world

Obama promotes new jobs program

106 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

106 Comments
Login to comment

Remake of an old song coming out soon...Working on the road gang...

Enslave the unemployed, pay them minimum wages to rebuild the infrastructure of America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another program to fix America, another bill te GOP can say 'No' to.

China is investing billions in infrastructure now and has been for years.

How long is the GOP going to keep dragging America backwards?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, since Spendulus 1 failed, its time to go back to China and beg for another 50 Billion to throw away. Why does he think that if the first one failed, that the second will work? What would work... Reduce regulation, reduce taxes, and massively cut spending. The government is sucking too much on the private sector tit. They produce nothing, do nothing, except act as a brake on the economy. Its time to remove the brakes. Or rather, reduce the burden on the private sector to allow it to grow. And stop claiming that profit is bad. Profit is essential, and good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, but, but .... wasn't the majority of Porkulus Maximus supposed to go to what Obama called "shovel ready" jobs? Heh, we all know now how well that worked out.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it will take time to “reverse the damage of a decade worth of policies” that caused the recession.

He forgot the "s". Correct word is "decades". Or maybe he left it off intentionally. No point in panicking people by telling them how bad things really are. Politically better to just try and blame Bush than to admit the last 30 years of "prosperity" were just smoke and mirrors fed by cheap money, inflation, and bogus economics, and that those days are now gone forever.

The question is whether Obama understands the true situation and is faking that he doesn't to try and keep the house of cards standing, or if he is just another delusional economic illiterate. No question about which is true for the Republicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The infrastructure spending is part of a package of economic proposals to be announced this week by Obama,..."

Infrastructure spending is woefully needed and has fallen behind for MANY years. A deep recession is the proper time for the government to step up spending;will the private sector rebuild infrastructure? He will also introduce corporate tax breaks for research and incentives for companies to hire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For someone who's suppose to be the president of all of us, Barack Hussein Obama's distateful and very unpresidential comments about the republicans must truly be embarrassing for any American who has supported him and for his democrat politicians that are in serious trouble for November.

Obama is continuing to hurt democrats with each nasty partisan word he utters as campaigner-in-chief.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Politically better to just try and blame Bush than to admit the last 30 years of "prosperity" were just smoke and mirrors fed by cheap money, inflation, and bogus economics, and that those days are now gone forever.

Or at least until we get someone competent in charge. Someone who doesn't feel, the best way to create jobs, is always to make the Federal government bigger.

For someone who's suppose to be the president of all of us, Barack Hussein Obama's distateful and very unpresidential comments about the republicans must truly be embarrassing for any American who has supported him and for his democrat politicians that are in serious trouble for November.

You would think that would be the case. But no, most people are so partisan, that the Presidents lack of concern for a majority of Americans, doesn't really bother them. Since most of his supporters hate the other side, having their President, their leader, mocking the people they hate, rather then acting as a President for everyone, works fine for them. Honestly though, I can't remember another President, as partisan as Obama. Has there ever been a President that didn't consider himself President of all Americans, not just his fringe group? And not in an elitist power trip thing that Obama seems to feel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“If I said fish live in the sea, they’d say no,” Obama said.

So true. I am disappointed in how things have turned out, but I want to hope he can turn things around. And I hope people will actually give him the chance to do so. Sigh.

RomeoRamenll-- His distasteful comments? Have you heard what everyone else has been saying about him?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"... most of his supporters hate the other side..."

"...the Presidents lack of concern for a majority of Americans,..."

Republicans love the other side?

What majority are you referring to?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't remember another President, as partisan as Obama

Well, Nixon had his enemies list. But no president I know of has ever attacked such a large chunk of American voters the way Obama just did. Didn't he (or, rather, his teleprompter) say there are no red states, there are no blue states; there's only the United States?

Just words. Just speeches.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But no president I know of has ever attacked such a large chunk of American voters the way Obama just did."

Presidents have never criticized the other party? More silly statements.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is all politics by Obama to promote the Democrats who are seeking re-election against the Republicans. If Obama is going to do the talk then do the walk. Last time I check the President can veto any bill congress pass. Instead of blaming the Republicans, Obama should make good on his promises. Otherwise, this is childish tactics by Obama. Blaming someone for the current economy problem is one way of distracting the real issues such as the health care reform, illegal immigration, and the lack of jobs. These issues are what the voters are interested in. What tomorrow will bring not what happened yesterday. That's old news.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Presidents have never criticized the other party? More silly statements.

I see you drank the Kool-Aid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: Ever hear a president(R or D) criticize the opposite party?

Yes or no?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This "long-term jobs program" seems more like a "campaign promise" than an actual bill. There doesn't seem to be anything in writing. When congress meets again in the fall they "might" discuss spending another 50 billion USD on top of all the other billions that they spent over the last 18 months. Where is this money coming from? Are the federal printing presses working overtime? Will China loan the US more money?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lol! I almost wet myself laughing at Molenir's delusional defense of free markets, the same free market that crashed the economy under the previous - GOP - president and argubly the most pitiful, misinformed bunch of anti-American Americans in recent history - that's right: conservatives. Molenir, RR and their populist friends want to cut spending. They had 8 long years to protest excessive spending under Bush but they said nothing. (Hey, it was only $6 trillion, what's the big deal?)

Molenir wants taxes cut - and yet s/he supported bush's insane spending spree that drained the kitty, massively increased federal debt and virtually guaranteed taxes will rise in future to fund future spending.

Heh, if nothing else, you can always rely on conservatives to be clueless about reality.

And to underline my case, Molenir wants to reduce regulation. Um, it was lax regulation that led to the financial sector meltdown.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Honestly, about the only place conservative economic theory flies is straight down the toilet. We've all seen the results of conservative economic theory and more than 3 million Americans and countless millions around the globe are still paying the price with lost jobs, stalled careers and shattered futures. If Americans put the GOP back in power, we can all kiss sayonara to the U.S. economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the next two years and counting the civilised world will be trembling in fear and loathing as it waits to see which redneck, born-again serial adulterer the Republican party will nominate as its standard bearer in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More "make work" programs, how about cutting taxes for industry so they can make capital investments and create long term jobs. Dems just can't help spending money like drunken sailors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sad, record profits in industry and still they want more handouts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's really sad to see people be so critical of someone who is trying to make good decisions for their country. Sure you may not support his party but instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting ''lalalala I can't hear you'' or flat out disagreeing, maybe it would be better to come up with more constructive criticism. As for giving industry tax breaks, it would be good if they would actually invest back and really did care about the people's lives that they can make a positive impact on. But they much more often rather pocket it for themselves hence why some people think that it is a useless technique.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In fact, if you look at Molenir's prescription to fix the economy - cutting taxes, loosening regulation, etc.. you will see that it is essentially what we could call a 'Bring Back Bush' policy platform, the same tried-and-failed policies that brought the U.S. and global economies to their knees. But when have facts and reality ever mattered to conservatives? Not then. Not now. Some things just never change...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, RR, etc. have clearly learnt nothing at all from the last 8 years. Pretty much all I see from their posts is a rattling off of talking points supporting failed GOP policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lol! I almost wet myself laughing at Molenir's delusional defense of free markets, the same free market that crashed the economy under the previous - GOP - president and argubly the most pitiful, misinformed bunch of anti-American Americans in recent history - that's right: conservatives. Molenir, RR and their populist friends want to cut spending. They had 8 long years to protest excessive spending under Bush but they said nothing. (Hey, it was only $6 trillion, what's the big deal?)

