Proof positive that you don't have to scream -- or even speak -- to get an important point across.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCl2bi- … r_embedded
The only logical explanation is that they're holding the jobs as hostages. If we roll over and let them pass the budget they want, with the ideological cuts (PP, NPR, Medicare, more tax cuts for billionaires, etc.) they will produce jobs for Americans.
But something tells me that even if we did give in on every point they still wouldn't cough up the jobs.
And America would be quadrupled screwed.
We've been down this road before.
Trickle-down economics is a farce.
That's it... Hate the .3 percent of all business so much, you enact business smashing policies to make yourself feel righteous.
Well we have to try something, in the beginning, Obama had a majority in Congress to pass any legislation that he wanted, and we are deeper in debt and real unemployment has not abated. His policies were a failure and the Dems just want to keep spending. I had to laugh the other day when Obama choked on the words 'spending cuts'. He sees the handwriting on the wall and since he is on the campaign trail, he is lying to us again, hoping we will be stupid enough to believe him again.
Obama will soon pass Bush for adding to the deficit and what do we have to show for it? Another day older and deeper in debt.
This is amazing. You can tell he's passionate. I'm sick of all the GOP lies that they are in line with the American middle class when they really just exist to serve the interests of the wealthiest top 2%.
I mean, who are the middle class? Business owners, teachers, police, firemen, the exact kind of people the Republicans are on the warpath against right now.
Supposedly businesses. Like GE. You know, the ones who don't pay any taxes AND take money from the feds.
But the point is, where have you seen any DISCUSSION of job creation by the Republicans in this session? Distractions with defunding Planned Parenthood and Medicare.
Who's talking about jobs? Boehner? Not hardly!!!
You say it's GE? That's odd. Did you know that there are about 25 MILLION businesses in the US? And that 99.7 percent of them are SMALL BUSINESSES? And that the bulk of employment growth comes from THEM?
And that the vast majority of them are incorporated, so every time you enact a "hate the corporations and hurt them bad" rule, you really smash the engine of our country's economy, the small businesses?
Oh, wait, I forgot. You're the one who merely seeks emotional fulfullment through forcing others to do things for you.
Again, WHO creates jobs? And what actions in Washington DC will encourage them to do so?
Cutting funding for public broadcasting creates jobs? (What did Big Bird ever do to you?)
Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood creates jobs? No federal funds went to abortion. The proposal slashes medical services for women. (You hate women & Big Bird?)
The teabaggers went after unions. How does that create jobs.
The teabaggers declared war in Congress on the half of the country who differs from the view they hold.
That will come back to haunt you.
Actualy, funds did go to abortion. If the gov gives you $75 and you raise $25 then as long as you spend $25 or less than you did not spend funds on abortion. PP spent $45, therefore they spent taxpayer money on abortion. I agree not to cut PBS funds despite Cookie Monster always steals my chocolate chip cookies. I do not totaly agree with what the Repubs in Wi. did They should not have not messed with the part of the bil. against bargaining rights. After all, during the next set of negotiations with the union, the Gov could always say no. But if the rest of that bill was not passed, WI would have laid off alot of teachers.
Actually, it was Obama and the Dems who promised the jobs. The GOP is just making sure that none materialize so they can win back the White House.
Good point, DruidDude. Of course Obama and the Dems want to get Americans back to work. But there is a whole class of GOP frosh who campaigned on this issue -- and have conveniently dropped that issue in favor of others.
Here's an extract from Emily's List.com
WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, EMILY's List launches its opening salvo of the 2012 election cycle, and reveals its first list of targeted Republican freshman:
•Rep. Charlie Bass (NH-02)
•Rep. Chip Cravaack (MN-08)
•Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-01)
•Rep. Joe Heck (NV-03)
•Rep. Allen West (FL-22)
Today’s "honorees" meet two special criteria. First, despite short tenures, they've already amassed appallingly anti-woman, anti-family records. And second, there is major Democratic female talent waiting in the wings.
