Same simple fix that I have been stating for years.

Arrest anyone who hires an illegal! It will fix so much!

Gee what a surprise! I mean all Obama has done since taking office is chastise and vilify business as dirty, evil and greedy. He has backed up his anti-business rhetoric with anti-business actions as well. Obama is pro business........ NOT!

"Obama stumped aggressively for cutting taxes and increasing loans for small businesses."

BS - Taxes are going up for small business, accelerated depreciation gone, r & d credit eliminated/reduced, etc., etc.. The Obama "small business" money goes to banks as usual.

Why would anyone trust Obama? The only people he really tries to please are the radicals. He reminds me of the socialist college radicals who wanted and did take over our universities in the 60s and 70s. That did no good and resulted in no good except those radicals were able to tell the legal systems to go to hell and Obama is telling our system to go to hell. His "fundamental change" for America is being rejected by our people....He cant rant against business and free enterprise and expect support for doing so. We need business...we dont need Obama...We want the opportunities that business will offer...not the centralized all-powerful government that controls every thing and kills opportunity. Yes to fair regulations, no to big central government total control.

What radicals? Can you name a few?

Business, large and small, is waiting on the midterm elections. We will not see any kind of movement from business till after the election. Obama's has put fear into business so they will not move until they see that the Obama agenda gets hit by gridlock.

Sally, Van Jones was forced out, a self professed communist. The women over the communications office was forced out when she admitted that Mao, murderer of millions, was one of her idols. The head of the SEIU, union, has an open door policy at the White House.

Sally, So you have never heard of the radicals....Being from Chicago, you should be well aware....Do your own research....there is a lot of radical history and the universities reacted to them mostly by giving in to them. Law enforcement and our government gave in to them more often than not....Are you the only person in this country that is unaware of the fact that we have radicals?....and that they are mostly socialists and push class envy and dislike the free enterprise system...How could you possibly be so unaware???

Brian at #1.3,

Obama has also viilified profits as something inherently EVIL in our society. Without profits, businesses will eventually go OUT OF BUSINESS ! Who has a job when this happens ??

The division of my company that I work for has lost quite a bit of money the last 2 years. I have a job today because other divisions MADE MONEY in prior years, helping to sustain us through this downturn. Retained Earnings can be a necessity for longevity !

If Obama was to try and run a business, along with Harry and Nancy, it would be like the three stooges trying to fly an airplane backwards !!!! He sure doesn't know how to run this country !!!!!!!!!!!

"Obama told a Democratic fundraiser in Austin, Texas, on Monday. "And yet we can't get it moving through the Senate." He speculated that Republicans were blocking the bill because they didn't want to do anything to help him and were "thinking about the next election instead of the next generation.""

Unreal. It is amazing that someone who more than tripled the budget deficit, rammed a more than $1 trillion healthcare takeover down our throats, continues to add pork to every bill, and wants to add 12 million foreign criminals to society's burden, has the gall to claim that he is thinking about the next generation. All of Obama's actions since day one have shown how his focus is solely on his administration with a total disregard for the after effects, pandering to criminals in hopes of getting their votes proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt, his fakeness and hypocrisy have no limits.

Whenever there are small business groups meeting to discuss the economy and their individual business efforts to expand, one theme consistently comes out...the business owners fear trying to expand because of the uncertainty of what edicts and taxes may next come out of the White House.

The president has also demonized business and the corporate world since day one. It's amusing that Mr. Obama brings up the fact that many businesses are cash-strong or that their stocks are up...they are afraid to spend or hire because they are unsure of what the president will burden them with next.

Madison from NY:

Please, please, please tell me where you and others are getting your information. From what I've been able to decern what ever comes before the senate that is geared towards the middle class and small business, it gets choked off.

JIM041424:

The president, just like a majority of the people, are fed up with the corruption in big business, Wall St and insurance companies. Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft,and embezzlement. They have the country by the throat. The Republican senators proudly boast they will stop anything the president puts before them.

If these gangsters get more power we are all screwed.

J.A-522495 Sally, So you have never heard of the radicals....Being from Chicago, you should be well aware....Do your own research.

Meaning, "just accept my points because I have no interest in actually defending them; probably because I was spoon-fed these talking points by Rush Limbaugh and don't think for myself."

There is nothing radical about competent government. You guys are the radicals.

JBURNS, The gangsters come from Chicago. They include Rezko, Rahm Emanuel, Blago, the liar-in-chief and the Rev Wright. They, Mr. Burns, have this country by the BALLS and they are tightening their grip by growing government every day !!

The leaders of small business and large are Republicans, and they will not invest or create a job while they fear a Democratic administration might get credit. So Business and the Republicans in the Senate let just enough stimulus pass to keep the country on life support, risking another Great Depression because they know most voters are not paying attention and will vote against the incubants if the economy is bad, not against Republicans because the Senate is where all good ideas go to die, at the hands of an obstructionist Republican minority.

