I am not racist because I say, think, or do something racist; you are racist for pointing it out

FYI, for those with eyes like mine, the window decal says, "Talk Sh*t Get Shot"

Oh, I just now got it. Wow, that is racist. After doing a google search apparently there is a more direct version of that sticker where the Obama symbol is used in the 0 of the 2012 and has a red line crossing it out.

My first thought was that there was some declaration the repubs signed about how they would vote and the sticker was asking them not to renege (wasn't sure if renig was a slang word) on that promise.

Here's a related link:

i thought renig was someone who was running in that area for 2012, but now i get it. it's it's the anti-obama 2012 sticker...but one that not many would get right off the bat.

MM: boy do I get a lotta you-know-what every time I bring this up in other fora! My fan's twitching.

@ Mickey Mouser, a person is being racist when they use an individuals race, as a negative weapon against another person, or entire group. The same offense occurs when using sex, gender, and sexuality as negatives. Sexism is usually linked, by default, to offenses relating to gender and sexuality.

Gonna assume you don't know me so hope this doesn't come across as offensive- I was being sarcastic Flex ;-)

I always comment under the the assumption that most of the people reading don't know me and couldn't possibly know when I was being sarcastic. Avoids a lot of unnecessary confusion.

*nods @GR* very good point- will keep it in mind

@Flex- serious apologies...sometimes I get lost in my own little world...didn't mean to offend or confuse

I am not racist because I say, think, or do something racist; you are racist for pointing it out

I'm familiar with your sarcasm. I just wasn't sure if this one of those times or you just trying to be intellectual. :)

LOL fair enough Chris. FTR I did not assume hatred from ya. I am 98% of the time being sarcastic and only 2% of the time being serious. I chose the name Mickey not because that is my real name (it's not) but because I know helping people laugh can help them understand (as JS and SC do). But when I do make ya laugh I appreciate it ;-) It highlights my day- as pathetic as that is (yes I know!)

The sarcasm seemed pretty obvious to me. Though, honestly, I've seen a lot of conservatives with just the kind of poor self-awareness and insensitivity to irony needed to say something that stupid...

That truck should be enshrined as a monument to bigotry, violent stupidity and... stupidity.

I'm an "old white retiree who lives out east." I voted for Obama and will do so again. Maybe there's a certain type of "old white retiree" who wouldn't vote for him. Maybe that's the same type that would move to Arizona. I certainly wouldn't.

But......but.......but......they didn't REALIZE that any of that stuff was racist! I mean, if they said that, we just GOTTA believe those good folks, 'cuz they're old and white and stuff.

Does that mean if someone makes a bigoted remark, they're masturbating? ewwwwwwwwwwww!

That is the funniest quote ever

Great, Uffda, that one's going to be in my head for days now. My eyes, my eyes...

Yep...And in public!

Could be a gateway to cultural rape...Not that big a step!

... and hanging right by an a-hole ... !

How anyone could drive through metro Detroit with that sticker on their car and still make it out in one piece is beyond me.

The Detroit area is one of the most racially ploarized areas in the country, sad to say. It's challenging when the most predominant businesses are cars 'n bars.

However, there are those of us who live here that don't partake.

Oh, I'll bet the owner of that truck thinks he's a real hot-shot macho he-man and that everyone looks up to him. Stickers like that make me nauseated.

And there probably will be lots more to come, one more offensive than the other, especially as we get closer to 2012. Aargh.......

Wow, I thought it was just a typical misspelling at first.

Ugh.

Me, too. The sticker makes more 'sense' if it's deliberate, unfortunately.

I think Bill Maher suggested that not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are probably republican.

@Chris Randall: oh to be so naive! Y'all don't live in Dixie, do ya, son?

Most Republicans are decent people just like most Democrats are. Every party has their lepers. For Democrats they have the anarchists who refuse to stay home anytime a pro-Democrat/pro-liberal event is hosted. For Republicans they have the racists. The only thing I can't figure- as a difference between the two- is why do Republican politicians seem to cater to this lower denomination on the right so much more than the left (and yes I'm acknowledging that the left has done this before in the past)?

Hey, I didn't say that was my belief. "Some of my best friends are Republican." :)

@MM, good point about catering to lowest common denominator.

But in truth, I do have a lessor view of Republicans who knowingly vote for their representatives knowing what kind of policies they have been enacting recently. Mostly because they're voting against their own self interests, but I don't think they quite get that yet.

IMO, the republicans are trying to tank the economy for various reasons.

I struggle against believing that. I want to believe Republicans want what's best for America just as Democrats do. Frankly sometimes I believe politicians- regardless of party- live in their own world and the rest of us are just screwed. It's hard for me not to despair. I don't even care anymore whether or not I'm doing good; I despair because I'm worried about all the families out there who can't feed their children (YES I realize it sounds corny, but really that's what has me so disgruntled I'm not kidding). Frankly it's pretty heart shattering. I try to tell myself that Republicans just have a completely different view of the world than Democrats do and that the lens through which I look at Republicans has became blurry.