Wow, talk about delusional. Could you be more blatant in your attempts to rewrite history?

Molenir wants taxes cut - and yet s/he supported bush's insane spending spree that drained the kitty, massively increased federal debt and virtually guaranteed taxes will rise in future to fund future spending.

Sorry for not fitting your partisan mold. I'm less a Republican then I am a conservative. I opposed Bush for that, and can honestly say, to me, he was one of the worst Presidents of the past 100 years. Oh, he's better then Carter, and Obama is of course a joke. But I'd definitely rate him a bit below then next 2 worst Presidents of the past 100 years. (Ford and Nixon) I know, you can't stand people like me that actually have principles and don't fit the party line. If the party goes on a massive spending spree, I'll vote for someone else. In fact I did.

And to underline my case, Molenir wants to reduce regulation. Um, it was lax regulation that led to the financial sector meltdown.

And Democrats response to economic meltdown, is that rather then address the problem (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) the dems pass a massive porkulus bill, a healthcare monstrosity, and then "Bank Reform" that adds burdensome new regulations to every single business in America. Please note their utter failure to actually address the issue. In fact please note that the only things they've done, have only exacerbated the problem. Not a single one of their bills helped the economy. It only makes things worse. Wanna keep trying to blame the Republicans for this? I mean the Dems have only been in control of congress for 4 years now.

Honestly, you can't win with these loons. If the Dems managed to stay in power for 100 years, they would be pointing back to the Bush stupidity, and then blaming the Republicans for getting in their way. If they screw up, its always someone elses fault, if someone else does something that works, they try to take credit for what was none of their doing. Or in Obamas case, something he opposed, in Dirty Harry's case, something he said was a failure before it started...

Go ahead though, keep trying to rewrite history. Again, sorry for not fitting your stereotypical mold, and being a die hard kool-aid drinking partisan hack like yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The 'deregulation' the Republicans keep trumpeting is just a license to steal. Contrast the mess in the US with Canada, whose banks are solvent and residential property prices stablised, because it wisely adopted a policy of preventing people's savings and other assets from being plundered by mercenary traders.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake

You say Bush's spending was excessive?!?! Take a look at what this fool of a president called Obama has done in less than two years! Basically spend America into oblivion! And for your information, the free market didn't "crash" under Bush. There was a downturn but by no means a "crash". Only when the puppet Obama - controlled by the Socialist evil man George Soros - started spending like a drunken sailor and implementing health care reform that caused tremendous uncertainty among companies that stopped hiring - that's when things started to get really bad.

The T-shirts with Bush's mug and the words "Miss Me Yet?" are currently the hottest selling tourism item on Martha's Vineyard, for God's sake.

And it wasn't lax regulation that caused the financial troubles. It was the "free money" programs for people who shouldn't be owning homes in the first place... just more "economic justice" BS from the Dems.

Conservatives are going to take back both houses of Congress in November, neutering Obama, and putting America back on track towards economic growth.

And 2012 will see a conservative victory in the Presidential election.

You're going to be crying big time, come November, SushiSake. Boo hoo hoo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A downturn, He says, just a downturn, huh? Lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: Ever hear a president(R or D) criticize the opposite party?

No, every president before has agreed 100% with the opposing party. What are you delusional? However, I don't think any President has been so confrontational, aggressive, and just plain delusional as Obama. I see why you supported him.

Molenir's delusional defense of free markets

Communism is alive in SushiSake's head.

Take a look at what this fool of a president called Obama has done in less than two years! Basically spend America into oblivion!

And the spending's not anywhere near done yet. Just wait until he starts giving our tax money to the rest of the world as part of his socialist redistribution agenda.

The 'deregulation' the Republicans keep trumpeting is just a license to steal.

How dare companies think they should profit! Where's Lenin when you need him?

It's really sad to see people be so critical of someone who is trying to make good decisions for their country.

Ohhh, how sweet!! Even the failure that was Carter TRIED to make good decisions. But just like Carter, Obama's decisions are just plain wrong.

And 2012 will see a conservative victory in the Presidential election.

The only disappointment will be that McCain is still there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3,

The economy in the U.S. and Europe failed because certain persons got greedy. On the other hand, certain persons spend more than they have. Blame globalism. Blame cheap labor. Blaming Bush or the GOP is ludicrous. Obama and the Democrats are no different than Bush and the GOP in making laws because the average person is not going to benefited from it.

sakurala: It's really sad to see people be so critical of someone who is trying to make good decisions for their country. Sure you may not support his party but instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting ''lalalala I can't hear you'' or flat out disagreeing, maybe it would be better to come up with more constructive criticism. As for giving industry tax breaks, it would be good if they would actually invest back and really did care about the people's lives that they can make a positive impact on. But they much more often rather pocket it for themselves hence why some people think that it is a useless technique.

There is no such thing as equal and fairness in life. Because why are there still poor and uneducated people around the world.

Tax breaks are given to corporations for doing businesses in a city by the local government. Corporations gets tax breaks from the Federal government too. Local government understands that when a corporation comes into town there will be jobs for the people. No local government wants to lose companies that will move out of state or out of the country.

You obviously missing the point where Obama is concerned. He only represent the Democrats and the unions. He acts on those two special interests because his policy is not favoring everyone including conservatives and corporations. This article is about Obama being all negative about the Republicans.

You have the right to put Obama on a pedestal. Reality is what counts. If a person can't balance his/her checking account, the banks were covering for the person with a fee. Nothing wrong with it. Obama only made it worse for loss of time and paying twice for a bounce check and charges by the company that the check is written out to. That's called financial/banking regulation. Who wins in this scenario? Must be the person (sarcasm). So a few people can't balance their checkbook and the rest of us have to pay for it with more fees all around because the banks need to make their money too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I notice btw Sushi, that in addition to attempting to rewrite history to suit yourself, and to justify your partisan attacks, you completely failed to address one of my points. The Dems mantra that profit is bad. In fact, that doesn't go far enough. They rather believe that profit is evil. Is it any wonder then that people look at the man, and loons who push this, like they're nuts? Profit is what enables growth. It is what enables the government you love so much to grow even larger. Without profit, what you see, is whats happening now. Whats amusing about this is, that Obama, being the hypocrite he is, is always trying to push people for investments. Banks and corporations need to invest... But what he fails to realize is, that the only reason for someone to invest, is if they see a (Dum, Dum, Dum) PROFIT! Without the profit, there is no reason to invest. No motivation. In which case, the government might as well just take the money from the companies and give it to those they deem deserving or needful... Hmm, rather like they're doing now.

