I have watched the last few speeches of Obama and he blames the Republicans for everything followed by Congress. Everything is everybody elses' fault.

The raw fact is Obama promised jobs. Where are they? A few thousand MAYBE? In government work? We need MILLIONS of jobs. All we get is promises for more hand outs. More unemployment extensions. And worst is that half black bastard wants to raise taxes on the people making $1 or more million dollars. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE Propping up middle class America with work, not the bankers. not the speculators! Obama is attacking Middle Class America and blaming them for being the wealthy that reap the greatest tax benefits! Again how can GE make $7OO BILLION DOLLARS and pay NO TAXES for the year? They get special tax loopholes JUST FOR THEM. And who's job is it to do something about that? Obama and Congress, but what do we get? Attacks on those who are the bread winners of America. Obama is SO SUPER GUILTY of class warfare.

And about those reforms Obama promised?

Odd, cause everytime I hear him speak , I hear the term 'we' used much more often than reference to republicans or democrats or congress,,,

but we dont all hear the same things when we listen,,,

I also dont understand the assumption that those making 1 million or more are 'middle' class or how they are holding up the middle class,,,

This is NOT TRUE!-
People are hurting not because corporations or the rich, they are because the government is pursuing bad policies.

Wall streets collapse,,was SOLELY DONE through the Corporations(rich) use to have investors(rich) invest in what THEY KNEW were fraudulent swaps of properties not worth the monies being given for them..By doing THAT,,they cheated the system,,cheated their investors, and cheated the Government from seeing it or paying its Representatives to turn their heads...
And because of THOSE FIRMS(corporations included) AMERICA WENT BUSTED,,as for Wall Street Stocks,,anyway...
And what caused all THAT to transpire?
GREED and MISAPPROPRIATIONS OF INVESTORS MONIES AND LIES TOLD ON ALL OF IT..
This is STILL being done on Wall Street,,the illegal swaps of realistate...and it shall once again build and EXPLODE,,because American Corporations FEEL THEY HAVE TO INCREASE THEIR STOCKS WORTH EACH MONTH OR YEAR TO HAVE INVESTORS BUYING THEIR STOCKS.
IF,,The boards of these firms could just settle,,on a smaller profit rather than putting GREAT margins of greater profits to be MET,,,They could stay volatile as well as they investors,,,but THEY WANT AND DEMAND MORE,,,and there HAS TO BE AN END,,,TO ANY COMPANIES PROFITABILITIES IN AND THROUGH TIME AND INVESTORS..
Corporations USE people and workers while making their monies,,THEN,,they wash their hands of all in-involved and move away.
Leaving behind,,its workers,,the tax breaks for their State and Gov.,,and their land to set and waste...
MANY WORKERS SPENDING HALF THEIR LIVES THERE WORKING HARD.
Now they have to draw unemployment and and what of their retirements monies?
Mean while their Company moved to Mexico and re-bought land and built a new factory and hired cheap labor,,and started right back up,,and SELLING THEIR GOODS BACK HERE IN THE USA.
WITH NO PENALTIES FOR LEAVING THEIR FINANCIAL HOLE IN THE COMMUNITIES THEY ABANDONED TO GO MAKE THERE MONIES..?
THATS ALL FROM WALL STREET GOING DOWN,,AND THE BILLIONS IN BAIL-OUTS OUR GOV. SPENT,,GIVING IT TO THEM SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANOTHER GREAT DEPRESSION...And THIS COUNTRY wasn't founded solely on the abilities its people had to become wealthy,,,IT WAS A PLACE TO LIVE FREE AND IN PEACE,,and still remain as a whole united as ONE,,,,NOT divided into sections of who has and who has not...

The whole housing crisis was caused BECAUSE of bad government policies and incorrect signalling caused by these policies.

Fanny and Freddy which are extensions of the US government began providing low interest loans to home buyers who met their criteria: minorities and black who's credit were in the ditch, were under-employed and therefore could not access credit markets unless they did so a very high or unfordable interest rates.

Here we have in essence the government creating a corporation within the marketplace handing out loans at cut rate to people who could not purchase a home otherwise at prime plus 5% and later dropping down to the sub prime rates. With a such low rates, how were the banks supposed to lend and make a profit? The banks are not backed by the government so as to make loans that would eat into profit.