What I believe is that they have given up on their government (FTR this was caused by governments inefficiencies) and that they honestly and truly believe that if you privatize everything it will lead to more efficiency. I think they believe that you have more representation, accountability, employment, higher salaries, better working conditions, better benefits, and more power (which is the biggest of them all) over private entities rather than public. I think the mentality on the right is "I give up w/ gov't" and the mentality on the left is "I am frustrated, but still see it as fixable." So I don't know if there's an intentional let's-sink-it-and-see-what-floats mentality going on so much as a belief that government can't do anything so let's just privatize it and give it to someone who can. Once you put yourself in those shoes- in the mentality of those shoes- then you realize "sinking the economy" really just translates into giving it over to the private sector and letting the private sector have free reign. If the economy sucks then that's the way it was always supposed to be and the mounds of debt the gov't incurred was to prevent that inevitable reality. If the economy is good then that's proof positive that the free-market, privatized system is far better than the socialized, regulated system.

I think that's the juxtaposition we're fighting w/ right now and that's the difficulty we're having as political entities. Those are two extremely different view points and how you reconcile the two I do not know.

The Republicans have legitimized the right wing radicals and made them a part of the party. Dems have not done the same. The left wing radicals are not a part of the regular Dem party. They are merely a fringe group. With the Ryan budget, the Republicans have insured their defeat in the House along with the Tea Party. Then the bloodletting will begin. The racism and wacky ideas are turning off the independent voters. Let the Republicans continue their path to each candidate trying to outcrazy the others.

MM, you give them far more credit for good faith than I do.

@Mickey

I struggle against believing that. I want to believe Republicans want what's best for America...

come to the dark cynical side. we haz cookies.

@ Mickey,

they honestly and truly believe that if you privatize everything it will lead to more efficiency.

Would you rather get service at Starbucks or the post office?

The Post Office. They deliver my mail anywhere in the world for 42 cents. Starbucks charges me 6$ for a small chai.

Let me rephrase that. Who provides better service, the DMV or Starbucks?

By the way, the Post Office a colossal failure. Private companies do a much better job than they do.

Based on what evidence Eap? Not pretending the USPS doesn't have it's problems, but what evidence do you have says people like UPS/Fedex/DHL don't have equally bad problems? Hmm? How are you concluding the USPS is a "colossal failure" hmm?

Anecdotally: My grandfather retired from the AF after Vietnam (her served in WWII, Korea, and part of Vietnam) and went to work for the USPS until he retired officially in this late 60's. The USPS has their own medical insurance program- called the APWU- which I was eligibile for until I was 21 (had the evil, awful Obamacare been passed earlier I would've been on it until 26) that gave me vision, dental, and health. It was cheaper than what I pay private insurance (do not have dental or vision, either) to cover me now. They also were less of a hassle to deal w/. Additionally I have never had a package lost w/ the USPS, have never had bad service from them, and every postman/postwoman I've ever met has been the kindest person to me in the world. I have not had bad service from Fedex or DHL, I should point out, but the USPS has always been the most convenient. They try to get you through the line as fast as possible and they usually welcome people who're in a good mood. If you've had a bad experience w/ the USPS it's probably because of your demeanor- I have never, regardless if it was public or private, had a bad experience w/ customer service reps. Probably because I've been one for so long.

Customer service sucks regardless of which sector you work in except in the public sector you get paid better and in the private you get screwed more. Dunno why I'd favor one over the other- seriously. This is a false choice, anyways, because you're assuming Starbucks is a delivery service and has awesome service too. I know more people who wouldn't buy form Starbucks than would buy from the Post Office simply because Starbucks is a @!$%#ty company. Although I realize that wasn't the analogy you were trying to make (or perhaps you were trying to prove my point that you believe that by not shopping at Starbucks it will cease to exist and therefore you have more control), but I feel it should just be said. Starbucks has @!$%#ty coffee lmao. Human Bean atw.

Th post office does a great job where I live. They even get mail to me when the sender messed up the address. I've not had much of a problem with the DMV either.

Comparing coffee service with licensing services is apples and oranges. Of course people would rather get coffee than get their driver's license.

Starbucks is mediocre as far as coffee goes. I've worked at two locally owned coffeehouses in my life. I've learned that Americans like predictable mediocrity more than they like quality and service. They'll pick Starbucks over the little locally owned place just because of brand recognition.

By the way, the Post Office a colossal failure. Private companies do a much better job than they do.

I know that's not true. It's one of the things republican corporate interests wants to defund so they can take their market share BECAUSE it is so successful. They're also the competition and without that, I know shipping prices would sky rocket.

DMV does a good job, but has a resource problem. When I have to wait in line for 1 hour, to wait in line, that's not necessarily bad service, just bad logistics. In many areas, they lack the resources to accommodate the demand. I wouldn't mind seeing some privatization with DMV services. I would pay $5 to not have to wait in line. But it's not that they will do a better job, but will allow for market expansion and contraction in certain areas.

