Herman Cain: Liberals Want to Destroy America

[Reverend Rick]

Wow and the left gets accused of classism. You really equate someones job with their self worth as a person?

I'm guessing you've never worked in a restaurant or any type of service job? Because someone who thinks those jobs aren't worth even minimum wage and that a monkey could do them sounds self entitled. The amount of b.s. to pay ratio you have to deal with in those type of jobs is why places like Walmart and MC'ds quake in their boots at a day when there is a living wage.

Dude, I have worked for over 40 years. I started out selling door to door before I could land a resturant job when I was young. Have you ever noticed how some people rise to the top no matter where they work while others slide out the door?

Think about it, twenty folks sit in a room and eighteen of them have a job. Do you really think the last two unemployed folks are rocket scientists?

There are some folks in this world that are too stupid to make a profit off of and rich folks ae not going to invest in them. I quarentee the 9.1% that are unemployed for very long don't know their left hand from their right.

 

[T-Dawg]

Think about it, twenty folks sit in a room and eighteen of them have a job. Do you really think the last two unemployed folks are rocket scientists?

That depends, are rocket scientists in demand?

(If there is no incentive for space travel, as there wasn't in the 20th century, those rocket scientists may well be structurally unemployed, although I'd be surprised if they weren't able to quickly adapt and put their specialization towards, say, ICBMs or SAM batteries instead of space travel.)

All the unemployed people signify is that the cost of using their skills is greater than the profit from utilizing them, which is determined largely by demand.

 

[Shermana]

Maybe, just maybe....the unemployed might be possibly benefited by the rich class having less taxes and regulations so they'd, you know, have an easier time employing them? Just saying.

Plus, being more competitive with the Chinese and Indian labor wouldn't hurt. It's not just factory workers, you can get programming done in India for 1/4 the price.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps you should have stayed in the arms industry.

Tell me about it.
It's more fun than real estate turned out to be.

 

[Shermana]

Or, back here in reality, we realize that the Bush tax cuts didn't cause revenue to increase. But who needs to let facts get in the way of a good rant about how horrible other people are, huh?

Yeah, who needs facts to get in the way, because obviously that $800 billion increase was a big illusion.

Who needs facts, right. No need to actually check the numbers, that would be unnecessary. Not like I posted a link with them, it was just filled with lies that it was hoping no would actually look up for themselves. There was no $800 billion increase in revenue, it was all monopoly money cleverly disguised.

And of course, I so totally ranted about how horrible people are. No need to actually reference what I said.

And of course, if you make a claim that disagrees with mine, no need to get your own facts or anything, you can just say my facts are wrong without actually disproving them, trying to back your own claim and discredit the link I posted would just be a big waste of time. You can just "Nuh uh", that's a perfect rebuttal and really proves your case. My respects!

 

[Copernicus]

Maybe, just maybe....the unemployed might be possibly benefited by the rich class having less taxes and regulations so they'd, you know, have an easier time employing them? Just saying.

Yes, anyone can see that the Bush tax cuts led to a huge increase in American jobs. Why not just stop taxing rich people altogether? We could have zero unemployment!!!

Plus, being more competitive with the Chinese and Indian labor wouldn't hurt. It's not just factory workers, you can get programming done in India for 1/4 the price.

Good idea. The fastest way to do that is to adopt their standard of living. Smart.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, anyone can see that the Bush tax cuts led to a huge increase in American jobs

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

Pop quiz: What was the unemployment rate from 2000-2006? (And then compare to 2007-2008 when the Democrats took over the House). And then for extra credit, post how many jobs were created in that time frame.

The fastest way to do that is to adopt their standard of living. Smart

So then, do nothing to make companies not outsource. Very smart indeed.

 

[no-body]

Dude, I have worked for over 40 years. I started out selling door to door before I could land a resturant job when I was young. Have you ever noticed how some people rise to the top no matter where they work while others slide out the door?

What about the mentally ill or those unlucky enough to have fallen from the top because of circumstances? I guess it's easier to sleep at night when you think the poor are all just lazy scum who would be in the same predicament they where today if you handed them a million dollars (who would then proceed to spend it all on malt liquor and crack, I guess)

Think about it, twenty folks sit in a room and eighteen of them have a job. Do you really think the last two unemployed folks are rocket scientists?

What does that have to do with a human beings self worth or potential?