So if the government is giving low interest and later sub-prime loans to the undeserving (because they are from some loud mouthed minority which claim special rights) due to their lack of good credit what are banks supposed to do to bring customers who have better credit ratings? Should they not get mortgages at even lower rates than those who could get loans from Freddy and Fanny? Fanny and Freddy were competing with the banks for customers after all undercutting thier ability to make a profit.

The whole housing bubble was created by the government, re. Democrats who started the program and pursued a policy to lower interest rates through market manipulation.

Other factors were the deregulation of money markets (a good thing) but high corporate taxes (bad thing). So there was much a glut of money waiting to be invested but not enough business to invest in due to regulation and high taxes which causes over investment and inevitably PE ratios climbed and there was less return per $ invested. The government should have lowered corporate tax rates and eased regulations (especially start up regulations) for businesses. In Hong Kong it takes but a day to do the paperwork tho start up a company, but it takes about 3 to 4 months in the US, for what?

As for slavery we did not grab Africans and drag them over here. Slavery was endemic in Africa. Traders were either Muslims or tribesmen who captured them in war or just sold a fellow neighbor. In the beginning there were no slaves in America only indentured servitude of 20 years after which he was given freedom, money and 250 acres of land in return for his service also known as the headright system. However, then came Anthony Johnson who owned a slave John Casor who claimed the very same compensation from Johnson. However, Johnson was not about to pay Casor for his work. Johnson took Casor to court and claimed that he was a servant for life in 1653. John Casor thereby became the first slave in the colony. Who was Anthony Johnson? A black African from Angola! Because of precedence in common law other merchants, farmers etc claimed that black African servants were now slaves and in doing so did not have to pay the servants with money and land.

A little history regarding the origin of slavery in the United States.

This is poppycock. This article describes how the recession in Canada was very quick and precipitous under your Conservative Prime Minister. In fact, Canada went through the full double-dip under your Conservative Prime Minister. The reason for Canada's quicker recovery was because household spending was maintained at a high level. Real Economists talk about aggregate demand, and that is something Mr. Harper was able to maintain. (Every Keynesian understands this concept chrystal clear, while it is a complete mystery to American Conservatives, who are doing everything they can to kill aggregate demand in the American economy.)


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/why-canadas-recession-wasnt-as-brutal/article1868809/



This is just silly Conservative, Faux News rhetoric.


As I wrote, the actual corporate taxes paid in America are about half of the published rates.


http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

Your rant about high American Corporate taxes is simply twaddle.

Another faux News myth. Fanny and Freddy Mae do not and never have provided any kinds of loan to anybody. They are not lending institutions. What we are getting from you is the whole faux News fairy tale that we have seen over and over again. We point out the facts repeatedly, but it goes in one ear and out the other.

it does not take 3 to 4 months to start up a company

I have family members who have companies, it takes as long as the individual takes to fill in paperwork

my cousin did it in one day,,,

an angolan african named Anthony Johnson,, that is indeed an interesting story,,,
lol


but, they did RENAME the slaves and servants

but lets think deeper , shall we, how could mr 'johnson' had claimed that he had a slave for life if no such thing existed yet,,?

he probably couldnt

so , lets research further,

In the case of Johnson vs Parker, the court of Northampton County upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave, saying in its ruling of 8 March 1655:[7]

This daye Anthony Johnson negro made his complaint to the court against mr. Robert Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro under the pretence that said negro was a free man. The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master ... It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.[6][8]


TAKE NOTE , thats in 1655


lets go back further, shall we

Whereas Hugh Gwyn hath . . . brought back from Maryland three servants formerly run away . . . the court doth . . . order [that] the first serve out their times with their master according to their indentures, . . . and that [the] third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere." A Virginia Court Decision (1640) from Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (January 1898), vol. 5, no. 3, p. 236.


TAKE NOTE, thats in 1640


..not that any of it is relevant to the discussion at hand,,

LOL Perhaps you should query a dictionary regarding the definition of "analogy". Perhaps the name of the Angolan having an English name vexes your mind, perhaps that is why baby names such as Aushaniquia, Bonquawalaqweisha, Cheoniquiana, Deshamanequa, Equashenay ... Shanishaniquaisanana ... Zimonquillashawnda and other excessive wastage of the Latin alphabet mystify many. I guess someone can write a book on how such names get manufactured to confuse those of us who get tongue tied. Of course nowhere in Africa are there such wastages a paper just to write one's name. Appears to be an American phenomena.