And before you start screaming about how profits aren't bad, just obscene ones are. Who decides whats obscene? If a group of corporations and money market firms invest a trillion dollars in a company, and that company makes an obscene amount of 40 billion dollars profit... Thats all of a 4% return. And thats assuming a lot of things, like the corporation paying dividends etc. When the US decided to take over GM for example, a lot of groups lost big time. Quite a few of them had stocks, that under contract law, would have been paid first. Even if the company went through bankruptcy. Yet amazingly enough, they weren't. Instead they were forced to accept pennies on the dollar for their stocks. Oh, but don't worry the Unions, Obamas butt buddies, got all their money back.

Pardon me, and most other Republicans, in fact most Americans for being more then a bit skeptical of anything Obama says these days. He's got a record now. He can run, but he can't hide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ya I was gonna say sushi you do realize that Obama has pretty much already spent the same amount of money that Bush spent in his 8 years office in just pretty much 2 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

2 more years to go. Let's see what other Weather Underground-written bills Congress passes and Obama signs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the spending's not anywhere near done yet.

There was a President(this is before you started thinking) who used to spend a lot of money on fighting meaningless wars overseas. Compared to that we have a President who spends money on his own people, try to "think" who is better.

The economy in the U.S. and Europe failed because certain persons got greedy.

Skipbeat: The economy collapsed not just because people were greedy, its because they were allowed to get away with unlimited greed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There was a President(this is before you started thinking) who used to spend a lot of money on fighting meaningless wars overseas.

Obama has spent more in 2 years. You really need to get off the insults.

The economy collapsed not just because people were greedy, its because they were allowed to get away with unlimited greed.

And here comes the "businessmen are greedy and evil" communist mantra. I thought that died out with the USSR.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush 2 was frequently polite and cordial to the Dems, despite vicious and constant attacks. You never saw the man hitting back, at least until his re-election rolled around. Oh some of his people would lash out occasionaly, and others would defend him, but you never saw the kind of constant campaigning and attacks shown by Obama. And its not just Bush that did this. Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, even Carter as incompetent as he was worked with the opposition. No one has ever been like Obama, in the constant attacks and campaign mode, as he attempts to deflect justifiable blame for his administrations stupidity and incompetence.

There was a President(this is before you started thinking) who used to spend a lot of money on fighting meaningless wars overseas. Compared to that we have a President who spends money on his own people, try to "think" who is better.

Let us contrast. Bush spent less then 800 billion spent on Iraq. Total. Obamas Porkulus Maximus bill 850 billion. And despite Bush's excessive and unnecessary spending in other areas, the total deficit spending he managed in 8 years has very nearly been done by Obama in 2.

Skipbeat: The economy collapsed not just because people were greedy, its because they were allowed to get away with unlimited greed.

You are of course referring to the low income people who bought houses they couldn't afford and then defaulted on them right? Or perhaps you are referring to the lawmakers who seeing the votes they could rake in by putting unqualified people in houses they couldn't afford, chose to create the law that essentially forced banks to allow this. Greed didn't cause the collapse, despite what your kool-aid drinking socialist friends want you to believe. It was arrogance and stupidity, plain and simple. The Dems benefited from it, despite it being largely their fault. (I should of course single out Bawney Fwank for special mention here.) Regardless of blame though, they're going to pay for not being able to clean up the mess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, it's proving virtually impossible for the Dems to fix the mess left behind by the GOP. But, yeah, let's 'cut regulations.' lol!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And let's not forget, the Dem's stimulus bill would have been completely unneccessary had the GOP not tanked the economy with the lockstep support of conservatives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it's proving virtually impossible for the Dems to fix the mess left behind by the GOP.

Ahh, it's Bush's fault for the Demos' incompetence. At least the Demos are admitting "we have NO CLUE what to do". Maybe we need Christie to run in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what specific additional taxes on business have been added under Obama? I'll leave alone the Feds decision to lend money for essentially nothing, which I'm sure is not helping companies at all....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mfa, Obama spends $750b on America. GOP's Iraq war will ultimately cost America $3 trillion. Who's incopetent?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushisake... you're dreaming. Obama is adding trillions to the debt, and he just got started.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a good one: decrease taxes but don't increase the budget deficit. Cut govt spending but don't increase unemployment. Fantasy land discussions...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

junnama, the diehard socialist. Since when is unemployment solely a function of government jobs? I guess when the government takes over private industry, but then that's the Demos fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh some of his people would lash out occasionaly, and others would defend him,

Ok, he did not have the courage to stand up for himself and needed to hide behind somebody's tail.So we both agree on that.

even Carter as incompetent as he was worked with the opposition.

I would guess that says more about the quality of opposition. The poor excuse of an opposition today are just not the type you would work together with.

Greed didn't cause the collapse, despite what your kool-aid drinking socialist friends want you to believe.

If you believe that, then you should stop smoking whatever you are smoking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, he did not have the courage to stand up for himself and needed to hide behind somebody's tail.So we both agree on that.

LOL! ulysses, you can't possibly believe the nonsense you write. Talk about a party of No, the Demos invented it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it's clear from where the posts have lead to that the US is more divided than ever. We have a leftist party in power with a vendetta against anyone who disagrees with them, and a majority of America who can't wait until the next elections to correct the mistakes of the 2006 and 2008 elections.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushisake - you really don't actually READ the news, do you? Do you remember the stimulus? There were stories everywhere exposing the ridiculous budget appropriations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm pro-business, but also pro-facts. Govt spending influences business alot. Most govt spending goes to payroll. Many govt employees add no value, but if you fire them they will be unemployed. Those are facts. Real problem is we've outsourced so much stimulus ends up helping other countries.

Not sure about yer rum runner comment. There's plenty of money for business to spend on projects very cheap, but nothing worthwhile to invest in. Lowering taxes will help little.

Anyway, what specific taxes have been added under Obama?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there's anything good to be done it would be smart to unwind the intense regulatory environment that's been building for decades for us businesses, but that's not a tax question and I'll exclude financial services which is under-regulated in general.

I don't expect Obama or any future prez will do so though...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh and for those who forgot, the stimulus package included a fair amount of tax cuts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have a leftist party in power with a vendetta against anyone who disagrees with them,

The problem is with fanatics like you who club anybody not agreeing to your brand of extreme beliefs as communists, socialists etc etc. McCarthyism,in a more rabid form, seems to catching on among the feeble minded.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, you can smell the panic in Obama and his fellow far-left liberals because they are beginning to realize just how big the rout of democrats will be in November.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who would panic? The left and the right aren't going anywhere. Cripes if the gop survived the mess of the past 4-6 years it must be impossible to kill a us political party!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCarthyism,in a more rabid form, seems to catching on among the feeble minded.

