Continued Bad Economic News
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.
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.Sad part is the numbers will revise down next month so the 67,000 jobs will be 30,000 next month.
over 57 states. Did we pick up seven new ones??
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.
And what was the Dems excuse for the first two years before the Tea Party even came along
Excuse for getting financial and health reform passed ? Maybe you mean saving America's us auto industry.inspite of blue and yellow dog Democrats.
"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-blockingObama 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
Obama has no such proposal in the senate or house. Shoe me the HR or S number
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.
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
Higher insurance premiums is not a tactic, it is a fact.
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
Junko,
Go read the comment in question, it makes no sense.
" offered be the President and than ask him way he didn't pass the bill"
That makes sense to you?
No-one understand the constitution, presidential powers and congressional powers more than I do.
If as you say "The President just signs, the house and senate make and pass laws", how does the President get blocked?
The President may not run the Senate and House day-to-day business, but President can guide them and make suggestions on policy.American View ,I wrote, "the senate and the house will block anything offered be the the President" Now any reasonable literate person would have enough sense to understand my mistake and know the word I intented was, by not be.For you to say that " NO-ONE, understands the constitution, presidential powers and congressional powers more than you do" shine a light on your ego. I wouldn't say it make no sense for you to say that, but I would say I don't think you can teach constitutional law or civics 303. It Don't take much intelligence to see and know how the President gets blocked by the house and senate, after all the President stands alone.
So now you changed your story again and now the house and senate can "block" the President. Interesting.
If be was your only mistake in that sentence it would make sense, but what about the rest.
" and than ask him way he didn't pass the bill"
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.There have not been any filibusters, its bs yarn spun by the left
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.
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!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.AV, you said "No-one (sic) understand (sic) the constitution, presidential powers and congressional powers more than I do."
If this is true, then you know good and well how legislation is being blocked. While it is true that there is no government report (interesting that you requested such a thing, given your self-stated knowledge about the constitution, presidential powers and congressional powers) showing that Republicans have filibustered over 100 times since Obama took office, if you are as knowledgeable as you say you are, then you will know that there is another way to measure obstructionism by the minority.
"The frequency of filibusters – plus threats to use them – are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.
In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000."
If you are an honest conservative, you will acknowledge that the current crop of Republican legislators have decided that it is in THEIR best interests, United States be damned, to block anything that Obama or the Democrats want to do, even if it was previously a Republican idea.
Are you an honest conservative?PP,
Finally somebody who understands how the system works and knows that there is no records on filibusters.Thank you Pretty Panther. I only did that to see how long LMC was going to continue and make her filibuster claim without proof and the fact was there is no proof. And I'm very happy you were a cloture because LMC wasn't taking the bait.
You see the numbers you state for the 111th Congress and a current numbers for the 112th Congress, though you did not include the 112th but I will,are easily found online.
Now before I go on, does everybody understands what a filibuster is. Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest filibuster ever had over 24 hours, he did that trying to stop the civil rights legislation. So in essence a filibuster is somebody who goes on the House or Senate floor, speak for long periods of time in order to delay a vote on legislation. A cloture when invoked, basically brings to an end any discussion of a Bill and the Bill must be voted on in its current state. In other words once cloture has been invoked, no more did eight or changes can be made to any Bill.
So, let's take a close look at some truth and see who really is obstructing in the Senate.
Here is the actual breakdown the 111th Congress invoked cloture 189 times, 186 by Harry Reid.Currently in the 112th Congress there have been 89 cloture's 87 by Harry Reid. Now you can say well of course Harry Reid invoke cloture, to stop the Republican filibuster. Let's look at a couple of things here. First the stop the student loan interest rate hike of 2012 was brought to the Senate floor on April 26, 2012. On April 26, 2012, Harry Reid invoke cloture before one word was even uttered on the Bill. That means the Republicans could not debate nor could they filibuster the bill. After the first reading on April 26, the second reading was scheduled on May 8 2012. After the second reading it was put on the calendar to be voted on May 16, 2012. Again not one word was allowed to be said about this bill.
I want you to listen to this press conference that was held on May 8, the date was clearly posted at the very beginning notice what the Democrats are talking about in this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … KQlQWmIPNw
Do you not find it interesting that the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of a filibuster for a Bill that is not even scheduled for a second reading until May 16. What amazes me the most is that few people actually see it but here it is for you and the world to say the question is will you believe it? The Truth of the Matter Is that this bill had a tax increase on small businesses and cloture was involved so that it would not be brought out for the public to hear. Pitiful, shameful, I can't think of much worse words for the Democrats try to pull on that Bill. Yet the left and the mainstream media is selling you a bill of goods about a filibuster, one that did not exist.