The DMV usually is so slow though because there aren't enough DMV's per area. I remember when I was growing up in Ft. Collins we only had 1 DMV for a long time. That's 1 DMV to service like 250k people. Once we opened up a second DMV (there's only 2 to this day as far as I know- oy vey) you ended up halving the time in line people had to wait. It's not that the DMV purposely tries to make your life miserable (have you ever talked to a DMV employee? They'll tell you their first and last intention is to get people in and out of the door because the faster they can deal w/ you the faster they can get to the next person and the faster they can get done- which BTW is the exact same mentality that a private business would have, but I digress) it's 8/10 caused because of congestion. Again I won't pretend like there aren't errors at the gov't level, but it seems to me the conservative answer has been because 8:10 times things don't work we should just shut gov't down completely rather than the liberal argument of ughhh we can improve that to, you know, 9.5:10. That seems to be the fundamental difference. It's not maliciousness or anything; it's just a different view point of reality.

@ Mickey, the post office posted an 8.5 billion dollar loss last year. UPS had record earnings. I hope that's enough.

My belief that the USPS is a failure has nothing to do with the workers there. I've never had a problem them, it's the system that's been set up to lose money. I seriously don't think there's any intent to make money there any more. It just looks like another area of the government running at a loss as an excuse to raise taxes.

As far as the Starbucks/DMV analogy. I wasn't making a statement on coffee. I'm making a statement on customer service. I dread going to the DMV more than the dentist. I wait in long lines and get treated like crap by people that know they can get away with it. When I go to a business I almost always get quick service with a smile. If I don't, they don't get my business. With the government I don't have a choice.

Any choice is better than none. You go to Human Bean because they have a better product. That's the beauty of capitalism. You get a choice. When the government is your only choice you just get what they feel like giving you and most of the time it's something you don't want.

'Scuse me, the USPS is self-funding for the most part. It was the very first place the GOP MBAs fiddled with when Uncle Ronny Reagan got into office. They run very (and as the daughter-in-law and sister-in-law of postmen, I happen to know) lean and mean.

@ Chris, I don't think you know how business works. If the price of shipping goes up, a competitor comes in with lower prices to take that business. That's basic economics. They're not trying to take that market share, they are in fact doing it. If the USPS was so great, there would be no UPS. I think they should privatize the DMV. I have to pay a "convenience fee" to renew my license online. Really? I'm paying more to not waste both of our time waiting in line? That's perhaps the worst business model ever.

Look, I don't want to shut anything down. I just want the free market to work it's magic. If I can get better service at a cheaper price from a business than I can from the government, then why not? I can't think of much the government does for me that a business can't do better. And I know there are essential services out there that the government must have control over. This isn't an all or nothing proposition.

I agree with Mickey USPS is great and Starbucks has @!$%ty coffee that's horribly overpriced. And the lines are longer at Starbucks and the service worse than they are at the post office I use. There are arely lines at my post office and the guys are always friendly.

As to the DMV I have been able to automatically renew my driver's licence through the mail (there that terrible USPS ;-) ) for over a decade and have not had to go to an office even to get a photo. Second to the last time I went was to "retire" my old car (massive smog test failure). I made an appointment was out of there in about a half hour. The last time I went was to pick up a set of vanity plates and to turn in the plates that came with my new car. That was in 2006.

@ Carolina, the USPS can't be self funding if they're running at a loss. I don't care who messed the thing up, it's just messed up. It sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're blaming the GOP for it not running well and you're also saying that it runs well.

Private companies "do it better" (make more money for their owners/shareholders versus what they pay out in wages, infrastructure upkeep, etc.) by hiring lower-paid, part-time employees who are ineligible for benefits, or classifying their employees as "independent contractors", thrusting any liabilities on these individuals instead of the company. I read a couple of customer service comparisons earlier and the USPS, FedEx and UPS all scored the same in on-time comparisons. The USPS beat the others in price comparisons.

The "Race to the bottom" continues.....

Who do you think pays the wages of the government workers? People that work in the private sector. They're effectively leaching off the rest of us, hurting the economy.

I think free markets are basically a good idea, so in that I agree with Republicans. Competition is wonderful way to drive eficiency. They take the idea to far however. It is not the answer for everything.

What I disagree with is the idea that the government should be a free market enterprise. Government should be concerned with the common good of the population. GOP says equates that to be a loss of freedom.

GOP says let companies do whatever for the sake of profits, deregulate. But companies are not moral and don't consider the common good. Regulation controls business where there is a conflict between profit and the common good.

After the financial crisis that was assisted by deregullation and the Gulf disaster which also was assisted by deregulation I think we should listen to people like the ones looking at the nuclear industry who are saying that the regulators are basically industry insiders.

Is the USPS needed for the common good? Is it a service that the US government supplies that cannot be better served by private industry? At its inception it certainly was. Now it is a good policy discussion.

ya *cha huck* cause it's like public sector employees aint payin' nothing and don't pay taxes so's they can't, like, be figered into the equation. *cha huck*....o wait....

