Skip to content

The True Source of the Unemployment Crisis

© Matt Bors

I guess it is important to bail out rich bankers and insurance companies, but when it comes to regular working stiffs…



  1. mickey wrote:

    Yeah, lets just overlook the fact that our Imperial Federal Govt forced those bankers to lend money to people who couldnt afford to repay the loan. Also, lets overlook AIG and focus more on TARP cause TARP fits the agenda better. Lets overlook the stimulus and the “jobs” bills too.

    The simple fact is that this extended “benefits” bill could have likely passed almost unanimously had Democrats simply made cuts elsewhere to pay for this.

    So lets keep the argument on a petty level and cause bickering instead of focusing on the real reason there are no jobs- which is that those who create the jobs have been handcuffed by this govt.

    Friday, July 23, 2010 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    Mickey, I create jobs (I’ve hired two people in the last month) and I don’t feel handcuffed by the government.

    But you’re right, I did forget about rich insurance companies. Fixed.

    And your claim that the extended benefits could have been passed almost unanimously had the Democrats made changes requested by the Republicans is just naive. The Dems made plenty of compromises on the health care bill, financial reform, and dozens of other bills, and they got how many GOP votes? The Republicans have a vested interest in making the economy as bad as possible, so that people who are too stupid to know better will instinctively blame it on the party in power, and not on the party that caused the problem in the first place. The Republicans have also backed themselves into a corner, where cooperating with anything the Democrats do is political suicide. Just look at what happened to Charlie Crist, who had to leave the Republican party and run as an independent. Your “simple fact” is simple all right, but it isn’t a fact.

    Friday, July 23, 2010 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
  3. mickey wrote:

    YOU may not feel handcuffed, but I dont think I need to show you figures to prove what the large companies are doing with what little capital they have. They surely arent investing it in expanding and hiring more people. I wonder why?

    Look, I hate the Republicans only slightly less than I hate the Democrats. I’m a libertarian. So I’m not going to argue Dem vs Repub with you because I dont care about it. Instead I’ll ask you this….why the hell do the Dems feel they need republican support for any of their garbage? They have the votes! Go ahead and pass it if the bill is so damned great.

    And once again, whether I’m right or wrong about it passing almost unanimously had Dems done things differently is irrelevent and thats exactly those in Washington (both parties) WANT us debating about. They certainly dont want us digging into what the root cause of the problems might be and they certainly dont want us discussing solutions. They simply want us to not think for ourselves except to choose a ‘side’— or to just ignore Washington all together.

    And unfortunately, 80% of the population does ignore them. Of the other 20% (people like us), the overwhelming majority are too caught up in playing cheerleader for either the Dems or the Repubs. And those in Washington love it that way.

    Since you appear to be a Dem cheerleader, I’m certainly interested in hearing about how their plans will make anything better. I wanna know WHY you support them.

    Friday, July 23, 2010 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
  4. Iron Knee wrote:

    I support and vote for people and policies, not for parties. If it were up to me, we wouldn’t have political parties. I’ve voted for plenty of Republicans (but not recently), and even worked on the campaign of a Libertarian (just a few years ago).

    Pointing out that the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner where they are dominated by their lunatic fringe doesn’t make me a Dem cheerleader. I feel no need to pretend to be balanced party-wise. I’m a moderate (fiscal conservative, social liberal), and right now the Democrats are far closer to being a moderate party than the Republicans. I long for the day when the Republicans get their sanity back and actually care about this country, rather than preying on its fears and insecurities for their own gain. I also hate hypocrisy, and it really pisses me off when one party spends 8 years spending like drunken sailors and claiming that deficits don’t matter, then does a 180 and pretends to be fiscal conservatives when it is convenient. I will not vote for that.

    What do I (currently) like about the Democrats? They actually believe in science. They are trying to do something long term to solve our energy and environmental problems. They don’t try to force their morals down my throat. The last Democratic president actually reduced the national debt. What do I like about Obama? He’s intelligent and hires and appoints intelligent people. He has actually tried to be bipartisan, even if he was rebuffed. He was opposed to the Iraq war and was not afraid to say it in public. I travel a lot, and I’ve seen a dramatic improvement in the world’s opinion of the US since he was elected. He got health care reform passed, which was long overdue. He got financial reform passed, which is actually a pretty good law.

