Guide To The Liberal Mind

[Boss]

Kuchinich got very little air time, and wolf blitzer was sent in to make kucinich look like a fool with his question "are you electible. Most democrats were against nafta but the party was for it. Again, very few genuine liberals nowadays. Do some reading on the DLC, how they vetted candidates to weed out anyone that was not conservative enough. Clinton actually ran against these trade deals in his first campaign, but embraced it after becoming president. That's why I said the liberal agenda that raised up the middle class in this country had ended in 1995. But then, Clinton was no liberal and neither is Obama. By the way, Nafta was a bush deal, but he lost the race to clinton, don't you remember? There were even political cartoons with a picture of bush 1 in a tow truck towing american factories to the mexican border. The liberal left, the marxist/commnist agenda? C'mon now.

LMAO... SO now Wolf Blitzer works for the Democratic Party? And what the hell do you mean "most democrats were against NAFTA but the party was for it?" That doesn't even make any sense. Why would your party be for something most of it's members were against? Parties don't "weed out" candidates, we have a fucking primary process, people go vote, that's how candidates are decided.

I remember Clinton being for NAFTA. Bush Sr. was also for NAFTA, he caught flack from conservatives for it. Clinton wasn't a liberal he was a populist, a political whore, basically. He was for whatever could bring him popularity in the moment. Obama is a Marxist Socialist and the liberals love him for that. Liberals love anything that is anti-establishment and anti-American.

 

[francoHFW]

BS, hater dupe. Keep whistling past the graveyard. See sig. Anti greedy idiot New BS GOP is not anti-American.

 

[francoHFW]

Dems are part of the establishment, just not the stupid, shortsighted, greedy Pub part of it. Thanks for wrecking the country, Pubs- and the world. Hater dupes, brainwashed functional morons.

 

[mudwhistle]

They are job creators. And tax cuts are incentives designed to create even more jobs. Increasing taxes is the best way I know to destroy job creation.

If that is true, why were more jobs created per year under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan? Why is it that from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush it has nearly always been the case that more jobs were created per year under Democratic presidencies than Republican presidencies?

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Who fucken cares. Presidents don't create jobs anyway. Through their agenda they either set up positive conditions for job creation or not. But if you want to go by the numbers, Carter supposedly created 10,339,000 jobs in his four years and Reagan created 10,780,000 in his last four. Add the over 5,300,000 he created in his first four, he created more than Carter. Some people call these swings in the economy normal adjustments.

I remember the Carter years. They were terrible. When Reagan took over we were in pretty bad shape. The Obama years are the first time can remember losing workforce participation since WWII.

 

[rightwinger]

They are job creators. And tax cuts are incentives designed to create even more jobs. Increasing taxes is the best way I know to destroy job creation.

If that is true, why were more jobs created per year under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan? Why is it that from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush it has nearly always been the case that more jobs were created per year under Democratic presidencies than Republican presidencies?

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Who fucken cares. Presidents don't create jobs anyway. Through their agenda they either set up positive conditions for job creation or not. But if you want to go by the numbers, Carter supposedly created 10,339,000 jobs in his four years and Reagan created 10,780,000 in his last four. Add the over 5,300,000 he created in his first four, he created more than Carter. Some people call these swings in the economy normal adjustments.

I remember the Carter years. They were terrible. When Reagan took over we were in pretty bad shape. The Obama years are the first time can remember losing workforce participation since WWII.

Very true

Job creators create jobs through the wonders of trickle down tax cuts

 

[JFK_USA]

Another prime example is the Student Loan program. Years ago, a bunch of liberals were on a mission to solve another "problem" that wasn't really a problem but a fact of life. Too many poor people couldn't afford to pay for college. So they pushed and prodded, called people names, cajoled politicians, lobbied and protested until they got their liberal solution, a government-backed student loan program. Those "greedy selfish bigots" who opposed their liberal solution had warned the result would be an exorbitant increase in the cost of education. Guess what has happened? Of course, as the cost of education increased, the liberal solution was to simply keep increasing the amount of student loans which could be available. And now... we hear the laments from the liberals.... people can't afford to repay their student loans! Something MUST be done, and it HAS to be a liberal solution because nothing else will ever work!