FTR This is my last post for a couple of days. See ya all have a good'n *going outta town*

sorry, eap; no rephrases or switching comparisons.

love the Post Office, not always fond of the employees.

hate Starbucks and not because i don't drink coffee. i think the attraction is the appearance of sophistication -- "half-soy cream, half-latte, low-fat, low-foam, sprinkle of cinnamon frappaccino venti" ... or whatever -- and of course, the price -- "look how successful i am buying a 20-oz coffee for $6.50!" if you recall when Starbucks started, that's all it was about, that it was so expensive, it must be classy, and spawned many imitators and/or spoofs.

DMV is good, too, but as has been pointed out, you're comparing apples and oranges, and now mangoes, too, in switching from Post Office to DMV becuase it didn't make your point. also, DMV is a state agency, the Post Office is federal.

also, have a good vacay, Mickey.

For competition to drive down prices there needs to be than more than 2 or 3 players.

I don't know any individual that uses UPS for letters. They mostly deal with packages.

And UPS and FedEx won't deliver to remote, low population areas. The USPS does. Public entities work for the public good. That's why the right really hates the USPS. Anything that doesn't screw over the little guy for private profit is, in their morally inverted universe, evil. Any other reasons they give are just smoke and mirrors.

As a person "in the loop", I would like folks to think about utilities and gov't. regulated things being privatized and solely "for profit".

Those totally deregulated "for profit" companies would drop those folks out in the far reaches and dirt roads faster than you can say "Comcast".

Relevance: Comcast is totally deregulated and does not place cable in areas that are not populated enough to make it worth installing their network.

I'll guarantee you old Ma Bell would do the same things and would probably sell off certain areas if they were allowed to do it. They currently have a network that carry their competitors' service because the competitors will not spend money installing their network.

The government does have a purpose to regulate commerce, or there would be so many people "left out", even more than they are now.

Post Office a colossal failure

delivering since 1775...yep, huge failure.

Yup, Collossal failure: Just because they have been "delivering since 1775" dosen't mean it's a great institution. www(dot)msnbc.msn.com/id/41875688/ns/business-consumer_news , www(dot)dailyfinance.com/2010/03/02/losing-money-isnt-the-u-s-postal-services-only-problem/ , www(dot)//voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/02/postal_service_on_tap_for_11_b.html ,And just so everyon knoes about the compatition (UPS/FedEx/etc) they are not ALLOWED by law to deliver "Low Priority" letters & packages. (union demand)

internet usage - faxes - the ease of long distance calling being cheaper - all the increase in technology has also impacted the USPS. people don't write letters like they use to.

besides the sending of cards, if i use the USPS twice in a year - that would be a lot. it's not that it's a failure, it's the fact that times and technology has changed - which makes it harder.

having a centralized mailing system is worth it.

The USPS is a dinosaur, but as you pointed out, it is not because they are a failure, but because technology is changing how we communicate. I honestly can't remember the last time I sent a letter; I send cards for birthdays, Mothers Day, Christmas, etc., but other than that, I can't say I use the USPS too much. On the other hand, I receive lots from them, from magazine subscriptions to Netflix DVDs. Those are things that UPS and FedEx don't do, and probably never will do. I think, though, that as more and more things are put in digital form, and made available over high speed internet connection, the need for the USPS will continue to shrink. Not a failure, just outmoded, like the companies that used to make buggy whips. Those PRIVATE companies weren't failures...technology simply made them obsolete.

@ Pat, there's nothing moral about the government either. I'd say it's way more corrupt than private business. Most of the people on this site are completely convinced half of the politicians in the country are out to ruin it. How many businesses are trying to do the same thing?

I also don't know where you're getting this info about the nuclear industry. I'd really like to see you back that up.

Anything that doesn't screw over the little guy for private profit is, in their morally inverted universe, evil.

Meddling Monk, do you work for free? Do you expect a business to not post a profit? Funny how you think you know what's in people's hearts. That's very arrogant. The reason people don't like the USPS is because it's running at a huge loss. All that loss has to be paid by the taxpayer. Do you pay federal income taxes? If you do you should be outraged. If you don't then you should have no opinion on the matter.

Also, I don't know where anyone gets the idea that deregulation lead to this financial crisis. The entire housing bubble was started by the government pressuring banks to make loans to the poor (subprime.) That forced the banks to sell off the loans because they didn't want to deal with the risk. When Wall Street figured it out, they did what they could to shelter themselves. The banks were making plenty of money before the government got in the way. If they'd had left well enough alone, this never would have happened.

I really don't want to hear that these people were taken advantage of. They signed a contract. If they didn't understand it then they shouldn't have signed it. I didn't buy a house because I couldn't afford it. It's the liberal way. Punish the responsible and reward people for making bad decisions.

Uffdaguy, The reason the nobody else delivers those items you mentioned is because of the rules unions have fought for, nobody else can deliver "Low-priority" items (dvd's, magazines, etc.) It is the same thing as the unions not letting ships that are registered in other countries to help clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico recently. Postal workers have it too easy on the backs of the taxpayer and will be obsolete soon. $25 per hour to walk around leaving cards on doors? plus the benefits and extras are killing the whole thing. Another example where the unions talked themselves right out of work. i agree about the banks, govt. and not buying if you know you can't afford to make the payments...what jackasses decided that was in anyone's best interest?