If you go back and read those 186 cloture invoked by Harry Reid you will find that 172 of them were invoked at the same time the bills came to the floor. And once cloture was invoked, there is no debate, no talking, the bill cannot be changed from the form it was presented as.
The buffet rule is the same thing. It was brought to the Senate floor on March 29, 2012, Harry Reid invoke cloture on March 29, 2012. The Bill has sat in the Senate since without discussion or a vote because there are not enough Democrats to vote for its passage. But in the meantime nobody can even discuss it. So much for our freedoms.
In Addition Harry Reid has tabled 2718 bills, those bills once tabled die. They do not get discussed, they do not get debated, they do not get voted on. So who's doing the obstructing?
So PP I I disagree with you that the current crop of Republican legislators have decided that is in their best interest to the United States be damned. Somebody who wants to United States to be damned would not propose over 2000 bills only to get them tabled by the opposition, the opposition would not invoke cloture if they were to allow honest debate with the Republicans. So the question you need to be asking yourself is who is really blocking legislation?The Republicans changed the rules. In the Constitution, 50 votes is required to pass a bill. R's changed it to 60.
Because of this GOP Congress, we lost
public option
financial reform
Elizabeth Warren to head the watch-group she started
68 gvt appointments wasting on the vine
GOP in THIS Congress abused the Filibuster to take -over and de-rail the Obama admn.
They are Thugs and Bullies. And if you let them have their way----you will be the cause of all of our downfall...and we won't use guns for an armed revolution, like your hate-talk radio clown is advocating!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/0 … 01510.html
Deny history, re-write it all you want.
We were here. Witness for the Prosecution.
AS Bill Maher said a couple weeks ago: If Obama was really a liberal, he would have delivered Dick Cheney to the Hague.
These clowns wouldn't know a liberal if it bit them in the behind...you know, where Russssshhhhhh's mouth is.Keep spewing, you cannot change the facts, they are government records of what occurs everyday on the floor of the House and Senate and there are meticulous records kept on the bills themselves. All you have to do is go read it and you'll see for yourself, but you won't because that would mean you would have to admit something you don't want to admit to. You'll just keep spewing and changing the story or keep citing somebody else's opinion instead of the government facts.
As for anybody changing the rules, rules the Constitution that the House and Senate abide by all the same ones that they always run by.
If you truly want finance reform LMC, the why don't you challenge the Democrats to put of the budget and pass. I mean not one Democrat in the last two years, not the most loyal solid Democrat, cast a vote for Obama budget. That's how bad his budgets are. Last week the Republicans brought 4 budgets to the Senate floor, Harry Reid tabled everyone of them.. Even if they were not the best budgets in town, at least they could've debated it, possibly changed it or come up with an actual budget, and then voted on it. I mean Reid put Obama's crappy budget up there to be voted on and let it go down in flames, what is it afraid of, is he afraid that the Democrats might like one of those Republican budgets and pass it?
Yeah Bill Maher, there is a real class act you should follow. Oh wait you already are.I do challenge the Dems: the Blue-Dogs who side with money-bag R's.
Whitehorse Nelson, Landreu, and that new guy in Pennsylvania....Liebermann, I know there are lots more.
I stand with the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party!
as for following Maher: Ehhhhh!
He is anti-9/11 Truther. I am pro 9/11 Truther.
But--I agree with many of his political views.
It's 107 times to the Dems 58 when they were in the minority.
And Dems held up 3 R appointments
These RBaggers have held up 68 of Obama's.
They are Koch-blocking him for their pay-masters.
And the Koch's pay-master was Stalin.
funny, former employee's of the STASI were used as consultants on total information awareness network of 2002. You R's sure you know who you're cheerleading for?
Try to run, and they follow you! (my grammpa)
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!!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!
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.
Wow six fundraisers! He is so charitable! Oh wait, you were talking about campaign fundraisers. Never mind.
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.htmlThe 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
- Old Poolmanposted 12 years ago
0AV - 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.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.
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
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.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. AnnieObama has dropped small business taxes 18 times since his election and his budget plan calls for dropping corporate tax from 35 to 28%
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.