Back to the subject, the 20 year term of indenture was considered a contract. Breaking of a contract could bring a lengthened period of indenture. Crimes such as murder, theft of the master's property can and did extend the such terms of indenture. Such cases can be foudn well before 1640 and are found in common law. Indentures were not limited to the blacks came from Africa but to also many immigrants especially those arriving from feudal states in Europe.

Prior to Johnson v. Parker there was no slavery per se. Johnson who owned several indentured servents did not want to loose the headright land that would have to be transfered to his servants. It was Johnson who was the first slave master and Casor the first slave in the true sense as in being owned by right. Whereas prior it was conferable only by a court upon judgement in the colonies.

Some truth to that, but had it not been for the moral hazard introduced by the FED's injections of liquidity (quantitative easing) and congress' long history of bailing out/propping up corporations and governments (foreign and domestic), the system wouldn't have gone out of control and collapsed like a flimsy house of cards to begin with. The worst that could have happened in a sane monetary system would be brief panics followed by recovery. (such as the Panic of 1819)

slave in the true sense,, ? although a court DECIDED His fate?

make up your mind there,,,,


the courts decided both cases ( in 1940 and 1955), so they would be in an equal 'true sense'

So, since one African owned another African in the sense of the second being declared chattel, EVERYBODY gets a free pass on such morally repugnant behaviour?

No dice. That's the "Everybody does it excuse" (and you KNOW what your mother would have thought about that one!), more formally known as the 'Appeal to Common Practice' logical fallacy. I would have thought all Mensans would be well-versed on these well-known fallacies.

Wow! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is right out the window.

-Kerry O.

what is a mensan kerry?....lol

In criticizing his fallacies, you committed a few of your own. The No True Scotsman fallacy (I would have thought all Mensans would be well-versed on these well-known fallacies.) The Fallacy fallacy (more formally known as the 'Appeal to Common Practice' logical fallacy.-just because it is fallacious does not make it false. Common Law, a "common practice", has been used throughout American history and still is today to an extent).

Cheers
HB.

In reply to KerryO...

If you have the ability to read what was written I was merely showing how slavery came into being in the North America. Nowhere have I justified that, merely if one was to some blacks "house negros" because they are conservative if given a pass by the black leadership in America. I was merely illustrating the the precedence in common law in the American colony (under English Common Law) was set by a black who wanted to enslave another black in contravention of the general accepted practice of the time.

Attempting to blame others (as in "whites") for slavery or the current population of the United States is spurious. American did not go and grab slaves from Africa but rather Africans and Muslims sold slaves in market places all over Africa and Arabia. Mohamed (Islam's "prophet") kept and traded many slaves whom he took as booty in war (female slaves such as Safyia after her father, husband and brothers were killed by Mohamed) or purchased outright at the suq. The system of indentured servitude unlike slavery was a commonly accepted practice since feudal era to own land for peasants tied to the land.

It is noteworthy that it was the Republicans who fought for the freeing of the slaves and gave blacks the vote. When democrats voted 61% to 39% in favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while the Republicans voted 80%-20% in favor. Conservative have defended the rights of blacks while the Democrats have not. Now I mean real right not assumed right.

As far back as the 13th Century scholastic philosophers such as Aquinas have spoke about these rights (for Aquinas these were rights conferred by God). John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government again innumerates these rights (in a more secular vein). These rights are life liberty and pursuit of happiness (not the guarantee of). But these are not rights conferred to a group but to every individual.

The problem today is that special rights are being demanded by groups for groups. Take affirmative action for example which invariably requires discrimination against an innocent person. Take the LSAT, which is considered the hardest admission test, many applicants prepare a year beforehand for the LSAT). When one writes the LSAT you may chose to check which racial group one belongs too. Depending on the University, a black can be alloted for purposes of admission more points. A low score of 149 suddenly can be valued as a 169 which is good enough to be considered for Harvard or Yale.

Or take a government which has diversity requirements as some first responders (police firefighter or EMT). We would expect the individuals who score the highest would be called on to fill such positions. But depending on the city or state, a lesser qualified individual may have to be chosen ahead of a higher scoring individual to meet racial quota requirement.

Are these not repugnant to an individuals sense of justice? Yet these are rights demanded by groups for groups as rights or redresses.

