Is the GOP in collapse or are they being true patriots regarding the debt ceiling?

D_Harry_Crax

Account Disabled
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
4,447
Media
0
Likes
994
Points
228
Sexuality
No Response
^^^Yep, that about sums it up^^^

Except that if one goes back and reads and watches news media coverage of Reagan as he stumbled his way through 8 years, he wasn't very popular a lot of the time, and he wasn't very good almost all of the time. The Republicans are stuck trying to make Reagan into another FDR so that their party has a hero within memory of today's living Republicans. Before Reagan, they would have to go back to Eisenhower and, for some reason, today's Republicans don't want to see and promote Eisenhower as having been a very good to great president. Having written off Eisenhower, the Republicans would have to go back to Theodore Roosevelt, more than 100 years ago, to find a great president in their party. So they're stuck promoting the hell out of Reagan; Peggy Noonan, in fact, has dedicated the rest of her life since 1989 trying to make Reagan into the modern-age FDR.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
In other words, a small group of people believe they know what is right for all the rest of the people and believe they have the right to impose this on the majority. Whatever happened to democracy is government of the people by the people?

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.
You should not be surprised that the US has changed, because it has become steadily richer and richer. People therefore and rightly expect their government to arrange more services for them. It is quite extraordinary that there are politicians in the US who are seeking to stop taxing sources of wealth in the country and distributing it to the people. Taxes have always done this and now the US is richer it is entirely reasonable that more resources are used in this way.

The Republicans are stuck trying to make Reagan into another FDR so that their party has a hero within memory of today's living Republicans..
But Obama was saying in his speech that Reagan by his actions would have sided with him and the democrats in this fight.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
I know how to drive one because I grew up on a farm and all of dad's old 1960s vintage farm trucks had them. Most cars don't have them anymore and they shouldn't expect a kid who grew up in the suburbs and learned to drive on their mom's Honda Accord with an automatic to be able to drive an Army truck with a manual transmission and a two speed rear axle. It is not that the kids are stupid...they have just never driven one before.:rolleyes:

I think FuzzyKen's point is even more amplified here!

Almost all of Europe (80%) uses a Manual transmission ( who says stick shift transmission?). Being as the 1st automatic transmission was on a 1948 Buick (I think), the fuel economy is far worse, & it costs $1000 more than a manual, it really does show just how dumbed down & lazy Americans have become, as only about 5% of new vehicles sold in the USA are manual.

It's not bloody hard, it's cheaper, & it's better for the planet. What about the joys of bump starting a dead battery, & being able to be towed by a normal car if you break down! Where's the skill, speed, oneness with the vehicle.

I had a clapped out motor that continually stalled at 70mph when going over the top of a hill - this wasn't a problem. Imagine the skill of flying down the other side whilst bump starting the freewheeling car at at least 65mph!

That said, I think that they introduced automatics as a safety precaution because there were already too many stupid idiots driving that couldn't work out the gears, just as now they have automatic braking, because there were too many morons who couldn't pump their brakes.

Fixing a broken automatic gearbox in any combat zone would probably take twice as long as a manual - I'm pretty sure that the A Team could have cobbled one together too.

I think there are parallels between the over reliance on technology to do things which are more efficiently done by people, & the stupidity of people's voting intentions. If people are lazy, & yet still expect instant gratification, they'll always vote for whoever instantly appeals to their lazy ass views on life, without regard to the substance of, or ability to achieve their agenda.

I think that would be cross party though. I don't know any other country where the primary secondary education tests are mainly by multiple choice, although I think that other countries are starting to catch up!
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You know --- maybe it's just my memory here. Y'all can help me out. In watching this whole drama I'd like to know, when have the Democrats EVER played this kind of obstructionist role against a Republican President?

When has a Democratic Senator ever said anything like: "Our party's whole objective this term will be to make sure that this (Republican President) is a one termer!"???

I fully believe "turn about" is fair play -- but I somehow suspect that the Republicans REALLY REALLY don't give a shit about this country and that is WHY they get away with this obstructionist role. When it's a Republican President the Democrats try a little harder to play ball FOR the GOOD of the Country! I just don't remember MY Party EVER getting this nasty nasty nasty in opposing something from a Republican President -- even GW Shrub!
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
343
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Obama is finished. The vast majority of the American population that is not on Wellfare/Medicaid want him gone. Most of the Gen Y kids who voted for Obama in droves back in 2008 and helped put him in office are out of college now and can't find jobs, other than waiting tables or enlisting in the military to go fight Mr. Bush's two wars that Obama promised to end, and yet another one that Obama has gotten the USA involved in. I doubt they will be voting for him in 2012.