"These Republican freshmen ran saying they'd focus on jobs," said EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock. "But when they got to office they pulled a bait-and-switch on voters. Instead of creating jobs, they've worked tirelessly on an anti-woman, anti-family agenda that takes away women's rights and freedoms.
It's part of their game plan while more Americans suffer.
I guess I was wrong: liberals can read. Also, great timing for the bald guy...Kind of reminded me of Ross Perot and the "infomercials."
Very Cool! He could be the next Alan Grayson!
and please MM, you are being way too hard on the Baggers....after all, they expected Obama to undo 8 years in 2 weeks, surely you can give them 100 days to implement their tax cuts miracle?
Ooooooops, we've had 10 YEARS of them! Geuss they need a little more time
I only wish I could figure out how to capture this image and post it in full color right here. It supports what many of us have been saying all along. Where was the outcry when BUSHCO was running up this deficit? Where were the Tea Baggers spouting fiscal responsibility then??? Hmmmm???
Rick Seaman of Portland, Oregon, made this chart from data he found on TreasuryDirect.gov.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 … -president
Hey, thank you, PP!
That's sooo much better than having to click on a link!!!
You will hear crickets chirping on this from the Far-Right lol... or perhaps the figures taken from the Treasury will be spun as spurious propoganda.
Bush left with the National Debt at $9 trillion
Today, Obama is approaching $ 14.3 trillion
Can you agree that in 2.5 years, Obama has added $5.3 trillion and now he is asking Congress for $2.7 trillion more to be added before May 15/2011. The Democrats want it to be raised ,they want to spend more. The Republicans if they agree to raise it will give Obama another 4 years.
We are not better off now than in 2007 because of our economy and the unemployment problems continue. Unemployment recently went up to 10%, oil prices at the pump are sky high and if you have a job you are taking less money home.
John, the graph shows and quite accurately what no one wants to admit: Republicans, while berating deficit spending, have been historically (in the last 45 years) the biggest deficit spenders going.
If you want to truly reduce the deficit you have to do two things: curtail/cut spending and raise taxes. The Republicans have already indicated that raising taxes, on any level, is a "non-starter." And that is just insane. Supply side economics never worked; Reagan himself ended up raising taxes three times because his tax cuts were too deep.
I am willing to come half-way and say, YES - reduce spending. But are you willing to come half-way and admit that some tax increases will be necessary? Reagan's own former tax strategist recently came out and said that the Republicans have become pathological when it comes to tax increases and admitted that if this had happened under Reagan's watch, he would have strongly advised the president to not lower taxes...
Not sure where you found that graph, but it is not accurate. The debt has risen more under Obama than any other aministration.
The problem with the debt started many administrations ago, not with the last President. The Financial Report of The US Government clearly shows when President Bush left office the national debt was $ 9.8 trillion. When President Clinton left office the national debt was $ 5.770 trillion. After only two years of the Obama administration the debt has grown to $ 14.5 trillion. The debt rose under each of these administrations as it has for many administrations in the past. These numbers are actual figures as a result of a financial audit that occurs after every fiscal year and are available for free to the public. This is an independent group and their results are honest.
But, you're actually missing the overall point. All politicians only know how to increase the DEBT, because America operates a DEBT based system and nothing more.
Both sides are just as bad as the other.
Doing fine Cas. How are you?
TA DA!!!! Both sides of the electorate need to get their heads around that fact.
When you strip away all the rhetoric it boils down to two distinct and opposing ideologies.
The Left: Fix a debt problem by borrowing and spending.
The Right: Fix a debt problem by reducing revenues and reducing spending.
Neither will work in the short or long term. The former makes it more painfull in the future and the later makes it more painfull now.
I'm doing well. Thank you for asking.
It has become obvious to some that the politicians truly do not know enough about what is "right", but rather manipulate others so they cannot see straight. It's unfortunate that they have been successful for generation after generation.
