The handwriting is on the wall. Recent votes on class action lawsuits, bankruptcy and the minimum wage, along with Bush's sham budget, signal that the social safety net so laboriously constructed over 70 years is being torn apart thread by thread. We now have a governnment of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy.The many millions of low income Americans who voted to reelect this administration-along with all those who didn't bother to vote at all-have cut their own throats. That famous immortal Being said, "the poor will always be with us." In this case, their will be more and more poor. What have you sown Mr. Bush?
What have you sown Mr. Bush? Uh, I don't think he's a registered Fool. Maybe you could try email@example.comGood luck.Dave
Of course he's a fool. The fact that you responded makes it worthwhile. After all, Mr. Bush limits his reading to listening to others read to him.
The handwriting is on the wall. Recent votes on class action lawsuits, bankruptcy and the minimum wage, along with Bush's sham budget, signal that the social safety net so laboriously constructed over 70 years is being torn apart thread by thread.And I'm sure that you were complaining when that hero of the "little people", Bubba Clinton, signed welfare reform passed by a Republican house and Democratic senate. This nonsense that any change passed by Republicans is de facto evil is just that, NONSENSE...As you against the passing of a bankruptcy law change, I guess you don't mind when some people run up outlandish balances on their credit cards and then, by filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, they were just walking away from all of that debt. The primary change in the law provides a change whereby, people who have income will be required to file Chapter 13, which means they PAY BACK SOME of their debts. I don't understand why you can't support that kind of change.You now get to experience the same angst that Republicans had for 70 yrs while the fabric of socialism was woven by the Democrats - thread by thread. The electorate has changed - their call for more socialism is dimished. As long as the Dems continue to whine about why we can't have more socialism in this country, they will continue to lose elections. If you can't win elections, you shouldn't expect to have the opposition adopt your platform...
America is replete with socialism. We are bursting at the seams with socialism. It is dominating our society and causing democracy to die on the vine! Corporate socialism is extant. Corporations are buying our politicians so that their $power$, $$influence$$ and $$$tax breaks$$$ keep coming.Corporate socialism rules America.
Corporations are buying our politicians so that their $power$, $$influence$$ and $$$tax breaks$$$ keep coming....are you suggesting that corporate interests were not buying influence for the 40+ yrs that the Dems controlled congress? ...are you suggesting that only Republican presidents are corrupted by corporate $ influence?...If you believe either item above is true, you are clearly living in delusion...
...the social safety net so laboriously constructed over 70 years is being torn apart thread by thread.Some of us actually like this, having looked at examples of countries with "stronger" social safety nets. The Soviet Union used to have a social safety net, as did most of the Eastern block countries. At this point they have thrown away the safety net you so much desire and are rushing as fast as they can toward free enterprise.We now have a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. And just what is wrong with this? If you wish to join in the mainstream of this coountry you will find that the people currently in power want you to do so. What it takes is work, saving, investing, and taking personal responsibility for your own future.Actually it has always been the case, that we had "a governnment of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy", but the "social safety net" was laboriously constructed to prevent people in the working class from rising to even modest wealth. Why do you think we have an income tax rather than a wealth tax? The answer is that the architects of this wonderful "social safety net" were wealthy people. When they needed money to pay for their safety net, they taxed those who worked harder or smarter than average, but always those who worked, never those who had made or inherited great fortunes. The current administration is dismantling some of the barriers to economic advancement which have been "laboriously constructed over the past 70 years." And rightly so.They are not trying to reduce government support for the truely disabled and the victims of pure bad luck, but they are sayng that those who have disqualified themselves from participating in the American economy by refusing to take advantage of the free education provided to them; who would rather hang out on street corners than actually dress up, show some respect for potential employers and go out and get a job; who think that they deserve a good living and a safety net just by virtue of being born in the US, should shoulder more responsibility for the consequences of their own actions and have no right to take my tax money to support their slothful lives. Just exactly what part of this offends you? P.S. Since most of the old communist countries with such a wonderful safety net seem to have gone out of business, your options for voting with your feet and moving there are more limited that they were two decades ago, but Cuba and North Korea still seem to be available. If you are willing to accept less of a safety net, but still more than the US provides, you could try many of the western European countries. But, be aware they have substantially lower standards of living than the US, and unemployment rates in the 10% range. They too are discovering that a "social safety net" is really a lazy man's boon.
The handwriting is on the wall. Recent votes on class action lawsuits, bankruptcy and the minimum wage, along with Bush's sham budget, signal that the social safety net so laboriously constructed over 70 years is being torn apart thread by thread. We now have a governnment of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy.A few questions for you:1) Have you read the class action lawsuit changes? Can you explain the impact it has on the poor, as opposed to the wealthy lawyers? Can you tell us what would change as a result of the legislation?2) Have you read the changes regarding bankruptcy? Do you know that for someone that is unemployed nothing has changed? Do you know that the wealthy who file bankruptcy (yes, there is a lot of this) will have to payback some of the money they owe instead of sticking it to all of their lenders? 3) Can you explain the benefit to society as a whole (aka the economy), as opposed to the benefit of a single segment of society, that is realised through implementing and incrementing a minimum wage? Lawyers and, in some cases, local governments make more from class action suits than the people the suit is supposedly representing. I was part of a class action suit against Sears several years ago. I got some coupons that I could use at Sears to get money off of purchases. In other words, in order to get my compensation for Sears' wrong doing toward me, I had to spend more money with Sears. The law firm that handled the suit received millions of dollars in the settlement.I agree that I'd like to see something that makes the lender better manage who they are lending to. However, then the complaint would be that only the wealthy can borrow money. I understand that people like to complain about the evils of lending regardless of whether it is lending to someone that cannot pay it back or not lending to someone that has no means to pay it back. I'd say they are damned if the do and a damned if they don't in this case.In the long term, the minimum wage law does not even benefit the people it is targetted to benefit. In some cases it prevents a person from getting a job at all. The fact is that there are some people who do not have skills and intelligence enough to do more than the most menial tasks. They tend to work for a very small wage doing work that can either be done by anyone or don't really need to be done, but make the person feel they are earning money instead of depending on charity. Minimum wage increases force some employers to reconsider the value of giving that person a job in order to feel good. The higher the wage, or more accurately the greater the increment in minimum wage, the more people included in the group. I've been told by minimum wage supporters that arbitrarily changing the minimum wage to $25/hour would harm the economy and cause inflation and rampant unemployment. They claim this is due to the arbitrary nature of my $25 figure. I would be willing to accept this IF they, or you, could prove to me that the $1.10 increase that is being pushed is not arbitrary. All I request is the math and logic behind this precise amount.If you cannot answer the questions above, then you cannot contend that any of the changes you note will harm the economy or cause for a larger percent of poor people in the US. If you can answer the questions above with solid reason, then you may change my position on these issues.Keith
Yer nuts.Nothing is going to happen this year, and probably nothing will happen during the Bush administration.The Bush will probably say, well we tried to fix it, now we'll let it go bankrupt.
>>Corporate socialism rules America.<<Wow, just figured that out, did you?