Well -- let's back up here a little bit! Most of the Gen Y kids had better take a close look at who to blame. Obama brought a great many troops HOME from Iraq and declared THAT war "ended" (whether in name only -- who knows -- but we are NOT as involved there as we once were). There are NO ground troops in Libya except through NATO (if I understand correctly). And businesses dominated by Republicans are sitting on the sidelines "Uncertain" about where the economy seems to be going rather than taking their $2 trillion in cash they're sitting on and hiring! If you (they) think the Republicans are going to get them a job other than waiting tables and McDonalds, etc. well...........I'd take a good long hard look at what their "hidden" agenda is going to be that they've ALREADY tipped their hand at in their first 7 months in office! Maybe Gen Y's (and some X'ers still need to see what a full blown Republican administration with BOTH houses of Congress and and the Presidency would do to this nation!!
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I think FuzzyKen's point is even more amplified here!

Almost all of Europe (80%) uses a Manual transmission ( who says stick shift transmission?). Being as the 1st automatic transmission was on a 1948 Buick (I think), the fuel economy is far worse, & it costs $1000 more than a manual, it really does show just how dumbed down & lazy Americans have become, as only about 5% of new vehicles sold in the USA are manual.

It's not bloody hard, it's cheaper, & it's better for the planet. What about the joys of bump starting a dead battery, & being able to be towed by a normal car if you break down! Where's the skill, speed, oneness with the vehicle.

I had a clapped out motor that continually stalled at 70mph when going over the top of a hill - this wasn't a problem. Imagine the skill of flying down the other side whilst bump starting the freewheeling car at at least 65mph!

That said, I think that they introduced automatics as a safety precaution because there were already too many stupid idiots driving that couldn't work out the gears, just as now they have automatic braking, because there were too many morons who couldn't pump their brakes.

Fixing a broken automatic gearbox in any combat zone would probably take twice as long as a manual - I'm pretty sure that the A Team could have cobbled one together too.

I think there are parallels between the over reliance on technology to do things which are more efficiently done by people, & the stupidity of people's voting intentions. If people are lazy, & yet still expect instant gratification, they'll always vote for whoever instantly appeals to their lazy ass views on life, without regard to the substance of, or ability to achieve their agenda.

I think that would be cross party though. I don't know any other country where the primary secondary education tests are mainly by multiple choice, although I think that other countries are starting to catch up!
You are stretching it here Crack. I mean it's a bit much even for an rabid anti-Yank such as yourself, to suggest that the proof of American stupidity can be found in the fact that automatic transmissions are preferred by American drivers. It's just a ridiculous idea and in and of itself is stupid. Driving a car with a manual transmission is hardly highly skilled, doesn't much brain power and in no way indicates laziness.


I could drive a manually shifted tractor when I was 10 years old and my daughter could drive a Fiat when she was 14. No big deal.

Now if the British could build a decent car that would be remarkable. Hell, look at a Land Rover. Even the Germans couldn't build a good British automobile.

btw- RR used GM automatics from the early fifties until 1994. Jaguar too. I guess that proves buyers of high end British cars are stupid and lazy too.
 
Last edited:

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Ford sold off its Jaguar holdings. It just may be that Jaguar makes Jaguars these days. What makes CrackintheassOff's comments so amusing is Lelyand Motors

British Leyland was an automobile manufacturer in the United Kingdom which took over most of England's auto manufacturing plants in 1968 and called itself British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd (BLMC). It was partly nationalised in 1975 with the government creating a new holding company called British Leyland Ltd which became BL Ltd (later BL plc) in 1978.[1][2] It incorporated much of the British owned motor vehicle industry, and held 40% of the UK car market,[3] with roots going back to 1895.

Despite containing profitable marques such as Jaguar, Rover and Land Rover, as well as the best-selling Mini, British Leyland had a troubled history.[4] In 1986 it was renamed as the Rover Group, later to become MG Rover Group, which went into administration in 2005, bringing an end to mass car production by British owned manufacturers—with MG becoming part of China's Nanjing Automobile.

The major demise of British Leyland was due to the inability of the British to understand how to build a quality wire harness. This was a problem inherited from their poor understanding of how to make attack proof (redundant) electrical systems in their WWII aircraft -- all aircraft. I don't know, but it is certain they could make a reliable wire harness circuit. British engineers always thought they were better than Edward Demming and the Demming Method of continuous quality improvement. And the biggest proof I have for this is the MG I bought in 1974. The first thing to break was the light toggle which simply fell into the dashboard when I pressed the toggle to turn on the lights. The next problem was the handle coming off in my hands when I rolled down the window one afternoon. And when it rained, there was no protection from the elements because the rag top (descabriolet?) leaked rain like a sieve. And finally, whenever the humidity index got close to 100% something -- anything -- was likely to short out and fail.