It doesn't matter if postal workers were paid minimum wage....it doesn't change the basic fact that technology is bypassing the business of the postal service. I understand your hatred of unions....repubs absolutely hate the working people they claim to support, because every penny spent to pay them is a penny taken from the hand of a deserving rich person.

eap

I think you need to read a few facts about the USPS

http://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/_pdf/Postal_Facts_2011.pdf

For one it has a .com not a .gov address. It doesn't receive tax payer money that why it increaes the price of a 1st class stamp every now and then.

Maria

http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2010/pr10_107.htm

If they don't receive tax payer money, how are they paying off this 8.5 billion dollar loss last year?

I guess we'll have to bail them out...

Worked for Wall Street, didn't it? If the taxpayer bailed out the $8.5 billion loss for the USPS, that wouldn't even pay for a fraction of what AIG got.

Wall Street knew they could convince mortgage companies to lend to higher risk borrowers by wink-nudge, you'll be rid of it quickly. We juggle around and sell off some non risks with the risks and you'll make money and stockholders will make money and we will make money on fees for funds. It's been going on awhile now, but there was a down payment required by lenders. I paid a down payment 93 and my mortgage loan was sold very shortly after escrow closed.

I think the no down payment and adjustable rates was the death knell. Yes, the borrower signed after they were told you can sell or refinance in 5 years, no problem.

These bubbles are to be expected, but loosening up SEC regulations to allow the Ponzi Schemes with playing hot potato or musical chairs on the market really blew up the bubble fast.

oops clarification

I paid a down payment (IN 19)93 and my mortgage loan was sold very shortly after escrow closed.

Uffdaguy, so you agree with the AIG bailout then?

@ Sandy, please show some proof of the Wall Street/Bank conspiracy. What I said has been well documented. It doesn't make any sense that Wall Street or the banks would drive themselves out of business like that. These guys are in the business of making money, not going bankrupt.

In 1995 CRA regulations required banks to lend to "underserved" communities, i.e. the poor. The government literally required banks to lend to people who were risky!

This is very interesting to look around, listen to conference calls about auctions on credit default swaps and there is significant documentation regarding the very complex situation. There was some policy in 2003 being overhauled (because of the explosion of the bubble), there were conference calls regarding how to sort out the global auctions of these credit default swaps, which I was talking about.

This is separate from regulating that banks are required to loan to higher risk borrowers.

I am not arguing with you over the rightness or wrongness of trying to help people into home ownership.

This is an organization that has a linkage between Wall Street and Banks, globally.

I am apparently not eligible to post links here, but backspace from the first backslash and copy and paste into your browser or search engine:

http: //www.isda.org/c_and_a/risk_manage.html

Uffdaguy, Here we go with the "Republican" crap again. You and your fellow Ed worshipers need to quit believing Ed when he says the "Working Class" & Union "Workers" are the same thing ("working Class"=93% of American workers, Union "Workers" =7% of American workers) There is a big difference between the two and you should learn what it is. It's too bad you can't help being a Parrot for Ed, you may actually make a valid point one day. And my reply to you was about how you said the other companies don't deliver the items you mentioned, It is prohibited by rules the union put in place. My comment had nothing to do with your technology point so relax. Your so busy looking for anyone to argue with you that you see it in every post.

Wow, Joe, I must be pretty amazing to be a parrott for Ed, since I don't even watch his show.

Try again.

haha, this is the Rachel Maddow blog not the Ed blog. I don't watch Ed either. ::shrug::

Typical.... nothing about the content of the post. Just looking for an argument as usual. You watch Ed, it all that comes out of your mouth.

Grrrl, I know what blog it is, it's a Uffdaguy thing.

Side note: The USPS is not a major failure....Did anyone see the news this morning? Technology AND Union PENSIONS..

USPS is a major failure. They're already running a 2 billion dollar deficit this year.

eap1, That is what I was pointing out. Above, the story is that there is no problem...must be e-mail destroying the postal system. Has nothing to do with union pensions and mismanagement.

Sorry, the sarcasm was lost on me :)

uffda, honey.. please, let's move on.

Grrrl, I know what blog it is, it's a Uffdaguy thing.

Joe, If this is a personal beef thing, then use the Newsvine contact feature to contact Uffda rather than disrupting the whole blog. This blog post wasn't about the USPS, Ed or whatever personal issue you have with Uffda.

Grrrl, Although I thank you for your concern on the whole matter, and i do recognise that the bumper sticker at the top of this conversation has nothing to do with the USPS, the conversation now has everything to do with the USPS (please look as every comment, go back at least 20/25 posts, maybe further i got tired of looking to make my point) as every one of them mentions the USPS. This is not as personal thing with me, I am here to have conversations and Uffdaguy continues to reply to almost every post with insults, snide remarks and general harassment in an attempt to show how superior he is to anyone that has a different viewpoint than he does. His best one is calling everyone that does not bow down to him a "Republican". I have been a life long Democrat and just "unaffiliated" myself after Obama started spending more money than a drunken sailor.

joe, he had to spend money to make sure we didn't go into full collapse. but, as for bailing out quite a few corps, that was headed by bush - obama just saw it through. as for other spending, it's either we spend now and jump start this thing, which is investing, or we let it go into an ever more spiral of collapse on top of collapse on top of collapse...

what is more worse then anything is the fact we have companies, factories, that closing it's doors...and no doors opening in those areas to take it's place. this is a time like we've never seen before.