    Friday, July 23, 2010 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
  5. mickey wrote:

    Fiscal conservative and social liberal, huh? Funny, thats exactly the way I describe myself. So lets break it down further.

    Are you implying that the Democratic party has no fringe groups that are driving them?

    Your comment about hypocrisy is puzzling to me. Were Democrats not complaining about Bush’s spending? Are they not now making Bush’s spending look like chump change? SO basically, yeah, you WILL vote for that. Let me guess, theyre spending 10X what Bush spent, but theyre spending it more “wisely” right? Give me a break.

    Just about everyone believes in science. If you were so confident in the Democrats to interpret said science, then why do you avoid coming right and saying that you believe in and support Man Made Global Warming? Why just leave it at “well, I believe in science.” Of course, the Climate bill is now dead, thank goodness, but why dont you tell me one or two good things that was in that bill. Just one or two. Shouldnt be too hard.

    I live in south Louisiana. We have an oil industry that is stuck right now due to an ill advised moratorium. Actually it wasnt advised at all. Instead, Obama decided to impose his morals and ideology down our throats. What about Arizona? There is not one single poll out there that shows anything but a population that HEAVILY favors HB 1070. Yet your dear leader is IMPOSING his ideology and beliefs upon the state of Arizona. Shall I go on with examples?
    The bottom line is that you fail to recognize your own hypocrisy because you happen to agree with Obama’s ideologies, while you dont agree with republicans telling you who you can marry or who you can sleep with (incidentally, I dont agree with that either).

    Your last democratic president (you know the one who reduced the deficit, and in some peoples minds left us a ‘surplus’) also had a majority republican congress. That last democratic president also realized midway through his first term that his shit wasnt going to fly with the American people and he shifted to the political center- something your current president is not doing. He’s being arrogant and doing just the opposite, actually.

    I have no doubt that Obama is a smart man. I also dont doubt that his appointees are also smart. But whether you want to admit it or not, the exact same thing can be said about Bush and his administration. But this doesnt mean that they will always do the right things. Besides, whether theyre ‘smart’ or not, does not excuse things like this:
    Energy and Environmental Czar Carol Browner: was a member of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society. The organization calls for “global governance” and demands wealthy nations shrink their economy to address climate change effects.
    Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein: believes that hunting should be banned, animals should have “legal rights,” and that animals can file lawsuits in American courts.
    Science Czar John Holdren: co-authored a 1977 textbook that advocated “compulsory sterilizations,” mandated abortions, and stated that “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.”
    And of course, lets not forget Van Jones.

    Wanna defend any of these people?

    Obama. Bipartisan? Hmmm…lets see. I’m gonna offer to burn your house down. But I’m a good guy, so I’ll let you decide how to light the fire. Catch my drift?

    As for your healthcare bill, let me say this. I agree the system needed tweaking, but not total reform. The problem I have with it is that Obama sold a pack of lies to the American people. He told us he will insure almost everyone and that it would be cheaper. I hope you know that that is bullshit. Look, if youre just a kindhearted type of guy and you want to see everyone have health insurance even if it means that you will have to pay a little more, then fine. So be it. I can respect that opinion. But dont tell m that youre going to do all those things AND bring prices down, because you know better than that (I hope). And dont tell me that I can keep my current plan and my current doctor if I want to, all the while knowing that your policy will force my insurance company to make changes to my plan- then you can say “well, I didnt change it, THEY changed it”. Thats ingenuous and you know it. But I’ll bet your snickering anyway, right? And DEFINITELY dont tell me that people have a RIGHT to health care. Healthcare is easily defined and receiving treatment or care from a qualified individual. NO ONE has a RIGHT to another man’s time or talents. NO ONE.

    Finance Reform? Tell me whats good about this bill. I’m all ears, since you think its such a good bill.

    Sen. Chris Dodd: “It will take the next economic crisis, as certainly it will come, to determine whether or not the provisions of this bill will actually provide this generation or the next generation of regulators with the tools necessary to minimize the effects of that crisis.”

    My take: This is the guy, remember, who was so involved in writing the law that it’s actually named after him—and he’s admitting that no one in Congress knows how effective all the new rules and regulations will be until the next crunch hits. Comforting!

    Saturday, July 24, 2010 at 11:54 am | Permalink