jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (200 posts)

Continued Bad Economic News

  1. American View profile image60
    American Viewposted 4 years ago

    Today the new jobs report came out and the numbers were not good. So how does Obama plan on fixing the issue, he is going on 6 fund raisers today. Nothing like prioritizing.

    1. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And that 8.2% doesn't take into consideration the people who have really given up looking or who no longer qualify for unemployment bennies. Depending on where you live the figure could be anywhere from 8-15%.

      Also, to boast that a whopping 67,000+ jobs were created is more than disingenuous.. That's 67,000 jobs over the FIFTY SEVEN STATES= 2275 JOBS per state:(

      Pretty anemic hiring rate, don't you agree? Do you also notice the jobs he boasts are union jobs? This from a man who campaigned on not hiring ANY lobbyists.

      Even though AFTER the Constitution was  signed, there was a bill that President Washington signed into law that require a ship owner purchase health insurance for his seamen.

      However, this was NOT in the original bill, not a word about health care was addressed in the bill. Grow a set and stop the fund raising. I'm taking a guess that he is a good family man, likeability 'quotient,' but when we vote for our leaders, we vote on who will do the best for our country; not who will win on Father's Day.

      Is there a reason that the GOP does not bring up the admit cocaine use, the askew poll numbers, that that company with the steelworkers who lost their jobs-WENT UNDER 2 YEARS AFTER ROMNEY LEFT BAIN CAPITAL? That Romney doesn't get out in front (instead of being defense way to often) about Romney care and the lies of it should be a STATE issue?

      Americans want to hear details and in the absence of details, they'll vote for ANYONE who promises them ANYTHING. Take it to the libs,  Mitt.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sad part is the numbers will revise down next month so the 67,000 jobs will be 30,000 next month.

      2. handymanbill profile image60
        handymanbillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        over 57 states. Did we pick up seven new ones??

    2. junko profile image80
      junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      When job creators want a one term President and corporations are declared to be people and allowed to spend billion to defeat a President, there will be no job creation. Everybody can see and know the Tea Party's plan, they will not support the President's job creation plans, because that would make him appear Presidenial. The American workers are the pawns. The people will reap what the Republicans sow.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And what was the Dems excuse for the first two years before the Tea Party even came along

        1. junko profile image80
          junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Excuse for getting financial and health reform passed ? Maybe you mean saving America's us auto industry.inspite of blue and yellow dog Democrats.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Asked what he might do to help the unemployed on Thursday night, Mitt Romney described creating “an incentive for employers to actually hire people who had been out of work for a long time.” What Romney didn’t mention was that President Obama has been pushing for similar proposals for months—only to be blocked by Republicans in Congress, and met with silence from Governor Romney."

            http://www.keepinggophonest.com/mitt-ro … e-blocking

          2. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Obama did not save the auto industry, more uninsured today than ever, higher insurance premiums, more on medicare due to Obamacare loophole, less coverage than before and even less after the next set of regulations start in January 2013

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Obama has no such proposal in the senate or house. Shoe me the HR or S number

            2. junko profile image80
              junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The higher insurance preiums is part of the tactics used to make Obama a 1 term President. The job creators and health insurance companies don't want to pay taxes or reform and control healthcare cost.

              1. junko profile image80
                junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                American View, you know the senate and the house will block anything offered be the President and than ask him way he didn't pass the bill. I know you understand whats going on in congress, I know youi understand civics 101

              2. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Higher insurance premiums is not a tactic, it is a fact.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Junko,

                  Your last comment makes no sense

                  1. junko profile image80
                    junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    American View: Well maybe you never studied civics and don't understand the separation of powers. Maybe you think the PRESIDENT rules over the house and senate. The President just signs, the house and senate make and pass laws

        2. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They submitted 15 or 16 jobs bills to the Senate.

          GOP Filibuster:

          Our number one goal is to make Obama a one term president...citizens go to heck.

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There have not been any filibusters, its bs yarn spun by the left

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this
              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You do realize the chart you provided was for Clotures, not filibusters. So again show an actual government report showing how many filerbusters there are, and not someones blog with opinions.

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nope--I'll post how I want to post: not the way you demand it.

                  R's have filibustered over 100 times. Dems in minority did 50 or so. R's have blocked Obama 's judicial appointments to the point of causing concern from judges.

                  How can I put this.......

                  Dereliction of Duty?

                  Malfeasance?

                  Or just plain Waaaaaaaaaa!

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    LMC says:

                    "Nope--I'll post how I want to post: not the way you demand it"

                    No one demanded anything, you made a statement you cannot back up. Show me the government report that shows over 100 times that the Republicans filibustered? All you have shown is someone's opinion and gave your own opinion. You have not shown one fact of a filibuster, in the chart in that bogus article is on cloture's, you do know the difference don't you?

                    So, show us that dereliction of duty, that malfeasance, or that just plain Waaaaaaaaaa.

    3. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Is there some reason, some REAL reason that the POTUS didn't address the tax code in 3 1/2 years? Everyone agrees that it needs an overhaul, so I don't think that opposition could be a problem.

      In addition, Pres Obama DID have those two years where Dems controlled the House and Senate. Although health insurance is up there on the priority list, the ECONOMY is the bigger problem. Barack, learn to "prioritize!" then run for president!!

    4. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama's hands are tied by the congress. Whatever he decides, unless he gets back the majority in congress, it will be undermined. That's how free the U.S. president is! And in the case of houses with the leading majority, the elite will stop his impetus for social reforms!

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really, he seemed to be free enough to sign those useless Executive Orders, if he had a good idea and Congress was stalling he could EO the plan.

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly.

    5. Moshka profile image61
      Moshkaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow six fundraisers! He is so charitable! Oh wait, you were talking about campaign fundraisers. Never mind.

    6. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It really doesn't matter whether Obama, Romney, or Luke Skywalker becomes the next president. The problem is systemic.

      http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … greed.html

    7. prettydarkhorse profile image61
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The economy is still growing but sluggish. Take note that manufacturing and warehousing jobs increased. Those are important indicators of growth.

      This is the unemployment report - press release by the US Bureau of Labor Stat

      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

  2. Old Poolman profile image81
    Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago

    AV - To solve this unemployment dilemma, we need two things.  We need some quick fixes and we need some long term solutions.  What is really sad is that we know what needs to happen, but nobody is doing anything about it.

