But he bankrupted the USSR ending the cold war, good trade off.

actually alot of illegals pay taxes to fake accounts they see no benefit from. Instead of blaming the mexicans who come here looking for work. Why don't you call for the head of the people that hire them? No work they wouldn't come here.

I don't know what you're all worried about. The US$ will rapidly depreciate in value, which will decrease the value of the debt and help US exports. Just go long AUD/USD and you'll come out on top.

hate to burst your balloon but Gorbachev ended Communist rule not Reagan.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...the-cold-war-2
The guy who says it was Reagan's Ambassador to the USSR

everyone loves cuts until they affect them.
Also to be fair if I hear Barry say one more time so the US worker can compete with anyworker in the world. I want to fucking scream. How can the US worker compete when the global worker has gov healthcare so the corporations dont have to pay for it and that they make 30 cents an hour. It will never never happen plan on 10 percent unemployment being the new normal.

i could be wrong, but i remember reading our oil isn't supplied by the middle east, just paid to them. comes from south america for less transportation costs. its like this weird trade off. we pay them, and they send a shipment from south america so we don't do business directly with chavez.

sorry was busy all day so Im making up for lost time. lol High speed rails bring jobs here and the places those trains to go to. The chinese have high speed rails and they plan to be energy independent in 10 yrs. Hey we wont have shit but we will have a low deficit and 25 % unemployment.

12 clicks getting owned again?

boy he sure is turning into paul markham these days.

Won't happen.

The politicians don't have the balls to do anything real about this ...

Actually, about 100 people tanked the economy with the banking, morgtage, and credit default swap scams. The number is actually probably much lower than that.

But do you really think that poor people have so much power that they can ruin a country and the wealthy people at the top with all the money are powerless to stop it? That's the dumbest thing ever. The wealthy trick you into blaming poor people or other immigrants to take the heat off of themselves. The wealthy at the very top are running off will all the money, they collapsed the banks and made huge profits, they shipped all your jobs over seas. Why do you blame the poor people and immigrants. They have ZERO power and influence, they can't ruin anything if they wanted to. It's just a smoke screen.

The wealthy want those immigrants in the country because they depress wages. Stop blaming the poor people, it's the wealthy that do all the damage to this country.

Thanks obama...You da man...

If you take that much money out of the system the results might be a lot worse than some think.

The days of full employment in proper jobs are over. Look at how many people it took to make a car 15 years ago and compare it with today. Automation and computerisation have made millions unemployed in manufacturing. This has happened in most industries.

Then there's the export of jobs to 3rd World Countries. How many times do you phone a call center and speak to someone in India?

Look at these countries to see what exporting jobs means.

Czech.

Yes steady growth.

India.

And if you look around the World you see the same pattern and it's not new. How did Japan get to be such a thriving economy? Yes by exporting cars, electrical goods and other things OUT of the country.

We were sold the myth that the West would replace these jobs with technical jobs. That was wrong. China is now putting men into space and Japan is leading on technical advancement. China 40 years ago couldn't feed itself, Japan was devastated after WW2. They both grew by EXPORTING.

We were sold the myth that they would only be making cheap goods and we would remain at the top by the powers of technology. Welcome to the truth.

yeah, just like a kindergarten teacher getting owned by a 6 yr old over 2+2
:1orglaugh

You mean like Reagan did? With the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986? It's the assholes we have had since that don't have the balls to go after them!

Gorby didn't have a choice, his country was bankrupt! Sort of like what Osama Bin Laden has done to this country, damn he must be proud!

Fucking presidents whittling away at Tariffs, NAFTA, then including china, fuck those asshats for that!

I completely agree, it's a fucking joke, we have Amtrak and it has to be federally funded

Dude, I was making fun of you, I thought you would see that, you stated that it was the top .01%, when it's the top 1% that they are arguing about, BIG difference!

Most memorable question of the night? O?Reilly asked, ?does it bother you that so many people hate you?? O?Reilly later called his interview style ?suitably confrontational in a friendly way.?

http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...game-interview

He asked the same question to Bush during his interview with him, where was your outrage then?


Better than ignoring them

Um, right, you actually believe that? 12 to 24% depending on where you get your news believe that he is Muslim, I believe that he WAS a Muslim, he was RAISED Muslim and thats part of his life, he then became a Christian, How to I believe that, same thing happened with the Minister that Baptized my daughter! People can convert, But Barry converted to that Racist asshole minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright which I found to be more troubling.
So back to to the 12 to 24%, how is that the Shellacking as Barry calls it going to be the MAJORITY?
Face it Barry's politics are pissing off people

What the unemployed are paid is questionable, but they have to be paid or found jobs. The chances of them getting jobs in manufacturing today are not good. Exporting jobs and automation has changed the dynamics.
Silicon Valley is shrinking

Government study shows the number of hi-tech jobs in the valley declined by 16.5 percent between 2001 and 2008

The number of high-tech jobs in all industries Silicon Valley declined by 86,000, or 16.5 percent, between 2001 and 2008, according a federal study of employment trends in the valley.