There are some folks in this world that are too stupid to make a profit off of and rich folks ae not going to invest in them. I quarentee the 9.1% that are unemployed for very long don't know their left hand from their right.

So is that what humanity boils down to you? Who is the best at acquiring money and stuff? At least you are honest about capitalism.

 

[Riverwolf]

Dude, I have worked for over 40 years. I started out selling door to door before I could land a resturant job when I was young. Have you ever noticed how some people rise to the top no matter where they work while others slide out the door?

Luck. Cheating. Aggressiveness. Racism/sexism.

There's plenty of factors that determine whether someone is successful.

Think about it, twenty folks sit in a room and eighteen of them have a job. Do you really think the last two unemployed folks are rocket scientists?

There are some folks in this world that are too stupid to make a profit off of and rich folks ae not going to invest in them. I quarentee the 9.1% that are unemployed for very long don't know their left hand from their right.

And I guarantee that whoever told you that is lying out of their butt to make themselves feel better than the stupid lower class citizens.

 

[Two-bit guru]

I mean, I completely understand if you believe that the policies that liberals pursue will destroy this country, or are destroying this country. But it is a different thing all together to claim that the destruction of this country is their purpose.

There are positives and negatives about both liberals and conservatives, and I'm sure that each side thinks they are doing the right thing. What we all ought to be doing is working toward balance and harmony. It seems to me that one of the things we humans do best is choose up sides and fight.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are positives and negatives about both liberals and conservatives, and I'm sure that each side thinks they are doing the right thing. What we all ought to be doing is working toward balance and harmony. It seems to me that one of the things we humans do best is choose up sides and fight.

False equivalence! Fox News dupe! Right wing toady!
My side is good, just & intelligent.
The other side is mean, stupid & corrupt!

Just kidding! I agree with you.
Campaigning fills me with disgust & dread.

 

[Shermana]

Sometimes "Balance and Harmony" gets you nowhere but stuck in the quagmire, and one side has very bad, if not Toxic ideas and policies that will lead to serious economic ruin, further unemployment (and lower paying jobs), inflation and decrease of purchase parity, and even more corruption, while the other will lead to the real desired effect of poverty alleviation, job creation (not at public expense), more capital circulating, less government corruption and cronyism. It's like, do you want to "balance" your water with ****? Most Republicans are fairly compromised to include fair amounts of urine in their water, and those like Ron Paul may have real Lemonade, but they lack key ingredients (or they use certain bad ingredients) that disinterests most of the potential voting block and would stand no serious chance of stopping the pollution of the water supply. And most of those who vote Democrat just love the taste of **** or they can't stand the prospect of pure water no matter who is selling it. They are truly "brainwashed" to the point that they refuse to even acknowledge the real numbers, a bit is demonstrated in this thread even.

When you're dealing with one side of leaders that wants to **** in the fountain (and their base who loves the taste no matter what) and the other side that wants to mostly put a ************* mixture in, you have to say "no" to balance and harmony or you'll be stuck with just different levels of **** in your water.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sometimes "Balance and Harmony" gets you nowhere but stuck in the quagmire, and one side has very bad, if not Toxic ideas and policies that will lead to serious economic ruin, further unemployment (and lower paying jobs), inflation and decrease of purchase parity, and even more corruption, while the other will lead to the real desired effect of poverty alleviation, job creation (not at public expense), more capital circulating, less government corruption and cronyism. It's like, do you want to "balance" your water with ****? Most Republicans are fairly compromised to include fair amounts of urine in their water, and those like Ron Paul may have real Lemonade, but they lack key ingredients (or they use certain bad ingredients) that disinterests most of the potential voting block and would stand no serious chance of stopping the pollution of the water supply. And most of those who vote Democrat just love the taste of **** or they can't stand the prospect of pure water no matter who is selling it. They are truly "brainwashed" to the point that they refuse to even acknowledge the real numbers, a bit is demonstrated in this thread even.

When you're dealing with one side of leaders that wants to **** in the fountain (and their base who loves the taste no matter what) and the other side that wants to mostly put a ************* mixture in, you have to say "no" to balance and harmony or you'll be stuck with just different levels of **** in your water.

What's funny is that this is EXACTLY how those people who vote democrat talk about republicans. (With one notable exception: apparently, all republicans and republican supporters are fundamentalist Christians.)