Fortunately, the Mini Cooper has been resurrected by BMW. It's a tough little automobile and fun to drive. BMW tried to make the Rover's quality and toughness better, too. They succeeded, but haven't been able to keep the marque alive. I believe Ford now owns Rover, maybe, I'm not certain. It's not high on my list of priorities, because I really don't care.

But British Leyland was cranking out major flawed autos that performed poorly and fell apart even worse than Chrysler. In fact, today's quality of Republican Party is kind of like a the "designed obsolescence of a 1957 Desoto. What a hoot.
 
Last edited:

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I believe Ford owns Rover these days. Not sure. It's not high on my list of priorities, because I really don't care.

But British Leyland was cranking out major flawed autos that performed and fell apart even worse the Chrysler. What a hoot.
No, MB. It's even better... Land Rover is owned by Mr. Tata. As is Jaguar. Such a delicious irony. :smile:
 
Last edited:

snakembl14

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
46
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Location
GB, WI
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
I didn't read all the anti-teabagger comments...but the first step is to NOT listen to any politicians.Not increasing the debt limit may have some bad consequences...mostly due to unwarranted "fear", but would set up for a better tomorrow. Countries have defaulted throughout history with good results. The issue of raising the debt ceiling will "solve" the problem in their eyes because nothing then needs to be cut.The economy was only improving because of the feds injecting free money QE1 and QE2...and talks of QE3.The real problem is the approaching currency crisis (declining dollar) and rising inflation (which the government wants, to help pay debt).IE inflation is not tied to rising prices, it is the amount of money in supply...and the fed have printed 5.3 trillion of it recently. More money chaseing the same amounts of good = higher prices + decline in the value of the dollar.They (repubs & democrats) are both wrong and either solution will NOT SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS!
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Just a few years ago everyone on a certain side of the aisle laughed and applauded (or was blissfully ignorant) when Cheney said deficits don't matter. Now all of a sudden, it's THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN HUMAN HISTORY. Pardon me while I shake my head at the disingenuity of all this deficit crisis jazz. Raising the debt ceiling has always been a house cleaning issue by all accounts.

The real crisis we face now is a lack of jobs. And you're not going to be creating many jobs by carving trillions of dollars off the budget. Try and sift through the political rhetoric to get to what's real.

Edited to add: I don't mean that raising the debt ceiling is not important. It is vitally important. It's the notion that "We must slash spending (but don't raise taxes!)" or else the budget deficit will destroy us all.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think the salient point was that an automatic transmission is less efficient and thus is wasting quite a bit of energy by the time you multiply by the number of cars in the whole US. It suggests the US has money to burn. I am sure the US military is capable of teaching recruits how to use gearboxes if that is what is needed. I dont think you design the transmission of a tank based on recruits not understanding changing gear, but on how best to make it drive well.

It is quite odd from the british perspective to watch a government divided against itself. Perhaps even odder is that when it was not divided, a year ago, it still acted as though it was. I think they should slug it out. Arguing that a state can be run without taxing the rich is ludicrous. If everyone goes along with this line there can only be one result.

On a different tack, the UK just had growth results for the last 3 months of 0.2%. Some quarters suggested this poor result was because everyone took a holiday for the royal wedding. I do not believe that for a second, more likely a reason people might have felt upbeat and splashed out a little. A more credible suggestion was the economic disruption in Japan following the tsunami. Most of all - and the commentators did not say this - I think it is just a reflection that the Uk economy cannot return to levels of growth it enjoyed pre crash. These were based upon continuous borrowing, not just by government but by people cashing in on a house price boom which had been going on for decades. Government cuts still have not properly percolated down into the economy, so matters in this regard can only get worse. The UK plan on how to get out of its budget deficit relies mainly on growth increasing tax revenue.

To bring this back to matters in hand, how's the economy going over there? I'd say any budget based on growth solving the deficit likely has a snowball's chance there too. The one silver lining seems to be that the US is starting from historically low levels of taxation so can afford to raise them.

Oh, and to return to japan hit by massive flooding and nuclear nightmare. The currency is soaring. Perhaps this reflects the true nature of problems in the US and elsewhere. So much worse than simply having your country flooded, shaken down and then coated in radioactive waste.
 