    Between taking vacations, playing golf, and campaigning, our President doesn't really seem all that concerned about the unemployment issue.  The pipeline he blocked would have put thousands of people to work in good paying jobs almost instantly.

    We need to give large and small business some details on what they will be facing in the future in regards to taxes, healthcare, and new regulations.  They are not going to open their doors to new employees as long as these three major expenses are a total unknown.

    We need our President to sit down in his chair and work on some of these problems instead of flying around the country, at our expense of course, fund raising for his campaign.  It would be really interesting to know how many days he has really worked during this term in office.  My guess is he has been absent more than he has been working.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I just would like to correct this oft-repeated fallacy:  "We need to give large and small business some details on what they will be facing in the future in regards to taxes, healthcare, and new regulations.  They are not going to open their doors to new employees as long as these three major expenses are a total unknown."

      Your statement is ridiculous.  Small businesses will hire if, and only if, they need additional workers to meet demand.  That is it.  If the demand for their product or service requires it, they will hire.  It it doesn't, they won't.  I am a small business owner, and I also work for an organization that provides counseling to small businesses.  Not once have I heard any small business owner say that regulations, taxes, or uncertainty about health care is preventing them from hiring.  I have heard them say repeatedly that they lay off people when business is bad and they hire when business is good.  That is it.

  3. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    This is old, but these things are still a concern.

    http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Jobs-NCPA-Brief.pdf

    Taxes - Our tax rates are higher than almost everybody else's on average, and many industries we are the highest. We are discouraging investment, and hurting our own manufacturing industry.

    Employers are uncertain about the future of taxes. There are a lot of tax cuts that liberals want to get rid of, which would directly impact a large majority of small business owners, and almost every corporation.

    The estate tax stifles 1.5 million jobs.

    Health care reform... - "In four years, the minimum cost of labor will be a $7.25 cash minimum wage and a $5.89 health minimum wage (family), for a total of $13.14 an hour or about $27,331 a year"

    It's sad really, how easy it would be to fix our economy.

    1. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Never understood THE REASON for estate tax. My relative was already taxed on that money. Once he's gone and underground, it's fair game to tax him/her AGAIN on that hard earned money?

      Why wouldn't employers be uncertain? Is Obamacare going to be upheld by SCOTUS/ If so, employers will use less FT help and not hire that extra few people. No wonder, growth is anemic.

      Nancy Peloisi thinks the quickest way to create more jobs is to fund food stamp programs. Again, the Dems create union jobs and more importantly, grocery cashier jobs. (because those food stamps need to be spent!)
      What about the unemployed 50+ year old man with children to put through college, Ms. Pelosi? Or the 50+ year old who has a house with mortgage payments that a 22 year old DOESN'T?

      "It's sad really, how easy it would be to fix our economy." I'd be interested to know your solution.   Annie

    2. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obama has dropped small business taxes 18 times since his election and his budget plan calls for dropping corporate tax from 35 to 28%

      1. Old Poolman profile image81
        Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Josak, long time no see.  Reducing taxes is good, but is only part of the problem.  The healthcare costs and new regulations on business must be addressed before employers will start hiring again.  It would be great if there were one single simple solution to this problem, but it is a combination of problems that keep us where we are.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, there's a GREAT solution to the problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs holding our employers hostage.
          It's called single payer universal healthcare.
          smile

        2. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Totally agree with that last sentence but I was just addressing a comment that was suggesting dropping the tax rate would fix the problem in and of itself, which is simplistic at best.

          1. teamrn profile image78
            teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Dropping the tax rate is but ONE approach that must be taken. We must stop spending, stop bailing out failing companies. It is unfortunate that they aren't managed well or the need for their products decreases, but that is an expected cycle.

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Corporate Income Tax Rates--2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005
               Taxable income over     Not over      Tax rate

                  $         0        $    50,000        15%
                       50,000             75,000        25%
                       75,000            100,000        34%
                      100,000            335,000        39%
                      335,000         10,000,000        34%
                   10,000,000         15,000,000        35%
                   15,000,000         18,333,333        38%
                   18,333,333         ..........        35%

        As you can see the tax rate has not been lowered under Obama. But an interesting thing is while Obama and the rest of the Dems claim they want to lower small business taxes, as a part of the not raising the student loan interest rate act there is a tax INCREASE in the bill on small businesses and that is why the Republicans voted against it. Funny you did not hear that did you

        1. Cody Hodge profile image85
          Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I can't wait until this election is over. when Obama wins, maybe the GOP will actually work with him and understand that the people don't want 4 more years of GOP obstructionism and Republican inactivity.

          Question: What exactly has the GOP done in the past 4 years? Anything?

          All I know is that if Obama were a Republican, all we would be hearing about is how he got Bin Laden, how the economy has been growing for the past 26 quarters and how the GOP is open to minorities now more than ever.

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How about submitting over 2700 bills and Harry Reid tabled them. And who is obstructing?

            Economy has been growing for the last 26 quarters? you need to stop reading the dems talking points

            1. Cody Hodge profile image85
              Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Right, well considering most of those bills had attachments that would raise taxes or would otherwise do nothing to create jobs....

              Anyway, you never actually answered my question. Typical conservative. Blame the president without having any viable plan himself.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Cody,

                Typical left answer. You wanted to know what the Republicans have done in the last 4 years? I gave you the answer and you blew it off. Every Republican bill that was sent to the Senate that had answers and solutions to problems was just tabled by reid on arrival and he was quite proud of it. How can their be solutions when the head of the Senate will not allow anything to come to the floor for discussion.

                You said:
                "considering most of those bills had attachments that would raise taxes or would otherwise do nothing to create jobs"

                You do understand how the process works right, or do you prescribe to the pass it and we will find out what is in it later? A bill has to get to the floor before it gets attachments to it, when Reid blocks them they do not able to get  attachments. I would like you to show me one bill from Republicans that raises taxes, Even LMC would love to see that.

                And last, I am not a conservative, typical of a lefty when someone disagrees, well at least you did not call me a racist,  yet.

                I guess the Dems do not look to raise taxes on people they claim they want to help or give breaks to?

                1. Cody Hodge profile image85
                  Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nah, I wouldn't call you a racist. That's some pretty heavy stuff regardless of whether you disagree with someone.

                  And no offense, but your tone does suggest you are a conservative, or at least someone who leans to the right.