Yeah, there's a GREAT solution to the problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs holding our employers hostage.
It's called single payer universal healthcare.
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.
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 youI 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.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 pointsRight, 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.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?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.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.Eh, meant to say that they could have just written the bill however they wanted to in the first place.
Either way, a lot of GOP "jobs bills" aren't really jobs bills at all. They come with something else included in them that simply make it look like the GOP is making an effort when really it's just more political theater.
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!
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.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?????????Pub soap...wash yourself clean of Republicans...if you can.
Kind of difficult when they are gunning for Bush III.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"The Bush tax cuts have been in effect since 2001. "Job creators" are wealth hoarders"
Take It Back!
They don't need it, and they don't create jobs. They put it in foreign banks to avoid US taxes.
QUITE un-Patriotic!
26 quarters = 6.5 years, so the economy was growing steadily through the housing crisis and recession?
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%.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.
There is a link there.........
I still own a small business and I have noticed the cuts though some were temporary.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.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.
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."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. AnnieAnd this from a person who made OVER $500,000 last year and only paid 20% in taxes.
"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.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.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=1I 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.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!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.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?
"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.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.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?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.Now I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
"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?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?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.
"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.Funny you didn't include the Jews in that list
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.'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.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!
Of By and For the people! Not of by and for a small number of bank accounts.
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/M1r0J5LMC - 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.
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?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
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.
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.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.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!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.
Cody,
I totally agree with you. I wrote about that a years ago.
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?
http://www.ssa.gov/cola/
"Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information for 2012
Monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for more than 60 million Americans will increase 3.6 percent in 2012.
The 3.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will begin with benefits that nearly 55 million Social Security beneficiaries receive in January 2012. Increased payments to more than 8 million SSI beneficiaries will begin on December 30, 2011."Very true, but you did not give the entire story. There was no COLA under Obama for 2010 and 2011. The increase you mention above did not start till January, 2012.
Wonder why you did not mention thatI didn't mention it because there was no need to. You stated seniors did not get a COLA raise under Obama, so I showed that they did. But, if you really must know:
"There was no COLA in 2010 and 2011 because the CPI-W, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor, for those years did not increase above the level of the third quarter of 2008, the last year a COLA was determined."
The info is in the link I already provided. As you can see, Obama doesn't personally provide COLA increases, anyway, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
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 moneyThat 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.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 payI guess you forget he was a United States senator.
And community organizer is perfect for prez. You cannot serve one class of people alone!
What is Romney offering me? My mom? My daughters?
I'll tell you:
Less rights
More gvt contro over our lives
Gvt acting as morality police
More taxes for us to make up for the less taxes Romney himself will pay under his plan.
As for your last statement: igno-rant.Yes it is easy to forget he was Senator, he voted present a few times and went right on the road campaigning for President.
He's just echoing the old smear that began with Hillary WAY back when.
Wow what a surprise, LMC cannot handle the truth so she just says I do not believe you. Now I know why you get the issues wrong so much despite the facts that are in front of you and are indisputable.
PP
No echoing, no smear. Just look it up yourself. Check out Obama's voting record, it's there for the public to see. Look up and see the day Obama took office as Senator and when he held his first fundraising event for President.
Show me how many bills Obama authored, show me a business, an idea or ideal, anything that you can say Obama ran it successfully.How about you provide evidence to support your claim instead? I'm already tired of looking up facts do debunk your statements, only to have you abandon your contentions without acknowledging your errors.
See your statements about COLA and your statements about Harry Reid wanting to keep "secrets" that are easily found on the internet.
US Senator for 2 years before he began campaigning for POTUS,
What are a few examples of:
:Less rights
More gvt contro over our lives
Gvt acting as morality police
More taxes for us to make up for the less taxes Romney himself will pay under his plan."
AV is right about this one. In as much as you raise some salient points, the $$ Mitt Romey speaks of is HIS $, but the $ that Barack Obama speaks of is YOUR/MINE.AV/PP money.
Being born into money doesn't make you evil and doesn't automatically make you insensitive to the needs of the less fortunate. His income puts him into the 1%-WHAT ELSE? Anything?
Why does the fact that Romney WANTS to be president concern you? Barack Obama WANTS it, too. Clinton wanted it, Dubya wanted it, Carter wanted it., JFK wanted it. I don't really see what the point is. That Romney has $. So did JFK, Clinton, Obama, FDR, Does wealth scare you?