Carrie-Anne, I agree that some spending had to be done but Enough is enough. The Obama administration tacked on an additional $115 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Much of TARP's losses are due to auto company bailouts and the home loan program initiated by Obama. Companies closing are due to the taxes they have to pay (not greedy owners), raising the taxes on them to make up for the crazy spending is going to ruin the country. www(dot)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world , Any company that stays here is crazy from a business standpoint.

from a business stand point, america is the biggest customer....no jobs. no money. no customer.

let me correct that and point out....no welfare..no unemployment...no job...no customer.

Carrie-Anne, As we can see, just because a company moves it's workers and assets out of a high tax rate country (America) does not mean those companies will suffer at all in how much product they sell. Ge had a banner year and so did the oil companies, etc. And "Unemployment" is an insurance that workers pay into in order to receive benefits if something happens and one finds themselves out of work. "Welfare" is a whole other animal, I am all for helping anyone that truly needs help but am totally against helping anyone that would rather leach off the real working,taxpaying person. (we all know they are out there and the majority of people who receive welfare are manipulating the system) I personally know many people who lie to get it and my Daughter was telling me of a girl she knows that was waiting for he check so she could buy fireworks. Now is the time for you know who and you know who to jump in and call me a "Hate the down trodden,love the corporations Republican Fox watcher"...

unemployment benefits are being targeted like welfare - and with less people paying in, less will be dispensed.

Carrie-Anne, I think "Targeted" is mis-leading. Looking to cut fraud and abuse is not "targeting" although I understand your point. It is not being "targeted" to get rid of it, it is being "targeted" to be fixed, same thing with Medicare and Social Security. There are actually dummies out there that think the Republicans want to get rid of those programs!

there are people who abuse the system, i know that - but there are many who are surviving because it's the only way to do so. there aren't enough jobs that pay enough to survive on for all of us...

there isn't enough people, skilled enough or able to start up businesses...

there isn't a boom in innovation...it's slowed down..

this is truly a time like we've never seen - people, business people, need to step out of their corporate jobs and invest in building new businesses on ameican soil...roll out those corporate bodies for new ameican ones.

it would be mega profitable to them and to us as a whole.

Carrie-Anne, I agree it is the only way some can get by and that is exactly why we have those systems. With the huge amount of people needing them, we need to reexamine them so they do not fail from too many people on them. Changing them so they work better is not 'Getting Rid" of them. I am not a republican but do feel that lowing the current tax rate AND removing the loopholes will turn the economy around. it has nothing to do with me liking big corporations or not liking the working man (I am one),It has to do with me believing the companies are leaving with their jobs because it is stupid to stay with the pressure of high taxes and unions suing them(see Boeing in South Carolina) Boeing wants to open ANOTHER plant in S.C. and the union is suing them because it is not going to be a union facility, Boeing did not close the other plant, in fact they hired 2000 more union workers in Washington. It is never enough for the unions, they are going to talk themselves right out of any work. If I owned Boeing, I would threaten to take the union jobs overseas and see what the unions had to say about that. Make companies like GE and the others that get away without paying taxes pay what is their fair share and everything will get better.

Joe, I don't know where you're getting your information, but a lot of what you've said about the stimulus is flat out factually incorrect. I'm not going to sit here and debates facts with people because I believe opinions are debatable, and facts aren't. I can only say that you need to research more or read more by economists.

For starters, the "auto bailout" was only a loan and it has been paid back. Bush is the one that agreed to the loan to be distributed at the beginning of Obama's Administration. The Obama Administration put together a task force to restructure the auto companies. Now those companies are hiring.

Your opinion that Obama is spending like a drunken sailor is not supported by facts (unless you make up your own facts, and that is not allowed).

moving the companies overseas is not making everything get better.

i agree that companies like GE need to pay their fair share and not get "welfare". pick up any GE light bulb and it reads made in mexico.

not only did they get subsidies and rebates...but they also did it with very cheep labor.

i won't say unions don't over ask and sometimes i wonder why they keep asking for more and more...but, they still have a very crucial purpose with their voice. to put their voice behind tape and gag it would be very dissolving of labor contracts.

both sides need to have a voice in order for it to be a contract. labor without a contract is called slave labor.

And for goddsake, Bush lowered taxes and it did not turn the economy around, it made it worse. I do not understand why people think doing thing that has been proven to not work is suddenly going to work this time.

We extended those tax rates despite an 8 year history of proof that they do not work. Cutting taxes IS spending.