                  And who says they have to attach them? They could just write them into the bill. Or they could just introduce a bill in the House where they have the majority.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Cody,

                    you do realize the bill has to be introduced before an attachment can be placed on it, otherwise whatever is in the original bill is part of the bill and is not an attachment.

                    No offense taken. I get that from the left when I point out facts they do not like. Funny they never say anything when I do that to the right.

                  2. lovemychris profile image80
                    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah...this is the party that said "no more earmarks"...then proceeded to have more than any other time.

                    The worst was when they held up unemployemnt payments for renewing the Bush tax cuts.

                    When I play darts...you KNOW what picture is on that dart board!

            2. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The R's always include ridiculous favors in their bills....like an anti-abortion clause added onto an energy bill....or giving tax cuts to rich people added to unemployment

              They wouldn't know a clean bill if they took a shower with one.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You mean like the Students loan not raise the interest rate bill? you know that clean Bill submitted by Reid? The bill voted down by the Republicans? A bill by the title must mean it was to keep interest rates on student loans from rising. A clean bill like that? I guess you missed the tax increase on small business that was in the bill, the one the Dems forgot to tell you about because Reid envoked Cloture on the bill when he brought it to the floor so it would be kept silent. A tax increase on the segment of the population the Dems are saying they want to get breaks to.

                Who is obstructiong and who does not know how to present a clean bill?????????

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Pub soap...wash yourself clean of Republicans...if you can.

                  Kind of difficult when they are gunning for Bush III.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Once more, just spew useless crap. Always changing the subject, the lefties way to deal with things.

                    So what, no legitimate response to the facts? I expected no less.

                    I am still waiting for a legitimate government source on your filibuster comment

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            26 quarters = 6.5 years, so the economy was growing steadily through the housing crisis and recession?

        2. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/ape … stand.html

          None of what you posted changes anything I said. He has lowered small business taxes 18 times and he does propose to drop the corporate tax 7%.

          1. Old Poolman profile image81
            Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Josak, until very recently I owned a small business, and honestly never saw a tax cut in the last few years.  Where are you getting this information on the 18 tax cuts?  They forgot to tell me I didn't have to pay the same taxes I had been paying.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is a link there.........

              I still own a small business and I have noticed the cuts though some were temporary.

              1. Old Poolman profile image81
                Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Josak, if this is the part of the link you are referring to, it appears to be something from a campaign pitch.

                "While the campaign says Obama "cut taxes for small businesses 18 times," some of the cuts were temporary. One was a $500,000 limit on deductions for equipment purchases; the maximum deduction was lowered to $125,000 this year. The president's 2013 budget proposal calls for it to be increased to $1 million."

                I doubt that many small business owners saw much if any reduction in their taxes.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If you read the article Poolman you will find that the tax cuts are bougus. In one part of the article here is tha claim.

                  "While the campaign says Obama "cut taxes for small businesses 18 times," some of the cuts were temporary. One was a $500,000 limit on deductions for equipment purchases; the maximum deduction was lowered to $125,000 this year"

                  Far be it for me to point out the deduction on equipment  was put in place by Buch and Obama wants to eliminate it, hence the reduction to $125,000.

                  He takes credit for the 2% payroll tax cut for employees, the cut that will make SS fund go broke 3 years earlier now, not to mention that break is for the employee, not the employer.

      3. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, Obama wants to 'lower' the tax rate, but eliminate 'loopholes'. He wants the EFFECTIVE tax rate to be 28%, when the EFFECTIVE tax rate right now is 23%.

        His plan would be an effective tax increase on corporations, and would eliminate tax deductions for businesses.

        1. teamrn profile image78
          teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Yes, Obama wants to 'lower' the tax rate, but eliminate 'loopholes'...His plan would be an effective tax increase on corporations, and would eliminate tax deductions for businesses."

          That is what we DON'T need. We don't need the corporations, which employ a large number of people, the IBMs, the GEs and GMs to take their business elsewhere because taxes are so high in the US. Would you like to move to India? I didn't think you would.

          If eliminating loopholes is such his desire, why has he not begun to address the tax code?

          After all, For 2 years, he had a Dem-controlled House and Senate; instead he chose to make a signature piece of legislation: the healthcare law, the constitutionality of which is being challenged in the SCOTUS.

          Why did he appoint Jeff Immelt the 'jobs czar' when Mr. Immmelt headed a company which owed $0.00 for taxes-how? They employed mountains of attorneys who could take advantage of every tax loophole.  Perfectly legal, but not ethical, by any means. It is the kind of thing that is now accepted as normal that, over the years, has our Founders rolling over in their graves.  Annie

        2. 60
          geordmcposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And this from a person who made OVER $500,000 last year and only paid 20% in taxes.

  4. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    "The Obama administration, allowing 'unnamed officials' to speak with the New York Times, has taken direct responsibility for launching a series of cyber attacks against Iran, including the Stuxnet virus attack that took place in the summer of 2010."
    Obama is an absolute thug and gangster and now there is the virus Flame.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mean guy...picking on Iran, that paragon of democracy and tolerance.

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's just not cricket is it?

  5. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    All this talk about lowering the tax rate and little incentives for businesses to hire is all well and good but won't undo the horrendous economic policy for the past 100 years.

    The Austrians were the only economists to predict the recession:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZr0WQxQ … re=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-RPJ7fkqDE

    So how about we listen to them this time, eh?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3HNIagO9a0

    If you watch one video, what the one above. It's a stunning explanation of what's going on that cuts straight past the red herrings the hacks on TV put forward. Whilst you guys fight it out over insignificant bills passed and not passed, we're heading into another hole that will be extremely hard to get out of because of economic policy that BOTH parties support.

    1. handymanbill profile image60
      handymanbillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sad part is I agree. We are not done going down. it does not matter who we elect. they are both Idiots.

      1. teamrn profile image78
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What about each of them make each an idiot?

  6. ThunderKeys profile image82
    ThunderKeysposted 4 years ago

    I just wonder if people understand the magnitude of the  debt and economic challenges we really face.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE&lr=1

    1. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that unless they're directly affected, know someone who is affected or follows things political in nature (thing is, this is HISTORICAL, too) it is too easy to be like an ostrich with a head in the same or deny that we have a debt  so huge.

      Maybe the gravity or the situation will his when their children come home after college graduation: :unemployed or under employed and on those underemployed salaries, need to begin repayments of student loans.