Last edited:

snakembl14

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
46
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Location
GB, WI
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Just a few years ago everyone on a certain side of the aisle laughed and applauded (or was blissfully ignorant) when Cheney said deficits don't matter. Now all of a sudden, it's THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN HUMAN HISTORY. Pardon me while I shake my head at the disingenuity of all this deficit crisis jazz. Raising the debt ceiling has always been a house cleaning issue by all accounts.

The real crisis we face now is a lack of jobs. And you're not going to be creating many jobs by carving trillions of dollars off the budget. Try and sift through the political rhetoric to get to what's real.

Edited to add: I don't mean that raising the debt ceiling is not important. It is vitally important. It's the notion that "We must slash spending (but don't raise taxes!)" or else the budget deficit will destroy us all.

The current budget is unsustainable and if we keep spending and the fed keeps printing the dollars in your wallet won't mean much...and the dollars you get from you job if you have one won't buy anything. If you think an uptick in unemployment because the government carved trillions off the budget is bad...just wait for the currency crisis if they don't start carving. By the way...the governement could keep paying:
interest on the debt (to keep from defaulting)
social security
medicare/medicaid
military (all, including the war, va services, military families)
air traffic personel

firefighters/police are local budgets as well as most educational services.what else do we need them to do?? It would be better for the money to be put into the economy than for it to be paid in taxes to the government.
 
Last edited:

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,176
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The current budget is unsustainable and if we keep spending and the fed keeps printing the dollars in your wallet won't mean much...and the dollars you get from you job if you have one won't buy anything. If you think an uptick in unemployment because the government carved trillions off the budget is bad...just wait for the currency crisis if they don't start carving. By the way...the governement could keep paying:
interest on the debt (to keep from defaulting)
social security
medicare/medicaid
military (all, including the war, va services, military families)
air traffic personel

firefighters/police are local budgets as well as most educational services.what else do we need them to do?? It would be better for the money to be put into the economy than for it to be paid in taxes to the government.
You need to study what will happen if we default on our obligations a tad more. It's not quite as simple as you say.

Debt Ceiling: What Happens If It Isn't Raised?
 

umami_tsunami

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 25, 2011
Posts
388
Media
52
Likes
126
Points
163
Location
Philadelphia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't think that the republican party is setting out to expose it's hypocrisy, class bigotry and greed in this "debt ceiling debate", but if you are a rational, thinking person, it sure looks that way. They have succeeded once again in delivering a false and dangerous message.

Disappointing thing about it is that they seem capable of ringing this bell and the scared, ignorant and greedy just start frothing at the mouth. Unfortunately, the scared, ignorant and greedy run for office and vote.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Just a few years ago everyone on a certain side of the aisle laughed and applauded (or was blissfully ignorant) when Cheney said deficits don't matter. Now all of a sudden, it's THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN HUMAN HISTORY. Pardon me while I shake my head at the disingenuity of all this deficit crisis jazz. Raising the debt ceiling has always been a house cleaning issue by all accounts.

The real crisis we face now is a lack of jobs. And you're not going to be creating many jobs by carving trillions of dollars off the budget. Try and sift through the political rhetoric to get to what's real.

Edited to add: I don't mean that raising the debt ceiling is not important. It is vitally important. It's the notion that "We must slash spending (but don't raise taxes!)" or else the budget deficit will destroy us all.
I wish Mrs. Clinton was your President. I am pretty sure she wouldn't mince any words telling Boehner & Co. to STFU. The GOP was in total control of the borrowing and spending spree that ran up US government debt from 2001 to 2007. They left an economic catastrophe in their wake and now presume to tell anyone how to fund a government?
 

snakembl14

Just Browsing
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
46
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
Location
GB, WI
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
the point is you don't need to default and they wouldn't actually default. the government does not make monthly payments to their loan like you do for a mortgage...they take on more loans and just pay the interest.

they can continue to pay to service the current debt without raising the debt ceiling.

the point is with the current fiat currency and fed quantitive easing the market was never able to correct itself...that is why we are in a recession. the fed caused the housing bubble with free money and low rates...causing a misinvestment and the overvaluing of real estate. it would be better to let the market correct itself instead of the fed trying to prevent it from falling...because it is just prolonging it. yes it will hurt but we will be better off in the long run.

don't listen to the "fear" tactics both parties use

like Obama last night saying that we wouldn't be able to pay social security if we "default". Its just not true. besides most of social security should be paid from the money they take from our checks right?? If they stop paying they should stop taking from my check until they resume
 

Thedrewbert

Superior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Posts
851
Media
29
Likes
4,073
Points
398
Age
45
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I think FuzzyKen's point is even more amplified here!