Translation: I'll resort to name calling because I have nothing left to defend this administration.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, you can smell the panic in Obama and his fellow far-left liberals

I've been smelling the rot in the republican party for a long time, sure that's not what you smell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, the GOP and conservatives can barely function without blaming the Dems for the GOP recession, cussin' about a deficit their idiot policies pumped up by $6 trillion, or talking of loosening the very regulations that led to the global economic meltdown. And then, to show that they've got some 'ideas,' they recite the same policy talking points that crippled the economy. But hey! It's all the Dem's fault. How many times can one party fail America? Only diehard conservatives know...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the GOP was an animal, it'd be a lemming and come November they'd be a'heading out to the cliffs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The promise of keeping the unemployment figure under 8 percent touted by Porkulus Maximus failed miserably. Today, the "official" number is 9.6 percent. Now Obama wants democrats running for re-election in less than two months to go back to their voters and tell them this administration needs another $50 billion from them.

Heh, wonder if anybody is in need of employees who spend like drunken sailors? There will be a number of them in the form of democrats out of a job come next January.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(Obama) said he’d “keep fighting, every single day, every single hour, every single minute to turn this economy around.”

Of course, that's not when he's on vacation, playing golf, shooting hoops and hosting celebrity-laden parties at the White House.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans and the economy are hurt by 9.6% unemployment.

If $1.2 trillion couldn't keep unemployment below 8%, as promised by Obama when he signed off on Porkulus Maximus, does anyone really believe another $50 billion will do anything other than create more debt the Goverment will have to pay interest on?

For the democrat partisans, what do you think is going to happen when the interest this administration has to pay on the national debt goes up from 2% to, say, 10%? Can you say, "Inflation"?

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo, your votes for bush were behind the massive spurt in debt under the last administration. If you think anyone buys your faux concern for debt, I've got news for you and it's all bad. Talking abott your and others' faux concern for debt, where were you when bush racheted up the deficit by $6 trillion? Busy? Shopping? Pretending you cared for something else? No, you green-lighted all of it. And now, you're up im arms about debt? What do you take us for? Clueless conservatives?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's only one thing more hypocritical than a conservative sobbing crocodile tears pretending they care about unemployment, and that's a conservative sobbing crocodile tears pretending they care about debt. We've seen lots of these folks today. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush really screwed things up didn't he ??? Iraq has alot of construction going on from americann companies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet another faux sob story: RR expresses angst at Obama for not keeping unemployment south of 8%. Sob! Did anyone hear RR express angst when his pal bush failed to keep Iraq war costs capped at the promised $200 billion, costs that are now forecast to explode to $3 trillion, and that are driving up the very same federal debt that RR is now complaining about? Gosh, I didn't...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Instead of pouring money in financial institution in hope they will invest that money was pretty idiotic. If 50B$ would build something a la new deal, they should have started with that. If many of the so-called rescued banks would have gone belly-up, the situation would have been even worse. People losing all their money and/or the money invested.

About GM being nationalized and other car industry monsters going belly-up, all satellite companies from making car parts to cleaning offices will also go belly-up. Complaining about the 9.6% unemployed? Let all go belly-up and the just double this number.

So, Molenir, RomeoRamen, manfromamerica, should be the size of companies limited by law to have the minimum of impact on the economy in case one of them fails? If not, is it OK to destroy completely the economy. Bailouts are evil but necessary evil.

About socialism and communism, some posters should re-re-re-re-re-re-read the definition aided with a dictionary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama needs to do more about the job situation. He should recognize that it's the biggest issue facing Americans right now and it's something he should be addressing just about every day. I can understand that he has other things he's doing and other accomplishments, but the more he takes a back seat on the economy the greater the chances are of people turning against the Democrats, which they're already starting to do.

On the other hand, big business is being stingy as hell, sitting on record amounts of cash because of cost cutting but refusing to hire people. I don't know if tax breaks are the answer unless they're specifically tied to employing new people. I know that small businesses are hurting but some job growth can be created with large businesses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GOP/conservative Talking Points are clear enough:

If president Obama says it, refute it.

If president Obama's name is on it, fight it.

If it's a bill that will help hardworking Americans, fight it tooth and nail, stack it with goodies for the rich corporate guys who are robbing us blind, and most importantly - screw the little guy. It's incredible to see conservatives en masse opposing a bill to help build and repair roads, runways and highways that conservatives drive on. Do conservatives WANT to continue driving on decripid infrastructure? Of course they don't, which just means they are lying to themselves and their fellow Americans when they faux claim they oppose this bill. But I'll bet a beer we'll see still more conservatives crying crocodile tears about debt and unemployment...hypocrisy knows no bounds if you're a conservative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the other hand, big business is being stingy as hell, sitting on record amounts of cash because of cost cutting but refusing to hire people.

Would you hire people if you how had no idea how much is going to cost you in the long run? Right now the only thing you can count on is how much the Government is going to penalize you for hiring in the first place, health care news gosh what a shocker it ain't free........And Gaw'd figure you if your a small business that makes over 250,000 grand....Then your rich according to Obama and time to spread the wealth around (tax the hell out of me).

Darn right they are sitting on their cash.....Who wouldn't with this Administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo, your votes for bush were behind the massive spurt in debt under the last administration.

To paraphrase a recent cover from Newsweek: Who, in 2000, would have imagined that the best way to get a "terrorist-coddling, warmongering, Wall-Street-loving, socialistic, godless Muslim" into the White House would be by voting for the Republican candidate twice?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama and the Democrats just don't get it. Goverment spending doesn't create jobs, private businesses do. Why can't they just get the hell out of the way of private business?

"the GOP recession"

Which party has been in charge of Congress since 2006 and the White House since 2009 again? The Democrat Party!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Which party has been in charge of Congress since 2006 and the White House since 2009 again? The Democrat Party!"

Heh, Sarge conveniently forgets to mention who weilded the veto pen.

Nice try Sarge!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which party has been in charge of Congress since 2006 and the White House since 2009 again?

Sarge, in his ignorance, conveniently forgets that, while the Democrats won back the Congress due to the results of the elections of November 2006, they actually did not take charge until January of 2007.

By then, the house of cards that was the U.S. economy presided over by Republicans was coming down fast.

Bush and the Republicans made promises to the American people that dwarfed this complaint about the stimulus package not bringing down unemployment enough: For example, the biggest tax cuts in U.S. history were supposed to bring an unparalleled economic boom and growth in job creation. Nothing of the sort happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet another faux sob story: RR expresses angst at Obama for not keeping unemployment south of 8%. Sob! Did anyone hear RR express angst when his pal bush failed to keep Iraq war costs capped at the promised $200 billion, costs that are now forecast to explode to $3 trillion, and that are driving up the very same federal debt that RR is now complaining about? Gosh, I didn't...

Wait, when did the cost in Iraq go to 3 trillion, last I checked it was significantly less then was spend on Obamas Porkulus Maximus, which came in a bit under 850 billion. Methinks math is your weak point.

If it's a bill that will help hardworking Americans, fight it tooth and nail, stack it with goodies for the rich corporate guys who are robbing us blind, and most importantly - screw the little guy.

Notice the Dem mantra. Corporations bad, profit bad. Screws the little guy. Ah, but the ones screwing the little guy is government. Ah, but we can't let reality distract us.