      Then Mom and Dad who'd planned on many of their golden years, see those dreams evaporating, because of our lousy economy, then they may whistle a tune of UNDERSTANDING DEBT.

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It could be solved very easily.

      "Tax the rich
      Feed the poor
      Til there are no
      Rich no more"

      And if we truly were a Christian nation, that's what we would do!

      1. teamrn profile image78
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The problem with that model is that the rich, will eventually go in search of greener grass where the taxes aren't so high and take their employees with them-or if their employees don't want to move to  country ___________, they'll be without a job and ad more to the roll of unemployed and increase, NOT DECREASE the unemployment rate.

        If we taxed the wealthy, plunderd ALL of their assists, that would eliminate the debt for a few days. Then we'd be back in square one, growing debt, but no more rich to bail us our! No, clearly, your model wouldn't work.

        I think many take offense at your statement , "And if we truly were a Christian nation, that's what we would do!" I didn't know that a tenet of Christianity was seeing all things equal. I thought that Christianity wanted to see,, "all things bright and beautiful..." that statement is so loaded.

        The mantra above was addressed by Margaret Thatcher, "the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples' [rich] money.

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Some of us aint Christioan

        Tax the rich- I say let's give LMC and the Democrats exactly what they want. Obama already has a figure in mind and I say let's give it to them. Let's collect that tax for one year, and then let's go pay some bills. We can pay the interest rate on the national debt for 10 days with that money. What now, there is still 265 days left to the year, what now?

        Feed the poor-we are already doing that in record numbers and we can keep up. Obama can show up at George Clooney's house and raise $15 million without blinking an eye. Just think he did that every weekend for the next year, I think that would make a serious dent on feeding the poor, don't you LMC? But does Obama actually do anything to feed the poor? Nothing ,zip, zero, nada. Well he did extend the food stamp program while cutting benefits to the same program in order to cover more people.

        Till there are no rich no more-you're right LMC, no more rich. Let's take them all outside line them up against the wall and shoot them all dead. Let's then sell off everything they've got, all their personal possessions, all the businesses they own, nobody in the 1% survives. But take all that money that we had just come into and pay some bills. All the wealth of all the 1% liquidated down will pay approximately 65 days of the budget. Now what, when we go to do next year, we killed all the business owners, sold everything they own, there's nothing left, no jobs, nobody with money to take a risk starting a company to create new jobs, it's all gone. Now what?

        Do you have any answers LMC?

  7. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)

    In his portrayal of the day of judgment, Jesus pictured people from all nations gathered before him, separated into "sheep" and "goats." (Matthew 25:31-46) To the "sheep" he says, "Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me..." In their astonishment they ask, "When did we do that?" And he answers, "When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers (and sisters)." Conversely, to the "goats" he says, "Out of my sight, you who are condemned, for I was hungry and you did not feed me..."

    I truly believe no one need go without. Our problem is greed. A very small percent have a huge amount, while a huge amount have next to nothing. This is not Christ-Like!

    If we taxed the wealthy--we wouldn't need to cut heat from gramma, or food from grandkids and families.

    Forgive all debt: it's just made up anyway!! There is no such thing as a trillion dollars. It exists only in the mind.

    1. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I;m no heathen, but mixing Church and state? What about the Buddhists or Hindis who may not study your Bible? Are they less of a people than you? If your answer is yes, shame on you.

      I didn't say forgive all debt; EVEN if we took all the wealthy's assets, we'd retire a good portion of the debt for a few days,. After that? The wealthy will have no more $ to tax and will likely be gone to greener pastures, their businesses gone with them and we'll have more unemployed. Doesn't seem like much of a solution, to me.

    2. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LMC, I don't think you are addressing the severity of the economic crisis we are in. You are so blinded by your version of justice that you can't see the facts, so it's a bit difficult to debate with you. "There's no such thing as a trillion dollars"? Well, yeah, actually there is when it has been taken from the previously productive populace - the poor people you care about so much.

      In order to feed people you need resources which requires labour which requires resources produced from somewhere else, you can't just magic it out of thin air. And everyone on here says the person who needs economics classes is me?

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's all crap!

        One trillion dollars is numbers on a screen. if you asked to see it: they couldn't produce!

        People know quite well how to feed themselves! Been doing it since time began....only seemed to become a problem when ownership came into the picture.

        Colonialism. People don't need to be taught anything: money needs to be taken out of the equation. IE: Profit.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Now I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

    3. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "This is not Christ-Like!"

      What is that? What is that other stuff with name and numbers?

      "If we taxed the wealthy--we wouldn't need to cut heat from gramma, or food from grandkids and families."

      LMC, Since you did not answer the other questions I'll answer that one for you. If we tax the wealthy as Obama wants to do it would raise enough money to heat grandma feed the grandkids and the families for 18 hours. Now what?

      I don't think you have any possible conception of money. I believe you have the stereotypical view of anyone who has more money than you is rich, even if they only have $10 more than you.

      If you think all bets made up, the what is your President upset over? why would he need to raise the debt ceiling? Not only have you Not answered any of the questions in this thread, you still have not answered the other one.

      If the sewer line on the street is broken and you come home, your house is full of shit. Do you raise the roof, or do you pump the crap out of the house? Could you at least answer that one?

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Mitt Romney made 45 Million dollars in 2 years....he does not need another tax cut.

        btw why is ANYONE worth that much??? What has he done that's so great?

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Once more, cannot answer so change the subject.

          Perhaps if you did something to make that much money you would understand why he is worth that much. Remember, he is making profits on his OWN PERSONAL money, not government money. If you  risk $ 200 million of your own personal money you to can make $25 million next year.

  8. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "What about the Buddhists or Hindis who may not study your Bible? Are they less of a people than you? If your answer is yes, shame on you."

    Thank You!! United States of America, not Christian States of America.

    And I geuss I'm just over the whole thing.

    Money is SO passe!  We need a new way of doing things...with people in mind: not profits.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Funny you didn't include the Jews in that list

      1. teamrn profile image78
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You know, AV, just as I hit 'submit' after my post about Hindis and Buddhist, I thought of my dear Jewish friends. People are people and to pit one group against another is EXACTLY like pitting rich against poor. The Framers of our Constitution were religious, but oft we don't know which religion, not does it matter.

        Let's solve the problem which many, by their expression, don't fully grasp: THERE IS A HUGE DEBT and offering 'fishing lessons to help feed the poor' isn't going to cut it.

