United States Heading towards a Depression?

I live in Massachusetts so I can fill in the blanks here.

Massachusetts contains significant deposits of Republicans. The purpose of gerrymandering is to dilute the Republican areas by:

- First, cutting up the Republican-dominated populations into smaller, adjacent areas, and then
- Second, extending the now cut-up Republican populations to include very highly dense populations of Democrats.

This way, the Democrats firmly place their boot heel on the throat of democracy by insuring that only one party is represented, which is why Massachusetts is one of the most corrupt states in the USA.

If you look at Barney Frank's district below:

left to itself the entire Tauton/Fall River area has a lot of Republicans (John Kerry was booed there last year). Look at the above map - see how it extends a narrow ribbon thirty miles north, right to the Boston city limits? That northern area is a deeply Democratic population that has a much higher density of population than the southern district. And I guarantee you that the Congressional concerns of the industrial manufacturing town of Fall River do not math the concerns of the BMW yuppies of Brookline, 70 miles to their north.

The Pawtucket/East Providence area of MA to the West of Barney Frank's southern district also has many Republicans:

They are diluted in Massachusetts District 3. Notice how the Republicans in the south are diluted aaaaall the way up north? This time, the district had to snake about 50 miles to prevent Republicans from ever getting a seat.

No, there are no natural barriers in these areas. Only people with points of view that threaten Democratic party rule.

 

Actually, what would really help Republicans is for you to become the spokesperson for the Democratic party. I'm just sayin.

 

I wouldn't know. You assume I'm Republican.

 

Not sure it matters....either way.

........

Abomination, do find a life for yourself....beyond TV.

 

I'll help publicize your ideas if you run for office as a Democrat..... what do you think?

 

This thread started out : United States Heading towards a Depression? Are there any here that believe it is beyond just Republican/Democrat influence ? Since both sides are receiving money from the same people....is it worth looking at higher levels ?

 

Of course. It's all about the Federal REserve. 100 percent. The transfer of wealth from the people to the bankers. Destroying the middle class, the buffer zone. Has nothing to do with Dem or Repub as both sides are on their payroll

 

Blogmaster, do you have any reasonably legitimate statistics about the size of the middle class before and after the creation of the federal reserve? If so, would you care to share them?

 

According to the Brookings Institute as quoted in the New York Times, a whopping 30% of Americans lived below the poverty level in 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23herbert.html

Does that qualify as being in a depression?

 

Here, the U.S. became the world's #1 manufacturing producer before the institution of the Federal Reserve. Now, explain to me how they get credit for that and all of the 20th century inventions that have made our lives better. Or how they get credit for preventing panics & bank runs when its really the FDIC that does that. Or how they get credit for "fixing" the Great Depression that went on for 10 years under their watch, or how they managed to prevent this current slump... etc, etc...

 

Size of the Middle class. Read your own link and follow the links to the names of each of the tycoons of the turn of the 20th century, and you'll see people who largely abused their work forces and kept them in poverty. I'm not trying to make an argument for the progressives here, but to use that link as a claim we had a big middle class around of the turn of the 20th century is absurd and backwards.

 

Any foreigners reading this should be informed that the poverty level used by the US government is actually quite high. Many people in other countries would love to live just below our poverty level here. Our "poverty" quite often has many of these things: cars, motorcycles, big screen TV's, cable, internet, computers, cell phones including iPhones, their kids have cell phones, Wii, xbox360, etc....

Sad, but our "poverty" are some of the largest people in the world. Just look to see how the fat person "pays" for their food - usually food stamps (at least here in Oregon it has been every fat person I watched check out.)

The "poverty" in the USA needs a different label.

 

"Size of the middle class"

How do you even define that in a 19th century world that doesn't have electricity, cars, computers, refrigeration? Did they have cars and cable TV? No, but they did own more property than debt for the most part. In the early 1900s, mortgages were typically 5 year or 10 year: now we do 15 or 30 because modern banking is somehow "cheaper" or "more effective?" Pfffffff

Keep following those names a bit further and you'll see that the descendants of the tycoons are the ones running the Federal Reserve Bank, Congress, etc... "Abusing the population and keeping them and poverty" like nothing has changed except the amount of power they're able to exert on the people and how pathetic our ability to fight back has become.

 

Good points all. It begs for a definition of middle class. If lack of a car, electricity, permanent residence, etc would put you below the poverty line, then one could argue we had way more people below the poverty line back then. So lets go for a more legitimate definition.

Fine. Produce statistics to back this claim. I personally suspect this could be true, though it once again begs for the definition of middle class. Property ownership itself may be sufficient when a large number of people work as part of an agrarian economy, but farming changed completely in this country since industrialization. Owning an acre of land in Nebraska nowadays does not make you part of the middle class by any definition. It means you somehow saved up 1-2k$(You didn't spend your EITC, or perhaps your welfare check). Could you even survive on what the land produces?

No, the cost of the product has gone up. I believe 60 year mortgages are the norm in many cities in Europe. As places become more developed and more desirable, there is simply only so much space and the laws of supply and demand obviously apply.

First off, I'd like to see evidence that the children of those tycoons operate the federal reserve. I won't debate that some of their offspring wander the corridors of power in Washington, including those of the central banking system. Secondly, the statement once again presumes the Federal Reserve is systematically an abusive institution. There are arguments to be made, especially in regard to Greenspan, but I have yet to hear an argument that calling the system as a whole abusive that isn't analogous to calling US troops baby killers.

Is it our ability, or our will. 25% of Americans think their representatives in government are honest, good, and looking out for their best interests. As I scratched my head and wondered who those 25% are, and I had to remind myself that government has grown during the last 4 years of lost jobs and wages. More people now work for the government, more people working for the government make over 100k than under 40k, and the average skill set pays 25k more per year if used in the employ of the government. Furthermore, on top of all that, California Union Workers contribute around $60k to their pension over their employment term in exchange for a benefit that consistently pays out over $1.2 million(and they wonder why the state has no money). If I were part of that 25%, I think I would like the government as well. The bad news is, that number is right now growing way faster than the private sector, and the closer it comes to 50%, the more difficult it will be to change. At some point, the people benefiting from big government will become a large enough voting block(critical mass) to have their way on any legislation their hearts desire and the America we knew(and our ability to fight back) will be long gone.

 

Poor in America does not mean going without food for weeks. It means you cannot afford more than basic cable.

 

I don't think our poor would go for basic cable, my bet is most have at least one tier up.

To me it is sickening what our "poor" get to keep and still get government money.

Some basics of modern society that could be acceptable - one phone or cell phone, one car per working adult, things that make getting a job and getting to a job are fine, but cable tv? ATVs, multiple cell phones, gadgets, satellite for sports channels, etc... if you have those things you don't need the governments help!!!!

Food stamps need a major overhaul - ever see what the recipients load up in their carts? It is 99.999% junk food! You can spot the Oregon card holders (food stamps) a mile away by what is in their carts!

 

Think of how it feels when you work very hard and give a lot only to see someone show up at the food shelter in a $75k SUV. But I have to remind myself that they may have had that before lady luck turned a cold shoulder on them. That's not what irks me. Its the people that make just enough to get by because they know they will bet $10k more in taxes back then they paid in. I see people making minimum wage living better than myself. I really do not think there is any such thing as truly POOR in America. We tend to do a very good job of transferring wealth.

Want to see real poor, you have to leave this country and go to places where wealth is NOT transferred, but rather stolen and kept to an elite few.

I've yet to see anyone on food stamps or welfare use a coupon. Funny how the rest of us do.

Look, I'm not harping on these people. I'm just upset with a system that keeps them where they are. That's right. Our left wing government keeps these people dependent on this system of wealth transfer because they know it will keep them in office. And those that are on it, where's the motivation to get off? If you actually rise up and make a pittance over the poverty level, then you lose all those fringe benefits and free tax money and other deductions into a tax system that these people NEVER contribute to.

Its a vicious cycle and needs to be ended if we are ever going to get out of debt.

 

Actually, the First Lady's campaign against obesity is specifically targeted at the poor. America's poor are not starving, they are overweight. The movie Precious summed it up pretty nicely.

 

Whats the poverty line in US in monetary terms? Over here its $6/month. Thats also what I pay the maid to do the dishes and clean up the entire house daily. (It's the going rate)

 

USD $22k/year for a normal family. The government pays an extra USD $5k to those people. Though the amount the government gives them starts to go down for families making under USD $16k/year