Heh, Sarge conveniently forgets to mention who weilded the veto pen.

Ooh, wait, so because it was Bush with the veto pen, all the crap passed by the Dem congress, is all Bush's fault. Ok, good to know. That means, that if the Republicans go in, and totally screw things up, it will be Obamas fault right... Ah wait, forgot who we're talking to for a moment. Everything is the Republicans fault. If Obama goes and rapes the economy, some company, or his wife for that matter, its always the fault of some Republican.

Nice try Sarge!

When it comes down to it, pointing out the truth to the kool-aid drinking partisan loons, is a waste of time. It doesn't matter what the Dems do, they'll never blame them for it. Its always just excuses. Dems screw the economy, well its Bush's fault, its the Republicans fault for not voting for a bill that the majority of Americans opposed. Its everyones fault but the people responsible.

One thing very few people seem to be talking about, is the fact that Obama is about to cause the biggest tax increase in history. In the middle of a recession. What a wonderful idea by the smartest man in America. There is no better way to further harm the economy, then to jack up everyones taxes. Oh, but don't worry, I'm sure it won't be Obamas fault that he won't allow them to continue. No, its all Bush and the Republicans fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By then, the house of cards that was the U.S. economy presided over by Republicans was coming down fast.

You're off by more then a year bud. Started falling 2008. Dems were in power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When it comes to politics and helping America and especially Obama's programs:

Republicans - "NO"

Democrats - "YES"

< :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Notice the Dem mantra. Corporations bad, profit bad.

It's actually "amoral" instead of "bad," but we understand if many of the simple-minded can't grasp that. (It's why they need mantras to begin with.)

so because it was Bush with the veto pen, all the crap passed by the Dem congress, is all Bush's fault.

LOL!! The Democratic-led Congress did not have the necessary numbers to overturn a Bush-veto. So, yes, everything that Congress eventually passed between 2007-2009 had to meet with Bush's approval.

One thing very few people seem to be talking about, is the fact that Obama is about to cause the biggest tax increase in history.

LMAO!! Again, the simple-minded conveniently forget that the Bush tax-cuts were designed from the very beginning to expire in ten years' time. The Republicans told the American people in early 2001 that these tax cuts would expire if the budget was no longer in surplus. So, in fact, the "biggest tax increase" was designed into the bill at the very start by the Republicans -- who believed that enough Americans would be so stupid as to forget all this in ten years' time.

Remember how they sold the American people the tax cuts? They looked at the projected surpluses and told the the surplus represented an "overcharge" and the American people were due a "refund." (Pay no attention to that looming national debt behind the curtain, folks!)

These are the years from 2001 to 2006 when the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the White House. Bush promised he'd hold discretionary federal spending well within the limits set by his predecessor. He must have meant LBJ because he signed every spending bill the Republican Congress put before him and never vetoed a single thing until well into his second term.

jack up everyones taxes

How about restoring the tax rates to the time when America was booming and even created a surplus? -- A surplus that the Republicans completely squandered for taking the economy down the tubes. (Just as they did in 1929 -- the last time they controlled both Congress and the White House for more than a 4-year stretch.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits, good post.

The 1929 market crash took in excess of 10 years to dig out of, however we expect the turn-around overnight in the internet age.

Corporations are holding $$millions$$ in savings from their downsizing and sending jobs overseas. They are waiting as long as they can, hopefully till there is a change in president and congress, and they will invest in new jobs then. That way they can give all credit to republicans and all discredit to the democrats. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - It's actually "amoral" instead of "bad," but we understand if many of the simple-minded can't grasp that. (It's why they need mantras to begin with.)

Sure, I mean otherwise they might realize the truth, that profit is actually good. And that its only the class warfare proponents, ie those who benefit from pushing these divisions, that want you to think this. I mean only them, and the truly simple minded really believe that profit is bad or "ammoral". Out of curiosity yabits, which are you?

yabits - LOL!! The Democratic-led Congress did not have the necessary numbers to overturn a Bush-veto. So, yes, everything that Congress eventually passed between 2007-2009 had to meet with Bush's approval.

Heh, and every single thing passed by the Republican congress in the late 90s passed with Clintons approval right? Compromise is how government worked before Obama. Have you already forgotten that?

yabits - LMAO!! Again, the simple-minded conveniently forget that the Bush tax-cuts were designed from the very beginning to expire in ten years' time. The Republicans told the American people in early 2001 that these tax cuts would expire if the budget was no longer in surplus. So, in fact, the "biggest tax increase" was designed into the bill at the very start by the Republicans -- who believed that enough Americans would be so stupid as to forget all this in ten years' time.

Umm, no. The Republicans put a time limit on them, because they couldn't pass them without it. The Dems announced a filibuster. With a limit on them though, enough Dems were willing to allow it through. Again, compromise. Its only been 2 years, are you really so simpleminded you can't remember beyond that? Doesn't change the fact though, that since Obama is refusing to allow them to be extended, again please note his lack of willingness to compromise, he is responsible for what will be the biggest tax increase in American history. Right in the middle of a recession. Remember to thank Obama and the Dems for that by voting for someone intelligent. (Little hint, if they have D by their name, it means they're dumb.)

aday - The 1929 market crash took in excess of 10 years to dig out of, however we expect the turn-around overnight in the internet age.

And what did Obama promise? Wait, you're actually admitting that he lied? OMG! You Traitor. Quick someone take away his Obama buddy badge, and secret decoder ring.

aday - Corporations are holding $$millions$$ in savings from their downsizing and sending jobs overseas. They are waiting as long as they can, hopefully till there is a change in president and congress, and they will invest in new jobs then. That way they can give all credit to republicans and all discredit to the democrats. < :-)

So, I'm a CEO of a major corporation, looking ahead. With the current downturn, my profits are relatively stable, and it looks like I could possibly expand. In order to do that, I'd need to hire a bunch of new workers. (Depending on where I live, they might be union, which would impact things even more.) That would mean my costs would go up significantly, while my expansion takes hold. Oh, but taxes are about to go through the roof. Hmm, maybe I should hold off on hiring a bunch of new people and expanding just yet...

Yeah, not hard to see the thought process involved here. Please note, they're not thinking, ooh, lets stick its to the Dems. If they were, they'd be in politics, not business. They are looking to make profits for themselves, their company, and their investors. Oddly enough though, thats a bad thing. So maybe they should just fire everyone instead. Then there won't be any evil profits... Is it any wonder why people think Obama is bad for business? Seems like everything he does merely hurts the American economy and businesses both large and small. The only ones benefiting are the unions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To paraphrase a recent cover from Newsweek....

Heh, leave it to a liberal to cite Newsweak; a looney leftist rag that recently went bankrupt and was sold for $1.

To paraphrase Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin in a SNL sketch: I can see November from my front porch and it don't look too good for the democrats.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, more bad news for supporters of the party of endless entitlements:

Quote:

"Two months before the 2010 midterm elections, likely voters now favor the Republican over the Democratic candidate in their congressional district by 53-40 percent, the widest GOP margin on record in ABC News/Washington Post polls since 1981."