The Two Santa Claus Theory:
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the U.S. Republican Party.
"The theory states that, in democratic elections, if one party appeals to voters by proposing more spending, then a competing party cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the political party that promises spending. Instead, "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the competing party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by offering some other appealing options.
This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great).
The "Two Santa Claus Theory" does not argue against this belief, but holds that such arguments cannot be espoused in an effort to win democratic elections. In Wanniski's view, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics provide an attractive alternative rationale for revenue reduction: that under reduced taxation the economy will grow, not merely that the government will be starved of revenue, and that that growth is an attractive option to present to the voters. Wanniski argued that Republicans must become the tax-cutting Santa Claus to the Democrats' spending Santa Claus."
They blow it up...Dems go to fix it, and get blamed for the bloat. Repubs then come in as the "saviors".
Daddy-State! "Now you must be punished for what WE have done!"
"American Politics....who in hell thought this up?"
The merchant classes which in America is the new rich.
If you think that government can actually create jobs on net, then I got a bridge I can sell you...
Oh, I forgot to mention: The democrats make the same promises. Quit acting like it's just the GOP.
You are correct - it cannot create jobs. You might want to tell the Freshmen Class this...
What good will that do? The people who elected them believe it. How ironic is that? Our entire political ideology has become corrupted.....We are broke and we are broken.
Hey C.J., what's up? Nice to see you. However, it wouldn't do any good with the freshman class of politicians. They have already known what their intentions going into the position they were seeking. The message from the people themselves(society as a whole) is that many people have no belief in politicians or the work they do. Therefore, many politicians choose to show a good game, but fail to produce while in office, because they see the people have no power.
The people who elected them, probably believe it and that just shows the willful ignorance of many.
Yes, we are broken and broke. However, it can be fixed. The problem can be fixed by separating the powers that be from society and having one united source of trust between the people and politicians. The POWER must be back in the hands of the people and on the people's terms. Anything less is meaningless.
And if a bridge needs to be built, a bridge that obviously has no private profit incentive, then what does the government do, pray for it to be built? Don't be ignorant. I have read your talking bobble-head Ron Paul rants. You should preface everything you write with, I, Evan...believe that the South was the right side during the Civil War.
Democrats actually DO want to create jobs. In infratructure,and green energy.
But Rebags blocked them with their baby-fits filibusters in the last go-round,and now they set the agenda...and you see what it is.
Permanent tax cuts for wealthy, restricting rights from women and gays, and whatever the f Bibiguns wants.
How ANYONE can believe them when they say they care about jobs is beyond me.
It never happened the first 2 times they got their give-aways, what made anybody think it would be different now?
Fool you.....how many times is it going to take??
They want to, but they can't. See how I used the word "Can", but YOU used the phrase "want to".
lovemychris /Mighty Mom
Try to get by the dem talking points for once!
President Obama, the Democrat controlled Senate and the Republican controlled House of Representatives will have a need to work in a bipartisan way to control spending and reduce the national debt. The Democrats have had control of Congress since 2006 and after the 2010 elections, the Democrat still control 2/3 of our government. Under the Obama Administration the yearly deficits has increased the national debt $4.5 trillion. A second round of oil speculation and rising prices in food, gasoline, corn, wheat, clothing , healthcare costs and a stagnant economy with the devaluation of the American dollar ( loss of 20% value ) requires our governments immediate attention.
The campaign for the 2012 presidential race has begun by President Obama. For him to say that the Bush tax cuts benefit millionaires and billionaires without mentioning small businesses is disingenuous and a distortion of the whole truth about the Bush tax cuts. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is nothing but a tax increase on small businesses and the working poor. The president needs to tell the American people the truth regarding his budget, how he intends to reduce the national debt and control yearly deficits. The people have not forgotten what he promised in the last election. Can you remember when candidate Barak Obama said that he would reduce the DEFICIT 50% in his first term. Really! JOBS WHERE ARE THE ONES OBAMA PROMISSED?