        I don't want to gang up on LMC, but, "Money is SO passé" I, too, would like to see this world go around and commerce happen on a BARTER system, but for RIGHT now, we have no choice, but to solve the problem with DOLLARS. After that we can begin a dialog about money being the root of a lot of evil. But, certain goods and services aren't barter able 'for.'

        1. Old Poolman profile image81
          Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It would be interesting to hear how many additional people  those who complain would be willing to feed and support in addition to their own family? They, unlike the government, only have a limited amount of resources available to them, and would have to pick a point where they could no longer help others outside their own family.  Unless of course they were willing to borrow money, like the government,  to help everyone with everything.
          LMC is frustrated, like most of us, but to propose doing away with money would not be the solution.  There would still be those not willing to trade time and labor for other goods.  This problem will most likely never go away.  We would still have a large group of people needing help even if we did it by some means other than giving them money.

          1. teamrn profile image78
            teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, Pool, I'm not advocating barter. There was a time and place for giving to the poor in return for a service. Thing is, now a days, the services that the poor want/need cost so much that there is NO way to barter OR pay .

            I'll take you in, Old Pool anytime and yes, LMC, even though we don't see AT ALL eye to eye, I'll take you and AV in. AV has been a soul sister from post #1! Together we can solve the world's problems!

            Lodgings aren't spaciously luxurious, as my husband is one of those forgotten MILLIONS of long-term unemployed who don't seem to 'matter' anymore. He sure isn't counted in the unemployment figures! But, he matters to me!

  9. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Of By and For the people! Not of by and for a small number of bank accounts.

  10. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Yes, he's one of the many who claim they are Indies, but always spout the Repub line.

    Just be honest...no one is fooled.


    Paul Ryan: "If We Don't Kill Medicare Now, America Faces the Horrific Alternative of the Rich Paying Taxes at Clinton-Era Levels"

    The Cost of Bush Tax Cuts — Deficits Happen When We Decide Not to Pay for Our Government http://bit.ly/M1r0J5

    1. Old Poolman profile image81
      Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LMC - Not sure who you are referring to.  The way I see it coming down is most liberals are demanding more handouts and freebies to make the world fair for them.  Most conservatives are asking for more opportunities to allow them to do it on their own.   There are of course a mixture of both on either side of the line.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This liberal wants the world fair for everybody. Not hand-outs--an equal playing field. Shelter, food and education --at the least, for all.

        Cons are asking everyone to let them take the house. Free of charge. Just cause they say so.

        that's my take.

        ummmmmjust curious....who's stopping them? Don't they all brag about how rich they are?

        Who stopped RMoney? Gates? Buffet? Adelson? WHO?

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You do realize that shelters, soup kitchens and other various charites exist because the right donates to them or creates them. You see how little by their tax returns Dems donate. You could not get a tank of gas on what they donate to charity

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            AV, I was taught that donations should be private and out of the goodness of my heart, not for the purpose of taking a tax deduction.  In fact, many people donate money but do not claim it on their tax returns.  I would hazard a guess (just a guess) that most people who don't claim donations on their tax returns might be those who believe paying taxes is part of being a good citizen and who value the role of government in helping people.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not only that, but it would be better for the world to change the policies that make charity necessary!

              Stop taking so much for the top, there'd be some left for the rest of us, and we wouldn't need their feel-good money.

              Take profits out of necessities. Make your profits on luxury items, specialties, Art....

              It's not rocket science.

              Hoarding at the top kills the bottom.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LMC,

                We could take all the money in the world, divide it up equally, 6 months to a year later, the top 1 % would have it back and the bottom will be dead broke.

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You do not understand.

                  Stop making profit the motive for everything...then people will be able to afford to live!

                  No one wants a hand-out, they want their children and parents to have a nice life.

                  It's ridiculous how we have allowed Greed to usurp decency.

                  If you work 40+ hours a week, and are still in poverty.....who's fault is that? The worker? I think not.

                  Rush could pay more. Mitt could pay more. They wouldn't even feel it.

                  But a senior on a fixed income, cut by "austerity" measures will sure feel the loss of heat or food.

                  Stop It! We are better than this!

                  1. Cody Hodge profile image85
                    Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Eh, I think profit has to be the motive of business. I think what needs to happen is that we need to have wages come back into line with inflation. The prices of everything are going up while the wages are staying flat. That's the real problem.

                  2. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Seniors have not had cuts, Obama did not give them COLA raises, where were you then? why were you not critisizing Obama for doing that?

              2. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LMC,

                Apparently you are more interested in what Mitt Romney does with his own personal money than you are  with what Obama does with your tax money.

                I on the other hand am more interested in how Obama is wasting my money and could care less what Romney does with his money

                1. lovemychris profile image80
                  lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That is very silly.......Romney wants to be president. That's what concerns me.

                  He has no clue about 99% of the world...he's in the 1%.

                  Born to it, raised in it....cheerleader for it.

                  Sorry--he's not qualified.

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And a comunity organizer is qualified LMAO

                    If Romney being President concerns you, why do you talk about what he does with his own money and not be concerned what is happening with your tax dollars, or are you one of the 50% that does not pay

            2. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              PP,

              Where did I say anything about donating for tax benefits???

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, but you did say this:  "You see how little by their tax returns Dems donate. You could not get a tank of gas on what they donate to charity."

                You implied that the level of donations by Democrats could be measured by looking at their tax returns.  I contend that you are wrong about that.  You then insulted Democrats as a whole based upon your implication.  Not very cool, AV.

                It could very well be that more Democrats donate without reporting it on their tax returns.  I know I do.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I guess this study is not cool too

                  "Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

                  -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood."

                  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … l_giv.html

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini … istof.html

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRvmMMf8_I

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Do they or do they just not talk about it as much? Some of the difference might prefer that their tax dollars go to help those who are less fortunate. 

                    Some see being given charity as degrading and patronizing while getting it funded by the government as acceptable. I didn't say I believe that but some seem to feel that way.

                  2. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Several problems with this.

                    #1 Remove donations to religious organizations from both sides and liberals give 18% more (the majority of liberals are not religious so counting religious donations creates an imbalance).

                    #2 The number is taken off the tax deductible donations, this creates a variable where many people do not declare their donations to try to get out of tax, there is a definite case to be made that conservatives are more loath to give money to the government so they write off more of their donations to avoid taxation the data does not take this into account and is thus suspect to the point of being useless.

