Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by mental modulator
reply to post by Amaterasu

---

First off, I hope you will find a GREAT JOB shortly.

Thanks! Me too! [smile]

Second I appreciate that you pointed out your desire to work, be productive and self sufficient.

Thanks. So many think I have not been out there looking. But little do they know how much effort I have been putting into finding another job.

I am not sure why the idea of becoming lazy and unmotivated is such a strong talking point... I assume the people who hold this point of view feel like they wanted to leech when they were between jobs or something..

Or they are looking for reasons to do the Lizard hearted thing - ignore us and maybe we'll go away...?

It is only those that want it to appear that all these people, down on their luck, are there because we choose to be. They want to suggest that we are "lazy," "unmotivated," and other epithets, so as to justify doing nothing. By marginalizing us, they can garner support for leaving us with nowhere to turn to.

It is a purposefully concocted BS to sway the understandings and opinions of the "average Joe." God forbid we try and HELP someone!

Originally posted by Fox News
reply to post by mental modulator

---

No, if the government wants to help out, they would lower the corporate tax rate, not make it the highest in the world per the Obama idea. Right now, or atleast under the Bush admin, we had the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (behind Japan).

according to a summary by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the “commercial” and “investment” banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions’ securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass Steagall Act.[7]

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[1]
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[2] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities"

The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia),

Originally posted by Fox News
reply to post by mental modulator

---

whats your point?