That leads me to the next logical conclusion; the anti-Romney thing is about his having earned something that most of us will never have; and that's a big chip.I just want to address one part of this, of course being born into money does not make you evil, not at all, but the point here is that Romney has never done real work in his life, never accomplished anything from his own sweat, the man went to expensive schools paid for by his family money, then created a company with his family money and made money off that family money by investing it, how can a man like that possibly understand the life of the average American?, he has no context, I was a coal miner for years, how can the prospective president understand what it's like to go down into a deep hole for mediocre pay and with the constant risk of getting injured not to mention suffering from black lung and a variety of other diseases which are part of the job? How can he understand what it's like to work two jobs and not be able to feed your family? I have seen his speeches arguing that we must stop giving money to people, but the man was given everything from birth.
Now in the midst of the toughest economic times this country has seen is a very long time when more than 15% of our population living below the international poverty line we want a president who has been handed everything? I am no Barack Obama fan but at least the man made himself, that I can respect, as far as I am concerned any guy down at the mine or in the factory plant is better suited to the job than Romney, as president you have hundreds of advisers and experts at hand to formulate economic and social plans presidents don't even do that, knowing that stuff is not the important part of the job the important part is caring about the American people, feeling their pain and wanting to relive it in any way possible Romney is not that man, Obama is not great, but he is much better.JOSAK,
Wow, I had no idea Barack Obama was a self-made man, I had no idea that Obama was that concerned guy down at the mine, or in the factory plant and therefore that makes him more qualified to be President than Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney made his own money. He may have gone to a better elementary school then Obama, they both went to the same Ivy League undergraduate schools and graduate schools. So one can say that when they left college they were on equal ground.
After college Mitt Romney began his career in business. He worked for the management consulting firm Bain & Company. Worked,, he was an employee of the firm collecting a paycheck.
Then, in 1984 with his own money, Mitt Romney founded the investment firm Bain Capital. Mitt Romney grew that company and expanded it with his own money, and grew it into the success it became.
Mitt Romney was then asked by the Salt Lake City organizing committee to take over the 2012 Olympics.he took over the 2012 Winter Olympics from financial and ethical woes. Many people forget where they Olympics for Salt Lake City were going, money stolen, ethics issues, corruption, and more. Romney took over and not only gave us a successful event, but the Olympics turned a profit. In other words, all the bills, all of the outlay to host the Olympics, stadiums built, housing built, and all the rest, were 100% paid in full with millions of dollars of surplus left over.
So now comes the question, what about Obama, how he must have struggled right? Wrong
"While living with his grandparents, Obama enrolled in the esteemed Punahou Academy, excelling in basketball and graduating with academic honors in 1979". The Punahou Academy is one of the highest, most prestigious, and by far the most expensive private school in Hawaii, and is very high on the list of most expensive private schools in America. So much for poor humble beginnings, seems Obama has silver spoon in his mouth too.
After high school, Obama studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. He then transferred to Columbia University in New York, graduating in 1983 with a degree in political science.
Harvard Law School in 1988. The next year, he met Michelle Robinson, his future wife, an associate at Sidley & Austin law firm in Chicago. She was assigned to be Obama's adviser during a summer internship at the firm. Internship, that means you don't get paid. Hmmm I wonder how Obama is affording that Harvard tuition.
In 1991 Obama graduates Harvard Law school. After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer, joining the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, and helped organize voter registration drives.
Obama is now 30 years old, he is now beginning to be in the workforce and collect paychecks, how his he made it to this point?
In 1996 he became a State Senator in Illinois, he gave it up In 2000, then Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U. S. House of Representatives. In 2002 he and Axelrod created a campaign committee and began fundraiseing for the office of President of the US. In 2004 he was elected Senator.
SO who had everything handed to him?"how can a man like that possibly understand the life of the average American?" He can't help his birth; but somehow he is still evil? What about Mitt Romney is evil What about the missionary work he did (I'm not sure , but I think it might have been in the Peace Corps). Is the Queen of England evil for not having done real work in her life? Or other people who have been born with a river spoon.
Romney wasn't always wealthy. Yes, he WAS born into money that his father MADE and there were doors that were open to him because of that. THATS what made it possible to attend the finest prep schools,
I'm sensing a chip on your shoulder because the man has wealth and possibly you don't. I don't, in fact, I'm one step from bankruptcy, but I don't begrudge someone with money. There's no reason to UNLESS HE HAS DONE ME HARM.
