Read an article last week, I'll see if I can find it, took last 100 years, economy is way better with a Demo as President. Shocked the author, went into deep analysis on how he measured etc. I mean what people sort of miss is many corps and the stock market are doing far better now bottom line wise than ever and all we hear from Repubs is it is a disaster out there, which Povich says, "is a lie", it has been a record breaking 4 years for the biggest corps out there. Sort of strange...
Hmmmm,This may open some doors to destroy Ground.
- Thread starter thedownhillEXPRESS
- Start date
Read an article last week, I'll see if I can find it, took last 100 years, economy is way better with a Demo as President. Shocked the author, went into deep analysis on how he measured etc. I mean what people sort of miss is many corps and the stock market are doing far better now bottom line wise than ever and all we hear from Repubs is it is a disaster out there, which Povich says, "is a lie", it has been a record breaking 4 years for the biggest corps out there. Sort of strange...
When you take into account the unemployed, the underemployed, those who've stopped trying to find work, the stagnant wages, the continued rise in healthcare costs, it's very tough for the middle class and working class. Big corporations are doing well because they've shed employees and invested in automation(many of them). And a lot of the profits are coming, as is well known here, by squeezing employees. People can say anything, often do, about how great their side is. What matters is how average folk are doing.
Yeah, that's what's happening.
You do realize what gridlock is right? And for the process to work normally it takes all three branches to agree and since not all 3 are controlled by the same party and nothing is getting done it means the minority (the one holding 1 of 3 branches) is the guilty party creating the gridlock, no? No matter if it was the other way around, it's the minority that has to go along.
That is how it works, the party with the weakest hand historically and gentlemanly went along ok'ishly with the majority. But since that didn't happen here, we have gridlock and then recording breaking executive orders, because of extreme gridlock, the prez has basically said, "If I don't do that, I was elected for 8 years to do next to nothing and that is not who I am, I do stand for things and want to make my mark where I can." Now the minority in this case probably made a smart play for them politically since in their world PARTY>COUNTRY. They cannot have the Majority look good along with the shift in race majorities if they ever want to win the White House in the foreseeable future. They have to hope this past 8 years will be looked at poorly (it will) and then hope they can use "See, look who's president, he did that, if it were us this would have never happened". It is sabotage via the one branch they do control. They are banking on the American public (The 25% who are independent that will swing the vote) to not see this or forget what happened. to get those votes to win back office. I know enough people have already forgotten what the Bush admin left us in financially at the beginning of 2008, which was an a real dewsy and they always laid blame on the current administration for that just months into their presidency, which is an insult to all Americans intelligence.
The problem with your theory is that the House has sent plenty of bills to the Senate that Harry Reid wouldn't even allow to be considered, let alone voted on. It's not 3 parts, it's the House and the Senate creating and passing bills that the other then takes up, shapes it, passes it, and the final agreed upon bill goes to the President who then either signs it or vetoes it. The House and Senate make up one branch, not two. If the House passes a budget that Harry Reid won't allow to be voted on in the Senate, who is obstructing? And keep in mind that the reason that the Republicans control the House is the majority of voters in 2010 and 2012 voted for more Republican candidates than Democrat. Ultimately it's the people's will who controls what, and it's important that our representatives keep that in mind.
Granted the economy crashed under the Bush Admin's watch, but there were plenty of players involved in that, including some prominent Democrats. But we can't lay everything at Bush's feet forever. What has this President done to create jobs? His answer has been to throw a huge amount of money at the problem, but it's done little to help the middle class, and we're in danger with the debt situation. Whatever anyone thinks about this President, it's clear he doesn't have the answers to what ails us. That's why that CNN poll shows that Romney would win if the election was held today. A clear majority believes Romney would have a better handle on improving the economy. And that's what matters to most, not race, not what happened 6 years ago, not all the scandals this administration seems to have. The majority want someone who'll improve their lot.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
FOX talk. The economy has significantly improved.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Obstructionist GOP lawmakers don't want any Obama legislation to succeed, and they're willing to sacrifice our country in the process.
BrownBrokeDown
Well-Known Member
Go ask the people who don't work at ups and other union jobs and fedex how their wages are going compared where they were 5, 10, 15 years ago. Hint, most jobs raises haven't kept up with inflation in at least 5 years, and in some places/companies more like 15 years. in essence they're buying less with their money now as married with children than they did as single 20 years olds with no kids.
Name the Obama legislation that will improve our lives if passed. The only major legislation that he pushed for that was passed was Obamacare and that's a boondoggle.
Right, Republicans can't think for themselves, FOX must tell them everything. I knew this long before there was a FOX. And here's a news flash: the economy hasn't improved. Companies, not just FedEx, have taken advantage of the crisis to trim workforces and hold down wages. Why? Because with more profit they can pay higher dividends, attracting Wall Street(i.e. the big 401k funds) to buy their stock, pushing the price up to where they can cash in their stock options and get even richer. Under this system, which really hasn't been around all that long, we may never, ever see a return to the days where people could find good jobs that gave them a good life and paid them a pension. This system is dependent on a large segment of the population being willing to settle for less. It's not a matter of them turning us into wage slaves, we're there already. And guess what, not only are the Republicans aware of this, the Democrats are too. Everyone is scrambling to get their well paid place in the pecking order of the new paradigm. And we're near the bottom of the pecking order, but not as bad off as Walmart employees, etc. Right now there are many college grads with a lot of debt and not enough jobs for all of them. The better jobs are fewer and fewer because too many have been shipped overseas. It's not the 1%, it's the 20% depending on the rest of us to settle for less. You can attack Republican bogeymen all you want, it's not this party or that, it's everyone who's figured this out maneuvering to get their's while the rest of us pitch fits because things aren't the way they used to be. I wish it weren't true but it is, and you'll never hear this on FOX or MSNBC.
overflowed
Well-Known Member
It has Van. If Fedex Express has to hold job fairs in NYC to attract people, then the whole country is but a year behind. Im talking about non metro areas.
I've heard horror stories about NYC from guys who worked there. It's probably known by now that FedEx will run you into the ground there without any real rewards. Sure they start at a much higher rate there, but the cost of living is much higher and FedEx won't get them to top out in a reasonable time. Why kill yourself on a job that won't let you exist without living with parents or having 4 or 5 roommates?