No,Jon, the Speaker of the House sets the agenda...he/she decides what bills to be taken up, what policies to push for.
And, when the Dems had the house, they were blocked by the Repubs in the Senate.
One part of the equaition can stall the other two, if it has a mind to.
ONLY thing the Repubs push for are cuts to the poor, and social-engineering/ideology-driven slashing of rights.
AND--you can check it for yourself.
Between 2008-2009, Dems proposed 16 jobs-bills. Repubs in Senate blocked all but one of them.---WHILE screaming where are the Jobs.
80% of country wants the Bush cuts to expire. It is a give-away to those who have more than 90% of the rest of us.....
They have had enough give-aways! 30 years of it.
We voted for that kind of upper-class favoritism to end.
It's not talking points, it's reality.
The Repubs in the Senate blocked the Dems in the House. Interesting. By the way, The Dems could pass anything they wanted to pass during the first 2 years. They had COMPLETE control vote wise. How else do you think Obama care got through. Repubs could have sreamed to the rafters which on occasion they did, but they could not out vote the Dems at anytime.As for your quote of 80% It is actually 68%. Understand I believe the wealthy should get a tax increase. If you are tired of give aways, why not cut all public programs? Welfare for one.
Click on my Icon to go to my site. read the article about tax reform. You might like the idea. It may not be perfect but it would be a great change from the current system
lovemychris -Little sister to the Hippie movement
‘’Speaker of the House sets the agenda...he/she decides what bills to be taken up, what policies to push for. And, when the Dems had the house, they were blocked by the Repubs in the Senate.’’
Speaker Pelosi controlled the agenda from Jan 2007 to Dec 2008 in addition to 2009,2010.
Unemployment when she and the Democrats took majority control in Jan 2007 of BOTH houses was 4.5%.In Dec 2008 unemployment was maybe 7% .
TODAY Senator Reid and the Democrat majority are in control of the Senate with a Democrat president ( majority 2/3’s of the government).
Unemployment during most of the Obama administration was as high as nationally 10%+ depending on how the figures were adjusted. Today it is 8.9%
Asking the Republicans ‘’ where are the jobs ‘’ when the government has been controlled by the Democrats for the past 2.5 years of the Obama administration is Idiotic, Stupid and just plain Dumb.
The Republicans were sworn into office in Jan 2011, just 5 months ago. How anyone with one half of a brain could expect a JOB turnover in 5 months compared with 2.5 years of Obama & company plus an additional 2 years of a Democrat controlled Congress in the Bush administration and ask ’’where are the jobs‘’? need to stop smoking, wake up and come down from the heavens above.
IT’S IS SIMPLE, one must seek the whole truth and nothing but the truth and get past the propaganda being fed to the people from Washington, MEANING President Obama & Company.
Please forgive me for being TRUTHFUL!
by Susan Reid5 years ago
During the 2010 mid-terms the GOP campaigned fiercely on the platform of job creation and, as a result of such promises, the GOP gained the majority in the House of Representatives. As the new Speaker of the House, John...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
From that bastion of lamestream liberalism, TIME. Mr. Klein puts it so darned well I couldn't resist posting the whole article. It's not very long. Enjoy!Oh, and as we all know, there WAS no vote today (Thursday). ...
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
Paul Krugman:" Back in 2010, self-styled deficit hawks — better described as deficit scolds — took over much of our political discourse. At a time of mass unemployment and record-low borrowing costs, a time...
by ChenardRobinson5 years ago
It seems funny to me that a man can be judged by his own ghost. Every President in the history of this great country has promised the moon and stars and given us some of what they promised and more headache and angst...
by My Esoteric9 months ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with...
by Nicola Thompson5 years ago
Have you ever changed your political stance? What changed your mind? What would change your mind?I find that usually people are stuck to the political side they have chosen. Is it possible to change sides? What might be...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.