                    #3 So what? the left has led every single major government incentive that has helped the poor of this country, from union negotiation to unemployment benefit to medicare etc. etc. the leftist cause is not to give "crumbs to the poor" but create a system that makes such donations unnecessary because they are not a reliable method of decreasing poverty, as clearly shown by the recent World Bank analysis that found the further to the right a country is politically the worse it's poor fare in comparison to it's total wealth.

                    Sum conclusion that whole study is utterly worthless.

    2. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      he's one of the many who claim they are Indies, but always spout the Repub line.  WHO IS?

      The Cost of the Bush Tax Cuts- Deficits Happen When We Decide Not to Pay for Our Government - iS THAT HEADLINE NOT TRUE? Also, we don't live in the Bush era anymore (that expired 3 1/2 years ago), I'd like to KNOW what the current administrative stand is-THAT MAKES SENSE.

      Paul Ryan: "If We Don't Kill Medicare Now, America Faces the Horrific Alternative of the Rich Paying Taxes at Clinton-Era Levels"  I'll have to check the exact verbiage on that (contextual), but If we don't [DEAL] with Medicare now,  America Faces the Horrific Alternative of the Rich Paying Taxes at Clinton-Era Levels...

      Vis a  vis, If we don't do something about entitlement spending now (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) the price will be high., because Bill Clinton oversaw the largest tax hike in American history.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think she was referring to American View.

        Every since GWB's debacle of a presidency, there seems to be a trend among conservatives to call themselves independents or libertarians, yet when you talk with them, they sound just like conservatives have always sounded.

        1. teamrn profile image78
          teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Dubya wasn't the best present and he readily admits that he put policies in  place that he shouldn't  have. But, when I reexamine my values, they are the same. Just because a POTUS didn't do all I wanted of him is no cause for me to switch parties. Hard to believe others really did this.

          I can see people supporting Ron Paul; for some reason he draws a crowd,

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I know many conservatives whose values have not changed, and they have watched first Dubya, then the Republican primaries with horror and disdain.  The disintegration of their party into anti-intellectual, uncompromising, rigid ideologues has led them to believe their party has left them, not the other way around.

            As my husband has said, as soon as his party returns to sanity, he will vote Republican again.  Until then, he is a conservative for Obama.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Alan Simpson agrees with him. As does Chuck Hagle.

              He's in good company.

              The ones who like this GOP are Russshhhhhh, Klannity and Palin. The 3 stooges. larry curly and moe: Sewtainly!

        2. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          PP,

          I have been a registered in independent voter since 1978, Just another assumption gone wrong. You guys really need to stop listening to the Democratic talking points.

          Is no question GWB made mistakes as president, then again they all make mistakes. But what amazes me is the blindness that people think Obama is such a God and has cured the world. I think maybe we all need to be drinking what they're drinking.

          A by the way I think in five years or less people are going to have a much different view of the Bush administration. Some already coming out and changing their view. Who knows what history will bring. At least Bush's been man enough to admit his mistakes, Obama never will is and will always be somebody else's fault. What can you expect for somebody who lays blame on a tsunami for his unemployment staying high.

          1. teamrn profile image78
            teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            KUDOS, AV! I like your statement, that if "people think Obama is such a God and has cured the world. I think maybe we all need to be drinking what they're drinking."

            I know more people who voted for hope and change (a nice slogan!) who under NO circumstances would make the same mistake twice. What is the definition of insanity? They're not enamored with the competition, some of them, but they live by that 'fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice. shame on ME!"

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Teamrn,

              I give credit where credit is due. Obama delivered on his hope and change slogan. He changed the country for the worse and now we hope to vote him out.

              1. Old Poolman profile image81
                Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Keep in mind the more things you do, the higher the odds of making some mistakes.  Those who do little or nothing rarely make mistakes.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hi AV.  No, not an assumption, but an observation, an observation that might not apply to you personally, because it is a generalization.  Take the Tea Party, for example.  The Tea Party is supposedly an independent group, yet every single Tea Party candidate ran as a Republican.  Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan all claim to be libertarians and they all are Republicans.

            See what I mean?

            I'll address your reply about cloture and filibusters later, when I have more time.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              {PP,

              I think we can all agree that the Tea Party was just a group of angry Republicans and they were no going to form a new party.

              I wrote an article on cloture and did a show on it. You may want to check out the article

              1. junko profile image80
                junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That don't make sense, you must have intented to write" they were not going to form a new party", AV. I was able to figure that out quickly.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                AV, I read your article.  It seems that you are interpreting the reason behind the huge increase in cloture votes to be obstruction of debate on the part of Harry Reid.  I think it's more likely simply a mechanism to get a head count and avoid wasting time with a filibuster.  The truth is probably somewhere in between.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  PP,

                  What can one conclude when every time cloture is envoked on every bill Harry Reid presents. PP I can agree with you if it happened a few times, but 189 times then say cloture was envoked because Republicans filibuster? What filibuster if you envoke cloture at the same time the bill is presented? At least wait till someone tries to debate the bill before using cloture. Would you not agree?

                  Now add that to the 2700 plus bills that Reid has tabled and do you not see a pattern of obstruction?

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Democrats do not have enough of a majority to overcome a filibuster.  Taking a cloture vote allows them to see how many votes they have so as not to waste time with a filibuster.  Republicans have explicitly stated they will not work with the Democrats and have proven they mean what they say by consistently voting down proposals that were originally their own ideas.

                    Since I cannot read Harry Reid's mind, I can't tell you for certain how many cloture votes were taken for this reason and how many were taken just to avoid debate.  I tend to think that doing it to avoid debate does not make any sense, but like I said, there is no way to know for certain.

            2. teamrn profile image78
              teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              PP, Every tea party candidate ran as a Republican at one point or anther? Is something innately wrong or immoral in that fact; or let us not say fact unless you know this for certain.

              Rather, use he verb, presumption.

              What does it take to get the concept across THAT TXING THE RICH TO DEATH, even taking all their money will only make a difference for a FEW DAYS? Is that such a hard concept. Then the rich wilL have NO MORE ASSETS and they'll be in the same boat that all of us are. So, what have we gained?

              We've gained a symbol that being very affluent doesn't immunize your from responsibility; HOWEVER, I think the wealthy realize that and for that reason, as business (small and large) owners, they are more than willing to cut spending, something they feel that WILL HELP THE ECONOMY.