Read some more.

Not yet, will they is the question.

Dumbest part of your post. Sorry but it's not the end game yet. Those countries are on the rise and only time will tell if they create companies like those you name. I saw the same attitude when Japanese car makers started making cars. "They'll never make a car as goos as we do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" :Oh crap

I started work in 1965 at the age of 15, was working weekends before then as I was still officially at school. Worked right the way through to 2008. 43 years of continual employment. I'm one of the people paying taxes to support those who can't find a job. Well I was while I worked.

I think we need to give the unemployed jobs to do sweeping the streets, mowing lawns of public buildings, assisting old and infirm people and other jobs. In return for their welfare checks. Because no country can afford the political or civil consequences of having vast numbers of unemployed.

It was very different when I left school. The jobs in manufacturing were there to take. Today it's very different and we need a new mindset. We simply can't employ the number of people that are available in meaningful productive jobs. Service industries might take a lot but not all. Even Silicon Valley isn't doing so great.

But it's nice to see the I'm All Right Jack, So Fuck You" attitude from the short term thinkers on GFY. Imagine what will happen to your incomes if they try do balance the budget by massive cuts.

Our incomes largely rely on Americans signing up with disposable cash, they will go into the toilets if there are massive cuts. Less people with less money to spend = Less Sign Ups.

And that will effect my income.

"An estimated 3 million unauthorized immigrants received amnesty under Reagan's program."
if barry did that they would be calling for his head. All this he is destroying the country bullshit. The market is over 12,000 , companies are flush with cash. The middle class isnt needed anymore. They got to get the people all jazzed up like they are on your side. They arent, you are not needed anymore. There is no right and left just corporatists and the sheep they manipulate.

if you don't live in this country paul why do you have such an invested interest in it? you always are quick to criticize, i take it you were that unhappy which is why you left to czech republic anyway? still its like you left, so you have nothing left to do with it. but you love telling others how bad it is

let me hear you baa.
:1orglaugh

And exactly how did he do that? I gave a quote form MSNBC, the most liberal news outlet and thats the worse thing they could say about the interview, besides they are just pissed that no one gives a shit about what they have to say and they constantly whine about Fox, thats the worse they could say and thats the same thing he asked the Bush, if you're going to go one and one about his tactics, well he's the number one news comentator in the US, I think he knows his job
I really don't give a rats ass about his religion, the country has a 9% unemployment rate, people are falling off the 99 week rate, thats going to lower the rate, yet you actually think people give a shit about his religion?
My political ideology is balance, hell I cheered for Perot, not for the man, but I saw that as an end to the two party system, as far as kids, my daughter is one of the most balanced people you could ever meet, she's such a happy soul that in the Navy, she kept getting in trouble for whistling on watch and they drug tested her a lot because they thought she was high. She's a free spirit, just like her dad

That's because it didn't work, to repeat what doesn't work is kinda stupid isn't it?
Sort of like the budget, we can't cut entitlements and when the economy takes a dump, Barry wants to add to the entitlements, kinda fucking stupid don't you think?

The middle class is in trouble because of that lame shit called NAFTA, the unions said this would happen, but no one listened

I rely on the US for sales. The country that sends the most sign ups to my customers and the country where my customers live, is my concern.

But this problem isn't just in the US it's in the West in general.

I'm starting to believe every economy is a sham and the biggest country is the one that can lie the best.

David Brooks speaks about this is his column today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/op...ml?ref=opinion

Jared lives a much more intellectually diverse life than Sam. He loves Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia and his iPhone apps. But many of these things are produced outside the conventional monetized economy. Most of the products are produced by people working for free. They cost nothing to consume.

They don?t even create many jobs. As Cowen notes in his book, the automobile industry produced millions of jobs, but Facebook employs about 2,000, Twitter 300 and eBay about 17,000. It takes only 14,000 employees to make and sell iPods, but that device also eliminates jobs for those people who make and distribute CDs, potentially leading to net job losses.

In other words, as Cowen makes clear, many of this era?s technological breakthroughs produce enormous happiness gains, but surprisingly little additional economic activity.

get rid of NAFTA and a lot of those jobs that went overseas will come back. More foreign companies will open factories here in this country. Obama is so concerned about tradeing products that he doesn't see it would better if they produced and consumed in this country. Even Hilary during her run for president said that NAFTA needs some work.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=atUKcP4eSEvY

rabble rabble rabble

Poor republicans crack me up

The price of goods bought isn?t disconnected from wages. Essentially, Americans make too much money to sustain their current standard of living making these items. To bring those jobs back into the US you would need to either pay wages equivalent of what they do in other developing countries or suffer a general decrease in the US standard of living as prices increased to pay for higher wages.