Obama, self-made? I'm not convinced the Saudis and Nathan Roschchild didn't finance a lot. Speaking of Romney and Bain, doesn't it concern you that Romney wasn't even AT Bain when the steelworker s talked about Bain?
Obama, caring? I'm sure he cares about his wife, his family and I'm sure he cares about others, too. I don't think there's a soul on this earth who doesn't care. But someone needs QUALIFICATION to get us out of this hole and Barack Obama has only succeeded in digging us DEEPER into this hole.
Mitt Romney took plenty of "your" money too. And guess where IT went eventually?
In his and his buddies pockets. I do not see that as a great accomplishment. Do not find accruing millions or billions of dollars any great thing. I see criminality behind it, as a matter of fact!
Kennedy's father certainly was no goody-2-shoes! Prescott Bush the same. Mitt's dad...I actually have respect for, from what I've heard. His mom too.
BUT--listen to what Mitt says.
He just said the other day that he sees no reason to raise the minimum wage.--or it was an old news clip-- Yet, apparently, there's a huge need to cut his taxes?
Who is he concerned with?
Women?....overturn Roe v Wade? And he is likely to nominate the next SC justice? I'm concerned about that.
He is a special interest guy....and me and my family are no where in that equation.
I do not look up to rich people...sorry. Unless they have a heart of gold.LMC,
I hope you get everything you want. I hope Obama gets re-elected, eliminates the Bush tax cuts, keeps Obamacare, raises all those taxes he has planned, taxes your retirement, and all the rest. And when you take home 30% less in your paycheck, can no longer take those tax deductions you enjoy so much right now, when your electric rate triples due to the new Obama regulations he passed, and gasoline goes to $10 per gallon like he wants, I will sit here and smile as you go to forums and bask Obama for what he did to you
PP,
Where did I say anything about donating for tax benefits???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.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_IDo 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.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.1. Remove religious donations, do you have proof, cite the source. Since many charites are run by religious organizations, are you saying the left will not donate to them and that is why they do not make many donations? why not give that money elsewhere then, oh, because they had no intentions of donating more. Nice try on the spin
2. The study has nothing to do with tax returns. So the rest of this part is meaningless
3 Union negotiations are incentives that help the poor. What a ludicrous statement. President Johnson made the suggestion, it was passed with bipartisan action, many Democrats and Republicans as well voted against it.
Sum conclusion, you did not like the result of the study so you put a spin on it, typicalYou don't actually read the studies you post do you? It says right in the study that the numbers are taken from tax returns, charitable donations which are written off on taxes are the only numbers in the study. I explained earlier why that makes the study invalid.
http://www.science20.com/adaptive_compl … servatives
The religious donations issue is covered there and many other sources. conservatives give a very good percentage of that money to the churches and their maintenance, as far as that is concerned I don't even consider it charity, maintaining the church you use is simple logic.
With the last one you focused just on the Union issue I mentioned out of three and as you said Johnson proposed it and it was democrat initiative as well as the war on poverty initiative.
So... you were wrong about everything?Josak,
Yes indeed I did read the study, did you? The link you provided is not the study is just a report from a reporter. You said:
"Remove donations to religious organizations from both sides and liberals give 18% more"
I questioned you on the statement of 18% when the study clearly says"slightly more". 18% is not mentioned anywhere. In fact the study as I said was not based on tax returns.
"Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."
It does not say based on tax returns anywhere does it, even the article you cited does not say tax returns.
Spin spin spinYou have not read the actual study have you
?
before we progress any further please post your link to the actual study which includes it's methods and findings? Have you actually found it and read it?
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.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.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,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.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!
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.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!"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.
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.{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 articleThat 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.
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.
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?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.PP
You do not have to read Harry Reid's mind to know what he is doing.
If you want to raise taxes on small businesses and you did not want it known, how would you do it PP? I know how Reid did it, and it had nothing to do with a filibuster. Remember the link I gave you, Reid and company were saying the GOP was on the floor filibustering a bill that did not even come out yet, He said they were, not threatening to filibuster.
I even posted the transcript of the speech Reid gave on the floor and caught him in several blatant lies, if you read that article I know you saw it.
You did not address the tabling of all those bills if it was not to let them die.
Every bill should be debated and voted on. I wrote an articel on that too about a year ago.Yes, I read the article. The proposed tax increase, as you call it, was to close a loophole that applied to certain shareholders who received more than $250,000.