Rising education costs have been occurring because state legislators have been cutting education funding to college. Which means that schools, to not lose their faculty, have to raise tuition to keep their professors.

I can also tell you aren't a millennial like myself so let me fill you in on the details of life from our perspective.

We go to school and we hear about our parents and how they worked at a job for 20-30 years and the company paid for their training and education and they moved up the corporate ladder.

Fast forward to our time. Do you know what job you can get with a high school diploma? Low skill low wage jobs. If you want to get a decent paying job, you have to go to a post-secondary school. Yes, back in the day, most jobs were done by apprenticeship but those jobs are few and competition is fierce. In fact, the local Ford plant and union required a 5 hour test just to have the opportunity to APPLY for a job that would get you $16/hour.

Every job nowadays required some sort of degree or certification that the employee has to pay on their own. Truck driver, lawyer, doctor, HVAC Technician, nurse, you name it. Then once you get that certification, they want "experience" so if you didn't work for free because you are poor and you have to work a summer job to make ends meet, you're SOL.

Then if you do get a job, you have to constantly be on the chopping block because you don't have the years of experience that others do and that's why you see millennials having so much difficulty finding stable work.

The student loan issue isn't just a separate issue, it's a symptom of a much bigger problem in this country and worldwide. The rich are using their power to pay as little money as possible to the functions needed for a civilized society and the people at the bottom of the totem pole that are fvcked from the get go who just to get a job that could provided a decent living, they must take out these student loans. And then they have to pay for the loans which is less money they are spending on commerce, businesses then lose money, cut staff and the vicious cycle starts all over again.

We must invest in our society and in the members of the community because this path is unsustainable. People shouldn't have to go into massive debt just to get a job and quite frankly that's the reality for millennials.

 

[francoHFW]

They are job creators. And tax cuts are incentives designed to create even more jobs. Increasing taxes is the best way I know to destroy job creation.

If that is true, why were more jobs created per year under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan? Why is it that from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush it has nearly always been the case that more jobs were created per year under Democratic presidencies than Republican presidencies?

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Who fucken cares. Presidents don't create jobs anyway. Through their agenda they either set up positive conditions for job creation or not. But if you want to go by the numbers, Carter supposedly created 10,339,000 jobs in his four years and Reagan created 10,780,000 in his last four. Add the over 5,300,000 he created in his first four, he created more than Carter. Some people call these swings in the economy normal adjustments.

I remember the Carter years. They were terrible. When Reagan took over we were in pretty bad shape. The Obama years are the first time can remember losing workforce participation since WWII.

Policies create jobs, and Reaganist policies pander to the rich, screw the nonrich, refuse to invest in training, infrastructure, college loans- over 30 years, the country has gone to hell. The nonrich have no money to spend. see sig pp1

 

[Boss]

Rising education costs have been occurring because state legislators have been cutting education funding to college. Which means that schools, to not lose their faculty, have to raise tuition to keep their professors.

I can also tell you aren't a millennial like myself so let me fill you in on the details of life from our perspective.

We go to school and we hear about our parents and how they worked at a job for 20-30 years and the company paid for their training and education and they moved up the corporate ladder.

Fast forward to our time. Do you know what job you can get with a high school diploma? Low skill low wage jobs. If you want to get a decent paying job, you have to go to a post-secondary school. Yes, back in the day, most jobs were done by apprenticeship but those jobs are few and competition is fierce. In fact, the local Ford plant and union required a 5 hour test just to have the opportunity to APPLY for a job that would get you $16/hour.

Every job nowadays required some sort of degree or certification that the employee has to pay on their own. Truck driver, lawyer, doctor, HVAC Technician, nurse, you name it. Then once you get that certification, they want "experience" so if you didn't work for free because you are poor and you have to work a summer job to make ends meet, you're SOL.