Almost all of Europe (80%) uses a Manual transmission ( who says stick shift transmission?). Being as the 1st automatic transmission was on a 1948 Buick (I think), the fuel economy is far worse, & it costs $1000 more than a manual, it really does show just how dumbed down & lazy Americans have become, as only about 5% of new vehicles sold in the USA are manual.

It's not bloody hard, it's cheaper, & it's better for the planet. What about the joys of bump starting a dead battery, & being able to be towed by a normal car if you break down! Where's the skill, speed, oneness with the vehicle.

Actually, in a typical display of ingenuity, the American cars with automatics are now slightly more fuel efficient than the same car with a manual shift. The reason is because the computer is far smarter than the average driver and can be optimized to shift sooner to save gas.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
108
Points
193
I wish Mrs. Clinton was your President. I am pretty sure she wouldn't mince any words telling Boehner & Co. to STFU. The GOP was in total control of the borrowing and spending spree that ran up US government debt from 2001 to 2007. They left an economic catastrophe in their wake and now presume to tell anyone how to fund a government?

Both parties have been on a spending spree since the 1930s. Both parties knew the day of reckoning would come but they knew they'd be out of office when the axe fell. The truth is the United States of America is broke. Flat out broke. The government has promised benefits, and incurred debt that together now totals more than twice the worth of the nation itself. Congress has spent every dime in Social Security, the Civil Service Pension Trust, the Railroad Pension Trust, and has taken out every dime it can from the employees 401k funds. The total of national debt, and promised benefits is now in the neighborhood of 80 trillion dollars. That's right, 80 trillion dollars.

If they had known people would live this long, they'd have never given them as high of Social Security checks as they got. Also, their cost of living raises were not tied to inflation. They were tied to the wage increases of the public. The average person draws out every penny they pay into Social Security in 6 to 6.5 years. Millions have been drawing it in retirement for multiple decades. My dad has been drawing it for 25 years.

Health care is going to be changed. The largest part of the money is going to have to be spent on people still in their productive working years. There is only so much to go around, and the nation cannot afford to let the productive people fall by the wayside while people who are nearing the end of their life suck up scarce funds. People who are of advanced age will be given medication to keep them comfortable until they die.

In the past, Congress always chose to raise taxes. Well, they can't raise them much. If they took every dime owned by the wealthiest 2.2 million Americans, it wouldn't be enough to run the government for a year. Not even one single year. The average consumer is on the ropes. If their taxes go up, they'll default on more loans, unemployment will continue to rise, and the nation will implode.

The bubble economy of the 90s was nothing but speculation, and hot air. The bubble burst, the pain has come. So many people still don't get that it wasn't real, and it isn't coming back. Greenspan warned more than once about the irrational exuberance in the stock market, and the housing market. Yet, he chose not to use the powers given to the Federal Reserve to do anything about it. He even supported the creation of the disastrous ARM. Congress stepped in to support the "Every American who wants their own home should have one.". It has brought great harm to Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. The lenders knowingly made many bad loans because the government would take them into Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. The taxpayers are now on the hook for hundreds of billions in bad mortgages. I think you should have to take an examination on investing before you start fooling around in the markets.

The feds could have seized the giant banks assets, gone after the mega billions in bonuses, and returned banks back to the business at hand. Many bank officers could have gone to jail. You must remember that congress is the one who repealed the Glass_Steagall Act in 1999. It gave the banks the freedom to engage in regular depository banking, and investment banking too. They used the publics money to gamble on investments, and they lost big. If you follow the money, you will find they gave tens of millions in campaign contributions to the current administration.

For years, Americans did not save money. They foolishly thought they didn't need too. I'm Rich! I'm Rich! The government will take care of me! Businesses must have investment capital to operate. The public did not supply the needed capital. That capital came from foreign corporations, and governments. Cash rich corporations bought out US corporations, and the jobs disappeared.

It didn't help that the two previous presidents both entered into trade agreements that gave away millions of good paying jobs. Yes, both parties voted for it. Who benefited the most from the stupidity? China, and the largest monoply in the world. That's right, Walmart.

Pain is going to come. It is going to be really bad. Sadly, it is going to be necessary. In the past, when elderly relatives could no longer support themselves, they moved in with different family members. Everybody who could had to pitch in to make it work. It was done time, and again in my own parents families. Right now, my dad lives well for an old retired man. How does he do it? Every month, he gets money from us. Does he deserve it? No, he's a mean, and hateful piece of human crap. Why do we do it? He needs the help, and society shouldn't have to foot the bill when the family can help out. Would I be driving a 17 year old truck if I didn't have to help support him? Have you lost your mind? I could travel, have a new auto, and go get massages from captain fuzzy tits.

If he dies, Fuzzy Tits, warm up the massage table! Here I come!