And this coming from two of Obama's lapdog MSM organizations.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Republicans put a time limit on them, because they couldn't pass them without it. The Dems announced a filibuster. With a limit on them though, enough Dems were willing to allow it through.

This is simply not factual. It had nothing to do with the Democrats announcing a filibuster, or compromising. I was because the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that keeping the cuts in place beyond ten years would exceed the lost-revenue limits prescribed by the Congressional Budget Act, aka PAYGO.

Of course, the Republican supply-side, Kool-Aid drinkers told the American people they could have tax cuts AND continuing surpluses. That didn't happen by a long shot. The only thing that saved the Bush regime from having the US economy in the tank around 2005 was his support for the inflation of the housing bubble. (See "ownership society.")

Heh, and every single thing passed by the Republican congress in the late 90s passed with Clintons approval right?

Yeah, that's when the US ended up with projected surpluses extending as far out as the eye could see. Greenspan was actually warning that the US might pay down too much of the national debt too soon. Real tough times.

Rather than Bush acknowledging the national debt as something that needed to be paid down to counteract the deficit spending of the '70s and '80s -- times when the US taxpayers "underpaid" the Treasury, using Bush's own logic -- his actions made it seem as though he believed debt didn't even exist.

the biggest tax increase in American history. Right in the middle of a recession

LOL!! Anyone recall what the top marginal tax rate was during the time the US pulled itself out of the Great Depression -- due by far to the greatest government spending/stimulus program in its history, aka WWII. (Over 30 trillion in gov't spending, using today's dollars.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's actually "amoral" instead of "bad," but we understand if many of the simple-minded can't grasp that. (It's why they need mantras to begin with.)

I don't know about a mantra, and call me simple-minded if you like - I'm thick skinned. But tell me the truth Yabits - do you really think that corporate profit is 'amoral'? You mean to tell me that if you start a coffee shop, work your a$$ off until is sees profit that your are amoral for making that profit? Your reply will of course be that individual profit in a small business is apples and oranges between that and corporate profit, and in particular the giant mega-corporations that have made fortunes through improper regulations, etc. I would agree and disagree, and therein lies the problem.

No one wants to admit that despite it being the basis of our nation for some time, and supposedly providing a system of checks and balances to keep the system in check - essentially the two-party system does not work. It might have a hundred years ago or so, but not in today's world. Instead it just serves to keep either party from being able to accomplish much of anything. It divides the people, creates endless, pointless and yes mindless arguments like we see on here, and in the end only hurts all of us. I know, I know. I have friends that are die-hards in both parties that hate the independents. I don't even think I'd classify myself as such, but rather someone with a brain and a sense of reality. We speak of being open-minded in this country but in fact with the two-party system we are anything but, and the system promotes this fraction and illogical hatred.

So instead of saying profit is good in our democratic society as it can foster job growth, promote the American dream (which does actually still exist...somewhere) and provide incentive for hard but fair and honest work, and then tempering that with 'but we need to have regulations to prevent abuse of workers, etc. we just conclude that profit is 'amoral'. One side is labeled as racist rednecks mired in old-school mindset, and the other as socialist loons out to redistribute what they were unable or unwilling to make for themselves. And there is no middle ground except endless argument and rhetoric.

We cannot work together anymore to accomplish anything and have become a bloody joke. Certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. Certainly not how a supposedly civilized society should behave. Certainly conducive to our ultimate downfall and irrelevance. Good job all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But tell me the truth Yabits - do you really think that corporate profit is 'amoral'? You mean to tell me that if you start a coffee shop, work your a$$ off until is sees profit that your are amoral for making that profit?

No to your second question. The behavior that produces a profit may be very moral. (And some of it may not be -- cutting corners to produce a less-safe or less-durable product, for example.) The profit itself is amoral. There is no morality to it at all. If it were used to help pay off an outstanding debt to the business, that would be moral behavior.

This is nothing new. One of the founding fathers of capitalism, Adam Smith, went into this at length in his follow up to The Wealth of Nations in a book called The Theory of Moral Sentiments. His fear was that any success of capitalism would be undermined by the "Profits IS Good" mentality so typified by many on the right-wing.

Instead it just serves to keep either party from being able to accomplish much of anything. It divides the people, creates endless, pointless and yes mindless arguments like we see on here, and in the end only hurts all of us

Hang on there. As long as one faction wants to cling to utter lies, no other party could accomplish much with them. We've already had one Republican/conservative-type here admit that a lot of good was accomplished in the 90s, when Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress compromised on a lot of bills. However, that same conservative swears up and down that, prior to Ronald Reagan, the Republicans were dominated by liberals and it was the Democrats who were the conservative party. (One of the most provably loony assertions I've ever read on these boards.)

instead of saying profit is good in our democratic society as it can foster job growth, promote the American dream (which does actually still exist...somewhere) and provide incentive for hard but fair and honest work, and then tempering that with 'but we need to have regulations to prevent abuse of workers, etc. we just conclude that profit is 'amoral'. One side is labeled as racist rednecks mired in old-school mindset, and the other as socialist loons out to redistribute what they were unable or unwilling to make for themselves. And there is no middle ground except endless argument and rhetoric.

And what if those profits were made through cutting jobs? You can't have it both ways -- fostering job growth AND destroying jobs. The best that can be done is to displace a lower-end job with a more meaningful one. But that's not what has been done.

There has to be decent work for people in society to do, or else that society is headed downhill fast. And, yes, they'll be involved in heated arguments as they head down the tubes. When someone suggests that the nation dip into those profits in order to create new jobs, another side will accuse them of being socialists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay, long day with a thrown-out back. I was reading 'immoral' instead of 'amoral' which totally changes what you were saying. Sorry about that, we all have these type days. I would agree with the profits being amoral as they are simply an end to a means. Still my comments remain pretty much the same.

When someone suggests that the nation dip into those profits in order to create new jobs, another side will accuse them of being socialists.

And again, therein lies the concentric argument that gets nowhere. And here I have to admit that I'm part and parcel to these arguments as well. You say dip into profits, but in a true socialist fashion - which you would never admit to - you don't care who's profits you're dipping into, or how they came about said profits. To you it's all one big pool for the 'haves' to supply the 'have nots' and as profit it is apparently up for grabs. Conversely I would argue 'get your hands off my d@mned wallet'. And there - I just accused you of being a socialist to put credence in your argument. But isn't socialism about the redistribution of wealth for the supposed good of the people - and isn't that what you're fundamentally suggesting?

And what if those profits were made through cutting jobs? You can't have it both ways -- fostering job growth AND destroying jobs.

That's the nature of business and commerce. It's not done in a vacuum where all the workers dance around like happy Christmas elves sharing equally in every dollar made. Experiments in such ideas have proven this model unlikely, yes mostly due to human greed but mainly because a portion of the population is always a bit brighter and more motivated than the masses who in turn get browned off and the whole thing falls apart. Free enterprise and the promise and ability to make profit and get ahead are what has made this democracy and our society, whether you'll admit to it or not. We became the 'land of the free' so a person could come here and make something of themselves, not because they are entitled to a share for simply showing up.