              Cutting spending will hurt. Going line-by-line over a budget (when it passes) will take cajones. It will require effective communication with the American people WHY certain programs will be cut, will FORCE them to balance their books, just like you and I HAVE to monthly.

              I read this a little further down,""This liberal wants the world fair for everybody." Thing is, NOBODY, but NOBODY ever promised that the world would be fair My world is not the same as yours LMC, but you don't hear me whining that LMC has this and I don't. SHE SHOULD SUFFER. She should be given all the plagues that I have.

              No, that is MY life, MY schtick and I know the MY Lord and I have a plan. That plan doesn't include me living in a home that is EXACTLY the same size as yours, with the exact same amount of money with the EXACDT same-EVERYTHING. I can't advertise here, but i'd refer to a barnyard post that has been flying around HP.

              If all want EVERYTHING to be EQUAL, Europe and many other countries offer EQUAL UNEMPLOYMENT,  We all should have EQUAL ACCESS/OPPORTUNITY, BUT no where in the Constitution is EQUAL EVERYTHING PROMISED.

              As far as the Gospel according to Paul Krugman, "e bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him),.." The Repulblican house has sent more jobs bills to the Senate, but for some reason, Harry Reid tables them,

              A STRONG leader would be slapping him silly and stating, "Harry, we need a budget, we must have a budget and I'm putting you in charge of sending me that budge. ORGANIZE YOUR CAUCUS MEMBERS! I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!"

              About the vested interest post, this country faces a lot more than 'fairness problems.'  and if you don't understand that by now and keep feeling  that there was an axe to grind when policies fail, you're right. HOWEVER, there is another reason bills don't pass, THEY JUST DON'T MAKE SENSE!

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Um, there is a lot in your post that doesn't make any sense as a reply to anything I've said.  You seem to be lumping me in with LMC?  She doesn't speak for me.  I don't agree with everything she says.

        3. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yup.

  11. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    "This liberal wants the world fair for everybody."

    This one too....awesome read:

    Robert Reich‏:

    Fairness is essential to econoimc growth. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … =printable


    Paul Krugman:

    "So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed."

    That, my friends, is the definition of insanity.

    1. recommend1 profile image72
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is common knowledge and practice among those who put together such things as teaching outlines, laws, fair trade policies, social management etc etc - that if a document, collection of rules or policy does not treat every party involved, then it will ultimately fail.

      So you and Reich are right, fairness is essential in all respects of business and society.  So simple a point that it is hard to see how anyone would even argue against it.

      Unless of course they had vested interests of their own and the power to force them onto others,

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Vested interest and power.

        The story of America. What we fight against at all times.

        But, as Jimi Hendrix said: when the power of Love overcomes the love of power...the world will know peace.

        perhaps soon....that's what I'm banking on.

      2. teamrn profile image78
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        " fairness is essential in all respects of business and society.  So simple a point that it is hard to see how anyone would even argue against it."

        Can I ask a simple question? WHY IS "...FAIRNESS ESSENTIAL IN ALL RESPECTS OF BUSINESS AND SOCIETY?..."

        Equal access to success is; but FAIRNESS? Let me guess, you feel that all children should be awarded a trophy at the end of baseball season, even though they were poor players and didn't contribute to the team's success? Reward mediocrity?

        Jimi Hendrix's words will wring true, but ONLY after we overcome a debt crisis second to none.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Let me guess, you feel that all children should be awarded a trophy at the end of baseball season, even though they were poor players and didn't contribute to the team's success? Reward mediocrity?"

          What does that mean? You think that women get paid less because they don't contribute as much or that they are mediocre and poor players? Fairness is not about giving everyone a trophy...it's about giving everyone an equal playing field.

          1. teamrn profile image78
            teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            fairness is about giving each player an equal OPPORTUNITY to that playing field. Providing conditions to all that can lead to success. It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to make something of that OPPORTUNITY. Not to make his way FOR him.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So the fact that individual women doing the same job as individual men but being compensated individually at less than 70% for the same work doesn't concern you in the slightest then?

            2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
              Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Since when is asking to be paid equal pay for equal work asking for someone to do your job for you or make it easier?

        2. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Such a mindbogglingly wrong comment, what does being paid less because you are a woman have to do with rewarding mediocrity? Unless you can prove women are mediocre employees the point is rubbish.

          1. Old Poolman profile image81
            Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The only really fair way to pay is on a piece work basis.  The more units completed, the more you earn.  Using this method the high producers are rewarded for their efforts, and those who produce less don't earn as much.  Unfortunately not many business operations are structured so this would work.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely agreed.

            2. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That is a BRILLIANT proposal which would de facto end the ginormous discrepancy between worker pay and executive pay.
              How many units does the CEO of a failed company get credit for producing?
              Less than the units of a successful company?
              How about in comparison to the workers who actually do touch and move the pieces along?

              I like your idea. Agree it's not happening and it somewhat impractical. But I like it nonetheless.
              smile

    2. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In regards to Krugman, you might want to look up to see how he failed to predict the recession where people like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff succeeded. People who trust him for anything must be operating under hypnosis!

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why would I do that? I agree with what he just said: not his life history.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The videos pertain to the particular economic policies Obama does support.

  12. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago
  13. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    @BarackObama

    President Obama on tomorrow's EqualPay vote: "This is more than just about fairness. Women are the breadwinners for a lot of families."

    He SO gets it!

    1. teamrn profile image78
      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "He SO gets it!".

      He doesn't. He thinks he's 'doing something for homeowners, but there are SO MANY homeowners who can't refinance, because to do so, they have to have EARNED income. They  can't be unemployed. AUTOMATIC disqualification..

      And he says he's doing something about unemployment by extending benefits. Yes, that is doing something, but a LOT of people have run out of benefits and taking 'any old job' isn't always the answer.

      That's because 'ANY OLD JOB' rarely has benefits; so that you take a risk that doing the right thing by going off unemployment. HOW? If the employer doesn't participate in unemployment; you lose your 'better than nothing job,' you can't apply EVER again for unemployment. You're screwed.

      He talks a good talk, but since he ether hasn't addressed  all the angles, or doesn't want to admit to not having addressed, he doesn't acknowledge that there's more to the problem than, "Can't afford your mortgage? I'll help you out by making sure all anyone in the business of loaning money, will modify mortgages for EVERYONE. (the BOAs, the Fannies and Freddies of this world)

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You don't even get what he's talking about!