Then if you do get a job, you have to constantly be on the chopping block because you don't have the years of experience that others do and that's why you see millennials having so much difficulty finding stable work.

The student loan issue isn't just a separate issue, it's a symptom of a much bigger problem in this country and worldwide. The rich are using their power to pay as little money as possible to the functions needed for a civilized society and the people at the bottom of the totem pole that are fvcked from the get go who just to get a job that could provided a decent living, they must take out these student loans. And then they have to pay for the loans which is less money they are spending on commerce, businesses then lose money, cut staff and the vicious cycle starts all over again.

We must invest in our society and in the members of the community because this path is unsustainable. People shouldn't have to go into massive debt just to get a job and quite frankly that's the reality for millennials.

Rising education costs happen because of supply and demand. When you have abundant student loans available, the demand is much higher than supply, so the cost rises. Cost doesn't matter to the consumer because they have no skin in the game, they're getting a loan.... free money. Colleges realize this so they jack up the prices. Doesn't matter if tuition is $4,000 a year or $40,000 a year, the student gets a loan and has no real financial stake. It's only after the fact they discover they can't repay the massive loan.

When I went to college, I had people contacting me daily to offer student loans. I refused them because I was always raised with the understanding, if you can't pay for it you don't need it. I worked two part time jobs through college while my colleagues partied. I had one small scholarship and the rest I paid for out of pocket. Twenty-five years later, my daughter couldn't afford to do this. It was impossible for her to attend the same university as I, so she opted to attend a junior college and get a two year degree. She had a small academic scholarship and qualified for a Pell grant.

The rich are using their power to pay as little money as possible to the functions needed for a civilized society...blah blah blah....

No, this is more of your Marxist Socialist claptrap. It's not the responsibility of "the rich" or anyone else to pay for functions in any society. It's up to society to determine which functions they will collectively fund through taxes and it's up to individuals to fund their own desired functions. No one owes you a damn thing. You're not entitled to something because you think your shit doesn't stink.

 

[Boss]

Policies create jobs, and Reaganist policies pander to the rich, screw the nonrich, refuse to invest in training, infrastructure, college loans- over 30 years, the country has gone to hell. The nonrich have no money to spend. see sig pp1

Policies do not create jobs. If they did, we'd get those policies by every politician at election time. Policies may be more or less conducive with creating jobs over time, but there are a myriad of other factors also involved which are not controlled by politicians.

Who are these "rich" you keep yammering about? People who make over $100k per year? People who make over $250k per year? People who make over $1 million? $5 million? $25 million? Maybe it's people who make over $75k per year? What about a billionaire who doesn't make any earned income per year? What about a homeless man who wins the $50 million lottery one year? What about the guy who lived in his car for 10 years while he tried to sell his invention, then gets a lump sum of $5 million.... is that "rich" or what? How about someone who never worked a day in their life and they slipped on a banana peel at McDonalds and sued for a million... are they "rich" people?

You see, what you've done is bought into the Marxist/Maoist philosophy. This is where you become envious and jealous of those who have more than you, and the emotion of that drives your greed to take what isn't yours. "The Rich" become a monolithic enemy for you to attack. They are all greedy, crooked, undeserving people who got their wealth by oppressing the poor. Now they have all this money they don't deserve and they have used it to buy power and keep you down. This is ALL in your head. It's how you see the world. It is your world view.

It's INSANE!

 

[AntiParty]

Policies create jobs, and Reaganist policies pander to the rich, screw the nonrich, refuse to invest in training, infrastructure, college loans- over 30 years, the country has gone to hell. The nonrich have no money to spend. see sig pp1

Policies do not create jobs. If they did, we'd get those policies by every politician at election time. Policies may be more or less conducive with creating jobs over time, but there are a myriad of other factors also involved which are not controlled by politicians.

Who are these "rich" you keep yammering about? People who make over $100k per year? People who make over $250k per year? People who make over $1 million? $5 million? $25 million? Maybe it's people who make over $75k per year? What about a billionaire who doesn't make any earned income per year? What about a homeless man who wins the $50 million lottery one year? What about the guy who lived in his car for 10 years while he tried to sell his invention, then gets a lump sum of $5 million.... is that "rich" or what? How about someone who never worked a day in their life and they slipped on a banana peel at McDonalds and sued for a million... are they "rich" people?

You see, what you've done is bought into the Marxist/Maoist philosophy. This is where you become envious and jealous of those who have more than you, and the emotion of that drives your greed to take what isn't yours. "The Rich" become a monolithic enemy for you to attack. They are all greedy, crooked, undeserving people who got their wealth by oppressing the poor. Now they have all this money they don't deserve and they have used it to buy power and keep you down. This is ALL in your head. It's how you see the world. It is your world view.

It's INSANE!

Then why did the Constitution have the Commerce Clause?

You seem to know little about America in general so I won't post a brainy response to your OP. Good luck with your book!. If I see you selling it on the street (you like hip hop) I might buy a copy, if you put that much work into it.

Work doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Otherwise you would research the actual term "Liberal" That means lot's of laws against gays (R)ight?

P.S.
Policies can create the best structure for the best job growth possible. Some in America are just mad we can't create more jobs with more smog etc.

 

[Friends]

Policies create jobs, and Reaganist policies pander to the rich, screw the nonrich, refuse to invest in training, infrastructure, college loans- over 30 years, the country has gone to hell. The nonrich have no money to spend. see sig pp1

Policies do not create jobs. If they did, we'd get those policies by every politician at election time. Policies may be more or less conducive with creating jobs over time, but there are a myriad of other factors also involved which are not controlled by politicians.

Who are these "rich" you keep yammering about? People who make over $100k per year? People who make over $250k per year? People who make over $1 million? $5 million? $25 million? Maybe it's people who make over $75k per year? What about a billionaire who doesn't make any earned income per year? What about a homeless man who wins the $50 million lottery one year? What about the guy who lived in his car for 10 years while he tried to sell his invention, then gets a lump sum of $5 million.... is that "rich" or what? How about someone who never worked a day in their life and they slipped on a banana peel at McDonalds and sued for a million... are they "rich" people?

You see, what you've done is bought into the Marxist/Maoist philosophy. This is where you become envious and jealous of those who have more than you, and the emotion of that drives your greed to take what isn't yours. "The Rich" become a monolithic enemy for you to attack. They are all greedy, crooked, undeserving people who got their wealth by oppressing the poor. Now they have all this money they don't deserve and they have used it to buy power and keep you down. This is ALL in your head. It's how you see the world. It is your world view.

It's INSANE!

From the presidency of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have nearly always been more jobs, even private sector jobs, created per year under Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. A pattern that strong is unlikely due to coincidence.

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Bill Clinton says Democratic presidents top Republican presidents in job creation PolitiFact

 

[Friends]

I remember the Carter years. They were terrible.

I remember the Reagan years. They were terrible. It was nauseating that so many people doted on that vapid ignoramus.

 

[Boss]

Then why did the Constitution have the Commerce Clause?

You seem to know little about America in general so I won't post a brainy response to your OP. Good luck with your book!. If I see you selling it on the street (you like hip hop) I might buy a copy, if you put that much work into it.

Work doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Otherwise you would research the actual term "Liberal" That means lot's of laws against gays (R)ight?

P.S.
Policies can create the best structure for the best job growth possible. Some in America are just mad we can't create more jobs with more smog etc.

I know a great deal about America, go ahead with your brainy response, I'm ready!

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power of the Federal government designed to give the Fed power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. It's so that one state can't punish another state or take advantage of their resources at the expense of other states. It's one of many constraints on the "unfettered capitalism" you Marxists yammer about all the time. Over the years, it has been bastardized and used in ways it was never intended by the founders, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

Work ethic is very much one of my strong suits. I have worked hard my whole life to provide a comfortable living for myself and my family and have not depended on government hand outs or complained about what I didn't have. To the contrary of what you say, I think I nailed what a Liberal is, as evidenced by the massive response to this thread. Everything I stated in the OP has been validated and continues to be confirmed by the likes of people like you.

 

[rightwinger]

Americans still have one of the strongest work ethics in the world. We work more hours and are more productive
That work ethic used to enable a worker to support his family on one salary. He used to be able to buy a house, pay for medical emergencies, send his kid to college, earn a pension.... all without going into debt.
The work ethic is still there. Americans are loyal and hard working. What has changed is the job environment. Two family workers are now the norm. Job security and ample benefits are things of the past. Workers are kept hungry and in fear of their jobs. Salaries are now stagnant even though our nations wealth is increasing
Time to stop blaming the workers

 

[mudwhistle]

They are job creators. And tax cuts are incentives designed to create even more jobs. Increasing taxes is the best way I know to destroy job creation.

If that is true, why were more jobs created per year under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan? Why is it that from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush it has nearly always been the case that more jobs were created per year under Democratic presidencies than Republican presidencies?

Bush On Jobs The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Who fucken cares. Presidents don't create jobs anyway. Through their agenda they either set up positive conditions for job creation or not. But if you want to go by the numbers, Carter supposedly created 10,339,000 jobs in his four years and Reagan created 10,780,000 in his last four. Add the over 5,300,000 he created in his first four, he created more than Carter. Some people call these swings in the economy normal adjustments.

I remember the Carter years. They were terrible. When Reagan took over we were in pretty bad shape. The Obama years are the first time can remember losing workforce participation since WWII.

Policies create jobs, and Reaganist policies pander to the rich, screw the nonrich, refuse to invest in training, infrastructure, college loans- over 30 years, the country has gone to hell. The nonrich have no money to spend. see sig pp1

All stereotypes. You assume that cutting the business community a little slack equates directly to screwing the poor. Screwing the poor is putting in place welfare policies that discourage married couples from living together.

 

[mudwhistle]

I remember the Carter years. They were terrible.

I remember the Reagan years. They were terrible. It was nauseating that so many people doted on that vapid ignoramus.

He was known as the great communicator for good reason, and what probably burns your ass the most was the fact that he switched parties out of necessity, because the Democratic Party went from being mainstream to extremists. Now Democrats claim their move to the left never happened. It's conservative Republicans that instead shifted to the right, which is an oxymoron. Conservatism means in a nutshell never shifting your position.

 

[Friends]

Conservatism means in a nutshell never shifting your position.

I wonder how many teabaggers would agree with this statement by President Eisenhower: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

 

[mudwhistle]

Conservatism means in a nutshell never shifting your position.

I wonder how many teabaggers would agree with this statement by President Eisenhower: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

I'm trying to dig your point out of this.
Democrats have been accusing Republicans of trying to either cut or end Social Security since it's inception. They threw in Medicare to scare old people too. But who cut $700 billion out of the Medicare fund to pay for Obamacare? Wasn't the Republicans. Who has been advertising that we can apply for Social Security Disability eating up benefits for those of us who are counting on that money when we retire? Wasn't Republicans.

 

[sealybobo]

Conservatism means in a nutshell never shifting your position.

I wonder how many teabaggers would agree with this statement by President Eisenhower: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Eisenhower underestimated the rich and powerful and he underestimated how dumb the American people could be. He also didn't know the media would be taken over by the rich or that Citizens United would be passed.

Basically it was a different world back then. Conservatives weren't crazy or extreme. The GOP has moved so far to the right its crazy.

 

[Boss]

Workers are kept hungry and in fear of their jobs. Salaries are now stagnant even though our nations wealth is increasing
Time to stop blaming the workers

Sounds to me like it's time to stop being a "worker" and exercise your freedom to do anything you please in the nation which provides you more economic freedom and opportunity than anywhere on the planet.

If being a worker is such an awful deal, why be one? Be an entrepreneur instead. Find what it is you have a passion for and devote yourself to that. People do it every day in this country, some people come to this country just so they can do that. Rather than sitting around complaining about how bad it sucks to be a "worker" stop being one.... be something else!