More likely, according to the whole world except republicans.

because everyone else disagrees with them and likes their own socialist ways

~manly man

Yep, a loyal Fox News watcher.

Oh, and I do research, and I do not wach Fox. For  one, way too extremist for my taste...

Panic means many things, making up only one possible solution doesn't mean it is true or false. The truth makes things True or false...

Actually, I have seen more middle class, as well as small business owners, get hit equal to, in many cases even more than the poor...

"Obama did drugs!!!111!ONESHIFT!"

So did probably 80% of the entire freaking nation in that period of time. Romney, Bush, and any other repubs you're shooting for probably snorted crack, smoked pot, or took acid as well in their teen days. It was the "cool thing" among teens at that period of time,...

...Really stupid? Yes. Invalidates anything the person might do after finally growing up ever for the rest of their life? No.

My point was the lying part, not just the drugs part.
Oh and drugs more often than not ruin lives btw.

Mitt has made an equal amount of gaffes as Obama has,

And Obama makes half of those up...

Raising tariffs for one against China will mean Americans have fewer choices and more expensive ones at that. Do people want that?

Not necessarily, it could create more options for more American businesses, thus doing the opposite of what you are claiming...

More likely, according to the whole world except republicans.

because everyone else disagrees with them and likes their own socialist ways

Umm, What?

Saying stuff like that is easy for someone who is neither unwantedly pregnant or homosexual. You don't realize the bigger picture.

Of course it is easier. Making choices early makes things easier. Easy? No! Easier, yes. (oh, and i don't think you can be unwanted homosexual)
:)

~krill11

My point was the lying part, not just the drugs part.

Every president or political leader or CEO has made tons of promises that won't be fulfilled. I find it gratuitous to judge someone by them only, and I'm always amazed that people still are as naive as to expect a president to fulfill all promises.

Oh and drugs more often than not ruin lives btw.

Why is that? Too often, the reason is because they're criminalized instead of regularized.

(oh, and i don't think you can be unwanted homosexual)

Apart from the fact that most homosexuals didn't decide to be so, what I wanted to say was [unwantedly pregnant] OR [homosexual]. Clear now? :)

Yes, I just thought it humerus the way you put it, as i believe you did to!
XD

Why is that? Too often, the reason is because they're criminalized instead of regularized.

One word, Alcohol...

Two more words, Cigarettes/tobacco...

Another few, Illegal possession...

Every president or political leader or CEO has made tons of promises that won't be fulfilled. I find it gratuitous to judge someone by them only, and I'm always amazed that people still are as naive as to expect a president to fulfill all promises.

...True, but first off, Do they make promises that they know they cant keep?
Do they make little effort to keep them, Or do they try hard to keep their promises, even when the odds are stacked against them?
Do they truly try to do what is right?
This is what I judge on, this is how I think. Not just what is said, but how it is said, and what is done...

Very few people I have seen with these morals, though, as Every Man, Every Woman, and Every Child should be working on, myself included...

Human perfection is not perfection, its how hard they try to do their best...

~Krill11

Not necessarily, it could create more options for more American businesses, thus doing the opposite of what you are claiming...

No this goes against the Economics grain. If America does not have a CA in manufacturing then it's goods will be more expensive then Chjnese goods because cost of production is naturally going to be higher. People only view the business possibly gaining, but what if you were just a consumer? We have already seen this before; America tried to protect it's steel industry which was grossly allocative and productively inefficient, leading to car prices rising pre 2000.

Also protectionism is never justified unless you're protecting infant industries and even that is tenuous. Domestic producers themselves lose out in the end as protectionism gives the aura of stability; they have no competiion to worry about which would lead to allocative, productive, and X inefficiency. We too have seen this in the 1930s when most countries, attempted beggar thy neighbor policies. No government likes to be viewed as the bad guy and remove suh tariffs, look at the inefficient Japanese and European farmers.

Protectionism will also lead to retaliation from other countries, worsening the entire situation. That is why I have no support for Romney's economics policy. And the cutting taxes for the rich part is pretty much scandalous too.

Ok, The steel thing was owned 90% to one guy. So, less relevant than one might think.

Prices may go higher for a time, but they also go down a bit because there would be more competition, thus, a good thing. people will want to take the lowest price for the best deal, small businesses would price below the grander companies, and bring down the cost...

Well, right now, remember how Obama is taxing the rich more than there proper %. All men are created equal. There should be no attacking a group because of what they legally do.

We need the rich. They create jobs and they give us paychecks. We cannot seclude them because they may have more money. to do so is short sighted, and no one will want to better there income, because it will worsen their situation.

~Krill11

Sorry but the steel industry is not owned by one person. United States Steel Company, AK Steel, Commercial Metals Company, Harsco Corporation, Olympic Steel, the list goes on and on. And if it was owned by just one person, that would make it a whole lot worse, given that one person/company controls such a vital raw material.

I don't think you quite understand protectionism. It ensures protection for US companies importing and exporting. It stifles competition since foreign companies are blocked out.

If all men are equal then the poor should be helped. Only people who are doing comfortably think the status quo is good. The rich are obscenely rich, if America truly stands up to it's motto of making the Dream possible for
everyone and for everyone to have equal opportunities then apparently it's a badly kept sham.