1. political parties have 'evolved' since the civil rights days
when we had NORTHERN and SOUTHERN(confederate) democrats and NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN(confederate) republicans,,,


confederats didnt vote for ANYTHING in favor of negros
northerners , both democrat and republican,, did


in passing civil rights the ratio of northern to southern in the senate was as follows
68%-32% democrats (in line with the vote to pass the bill)
96% - 4% republican (a little off from the numbers which passed the bill)


2.Affirmative Action is not discrimination.

3.When one 'writes' the LSAT,depending upon the college, points can be added for what Neighborhood they are from, or whether they are related to alumni, or a whole host of other reasons as the college sees fit,,,

4.racial quotas are issued by JUDGES, not part of affirmative action
they are in response to cases where discrimination of a protected group have been PROVEN Against a company or corporation,,to rectify the blatantly manipulated imbalance

balance and reperation are never repugnant to my senses,,,

stereotypes of 'loud mouthed minorities' , who are 'undeserving' of home ownership, because they obviously forewent the right choices to 'bounce basketballs' however

cause quite a stinch,,,

Affirmative action necessarily discriminates again someone.



LSAT has a voluntary question regarding the examinees' race. There are no questions if requesting from which neighborhood or if they are related to an alumni of a college. Race plays a large part on the LSAT as one can declare one's race on the exam itself. Invitations mailed out to potential candidates by the Law Schools themselves take this into account. The UofM law School boosted weight of the LSAT score of black candidates by 20%ile points for admission to the law school. When universities which receive public funds discriminate in such a manner, such discrimination is unconstitutional and unjust. If a private university were to conduct themselves in such a manner that is not our concern; only those which accept monies from the public purse.



Sorry, but racial quotas are issued by cities, universities, cities, towns, federal, local and municipal governments. They can be voted on by a city council, issued by a mayor, POTUS, governors, heads of departments etc. No JUDGE is required to mandate a racial quota. As for private companies' hiring practices I have no issue. They can do whatever they want with their own money as long as the are not being provided funds from the public purse. They should be allowed to pursue their own policies in the hiring of people they chose one way or another, of course most of the time any such "discrimination" perpetrated by such private companies are in favor of the "protected minority" however if that discrimination was to have any semblance of going the other way all the self-appointed maven Reverends would amass a bunch of goons from the hood to intimidate corporate execs and employees to submitting to their whims as has occurred on many an occasion.

Of course the "protected minorities" as you so aptly deigned to describe such groups is goes to speak of an attitude and mindset of entitlement visible in certain segments of society who believe that special quotas, entitlements and considerations should be bequeathed to members of the "protected minority".



Of course this is not about balance or reparations as there are should not be any group rights but only individual rights. Hence there is no reason for compensation to any group of people. If that was the case we should be suing each and every member of Anthony Johnson's race for bringing bring slavery to the American colonies, but this would just as absurd a proposition as "reparations" (for what????) and balance (??? why ???). Everyone should be considered on individual merit.

Of course beneficiaries of affirmative action never find it repugnant of have themselves place ahead of a more deserving individual in the same vein as a burglar has no repugnance when stealing the goods of another's labor.

Missed this on so responding



Since you are unable to read and understand what the article said... let me quote from the article itself...
"But employment bounced back much more quickly. It took four years after the 1990 recession began for the labour market to recover; three years after the 1981 recession, and two years (for both GDP and jobs) to recuperate in the past recession. The downturn in the early 1990s was marked by a rare double-dip recession."

They are talking about the recession in 1990 NOT the the one in 2008. Trouble comprehending English after a remidial course in Ebonics???

While some areas particularly manufacturing was hit hard, the core value of the economy fell merely 3.3% in Canada. With little _actual_ bailout spending (as opposed to slated) Canada did indeed take q hard but quick hit during the recession. As your own article states. Of course Harper, who happened to teach economics at the University of Calgary which is known for its Miltonsque faculty did not pursue JMK policies which maintained the prolonged the great depression in the United States.



Rather I know such assertions were merely false claims excreted from the socialist rectum and flung in the hope that it would hit something and stick.

The rest of the assertions copied from a the radical socialist mouth piece for the extreme left was hacked off and not worthy of response. Communist dictatorships which instituted the dictatorship of the proletariat loved sticking democracy/democrat in the official name of the country. It was never about democracy but an agenda of subjugating and enslavement. Hmmm … Come to think of it the Democratic party favored slavery did they not?