Cutting taxes IS spending. It is an expenditure.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/tax_expenditures101.html

Grrrrrl, If the "auto bailout" was just a loan and it was paid back, why is Obama trying to sell the stock we got at a loss before the next election? And why is only $6.7 billion considered a "loan" out of the actual $52 billion given to them? I am willing to discuss the 'Facts" and our different "opinions" if you want.
You should note, also that TARP and the Stimulus Bill are aimed at two very different prongs of the economic collapse. TARP targets the credit crisis. The Stimulus Bill targets job creation.
Both Presidents are to blame for leading the country into a large federal deficit. The cumulative cost of the military contributed greatly to handing Obama a $460 billion deficit instead of a $850 billion surplus. Unfortunately, instead of cutting spending, Obama has spent more money than the government has ever spent in a single year and contributed to the substantial federal budget deficit increase. We are now at the highest deficit levels compared to GDP, second only to World War II. Obama may take note of that, but in 2010 he continued passing legislation that increases expenses through the next decade.
I may on occasion get things wrong, but i don't make things up. please let me know where you think I have any facts incorrect.

some of the bail out money is being paid back directly - so in essence it was like a loan.

Carrie-Anne, No it is not making our economy any better but it is making the companies not bleed out money in taxes. You can only tell a company they have to pay so much before they move away. If I ask you what you want to pay for taxes either 21% of what you make or 39% of what you make, which one are you going to choose? that is the question companies are asking right now. And unions used to speak for the worker, now they speak for themselves. We should have the labor Dept. negotiate any labor disputes, not let the unions (7% to 11% depending who you ask) go on strike and hold the other 93% hostage to their demands.

Grrrrl, It may have been an expenditure in the year it was created but it is just the "current tax Rate" now. Bending it however you like to get it to say what you want will not change the fact. The rate that Bush set as the Current Tax Rate in 2001 & 2003 expired in 2010, they were extended by President Obama so stop, just stop already with the "Bush" tax cuts, it the "Current Tax Rate", raise it if you want or lower it if you want but your party gets the fallout for the results.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts They worked great until the Democrats took control in 2006 (4.6% unemployment then, over 10% now, etc.)

Carrie-Anne, Grrrl claimed I did not have facts, I provided them. I don't know about you but I don't want anyone (companies we gave money to) thinking anything is "in essence" anything, it WAS a loan, and it ALL was not paid back yet.

yet .... key word.

then let's stop blaming obama for lending it and let's work together on making them pay it back. :)

I'm sorry, the links to my sources did not show up on post #8.66

Carrie-Anne, I agree. Why does Obama feel he needs to sell these stocks at a loss? He may as well keep them and wait for a profit, everyone knows he has them,if he sells them at a loss the other side will blame him. I'd rather they said
"He's holding on to them so the American people don't get a bath"...sounds like a better commercial than "He took a loss on the backs of the American people".

Obama didn't cause the recession. He didn't cause the banking collapse. That was caused by deregulation a decade earlier.

The Bush tax cuts in conjunction with the wars caused the deficit. It is still causing the deficit. Democrats wanted to let those cuts for the wealthiest expire, but the Republicans filibustered it. It is the Republicans that demanded the Bush tax rates be extended for all. Just because a party is in a minority does not mean they are totally hogtied and not responsible for anything. We don't have a parliamentary form of government.

There are two separate issues. The deficit and the recession. They do not have the same solution. In a recession, the government is supposed to spend. But now the government can't spend as much as it should to get out of the recession because of all the money it blew in the years prior to the recession.

The government taxes and spends. That's what it does. The difference between Presidents and parties is what they spend it on. Republicans favor giving it to corporations and the military. Democrats favor spending on domestic programs. If you don't want a President that spends, then you're never going to get that.

The auto bail out was a success. It stopped huge job losses at little cost. And it was Bush that approved the loan in December 2008. Obama just oversaw it. Obama just made the best lemonade he could out of Bush's lemons. Hardly spending like a drunken sailor.

It was caused by the Democrats demanding that "Everyone be able to own a home" (even if they know they can't pay for it). The Republicans don't "Give" anything to the Companies, they just don't "Take" as much from them and drive them to other countries like the Dems do. Big difference in what they are telling you. they're Obama's tax cuts now, He is the President and he set the current tax rate. The auto bailout is not over yet and we don't know if we will be paid back (will Obama sell the stocks at a loss?), 52 million loaned,6.8 million paid back...not even close. Obama has spent more money than the government has ever spent in a single year http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/ ,    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/little-known-fact-obama039s-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-iraq-war  , a drunken sailor. You can keep your eyes close to the real news by watching only MSNBC but you are only getting the comics.

those links prove nothing. the first one doesn't even site where he get's his numbers. looking at his numbers, they increase like inflation. but it seems he pulls them out of nowhere.

the second link just goes to a main page to choose other pages. let's just stop pointing to a drunken sailor...

....let's just ignore also that up until 2009 we didn't even know how much the wars had completely cost us as a nation. Le sigh

Carrie-Anne, The Guy got his figures directly from The Congressional Budget Office, One can not get any more accurate, Unbiased figures. He did the same analysis for the year 2010 here (where he clearly says where he get his statistics from) http://www.cafetax.com/2010/10/07/2010-obama-spending-new-legislation-and-the-2010-cost/ , The second link goes to a page with a chart (from the CBO) showing deficit spending without the war and with the war for years 2003 thru 2010, I don't know where you are getting to with the second link, I just clicked on it and went right to where it was supposed to go, try it again. You can be pissed but the numbers are not in Obama's favor, even if the TARP money was not spent. I stand by my "Drunken Sailor" comment.