Hang on there. As long as one faction wants to cling to utter lies, no other party could accomplish much with them.

But of course only one side - your side quite naturally - righteously tells the truth and is without reproach. Each as worse as the next and we get nowhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is simply not factual. It had nothing to do with the Democrats announcing a filibuster, or compromising. I was because the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that keeping the cuts in place beyond ten years would exceed the lost-revenue limits prescribed by the Congressional Budget Act, aka PAYGO.

Sorry, but were you even alive back then? It in fact is the case. The Republicans had like 52 votes or so in the Senate, not enough to overcome the Dems threatened filibuster. They added the term limits, scaled back the proposal a bit, and some of the Republicans that had jumped ship went ahead and supported it, along with enough Dems to allow it past the threatened filibuster.

Of course, the Republican supply-side, Kool-Aid drinkers told the American people they could have tax cuts AND continuing surpluses. That didn't happen by a long shot.

Can anyone say 9-11? No, thats not all there was to it. The fact is, that Bush was a big government guy, along with the Dems. In fact, if he was more liberal on social policies, he would have fit right in with the Dems, and a lot of Lemming Reps went right along with him out of misplaced party loyalty, rather then loyalty to their constituents and America. I don't really defend Bush. In my mind he was a terrible President.

Yeah, that's when the US ended up with projected surpluses extending as far out as the eye could see. Greenspan was actually warning that the US might pay down too much of the national debt too soon. Real tough times.

I believe that was in fact my point. Compromise can work. Particularly when one party comes right out and refuses to spend more then is coming in.

Rather than Bush acknowledging the national debt as something that needed to be paid down to counteract the deficit spending of the '70s and '80s -- times when the US taxpayers "underpaid" the Treasury, using Bush's own logic -- his actions made it seem as though he believed debt didn't even exist.

And Obama's policy is what...?

Hang on there. As long as one faction wants to cling to utter lies, no other party could accomplish much with them. We've already had one Republican/conservative-type here admit that a lot of good was accomplished in the 90s, when Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress compromised on a lot of bills. However, that same conservative swears up and down that, prior to Ronald Reagan, the Republicans were dominated by liberals and it was the Democrats who were the conservative party. (One of the most provably loony assertions I've ever read on these boards.)

Wow, I'm guessing you're talking about me here. Since I have said it, and its demonstrably true. Really. Wasn't it you yabits that was pointing out the fact that Nixon put in tons of liberal judges, that he instituted price controls among other things? Installed the EPA, banned DDT despite all the scientific evidence against doing so. Would you classify that behavior has liberal or conservative? How about going just a bit further back? Who was it that filibustered the civil rights stuff? You know the answer, it was primarily the Democrats. I don't particularly like claiming them as conservative, as to me their actions smack more of racism then conservatism, but nevertheless, thats the reality. Back then apart from a few outsiders like Goldwater, and later Reagan, it was mostly Dems who were the conservatives. However both parties had both liberals and conservatives in them. Neither was particularly "pure".

And what if those profits were made through cutting jobs? You can't have it both ways -- fostering job growth AND destroying jobs. The best that can be done is to displace a lower-end job with a more meaningful one. But that's not what has been done.

Profits made through cutting jobs? In other words, jobs that were redundant, and could be terminated in order to cut costs yet maintain efficiency and service? Thats a bad thing? Sure, its hurtful to those that lost their jobs, but its helpful to those that remain behind. It means that their company maintains profitability, it means they keep their jobs. In a time of recession, companies can't afford to keep workers that are not needed, or ineffective on payroll. Its bad for the company. If you have ever owned a small business, you would know this. Heck, if you've ever managed one you would know. Its when the margins start shrinking, that you really start to analyze, what can we do without. Who can we do without, and take action. When you're rolling in cash, you're not really worried if you need 3 people making tea, or if you could get by having people make their own. But when the money stops coming in, you look at that and make the hard choices. Having been on both sides of that equation, I can tell you, its not easy. But there comes a point, where you either make the choice, or your business goes under, and everyone loses their job, and whatever investors you have, lose their savings. If you want people to have jobs, if that is a concern of yours, you should be encouraging greater profits, not demonizing them and saying they are evil or ammoral.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth - So instead of saying profit is good in our democratic society as it can foster job growth, promote the American dream (which does actually still exist...somewhere) and provide incentive for hard but fair and honest work, and then tempering that with 'but we need to have regulations to prevent abuse of workers, etc. we just conclude that profit is 'amoral'. One side is labeled as racist rednecks mired in old-school mindset, and the other as socialist loons out to redistribute what they were unable or unwilling to make for themselves. And there is no middle ground except endless argument and rhetoric.

Just wanted to say, as always, excellent post. This has to be one of the most honest, fair-minded points I've seen on the subject, here on JT.

One of the biggest problems I see between Republicans and Democrats, is that the Dems always assume the worst of the Republicans. They assume, when Republicans cut costs, that they are doing so because they want to hurt poor families. (At least that is what all their rhetoric typically is.) Republicans on the other hand, even when they disagree, generally assume the Dems are acting in good faith. That they honestly believe in what they're doing. I think thats one of the reasons that lately there has been so little room for compromise. This condescension you see among them, that they know what is best for everyone, is a large part of the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

course only one side - your side quite naturally - righteously tells the truth and is without reproach. Each as worse as the next and we get nowhere.

I don't have a "side." I speak only for myself, and I have taken a vow to seek out the truth of all issues. I read and study from both sides.

Time and again, it's the liberal side that proves itself far superior. Why? Because most great liberal essays do something that the conservative isde rarely does: It frames the opposing side's argument much more accurately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact is, that Bush was a big government guy, along with the Dems. In fact, if he was more liberal on social policies, he would have fit right in with the Dems, and a lot of Lemming Reps went right along with him out of misplaced party loyalty, rather then loyalty to their constituents and America.

Again, someone is living in fantasyland. The so-called "lemmings" were the ones crafting the spending bills for the president to sign. They were leading HIM, since he simply abdicated his veto pen over to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really. Wasn't it you yabits that was pointing out the fact that Nixon put in tons of liberal judges, that he instituted price controls among other things? Installed the EPA, banned DDT despite all the scientific evidence against doing so. Would you classify that behavior has liberal or conservative?

It was considered conservative back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Back when conservatives were sane, and the divide between the two sides was indeed somewhat less. The main point is, as it was then, that Obama's policies are somewhat in line with Nixon's -- even more conservative than Nixon's in some regards.

So if Obama is out of the "far left fringe" as you keep claiming, Nixon must have been even farther out there. But readers know this far right argument is Looney Tunes. The far right is so far out there now that anything moderate and sane appears to be out on the left fringe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They assume, when Republicans cut costs, that they are doing so because they want to hurt poor families.

WRONG! Republicans are the ones who are oblivious to the hurt -- and act that way. They feel that when someone gets hurt, it must be totally due to their own actions, and just look the other way.