Therefore, who do we place our trust in?

The way I see it, both are evil and corrupt, both doing little more than saying why the other is evil without saying a word about why they themselves are any better, and then doing everything they can to keep power, one appealing to wallets, the other appealing to emotions.

So both have equal amounts of poop in the water, but each taken from different animals.

 

[Copernicus]

Pop quiz: What was the unemployment rate from 2000-2006? (And then compare to 2007-2008 when the Democrats took over the House). And then for extra credit, post how many jobs were created in that time frame.

Yes, there was a huge spike in unemployment as the economy tanked at the end of the Bush administration, which had already overseen a net increase over the previous Democratic administration. What was happening to the economy might explain why Republicans lost control of Congress, but the Democrats' taking control had little effect on economic policies. It was the Bush administration that "solved" the economic meltdown by bailing out Wall Street. As the so-called "job creators" have amassed more and more wealth, the job market has tanked. Much of the job growth under Obama's watch has been in the public sector and a direct result of his tepid stimulus policies.

So then, do nothing to make companies not outsource. Very smart indeed.

Where did you get that idea? If we want to do something to make them not outsource, then we can start by not rewarding corporations for outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. It seems that your "job creators" are creating all those jobs in other countries while bleeding ours dry.

 

[Shermana]

Seriously? THe huge spike was in 2008, well after the Democrats had time to do their meddling. The economy was doing pretty well when they voted in Democrats, got a link showing economic decline in the 2005-2006 period which prompted such voter backlash? Personally I think the Iraq war and the anti-Bush agitprop was responsible for the House takeover, but if you got proof that the economy was sagging before the Democrat takeover, by all means, show it. About 7 years of low unemployment, then 1 year of skyrocketing. And explain why Unemployment was caused by Bush policies while you're at it. Also, feel free to explain how you think Democrat policies will reduce unemployment (other than providing Government jobs which require private sector jobs to finance them).

As for TARP, it was repaid, and expected to turn a profit. What's the problem with TARP? Everyone loves to bash TARP without explaining what harm it did. Do you know what would have actually happened if the Banks failed? The Democrats only opposed it at first until it got modified to suit their fancy.

How do you propose not rewarding companies who outsource? Not like reducing regulations and enabling "Right to work" would make employers want to employ American labor or anything. Do you realize how hard it is to set up shop as a middle class business owner? The game is rigged to suit the major corporations.

How about doing something about Companies who pay negative taxes like General Electric (Democrat sponsor)?

 

[work in progress]

Seriously? THe huge spike was in 2008, well after the Democrats had time to do their meddling.

No! The new president doesn't move into the Oval Office until Jan. 2009, and the new administration doesn't table their first budget until the fall of that year....not that I want to defend Obama....he was already making the same noises as McCain about accepting the TARP bailout of banks that were threatening to go bankrupt because of the secret derivatives markets that commercial banks were allowed to invest in after Glass-Steagall. But the facts are the economy was already starting to crumble while Dubya was still in charge....and he was trying to hide the evidence until after the Election by expanding the money supply.

The economy was doing pretty well when they voted in Democrats, got a link showing economic decline in the 2005-2006 period which prompted such voter backlash?

Have you taken a look at the numbers on growing debt levels throughout the 2000 decade? There was no real economic growth -- it was just growth in all levels of debt: the Federal Debt doubled under Bush....amazing how many Republicans have amnesia about that little fact....and consumer debt levels and the trade deficit in particular, dramatically increased. The American consumer couldn't really afford all of the products that were outsourced to China...so they started running a tab, and giving China the option of crashing the U.S. Dollar if they ever decide to cut their losses and focus production on other needs besides U.S. consumers.

As for TARP, it was repaid, and expected to turn a profit. What's the problem with TARP? Everyone loves to bash TARP without explaining what harm it did. Do you know what would have actually happened if the Banks failed? The Democrats only opposed it at first until it got modified to suit their fancy.

So, you are in complete agreement with Obama and the Democratic finance leaders in Congress?

