Pat Crowley may be onto something.
Here’s why:
Obama wants to “spread the wealth” from the rich, who own 90-99% of all wealth in America.
The rich instead want to destroy the unions, and cut everyones benefits, wages and standards of living.
In other words, after gutting the wages and pensions of private employees in corporate America, they now have their eyes on the wages and pensions of State and Municipal workers.
We can’t allow them to do it, because once those State unions are gutted, there will be no one left to prevent the ever downward slide of American wages and benefits back to quasi-slave levels.
Here’s the solution instead:
Let the Federal Reserve create the money, to be loaned out by it’s member banks.
Yes, this will be inflationary, and prices will rise, but that will also force wages to rise.
What would NOT rise are debt payments denominated in fixed amounts, such as mortgage payments.
As a result of inflation, your wages would be forced up to keep up with prices, but your mortgage payments would stay the same.
That would solve the housing crisis and the wealth inequality crisis in America at one fell swoop.

Like Bush, McCain is a tool of the wealthy, and an enemy of the middle and working classes.

“decry”/”decried” are becoming buzzwords of the left around here

Here’s the truth:
Rhode Island does not have an anti-business climate.
The rest of the country has an anti-worker climate.

Erik-maybe you missed the story,but illegal aliens have been working in the Registry-and selling licenses to other illegal aliens with criminal records(google Dolores La Flamme who was convicted in US District Court)

>>Here’s the truth:
Rhode Island does not have an anti-business climate.<< HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Hey look, it's the Easter Bunny!!

Gee Erik, you sure are right. “Offshoring” of jobs had everything to do with the housing bubble’s burst. Offshoring of jobs has everything to do with the auto industry’s woes — that is, unless you’re toyota, honda, or volkswagen, who have all opened or announced the opening of plants here in the U.S.
The reason jobs are offshored is because in many cases businesses are held hostage by union obligations which make doing business overseas much more profitable.
Now, while we may have been able to tether businesses to the US in the past, we cannot do so in a global marketplace – especially when the technology and education cap continues to be closed between east and west.
If we want to move the country forward, we need to become more competitive, more agile, and open to new ways of doing business.
There is nothing “progressive” about holding on to a 19th Century mindset in a 21st Century economy.

“Gee Erik, you sure are right. “Offshoring” of jobs had everything to do with the housing bubble’s burst.”
**************************************
I don’t recall stating otherwise.
**************************************
“Offshoring of jobs has everything to do with the auto industry’s woes — that is, unless you’re toyota, honda, or volkswagen, who have all opened or announced the opening of plants here in the U.S.”
**************************************
So, a formerly great US industry is now owned by foreigners.
How is that beneficial for Americans?
**************************************
“The reason jobs are offshored is because in many cases businesses are held hostage by union obligations which make doing business overseas much more profitable.”
**************************************
By allowing them to skirt US labor and environmental laws?
*************************************
“Now, while we may have been able to tether businesses to the US in the past, we cannot do so in a global marketplace – especially when the technology and education cap continues to be closed between east and west.”
*************************************
Not tethering businesses to the US is what got us into this mess.
Tethering businesses to their country is what got the Japanese into their enviable position.
Do some research on the issue, and come back and talk to us when you actually know what you’re talking about.
*************************************
“If we want to move the country forward, we need to become more competitive, more agile, and open to new ways of doing business.”
*************************************
Ok. Like what?
*************************************
“There is nothing “progressive” about holding on to a 19th Century mindset in a 21st Century economy.”
*************************************
Maybe you could translate that into some specifics, if you don’t mind?

Frank wrote: “It’s the middle class that wants to destroy the unions because their taxes are too high and they cannot afford it any longer.” ************************************* They can’t afford it because our national wealth is being siphoned off by the bankers. ************************************* “Everything else in your first post sounds like one great big conspiracy theory, something you just made up – care to back any of it up with some hard evidence.” ************************************* Look at the historical record… the wealth distribution in America gets more and more unbalanced… the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer, the richest nation in the history of Earth gets further and further into debt, real wages and real incomes decline year after year… there is a hole in the bucket, and I believe it is a hole purposely drilled by the bankers, through which they are extracting the wealth of the people through a hundred different schemes. For example, NAFTA, CAFTA, North American Union, SPPNA, the recent financial bailout for the rich bankers… the list goes on. Check these out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo&feature=related Tons of good videos on those pages. Also, here’s one specific document I think they’re using as a working blueprint: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml ************************************* “I agree about the loss of jobs overseas. Something I’ve always wondered is why the unions, with all of their political clout, haven’t mounted an aggressive campaign to stop the loss of jobs overseas. Don’t they care about “working families”?” ************************************* I’m sure they tried, but the bankers and their tools used deceptive “free trade” chicanery to manipulate our elected representatives in Washington DC to slit the unions throats, and force them to compete with nations using near slave labor under unsafe working conditions, and operating from behind protectionist trade policies. Pat Buchanan is pretty well versed on this… Read more »

Andrew,
Most illegal aliens are brown, they are largely unassimilable, and their interests are hostile to those of American citizens.
That doesn’t make them genetically inferior, and I don’t recall making that claim.
I referred to their skin color, to distinguish them from black Amerians, who another poster appeared to lump together under the category of “leeches”.

So Frank, “common sense” is enough to prove your claims, but mine require evidence?
You’re being hypocritical.

While you’re at it Candy, perhaps you could explain to your readers my advocating for the interests of American black people, over the interests of illegal aliens, in light of your scurrilous claim that I’m a “racist”?
This should be interesting.

Justin,
Criticizing a group of people because of their shared behaviour is not racist.
Racist is attributing that behaviour to their DNA or some other inborn characteristic.
In this case, most of the people taking benefits from citizens happen to share a similar characteristic, they are “brown” (self chosen term for latinos), but I don’t claim their being brown is what makes them do it.
There’s a difference.
Another poster referred to them using that term “brown”, and I responded and elaborated to make a distinction between the two groups he had lumped together.
Calling brown people “brown” is not racist… latinos use it to describe themselves.
Racism is demonzing people because of their race, or equating them with something less than human, which is what the original poster did when he (or she) referred to them as “leeches”.
Yet I didn’t see you or Andy respond or take exception to that other posters comments.
Why not?
Selective indignation perhaps.
I would appreciate it if you gentlemen would stop discriminating against me.
lol

No, grouping a group under the categorical heading of its racial characteristics is racism. The fact that certain segments of that group profit from the ploy does not change that; it makes it worse.
And, by the way, in point of fact, I did object to the racist comments to which you point.

Frank wrote:
“Erik, I had no idea you had offered up anything resembling common sense. Really.”
************************************
You asked for evidence of my claims. I provided you links. You ignored them.
I asked you for evidence of your claims. You ignored the request and went on a tangent.
I think you’re confused.
**************************************
“At least not in the category of peole responding to positive and negative financial rewards based on merit or that the blatant hindrances of unnecessary contractual regulation do indeed interfere with workplace efficiency. You’ll have to point it out.”
*************************************
That was your claim. You still haven’t provided any evidence for it.
You think I should provide the evidence to prove your claim to myself?
Hmm…
*************************************
“And posting the same comment just one time would be nice too!”
*************************************
Well, when I’m addressing the senile, such as yourself, I find I often have to repeat myself.
*************************************
Poor Frank. Don’t worry buddy, you’ll be okay.

erik d,
Please stop commenting here, you are giving white people a bad name.

Andrew wrote:
“So you’re not demonizing people of a certain race. You’re just saying people of a certain skin-color are unassimilable, and should be kept out of the country, even if they come through legal means.”
**************************************
The hundreds of millions of latino people south of our border can’t possibly be assimilated into the USA.
When they immigrate in large enough numbers, such as we see in the American southwest, they seem to lose the desire to assimilate, and start waving Mexican flags and changing the laws and institutions instead.
The fact that those hundreds of millions of people happen to be of a particular skin color is irrelevant, except for the fact that they is how they choose to refer to themselves.
Are you advocating a continuation and expansion of the policies of shipping millions of jobs overseas, while at the same time importing millions and millions more immigrants, as we’ve been doing for decades?
**************************************
“Is this some new part of the Hegelian Dialectic?”
**************************************
That was in response to your asking why I defended immigrants, and then switched positions.

Justin wrote: “Erik: You should follow your own dictionary link. The very first definition describes my usage: “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.” **************************************** Which supports my claim that: “Racism has to do with ideas of innate supremacy and/or acts of oppression.” and contradicts your claim that: “grouping a group under the categorical heading of its racial characteristics is racism” You seem to losing track of the conversation and misattributing things. I never claimed that white people were superior to brown people. There are just too many brown people in poor countries south of our border to allow them all to immigrate here. **************************************** “You didn’t “merely describe racial characteristics”; you referred to “brown skinned largely unassimilable and somewhat hostile latinos.” **************************************** Right. I never said they were inferior to white people. **************************************** “In a subsequent restatement you said, “Most illegal aliens are brown, they are largely unassimilable, and their interests are hostile to those of American citizens.” **************************************** All true… they are mostly brown, when allowed to immigrate in large enough numbers they don’t assimilate, and their interests are economically hostile to those of citizens. *************************************** “That’s all the time I have for this particular sniping session.” *************************************** I agree, but Candy wanted to make a Federal Case out of it, and keep harping on this non issue, and so you get what we have here. *************************************** “You’re not the first, by the way, to employ the strategy of throwing out more links than most blog readers have the time to digest and then proceeding to dispense pomposity-drenched insults that ensure that nobody will bother to challenge your ideas.” *************************************** 1)… Read more »

Andy:
“*you* used skin color to explain why you supposedly changed your position on immigration”
**************************************
You’re either confused, or you’re purposely misrepresenting my words, because I never used skin color as a rationale… I used legal status, which happens to correlate to a large degree with skin color.
Understand?
This situation reminds me of yesterday, when Justin claimed that the dictionary definition of the term “racism” refuted my description, and confirmed his, when in fact, it was the exact opposite.
If you go back and read exactly what I wrote, in both cases, you’ll see what I mean.
I think this is a situation where one or both of you is seeing in the words what you want to see, or have been conditioned to see, instead of what’s actually there.

Nor I yours.