        He's talking about women making the same pay as men for the same job. He's saying it's not just an issue of fairness, but economic necessity.

        I think even Bush would go along with this...seeing that he has 2 daughters himself.

        1. teamrn profile image78
          teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I so got what he's talking about. Pandering to the woman vote and deflecting attention from his dismal record to avoid dwelling on the real issue that many women fall into the category I described and NOT talking about that in a jobs bill is dienguous at best.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And just as many men fall into the category you described but they still get paid more than competent women.

            1. teamrn profile image78
              teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's missing the point; what they get paid is an issue for a bit down the road. That women don't get = pay is a sin. But to spin out wheels fighting about = pay, when there are people getting NO pay seems senseless. Prioritize. Get the women equal pay. But right now, get the WHOLE COUNTRY BACK TO WORK.

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Government oe not create jobs that is the job of the private sector which can only be affected indirectly on the other hand equal pay can be addressed directly and that is why h is focusing on it, because it is a problem that can be readily solved.

                1. teamrn profile image78
                  teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Thing is, it  ISN'T being solved. There's too much bickering because this is an election year and the issue has become what it shouldn't be: a political football

                  Normally, it would be a straight up or down vote and for anyone with half a brain, it would pass easily. But, like i say, political football is happening with everything. I think you know why..

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That argument makes no sense at all, everything is political football at the moment should the government just stop doing things?

            2. Old Poolman profile image81
              Old Poolmanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The subject of equal pay is not that simple.  The required tasks and knowledge required to perform those tasks plays a huge roll in determining pay.
              Take a simple task such as loading trucks with 100 pound boxes.  Not everyone, male or female, would be able to load exactly the same number of boxes in a eight hour shift due to differences in physical ability and endurance.  This would be a classic  job for paying piecework rates.  The more boxes one loaded, the more pay he or she would earn.  And that is fair.

              Many sales jobs are paid with a small base salary and sales commissions on top of the base salary.  Job performance is easily measured, and pay would never be equal as not everyone has the same talent for selling.  And that is fair.

              In jobs where results are easily measured, higher pay for greater results is really the fair way to pay.  The equal pay for jobs where results are difficult or impossible to measure is where the problem lies.  In many cases jobs have a starting pay rate, and annual raises based on seniority.  These should be exactly the same for men and for women.

              Each and every job has a difficulty requirement that should be factored into setting the wage rate for any job.  Should the receptionist answering the phones at a large electrical construction company earn the same rate of pay as the journeyman electricians doing the outside work?  No, the skill and knowledge requirements are far lower for the receptionist.  Should all of the receptionists at this company, male and female, make the same  pay?  Yes, depending on seniority.  The one who has stuck it out for 15 years knows more about the company and the business than someone who has been there for six weeks.

              There is just no way that it will ever be completely fair.  However a persons sex should never be a determination in setting the pay rate for any employee.  I personally know some women who could load way more 100 pound boxes a day than I could.

              1. teamrn profile image78
                teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But, they get paid at least. The number of Americans withOUT a paycheck is  about 123 million. Shouldn't our priority be a focus our energies on getting them SOME, pay before we focus energies on getting women what they rightfully deserve?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah, yes, the old shut-up-and-be-thankful-you-have-a-job argument. 

                  A bit dated, don't you think?

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    PP

                    I could be speaking out of turn for teamrn and if I am she can correct me. I don't believe she is saying shut up and be thankful you have a job.

                    I think what she's trying to say was that this bill especially since it's been sitting collecting dust since Sen. Clinton introduced it, should not have been high on the priority list. I believe she is saying that Congress should be focusing on getting the millions who were not working a paycheck.

                    I agree with her, we have way too many more important issues on the table that need to be addressed.

                    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I agree that Congress should be focusing on our most pressing problems.  I already conceded it was a calculated move on the part of Democrats.  However, at least it was a distraction that, had it passed, would have been beneficial to women, unlike some of the Republican "distractions" such as the proposal to redefine rape as illegal only if it is "forcible rape" or to forbid a 13-year-old rape victim from getting an abortion using Medicaid funds.

        2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this
    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

      Heritage Foundation: Individual Mandate

      Drill baby drill

      Simpson Bowles ideas

      War in Afghanistan

    3. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

      It's not bickering, it's Republican obstructionism.
      They have nullified my vote. I'm going to sue!

      How many Repubs are there? times $176,000 for each of them who have done nothing but Koch-Block for 3 and 1/2 years. What a collosal waste of money. Better spent on studying the mating habits of lady-bugs.

      I am completely dis-satisfied with their "work".

      Who do I go to get my money back?

    4. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

      "Holds a reported $33 million in the Caribbean British territory's accounts
      Offshore banking could be one reason Romney is withholding his tax returns
      Newt Gingrich reported 31 percent tax on his income -- in line with the top tax bracket

      Washington tax lawyer Jack Blum told ABC News that offshore accounts and investment funds allow super-rich investors to 'avoid a whole series of small traps in the tax code that ordinary people would face if they paid tax on an onshore basis.'
      Experts estimates offshore banking costs the US Treasury $100 billion a year in lost tax revenue.

      'His personal finances are a poster child of what's wrong with the American tax system,' Mr Blum said.

      Brian Ross and his ABC colleagues report that Romney - as well as Bain Capital - has substantial offshore investments. They're still subject to American tax laws but as Ross and Co point out these accounts 'provided him - and Bain - with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the US Treasury'. For US Treasury, read American taxpayers."

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z1wuHQ0cqF

      ************

      We're subsidizing his wealth.

      1. teamrn profile image78
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Brian Ross and his ABC colleagues report that Romney - as well as Bain Capital - has substantial offshore investments. "

        Then, reform the tax code which ALLOWS that this happen. Did I hear squawking at the fact that Jeff Immelt and GE paid ZERO taxes?

    5. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

      Obama adds: 70% positive
      Romney adds: 70% negative
      .....
      .....
      .....

      Do NOT complain when Dems go negative!

      http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2012/06/r … un-on.html

    6. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

      This is EXACTLY what happened.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S … re=related

      I hope you noticed the end part: evening out....race to the bottom!

      He said 12 to 15 years...it's now been 20.

      Wisconsin today will be the thing that let's us know where we are heading.....towards Mexico, or Iceland.

      First, maintain the people's rights..then kick the banksters out!

     
    working