An independent perspective would be that Goldman and the other bailed out banks got billions of dollars worth of free money through TARP and reinvested the money. A lot of average Americans could have made a profit if they were given 0% interest loans from the Government also...why wasn't the deal extended to them, instead of the failed banks? Or why didn't the Obama Administration follow the example of nations like Sweden -- which nationalized their banks until the mess was sorted out, rather than reward the failed CEO's with billions in free government money? Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot: BOTH PARTIES ARE OWNED BY THE LOBBYISTS FOR THE BANKS AND OTHER MAJOR COMMERCIAL INTERESTS! Some democracy!

How do you propose not rewarding companies who outsource? Not like reducing regulations and enabling "Right to work" would make employers want to employ American labor or anything. Do you realize how hard it is to set up shop as a middle class business owner? The game is rigged to suit the major corporations.

It's funny how governments used to be able to have foreign ownership regulations and tariffs back before so called "free trade" became the operating policy. In most nations on this planet, there is no point to the political system! It is just a reality TV show that entertains mindless drones that want an alternative to American Idol and Dancing With The Stars!

 

[Copernicus]

Seriously? THe huge spike was in 2008, well after the Democrats had time to do their meddling...

WIP did a pretty good job of responding, but I may choose to respond further as well when I have more time. Right now I just want to pin you down on this repeated insinuation that somehow the Democrats' "meddling" had an effect on the economy. Can you please tell me which policy or policies, in your opinion, did the damage? And can you explain how they got passed into law without Bush's signature? What exactly do you think the Democrats did to screw things up?

As I've said before, demand drives the economy. The whole point of economic stimulus is to drive up demand for goods and services in the economy. That is how stimulus policies in the past have created jobs, and that is how they can do it again. Economic austerity policies--what Republicans tend to advocate--reduce demand and put pressure on businesses to reduce the cost of labor. That is, austerity measures just make things worse in an economy where demand is already too weak.

 

[Shermana]

Granted that the National debt increased about $3 trillion over 7 years of Bush (and the numbers jumped from about a $500 billion increase a year to $1 trillion a year after 2007), but in raw number terms, it increased in what Bush's regime spent in 8 years in less than 3 of Obama's. From 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the yearly increase was over 3 times what the average increase of a Bush year was. I'm guessing that subject will be avoided as well. And Clinton's regime doubled the National debt (despite Republican attempts to apply the brakes), but to be fair, Reagen's tripled it. (But so did Carter's).

The main reasons for the Economic crash nonetheless were from Democrat-pushed policies like the FDIC and Fannie and Freddie and the House Price correction which toppled the value of such debts.

So, you are in complete agreement with Obama and the Democratic finance leaders in Congress?

Now I see that as I predicted, no one has any actual direct complaint against TARP or what harmful effect on the economy it had (And of course, no reason to address what would have happened if it didn't go through), or wants to address the fact that its expected to turn a profit. No, I'm not in complete agreement, I would have TARP laid out as the Republicans first proposed it before the Dems got their grubby paws on it and modified it to suit their liking.

What kinds of "Regulations" and "Tarriffs" do you want to impose on Companies who outsource? What about companies who simply cannot afford to deal with the high costs of American regulation compliance? You ever heard of "Retaliatory tarriffs"? You might think that would hurt exports...

? There was no real economic growth

You must have a radically different idea of what "economic growth" means, because the economy was growing at a breakneck speed of 4.5% a year until 2006.

The American consumer couldn't really afford all of the products that were outsourced to China...

Name some of these products that were outsourced to China they couldn't on average afford specifically. Can you guess some of the reasons why its so much cheaper to Outsource to China?

But the facts are the economy was already starting to crumble while Dubya was still in charge

Define what you mean by the economy crumbling during the Bush years.

Do you honestly think taxing the rich more is going to make more and better paying jobs (outside of publicly-funded public sector jobs?)? I'm guessing this question will get avoided as well.

And as for nationalizing the Banks like Sweden (which has a population of less than 10 million, to keep in mind when comparing), that's sort of what the Fed is trying to do right now by getting the Private Banks into a new $16 trillion dollar debt, which is totally beneficical to the Government if they default and have to hand over their assets.

In most nations on this planet, there is no point to the political system! It is just a reality TV show that entertains mindless drones that want an alternative to American Idol and Dancing With The Stars!

Which is why many of the Greeks considered Democracy and Republics to be jokes, why the Founding Fathers said things like "We are changing from 1 tyrant to 3000". Maybe, just maybe, 1 tyrant IS better than 3000, and is certainly better than "mob rule". Even Medieval and Renaissance "Absolutist" kings were held in checks and balances by their Aristocracies. Some of history's best golden ages were under benevolent monarchs/dictators. The problem is when the dictators are like Nero...