The US is moving away from these industries because they do not produce enough wealth to keep up with US GDP. To get GDP per capita close to that of the US -- China for example -- would also have to transition its economy away from these industries.

Also, The U.S. still produces and exports a lot of goods. In 2009, for example, the U.S. exported a total of $1.057 trillion worth of goods. 6.6% of that dollar total was to China, which puts it third on the list of countries buying American goods. Canada was #1 with 19.4% of the total; Mexico was second at 12.2%.

You made fun of yourself by missing my entire point. If you read my first post I was talking about the .01% controlling the debate in the media. Not the amount of taxes that the .01% pays. Just because someone makes $500K a year doesn't mean they have any control over the debate in this country even though their interests may be in line with those that do. You need hundreds of millions, if not billions to be in that special club and it's a very small club, not nearly 1% of the population.

Wait, this is funny, they assemble Dodge trucks in Mexico, you think they don't produce enough wealth?

People making over $500k DO have control over the debate in this country, ever hear of MONEY BEING PAID TO POLITICIANS?

And you're not paying attention to current events, you're just not getting it, it's the top 1%, not .01% they want to raise taxes on. Where the fuck are you getting these numbers? Out of your ass?
They want to raise the taxes on persons and couples that earn over $250k

Under Obama?s plan, in 2013 the top rate on ordinary income would rise from 35% to 39.6% while the top rate on dividends and long term capital gains would go from 15% to 20%.

I'm not making fun of myself, but keep it up and it will be easy to make fun of you!

The per capita GDP of Mexico is 1/3 the USA.

And China per capita GDP is 1/7 the USA.

The only thing that's funny is that you have no idea what I wrote.

Reading your posts, your whole analysis is colored by your political ideology. Just like a religious person, you start with a conclusion and then back fill your explanations and supporting arguments.

For the same reason it's almost impossible to use reasoned arguments or explanations with them, I don't think it will work with you.

Trying to solve 21st Century problems with 20th Century solutions isn't going to work.

It would be nice if they did, but they won't.

I'm making a totally different argument than the one you are seeing. I guess you are unable to understand it and just want to see a simple numbers game. I have twice said that I am not talking about the top wage earners who are going to get taxed, I already explained that the cut off is $250K and I'm fully aware of that. Should I explain that a third time for you?

I'm talking about a very small number of elite Americans who are able to steer the debate in a direction that servs their interests. If you want to believe that the debate this country is having on taxes and the debt is both honest and transparent, then I guess there is no point in arguing with you anymore.

America is being destroyed to bring in the One World Government.

An explaination that makes sence always works for me, you just don;t make sence, you stated that

I said you didn't take in account that Mexico is assembling Dodge trucks, that was in reference to you stating that the US is moving away from these industries, if you got rid of NAFTA, that would change!

But you argue that I'm wrong and only offer some shit stained idea that my debating skillset is not one you can argue with, WTF? I guess facts is something you can't deal with it, so be it!

What are you retarded?

Did you not understand the words I am typing?

Are you really this naive? The number of wealthy Democrats who make contributions to progressive groups and the number of wealthy Republicans who make contributions to conservative groups pretty much cancels out. So that leaves a very, very small number at the top who can actually control the debate one way or the other.

Second, the debate is set, then money is raised based on that debate. That's how contributions work. Money isn't raised by political groups then the group asks the donors which topics are most important to them..lol. For example, about a decade ago, the hot debate for Republicans was 'family values" so they would try to set the debate in this country about wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion. They then would raise money based on that debate despite the fact that abortion and gay rights, while important issues, should in no way be at the forefront of national politics.

You raise money based on the debate you set, not to determine the debate.

My point once again is this, a very small number of Americans want to keep hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves if taxes are kept low for the super wealthy. That small number of elite Americans at the top have controlled the debate in such a way that they have convinced poor and middle income Americans to side with them, despite it not being in their best interest. That's MY WHOLE POINT. This discussion on taxes and the debt is not even close to being honest.

My use of the number ".01%" was to show that a very small yet powerful group have hijacked the tax/debt debate and are using it for their own gain. There may be people lower on the totem pole who have something to gain by aligning with the super rich, but at the most that is an additional 5% of the population. So even with those numbers, 5% of the population benefits from tax cuts, and it was the number one issue in America being debated. Do those numbers seem democratic to you?

Easy, tiger. What I wrote may not make sense to you, but that's your problem.

What part about per capita GDP do you not understand and why do you assume I don't take into account assembly of trucks in Mexico?

That's one way to put it I suppose. LOL

Here's what my shit stained idea meant in example... look how you had to frame it around Obama?

Now, I gave you the facts why this is specious. Whether you understood them or not is another matter.

Not to mention, the article you posted merely illustrates political posturing by Hillary Clinton and lobbying by labor unions.

More specifically, a politician who was ramping up for an election while pitted against her own economic advisors?