Herman Cain believes that the economy is great...apparently.

So Cain is saying that if you don't have a job, it is solely your fault. That means that everyone in the country who wants a job can get one if they want it. So the economy is the strongest it's been in 230 odd years or so, according to Mr. Cain?

Interesting that he then insults President Obama's economic policies. Why doesn't he praise the economy if it is producing so many jobs?

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself," Cain said.


http://pelham.patch.com/articles/oc...bility-and-the-unsettling-of-america-45fd9b04

 

Quote was already cleared up and was taken out of context.

 

Then please share. The statement stands for itself. If you are jobless, it's your own fault. If you aren't rich, it's your own fault.

Apparently 311 million Americans can all be CEOs.

You're free to explain how he cleared that up.

 

He was asked about it with his interview on the O'Donnell show. I don't remember everything he said but you're free to look it up if you really want to hear what he really meant.

 

LOL How the Hermans quote somehow equates to "economy is great" is a mystery............

Isn't it refreshing though for a politician to call a spade a spade? LOL

 

To start with, there are 1.9 million fewer people working today than there were in Feb. 09, according to the BLS. As for Mr. Cain, he is saying that if you want a job, you will find a way to get one. It may not be the job you want. But it will be a job. And if you can't find one, then invent one. It's how bad do you want it? Too many people today are content to take unemployment until the "perfect" job comes along. I changed jobs a little over a year ago, part of my present job requires me to haul liquid pigs**t in a tanker. Do I like it? nope, but I do it. A couple of other FORMER employees refused to do it. That's why they are former employees. The point is, take what you can get til something better comes along.

 

I brought the quote and link for what was said. If there is another quote and link that refutes mine, you're free to share it. I may look it up later.

Not a mystery at all. If someone doesn't have a job, then it is his or her fault, correct? You seem to agree with this logic.

Therefore, if everyone in the US wanted a job, one would be available, right?

So there is, in fact, a labor shortage in the US according to Herman Cain. 9.1% of people are unemployed by choice; companies just can't force them to take the millions and millions of jobs they have waiting.

So you agree that those 1.9 million people could work if they wanted to? They're just refusing the 1.9 million jobs that are waiting for them? Right?

 

I see job postings all the time. They may not all be executive white collar....but they are there.

And....I have no respect for the jobless person spending their valuable time eating free food, thrashing signs and trashing the park and complaining and whining. Disgusting.

 

It's video link. Just look it up on youtube.

He also just recently clarified that misunderstanding in the debate tonight so I just remembered what he said. He directed that statement towards the Occupy Wall street protesters who are protesting the wrong people. Not the people who are unemployed due to no fault of their own.
[/QUOTE]

 

no, but nice try. What Cain is saying, and which I imperfectly iterated before, is that you can either wait for an opportunity, or you can make an opportunity.And too many people today are waiting.

 

So the job opportunities are there?

It seems like you're contradicting yourself a little...you're saying if people try hard enough, there are jobs. But then you seem to suggest that there aren't jobs or that the economy isn't growing...? I don't understand.

 

[/QUOTE]

I see. How does Mr. Cain differentiate between those who are legitimately unemployed through no fault of their own and ones that are simply being lazy? It's entirely possible that some, if not most, of the OWS folk are out of jobs through no fault of their own. From what little I've heard, it sounds like tons of veterans, former business owners, and relatively successful people have joined the movement.

I am glad he did clarify, though. How was the debate? I've been catching up on studying and haven't had a chance to catch any of it.

 

That brings up Cain's point. Why aren't they complaining who's "job" it is to make sure that they are working or taking care of? Why are they not complaining to the people at Washington? They're the real reason people are in this mess. I don't know what they expect to accomplish by protesting Wall Street.

Eh, nothing too special. You didn't really miss much. Cain got a lot of heat because of his tax plan and he got some heat from Paul's criticism for not wanting to audit the FED. He got a chance to clarify those statements as well.

It was mostly a Cain, Romney and Perry race. Barely heard from anyone else.

 

I think the idea is that Washington is so bought up with corruption that Wall Street, symbolically, owns Washington. So the protesters are going straight to the source, so to speak. The politicians are just the middlemen in this equation. You can trace the economic crash back to a bunch of Wall Street practices that the government approved of because of Wall Street's influence. The repeal of Great Depression-era protections that were put in place to protect the economy was disastrous. Virtually every policy, both Republican and Democrat, is bought and paid for my corporate interest groups.

It's less about the economic situation (though that is a strong component) and more about the way in which the situation came about.

I can understand the heat on his tax plan. It's sketchy from both sides of the spectrum.

Did Perry perform better this time?