Carrie-Anne, I looked at the links on a word doc. & found the vine added some characters to the end of the link you were trying to use, I don't know why it worked when I copied & pasted and not when I just clicked on it. Here is the original link: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/little-known-fact-obama039s-failed-stimulus-program-cost-more-iraq-war

a) The post office is running at a loss because of a one-of-a-kind mandate to fund pensions 70 years into the future. http://my.firedoglake.com/mmonk/2011/08/19/the-pre-funding-mandate-bringing-down-the-american-postal-workers-union/

b) The postal service does last-mile delivery for all of the big corporations out into rural america. http://www.9wsyr.com/content/news/your_stories/story/Your-Stories-Postal-service-sometimes-delivers/C7a7de--ukCm1lZYXLIndQ.cspx

c) The real meaningful measure of debt is as a % of GDP, so "zomg trillions!" doesn't mean very much compared to those less-impactful-sounding numbers, and the reason for the deficit is primarily the decrease in revenue, both because of a loss from the projected revenue from the continuation of the Bush tax cuts (which were scheduled to expire so CBO budgeted accordingly) and because of the economic collapse driving down receipts (less tax base) and driving up costs (unemployment). http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/budget-madness/

I will do my best to bring out the droves to fight ignorance and racism in this coming election, but in my experience, one loud voice of ignorance overpowers 100 rational (usually silent) tolerant people.

That is not to say we should give up, but ignorance is ALWAYS going to exist. The greatest weapon against it is familiarity. I wonder how many racists have ever spent some quality time with a minority?

This ruined my day. Stupid always ruins my day.

There is an interesting documentary called "How the states got their shapes." that briefly goes in to the North/South thing. There's another one of a similar name (I don't recall) that also suggests the North/South thing was less about race and slavery and more about rich and poor, a class war. The 3/5th vote thing was about political power where the north didn't want to give the south's slave rich population more voting power. I guess they figured even though the slaves were depressed, they would still vote for southern slave owner interests.

Slaves were not citizens and could not vote. The 3/5th compromise was about the census and and determining the number of representatives allotted to each state.

You're right. After I said it, it didn't sit right with me. I was going on recollection. But it does amount to the same end result of more political power for the southern states.

Thanks for the correction.

|=)

How are you feeling after surgery? Healing OK?

I'll live, but that's kinda off topic.

fair enough- we're not friends so wasn't sure if, when you tweeted it, it was appropriate to ask. Just hope you're doing well. Anywho yeah atleast there's drugs.

Oh sure, you can tweet me.

Well now it does seem like he meant to say "renege," but misspelled it which is far less racial than "renig." Don't understand though because "renig" is not the phonetical spelling? OOOh You know what I bet he was going for humor. Get it? Instead of saying "renege" he put "renig" because Obama's black. Ha ha ha ha *sarcasm should be evident here*. Oy vey.

MM - If Only he was going for humor! More likely he failed Spelling in school, as well as everything else educational.

It's really amazing how some people will go to such great lengths to justify the existence of that bumper sticker... how they want to "prove" that there was absolutely no racial intent, and that liberals are just being paranoid to even question it. It kind of reminds me of how many of the same people will refer to Rush Limbaugh's drivel as "humor" that liberals just don't get.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck...

You got that right.

Because you're thinking of "renege" which is highly different than "renig"

"Renig" is an intentional misspelling and an inside joke you might say. Not everyone would get it ( I didn't at first ). But after some thought, the intent is clear. This also may just be me reading more in to it, but I think the author of bumper sticker intentionally used black ink for renig to add special emphasis.

OMG, I never thought of that. That makes me feel worse.

Yep, Gary... sorry to say, your first sentence kinda says it all... glad you said it, not me... ;o)

or he liked just because it had the word "DEATH" on it.

or maybe he thinks meth means Methodist.

The bigotry displayed on this truck is not surprising. I personally want more people to display their racism. I know to stay the hell away. I was glad to see Trump unable to keep his racists rants inside his head. I will NOT support anything Trump does for the rest of my life. Glad to know.

Chris Mathews suffers from the same affliction that many white liberals suffer. Great read

http://weeseeyou.com/2011/05/08/president-obama-and-america%e2%80%99s-erectile-dysfunction/

Who knew that to be considered a “full blooded American” all President Obama had to do was pump a hefty dose of Viagra into America’s collective manhood, and unleash our inner Rambos? Truly sad and fascinating all at once! In a split second PBO went from being the target of Trump’s “Negro, show your papers” to Bill Maher’s “Black Ninja gangsta” and now to Glenn Greenwald’s accusation that PBO is a perpetrator of extra-judicial killings. Jon Stewart gave it visual punch with his map of America with a 45 degree erect Florida beefed up with weighty gonads.