By the way, if Harry Reid was so intent on hiding something, he didn't do a very good job of it, did he, given that you are talking about it now. You can't hide something that is written in a bill and posted on the internet.
" 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."
What's a solid example of this? Not an 'I heard' or a 'she said' but something that can be verifed on a site other than Huff Post, Politico, Meida matters, msnbc?
I try to understand and give credit where it's due; but vagueness in political discussions, elicits one response: LIBERAL BIASMaybe it's be easier if you let her know which sources you will accept...
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!
"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.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,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." 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."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.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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Why would I do that? I agree with what he just said: not his life history.
The videos pertain to the particular economic policies Obama does support.
Start-Up America! Jobs Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URgddG5zJXs@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!"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)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.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.
And just as many men fall into the category you described but they still get paid more than competent women.
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.
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.
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..That argument makes no sense at all, everything is political football at the moment should the government just stop doing things?
Does this mean my Madden skills might come in handy later in life?
No, the government shouldn't stop doing things. However, if it is so easily done, why not just do it? Quite frankly, and even though I am a woman and would like to see pay equality, there are many people who would like to see pay-PERIOD. That's the greater priority than equal pay,
You don't face a depression because of pay inequality, but you do face a depression when a LARGE segment of the population receives no pay.
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.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?
Ah, yes, the old shut-up-and-be-thankful-you-have-a-job argument.
A bit dated, don't you think?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.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.
PP,
Can you tell me how it would have been more beneficial that the 1963 law that is already on the books dictating equal pay for woman?
There is no distraction. Here is the argument put up by the left when they came up with the 13 year old bogus scenario
"The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code, and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions. "
I guess it depends on what "is" means, remember that? But when you follow talking points."June 7 marks the 47th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruling that determined the Constitution contains a fundamental right to privacy that includes the use of contraception. But almost half a century after that landmark decision, the courts are once again embroiled in litigation about contraception.
In 1965 the question was whether the government could ban the sale of contraception to married couples. Today the question is whether the government can require religiously affiliated employers to cover contraception in employee health plans."
Feels like we're running in place. Gerbils on a tread wheel.I know, right? Like we've entered a time warp or something. I often wonder how women of our generation could be married to men like Santorum or Ryan or Romney. {{{{shudder}}}}
Glad I have a good old-fashioned Republican who believes in birth control, fair wages for everyone, and Planned Parenthood. You know, the kind that used to exist in the 70s! lol
Heritage Foundation: Individual Mandate
Drill baby drill
Simpson Bowles ideas
War in AfghanistanIt'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?"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."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?
Obama adds: 70% positive
Romney adds: 70% negative
.....
.....
.....
Do NOT complain when Dems go negative!
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2012/06/r … un-on.htmlThis 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!
Related Discussions
- 557
Thank God for Obama
by theirishobserver. 14 years ago
Good morning,Democrats and Republicans agree -- the health care status quo isn't working for the American people.Health insurance is growing more and more expensive by the day. Too many of us can't afford it -- not middle class families, not businesses, not the Federal Government. Insurance...
- 114
To all conservatives and moderates, what were on people's minds when
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
they saw President Barack Obama as the president of promise and reformation? During President Obama's administration, unemployment and national debt is the HIGHEST it has been. More and more civil liberties are being eroded. Despite Obama's dismal and horrific record, Americans...
- 72
What has Donald Trump Actually Accomplished?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Donald Trump's supporters frequently point to all that he has accomplished to make up for his other bad characteristics (false statements and lying being the most frequent). But the question is, what has he really done?I define "accomplish" as some significant action or policy that...
- 30
Who Fits Where? Obama or Romney
by Bill 12 years ago
My Dad used to tell me when I was growing up that people fit into 4 categories. 1. Leaders2. Followers (And are content to do so.)3. Those that don’t know how to lead and won’t follow. (Misfits)4. Those that know how to lead but know when to...
- 75
Why Obama deserves a second term.
by phion 12 years ago
The title is misleading, because I have no answer as to why he does. Can those of you who plan to vote, or voted for Obama the first time give some valid reasons?
- 44
Romney is called "The stench" by his running mate Paul Ryan.
by mio cid 12 years ago
It has been reported by The Politico that Paul Ryan refers to his running mate as "The Stench" behind closed doors.He has reportedly told staff,if "The Stench" calls tell him I'm having breakfast with Peggy Noonan. Looks Like the Romney Ryan ticket is imploding.