When guys like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates come out and say that taxes are not nearly high enough on the rich, the Republicans practically spit on them.

As for Dems assuming the worst of Republicans, that assumption has been justified here in spades. Many Dems assumed that Republicans were telling the truth about WMD; assumed that the pledge to keep non-discretionary federal spending in line with Clinton's levels was an honest one, especially when promoting a massive tax cut for the wealthy; assumed that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts (designed to expire when the Republicans signed it into law)would not be used by partisan Republicans to score cheap points by calling it a "massive tax hike."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Time and again, it's the liberal side that proves itself far superior. Why? Because most great liberal essays do something that the conservative isde rarely does: It frames the opposing side's argument much more accurately.

See what I mean about the condescending attitude towards the other side? I cannot remember a single liberal idea that was superior to conservatives. Certainly not in my lifetime. Social welfare programs, fail, big government spending, fail, big government solving everything, fail. Please, inform me oh so wise master, which liberal argument proves itself superior to the conservatives? And please don't try to point at Bush. I think we can all agree his big government policies were not conservative in the slightest.

The main point is, as it was then, that Obama's policies are somewhat in line with Nixon's -- even more conservative than Nixon's in some regards.

I believe my point was that the majority of conservatives were Dems back then, and that Nixon, though a Republican was about as out there as a liberal as you can find. The only real conservative thing he did, was prosecute the war in Vietnam. Oh wait, that does has a striking parallel to Obama now that you mention it. It wasn't until Reagan that the parties really started to swap positions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you have ever owned a small business, you would know this. Heck, if you've ever managed one you would know. Its when the margins start shrinking, that you really start to analyze, what can we do without. Who can we do without, and take action.

I own and manage a small business. I look around, however, and I see companies whose owners feel they are entitled to many, many multiples of what their front-line workers earn, and will cut heads rather than have to worry about taking their own income down a few notches. It is a fact that ratio of CEO-to-worker pay back in the 1960s/70s was something on the order of 40-1. Today, it's on the order of 400-500 to 1.

There are a great many CEOs who are good. But there are also a great many who aren't much more than white-collar crooks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Social welfare programs, fail,

The lives of elderly people have been made tremendously better than they otherwise would be because of Social Security and Medicare. Only a Republican would call that a failure. It has proven itself to be an extremely successful program, despite repeated attempts by Republicans to undermine it.

Go back to the many Republican attempts to privatize the system by feeding all that money into the public markets. Anyone with recent experience with 401ks will tell you what real failure is. And that's what the Republicans have to offer. Voodoo. Blind belief in the market as the God of all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I own and manage a small business.

You say this, and you think profits are bad? Really? I work in an office, and run a small business on the side. I had 5 people working for me, of whom I had to lay off 3. My 2 brothers are the only ones that survived the cut, and I'd have laid them off too if they weren't family. Instead I managed to survive by cutting their hours to the bone, and basically taking nothing for myself. Things have been looking up lately, but let me tell you, I'm not hiring anyone in the near future. The fact that I'm likely going to have to spend additional hours dealing with tons more paperwork due to Obamas new regulations, as well as the fact that he is raising my taxes, does not exactly incentivize me to hire anyone. Though I might have to simply to have someone fill out the additional paperwork.

The lives of elderly people have been made tremendously better than they otherwise would be because of Social Security and Medicare. Only a Republican would call that a failure. It has proven itself to be an extremely successful program, despite repeated attempts by Republicans to undermine it.

And the projects are what? Social Welfare programs essentially created a welfare class. A group of people that earned nothing, produced nothing, and merely lived off the government largess, taxed from productive citizens. As I said, Social Welfare, Fail.

Social Security though, thats been both good and bad. Its helped the elderly yes, however its also created a dependent class. A group that was dependent on the government for its living. The minimal return on investment though, means it really is failing for those who pay into it. Add to that, the fact that the government used it as nothing more then a piggy bank, and the fact that now its spending more then its taking in, and I don't think you can exactly call it an unqualified success.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is a complete and total disaster.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You say this, and you think profits are bad? Really?

I never said profits are bad. I said they are amoral. Their relative "goodness" depends on how they were earned, how sustainable they are, and how they are used. I try to be a good steward in those areas.

The minimal return on investment though, means it really is failing for those who pay into it.

Conservatives have never understood Social Security. It's not an investment program; it's an insurance program against outliving one's savings. There are serious problems with Medicare, but Social Security is viable past 2050. Bush's director of the SSA certified as solvent until 2075.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So have we decided if all America's problems are because of Democrats or Republicans yet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So have we decided if all America's problems are because of Democrats or Republicans yet?

Yep, its all the Democrats fault, that it was the Republicans who created the problems, that fixed the problems created by the Dems, whose solutions were needed because of the Republicans, who had to fix things because the Dems screwed up... Just keep that going. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So businesses cut staff, which reduces demand, which lowers sales, so you have cut more staff... Adam smith help! Where's the invisible hand at work??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So businesses cut staff, which reduces demand, which lowers sales, so you have cut more staff... Adam smith help! Where's the invisible hand at work??

Wait, why does cutting staff reduce demand? Because there are fewer people employed? What if cutting staff doesn't really impact demand? Those staff that have been cut, go out and find new jobs, or try to, some catch on where there are openings, as people leave, retire, die etc. Or if a business is expanding in the midst of recession. If staff is cut to improve efficiency, as frequently happens, service remains the same, demand remains constant, profitability returns...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You got it. Laying people off means they generally have less money to spend so they buy less, so less demand for goods. You're assuming they have jobs to go to, but if everyone is cutting staff they don't, which is where we at now. Profits can be kept through efficiency improvements, but only for so long. Plus people going on the dole keep demand steady somewhat, but that will end soon. Hiring must start soon or profits will be unsustainable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Either way you can't escape that laying people off decreases demand...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What if cutting staff doesn't really impact demand? Those staff that have been cut, go out and find new jobs, or try to, some catch on where there are openings, as people leave, retire, die etc.

Either way you can't escape that laying people off decreases demand...

It all depends upon whether or not the economy is creating new jobs.

If the economy is not creating jobs then there will be a great surplus of job seekers to job openings. Business owners must believe that such conditions will depress demand, otherwise they'd believe in the opposite (that demand will increase), which would grow their businesses, and which would cause them to hire people to meet the anticipated demand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama wants jobs for the unions, that's about it.

He has no understanding of wealth creation. The present administration and its appointees have the least amount of private sector experience - wealth creation and management - of any administration in history.

It amazes me how obvious the problem is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TimRussert,

Tell me how the last administration helped the majority of Americans create wealth with the country's mortgage problems, foreclosures and lost homes and the crash of the stock market.

Isn't bush the guy whose ball team went bankrupt? And his abundant knowledge of finances is the reason for the country's mess now. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: so it's ok if Obama doesn't do anything to fix the current economic situation because the origin of the problem is Bush? Nice response. Obama's job is to take care of the issues he got when he was elected. He was well aware of them when he ran for president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites