Anonymous wrote:I used to live in the South. The republic voters I knew lived in trailers, had the lowest paying jobs on campus, could hardly scrape by without family assistance. I always wondered why they would vote against their own interests.
Anonymous wrote:The unemployment rate is at last check 8.1%. One of the issues in the presidential campaign is the fact that the unemployment rate has been unusually high during the past several years. A subsequent debate has been whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue trying to stimulate the economy by maintaining low interest and should the government continue its policy of deficit spending.
My thoughts are that both policies are mistaken because no one has addressed the real problem of this recessionary period.
It is possible that the normal unemployment rate of approximately 5% may never return. Up until the eighth decade of the 20th Century the majority of American consumer goods were domestically produced which in turn translated in millions of decent paying industrial labor jobs. Beginning ing the 70s the U.S. began running trade deficits meaning we were importing more goods then we were exporting. Since then this trend has only excelarated to the point where literally most of the household goods we purchase today have been manufactured in other countries.
For years I marveled at the fact that we could have so few manufacturing jobs left in America, but our unemployment rate remained close to the optimal level of 5%.
My belief is that the current debate over the economy and unemployment is essentially based on empty rhetoric, because the new normal unemployment rate is 8% and that 5% unemployment is gone forever.
Just about any problem can be resolved and as such our budgetary issues are resolvable as well. However, our politicians will debate our budgetary and debt issues endlessly without resolution until they recognized and deal with the fundamental problem that 8% unemployment is the new normal.
Anonymous wrote:Ha! I'm doing something wrong. I support Obama, fall into Mitt's definition of middle class, and (unlike Mitt) pay 25% federal taxes.
Anonymous wrote:Would this family be part of that 47%?
http://www.politicususa.com/shame-liar-mitt-romneys-mother-talks-father-welfare.html
Anonymous wrote:Using "Mittens" for Mitt isn't offensive; it's just pathetic and shows immaturity. It says much more about the liberals using it than Romney or his campaign, that's for sure.
Still, this issue in the thread is deflecting from Obama's poor performance after our Libyan ambassador was killed. I wonder if Obama now knows whether Egypt is our ally? Or is he, the leader of the free world, still confused on that point? Yeah, great guy you've got there.
jsteele wrote:Are you aware of the social problems that are rampant in heavily-Republican rural areas? There are deep historical reasons for the problems in both areas. Attempting to link them to political parties is pretty lame.
Anonymous wrote:Using "Mittens" for Mitt isn't offensive; it's just pathetic and shows immaturity. It says much more about the liberals using it than Romney or his campaign, that's for sure.
Still, this issue in the thread is deflecting from Obama's poor performance after our Libyan ambassador was killed. I wonder if Obama now knows whether Egypt is our ally? Or is he, the leader of the free world, still confused on that point? Yeah, great guy you've got there.