending, and the top 20 percent accounts for close to 60 percent of spending,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “That was key to why we suffered such a bad recession — their spending fell very sharply.”

Part of the demand is also driven by the snob factor: at luxury stores, higher prices are often considered a mark of quality.

Most of the 1% work; only 5% of them don't work.

While the Buffet rule would fix the deficit, it wouldn't fix unemployment. Politicians would still be voted out of office for not fixing unemployment, despite that it is very easy to fix if rich people just work less.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

Lowering consumer debt would rebalance the economy and would also allow people to work less to have the same.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 11 years ago

Going bankrupt is always an option if people want to get rid of their debt (except for student loans, of course).

See above comment. If the rich work less we can create more jobs with no drawbacks.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

Bankruptcy exists because banks won't allow debts to be restructured without some type of trashing of the debtor's reputations and credit rating, first.

Bankruptcy tops that list.

We need a new list.

A bill of rights for consumers. At the top of that Bill of Rights list should be, debt restructure is not a default.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 11 years ago

Would very rich people get to take advantage of this too? Charge up a few million in credit card debt, and then "restructure" it and end up with lower debt?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

Excellent question, Misaki. You had me stumped on that one.

to clairfy, the interest rate would be lower, not the debt. I think a wonderful compromise would be to say yes, however, their monthly percentage payment would have to be much bigger, say, 10% of the total due.

The very rich could take advantage, but they would be paying off the debt much quicker.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 11 years ago

In regards to high interest rates, I think the best solution is to just make sure people actually have a job so they don't need to get deep in debt.

Predatory interest rates are supposed to be illegal but even at the legal rates, some people still take on too much debt.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 11 years ago

It's not the interest rate that causes people to go too far into debt, it's the amount they are required to pay back every month. If the credit card monthly minimum had been 10% of the total due back in the day when credit cards took off, there would be very few people too far in debt.

The 2% minimum is what entraps most borrowers, it's just too low of a monthly minimum. However it should not be raised until consumers first lower their debts via no more interest charges, penalties or fees.