 

No, you are limiting the parameters. If there is nothing coming your way, then you need to think outside the box and find a way to help yourself. Example: If you are a healthy ,drug free person with a relatively clean driving record, you can go to several trucking companies, located all over the country. They will pay for your training and then put you in their truck. From someone who has done it for 20 years, I can tell you it's not an easy life, but I make enough to pay my mortgage, bills,take the occasional vacation, and put some aside. And the more versatile you are, the better your options are. There are niches out there, even in this economy. It's simply a matter of finding them.

 

So there are enough jobs for everyone if everyone looks hard enough?

 

But the Great Depression-era protections weren't repealed. They were still in place. Glass-Stegal had very little influence on regulation of the market. One of the institutions FDR enacted to prevent the same type of reckless behavior which happened during the 1929 crash was Fannie Mae and it played a large roll and manipulating Wall Street and Banks to go along with their political agenda.

The issue is that we have too many political institutions driving the markets. All government regulations are merely rules and guidelines the little guys have to abide by in order to protect the big fish from any real competition.

People don't really care about how the situation came out. Many of the same people were saying that the bailouts needed to happen. Now they are on Wall Street protesting bailouts. Time and time again, Americans just go along with what is political convenient. Not what is actually better for the economy or country.

I think he did. Although that is not saying much.

 

I'm afraid I disagree. Glass-Stegal was considered fairly important to keeping the market safe. Many economists still call for the reinstatement of it, especially after this latest crisis.

Precisely! And why is this? Because the Big Fish (aka Wall Street) can buy the politicians while the little guys can't. So we get regulations that hurt the little guys and help the big guys. It has to stop.

Though I'm afraid you have it backwards. The political institutions aren't driving the markets; the markets are driving the political institutions. You can't look at the campaign finance record of any current Senator, Congressman, or President (I'm watching you, Obama) and tell me that they aren't bought and paid for by their corporate interests. Some are better than others, yes, but they all answer to the same people. Follow the money.

Well the problem with how it came about is that Wall Street essentially caused these issues, and now no one owns up to it. Wall Street gets hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions if we can't Fed Reserve efforts) and what do all of the unemployed people, who suffered from their actions, get? Absolutely nothing. While the same people who caused the crash are profiting from the economy's current state and receive record bonuses, the people they did it on the backs of are still suffering without jobs. The whole picture is screwy, and I have no doubt that these same firms are engaging in the kinds of activities that got us here in the first place, because Washington refuses to reel in that kind of behavior. Why? Oh, that's right. Ka-ching. $$$.

I'm hoping he can pull it together and take down Romney with Cain's support.

 

It's a symbol of the greed and corruption ruining America.
It's an actual street, and legally accessable.
It's vulnerable to publicized protests.
And, it's working.
Now go do your nails.

 

Many economist only use that one piece of regulation because they don't want to admit that the markets were heavily regulated. One piece of regulation doesn't all of a sudden erase them all. You still had Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the CRA, The HUD, The FED, everyone. And the house bubble technically started in 1998 along with the Dot Com bubble.

It goes both ways. Not just the Big Fish at all Wall Street but for the Politicians who buy votes.

Why were the bought and paid for? Politicians promised them special favors. Politicians subsidies these businesses. Corporations can't do anything unless the people they want are in office.

Governments steer markets. Greedy corporations wouldn't be where they are without government influence. Bernie Madoff is a perfect example. The Government protected him for 20 years. SEC regulatory bodies did nothing to stop him for a decade.

Many of the groups which got bailed out donated to Obama's campaign. Dodd received many donations form Countrywide and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Of course they wouldn't allow them all to fail. But that is what happens when you have all these regulations with special interests and government at the reigns.

I'm really not into Perry to be honest. I'd rather have Cain or Paul...

Can't believe I just said that.

 

So protest Washington.

And yet, no one is actually taking any of you seriously.

I like books more than that color my nails are. They're good for you I promise.

 

If Bush was still there, for sure. But Wall Street can't ignore us, and neither can the media.

You're fooling yourself, but that's a normal reaction, when panic is about to strike.

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that...

 

Nice twist. Yes, jobs are scare. but what's to stop anyone from coming up with a new way to make a living? That's how the greatest advances in history have come from. Too many people today are more worried about what what they don't have instead of thinking about what could be.

 

Exactly. SEC is far too weak. They sat idly by and never pursued Madoff. Reducing regulations does not help that situation. American companies are not remotely over regulated. Lax environmental standards are but one example, followed by all of the handy loopholes that let so many industries pay zero taxes, or even receive government money on top of massive profits.

If I had to support someone, it would be Jon Huntsman. To date he's the only one that's had the guts to stand up and say that Republicans need to stop fighting science. It's a shame that he has no chance. He and Obama would make an interesting duo.

He really needs to emphasize his foreign policy experience. A former ambassador to China, when relations with China are so crucial? That would be a great soundbite.

 

So...there are enough jobs if people are willing to look for them? That's either what you're saying or it isn't.