Um... Look at who has been in the drivers seat...Democrats from the 30s till the late 60s (with one intermission during Eisenhower, who was as leftist as you can get in a Republican) and during the 70s to now, Republicans (with the exception of Carter, who was not able to do much, and Clinton)
They gave them mortgages that they could not afford because they had a good thing going- They wrapped all of these bad mortgages that soon turn usurious into great big packages that promised high interest rates, in order to spread these toxic investments as far and wide as possible. And what happens when these toxic investments are spread as far and wide as possible? The stock market collapses, and whole nations like Iceland go bankrupt.The people who sold on these mortgages KNEW what they would do to the people who took them out, and those who bought the toxic investments. That is what a completely unregulated system gets you.-And yes, I think having children that you cannot support IS an irresponsible thing to do. But is that the fault of the children? Surely a living wage, one that they are able to feed a large family on, like they used to have in the 50s, would be far more appropriate.
Because they are not earning enough to make ends meet, because they have to look after kids or have to look after sick parents or pay a mortgage on $5:75 an hour. Such a wage is not a living wage, and they are subsidising, through poor wages, the profitablility of their company.
IF they, those working up to 60 hours a week, are in fact working that many hours, have they not invested in their own future? how are they living their life? are they buying big screen tv's and nice cars? or are they saving money? or do they want the government to take care of them?
Are you calling those who are working 40 or 50 or 60 hours a week lazy? They are as entitled to a living income as the next person. They are, in a real sense, subsidising the profits of those they are working for. Because their bosses are only raking in large profits, because they have no choice but to work for less than subsistence wages, unable to feed their children.-And are those who, for example worked at Morgan Stanley and were paid MORE THAN THAT ORGANISATION WAS WORTH, were THEY paid a fair rate for the work they did? It wasnt the minimum wage janitor who ran the company into the ground, and what are the bets that HE was working more hours than the hedge fund managers who were being paid high six figures?
Obama, if Prez, will have played his cards right and in doing so brought the poor up too. McCain caters to the wealthy and status quo segment of society intent on keeping the "cream" portion always separated from the dregs, preferring lesser profits to trickle down instead of trickle up as Obama urgently proposes. That's what this election is mostly about - the middle class refusing to be pushed down and trampled.
what is your point? do you even have one?
Um... Look at who has been in the drivers seat...Democrats from the 30s till the late 60s (with one intermission during Eisenhower, who was as leftist as you can get in a Republican) and during the 70s to now, Republicans (with the exception of Carter, who was not able to do much, and Clinton)
you can thank the dems...
They gave them mortgages that they could not afford because they had a good thing going- They wrapped all of these bad mortgages that soon turn usurious into great big packages that promised high interest rates, in order to spread these toxic investments as far and wide as possible. And what happens when these toxic investments are spread as far and wide as possible? The stock market collapses, and whole nations like Iceland go bankrupt.The people who sold on these mortgages KNEW what they would do to the people who took them out, and those who bought the toxic investments. That is what a completely unregulated system gets you.-And yes, I think having children that you cannot support IS an irresponsible thing to do. But is that the fault of the children? Surely a living wage, one that they are able to feed a large family on, like they used to have in the 50s, would be far more appropriate.
oh so they had children they could not support....and who in the hell gave them a mortgage with such little income and all those expenses?
Because they are not earning enough to make ends meet, because they have to look after kids or have to look after sick parents or pay a mortgage on $5:75 an hour. Such a wage is not a living wage, and they are subsidising, through poor wages, the profitablility of their company.
IF they, those working up to 60 hours a week, are in fact working that many hours, have they not invested in their own future? how are they living their life? are they buying big screen tv's and nice cars? or are they saving money? or do they want the government to take care of them?
Are you calling those who are working 40 or 50 or 60 hours a week lazy? They are as entitled to a living income as the next person. They are, in a real sense, subsidising the profits of those they are working for. Because their bosses are only raking in large profits, because they have no choice but to work for less than subsistence wages, unable to feed their children.-And are those who, for example worked at Morgan Stanley and were paid MORE THAN THAT ORGANISATION WAS WORTH, were THEY paid a fair rate for the work they did? It wasnt the minimum wage janitor who ran the company into the ground, and what are the bets that HE was working more hours than the hedge fund managers who were being paid high six figures?
you mean those that have made poor decisions and the lazy?
Obama, if Prez, will have played his cards right and in doing so brought the poor up too. McCain caters to the wealthy and status quo segment of society intent on keeping the "cream" portion always separated from the dregs, preferring lesser profits to trickle down instead of trickle up as Obama urgently proposes. That's what this election is mostly about - the middle class refusing to be pushed down and trampled.