 

[Stevicus]

Plus, being more competitive with the Chinese and Indian labor wouldn't hurt. It's not just factory workers, you can get programming done in India for 1/4 the price.

It's possible to do that in America, but it would mean having to impose rent, wage, and price controls. Everything would have to be made more affordable so workers could take lower salaries. Rents would have to be reduced to around 10% of what they are now. Same for food, gas, utilities - all would need to be drastically reduced in price.

 

[work in progress]

Granted that the National debt increased about $3 trillion over 7 years of Bush (and the numbers jumped from about a $500 billion increase a year to $1 trillion a year after 2007), but in raw number terms, it increased in what Bush's regime spent in 8 years in less than 3 of Obama's. From 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the yearly increase was over 3 times what the average increase of a Bush year was. I'm guessing that subject will be avoided as well. And Clinton's regime doubled the National debt (despite Republican attempts to apply the brakes), but to be fair, Reagen's tripled it. (But so did Carter's).

Public debt is fueled largely by the cost of accumulated debt + programmed spending -- so, once again, you are forcing me to defend Obama because of the rightwing disinformation you are putting out that tries to create a myth that the Debt is all Obama's fault. The truth is, it's like a snowball rolling down a long hill, that keeps picking up more and more snow until it's a boulder the size of a house...or at least in the cartoon versions! The point is that putting the brakes on deficits is increasingly difficult the longer it is allowed to grow and consume future budgets through increased debt-servicing costs.

The real truth about how the U.S. National Debt grew to gargantuan proportions has more to do with the move from a gold standard to a debt-based monetary system, and an apparent deliberate strategy to "starve the beast" of government by politicians following the advice of Milton Friedman. The Chicago School economists argued that if conservative politicians couldn't reign in spending, they should just keep tax rates as low as possible and allow the deficits to grow until cuts in programmed spending could be forced on the public! Remember, conservatives never wanted these programs instituted for ideological reasons, not anything to do with costs. There are clips on [youtube]fRdLpem-AAs[/youtube]
Youtube, like this one, of Ronald Reagan's 1961 radio ads condemning the proposed Medicare plan as "socialized medicine." The conservatives would have never allowed any public spending on education and the welfare of citizens if they didn't feel pressured by their popularity with the public.

Friedman and other right wing neoliberal economists realized that programs like Medicare and Social Security would become too popular to ever remove without the excuse that they had to be cut to balance the budget! Anyway...old saying: "a picture is worth a thousand words." So here's a graph that illustrates the point of economist - Mike Kimel, that up till Dubya left Office, four Republican presidents in recent history - Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes - one and two, were the ones who allowed public debt to increase. Clinton was the last president to produce a budget surplus, and even Carter was on the right side of line when it came to reducing public debt levels.

The main reasons for the Economic crash nonetheless were from Democrat-pushed policies like the FDIC and Fannie and Freddie and the House Price correction which toppled the value of such debts.

Oh, we've been over this many times! Without FDIC, there would be runs on the banks like there were after the 1929 Stock Market Crash, and Fannie and Freddie only played a small role in the larger fraud of mortgage and banking deregulation that was pushed by Republicans and centrist Democrats.

Now I see that as I predicted, no one has any actual direct complaint against TARP or what harmful effect on the economy it had (And of course, no reason to address what would have happened if it didn't go through), or wants to address the fact that its expected to turn a profit. No, I'm not in complete agreement, I would have TARP laid out as the Republicans first proposed it before the Dems got their grubby paws on it and modified it to suit their liking.

I'm sensing that alot of Americans could care less how beneficial TARP was at preventing a wider banking failure, and want to know why the banks weren't nationalized after declaring they needed Government backing to remain solvent? New management could have been brought in, and major bank shareholders could have taken the haircut that landed on millions of average homeowners....oh yeah that's right....these are the guys who own the Government, whether Democratic or Republican!

And one in particular -- Goldman Sachs was bailed out and allowed to become a commercial bank afterwards? Even right now, Goldman is the main instigator in an effort to try to shut down a small community credit union that allowed the OWS protest organizers to bank their donations received so far....even though, part of a previous settlement demands that Goldman and other major banks support community banking.