The rich will hardly atop working when you cut ther pay. The million of golden handshakes are in themselves obscene and the way they played with people's money is nothing short of scandalous and a major cause of the recession and bubble burst. The rich creating jobs? Please look at how many jobs the banking and insurance industry creates. They create small amounts of high skilled jobs for degree holders, no bank is going to want the million of relatively lowly educated Americans which make up the bulk of the work force.

Sorry but the steel industry is not owned by one person. United States Steel Company, AK Steel, Commercial Metals Company, Harsco Corporation, Olympic Steel, the list goes on and on. And if it was owned by just one person, that would make it a whole lot worse, given that one person/company controls such a vital raw material.

I don't think you quite understand protectionism. It ensures protection for US companies importing and exporting. It stifles competition since foreign companies are blocked out.

If all men are equal then the poor should be helped. Only people who are doing comfortably think the status quo is good. The rich are obscenely rich, if America truly stands up to it's motto of making the Dream possible for
everyone and for everyone to have equal opportunities then apparently it's a badly kept sham.

The rich will hardly atop working when you cut ther pay. The million of golden handshakes are in themselves obscene and the way they played with people's money is nothing short of scandalous and a major cause of the recession and bubble burst. The rich creating jobs? Please look at how many jobs the banking and insurance industry creates. They create small amounts of high skilled jobs for degree holders, no bank is going to want the million of relatively lowly educated Americans which make up the bulk of the work force.

I thought you were refering to Andrew Carnegie . Which the rise in price did happen. He is one of the reasons that we have Monopoly Laws

What that means is that everyone has the same rights, not that everyone has the same thing/things. Giving more rights to people with less money is not good, nor is giving more rights to rich people.

No, I had little knowledge on protectionism.  It is supposed to level the playing field for trade vs home-growth. Though I think Singapore does a very nice job of the Free Trade System. For the USA, it would not work as well. We have a large Agricultural area, and we do well with electronics. If we Use a Free Trade system, we would leech energies from other countries to better ourselves, instead of improving them, like we are, and should be...

We have protections in place to help infant companies grow. If we didn't have it, would Bill Gates go from making bicycles to crater of the Ipod, To one of the richest men in the world? Yes, he might have, But it would have been a lot harder, and his production would have suffered. We might still be forced to use those big, clunky Walkman.
*Gasp*! X-D

We were created by

the million of relatively lowly educated Americans

that you are speaking of. Who do you think fought the American Revolution? The politicians? General Washington fought beside "lowly uneducated American" farmers who worked hard for what is right.

Americans are more educated than you give them credit, Sir. Banks help give loans to many people who are poor, but they work hard And for those who Prove their worth.

Bill Gates made bikes, And he worked hard at something he cared about to become one of the countries most known people.

The problem with the poor is not the money. But many of them choose to not work. There are many job opportunities that pay well in the USA, but why aren't people going eagerly at them? Because the jobs are hard work. There is a door-to-door workplace in L.A. selling pesticide. They are always looking for workers, yet they have trouble finding them. the reason isn't because there aren't workers, but because no one wants to do it.

In this country there is always a place to work, wether it is door-to-door, or flipping burgers, the choice is made by the people themselves, not the government. People have there agency Sir, they choose what they do.

~Krill11

Sorry, Monopoly laws have nothing to do with the two politicians; no one would actually support monopolies without regulations or if they were natural
Monopolies with high economics of scale.

Furthermore it was the USA which was the first which tried to impose free trade around the world after WWII through Bretton Woods, the IMF, WB and GATT. Also I'm not sure you know what yore talking about, especially about "leeching energies". FTAs reduce barriers and tariffs such that it's cheaper and more profitable to export and trade.

Also you don't understand protectionism. Protectionism is an external oriented policy. Bill Gates didn't need protectionism, he was the pioneer in his field, if anything other countries might have wanted to enact protectionism against the USA. Protectionism is a disaster because it fosters inefficiency for the domestic population; they are forced to buy more expensive domestic goods as a result. It also makes local companies less competitive on a global scale since they are insulted from competition overseas.

Also next point on banking. Again you misinterpret "relatively". Millions of people are relatively uneducated compared to bankers. Bankers. And in rutty case the American eduction system isn't as good as it used to be.

Banks put up loans so what? They are the ones who inflated the market with speculation, causing home prices to jack up. People require loans not to start businesses mostly, they need loans to pay back mortgages.

Again there are insufficient jobs not the other way round. The American economy does not churn out enough jobs per month to absorb the workers; not that the people don't want to work. The 99% protests show this; people what jobs they just can't find them.

But it’s worth remembering that before the crash we had nearly full employment, and yet it had already become clear that the American Dream was fading for most Americans. Indeed, the middle class was drifting into insolvency. Through a combination of stagnant wages, indebtedness to often predatory lenders, and the rising cost of middle-class staples such as health care and energy, the average family’s personal balance sheetâ€"assets minus liabilitiesâ€"was turning red. Household debt soared from 77 percent of disposable income in 1990 to 127 percent in 2007. During the same interval, the personal savings rate dropped from 7 percent of disposable income to near zero.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 163,000 last month, the Labor Department said o n F riday, breaking three straight months of job gains below 100,000 and offering hope for the ailing economy. This however is not enough. This is a major cause of the joblessness; there aren't enough jobs. There are other reasons such as the qualifications and job requirements gap yada yada, but the jobs issue is the main problem.