I'll wager most of the folks that voted for Obama are really regretting their decision, and you've made the rest of us who didn't fall for the BS regret it also.

You would lose your money

Painting with the oh so typical big fat brush? Nice ASS-umption there buddy...

I'll vote for Obama as long as the GOP keeps reading like a hysterical 40 year old newspaper...y'all do it to yourselves...

Personally I'm glad we don't have some manufactured urgency to start dropping bombs on Iran...like you know we would be otherwise...

That alone is like money in the bank!

JBURNS-1894015 : A couple of things to note... Obama notes that the rich are people making in excess of 250,000 USD, and he wants to tax these people and above... more to "redistribute" the wealth of the country. What Obama fails to mention, or realize, as well as a significant portion of people in this country is that owners of small businesses tend to have a value greater than 250,000 USD.

On one hand Obama damns the people who have that sort of value, and then in the next moment heralds the responsibility and value of small business and offers "tax cuts", etc. It's a confusing message that keeps the industry uncertain of the future.

I work in a small business, this past year we paid the standard 35% tax rate. As the Bush tax cuts expire, which the administration and Democrats had villified as tax cuts for the "rich" - the companies tax burden will increase to 40-42%. This is why you have a bunch of Democrats in Congress floundering over what to do about the "evil" tax cuts.

And I'll tell you the psychology of things... people are fed up with being taken advantage of...everywhere they look... the media is reporting about people who seemingly seem unaffected by this economic shift. The government enjoys itself, and the CEOs take home bonuses... the rest of us end up feeling like we've been screwed. So you can do one of two things... you can buy into the Democrat's and media's villification of people who have found a niche and have worked out a form of success, or you can recognize that the "American Dream" is made and shaped by those willing to dream and create, and motivate their way to success. So long as there is the ability to do those things freely then the Dream can exist. The biggest threat to the Dream right now is the grip of the government as it steps further and further into regulating, taxing, and spoon feeding the public. The government has gotten this far so successfully by pandering to people, and allowing us to not take responsibility for our failures in life. ... want to be a drug addict with four kids from three different mates working 20 hours at a convience store... not a problem, we'll give you free housing, and food stamps. I'm going off on a rant that's better saved for an empty room... the country has gotten nothing but more frustrating over the past 10 years.

111pct, are you the democrat's PR on the vine today? It's insanity to trust this inept administration and at least my vote will take care of yours. Dropping many bombs on Iran is exactly what we need to do.

Max....Odd that you complain about Limbaugh. I am sure that you preferred the 50 yr period of liberal news without competitition.....Talk about brainwashing, you are a prime example. "there is nothing radical about competent government". Your assumption that Obama and the socialist democrats are providing competent government is laughable....Conservatives can usually think for themselves. I use many sources of information and my own experience to provide the commonsense attitude that I have....Socialists are not commonsense people, and they are radical...

There you go folks, the finest epitome of anti-Obama reason...

We should be dropping bombs on Iran!!!

So mr tuffy tuff don't tread on me tuff guy, would you pay a war tax so we could pay for it this time?

I didn't think so .

Small business deducts what it pays in salaries and all other business expenses before paying taxes on what is left. So if they are paying taxes on $250K, it is because they have personally made $250K. I have no sympathy for someone who makes a quarter-million but doesn't want to pay their fair share; they don't even want to pay the same rate as the rest of us. What a shame Democrats make them make their profits fairly, and not by simply squeezing their employees by such things as not offering health care.

I'm not Mr.Tuffy but I am a veteran. It's obvious if we stand around talking Iran will achieve the ability to wage atomic warfare. I'm wondering why noone cares? Obama is not qualified to be Commander of our armed forces, he cannot even handle domestic affairs and secure our borders. Thank God the election is not too far away. I hope you'll see the truth. I would do what I must to protect our country and my family.

111pct any military in your back ground. Anything that says I love this country, and not I want what you have, but Im not willing to work for it.

Do any of you remember back about 20 months ago who our choices were for President of the US? I hear many on here complaining about President Obama but I never, ever see anyone commenting on how much better off we would be if McCain had been elected. Obama is not perfect and has made his share of mistakes, but if Republicans can't produce a better candidate next time I don't see any way you will ever win. All I see in the GOP are the same recycled losers over and over again. Somebody needs to figure out a way to get someone new, with a brain, new progressive ideas (in other words someone who has progressed beyond the 1950's ideas). We are not like the radical Muslims who want to 'stop the world' or go back to "the good ole days", but move ahead with new ideas to make this a better country to live in. We have many problems to solve and nothing is getting done because some don't believe in anything new that hasn't been done before.

Grandma Moses -

I have commented on this topic previously elsewhere. If McCain had won, this country would not have been looking at the potential deficit spending we currently are which would put us on a stronger financial footing as a nation. The presidency would have acted as a check to the progressive agenda. There would have been legislation that was BI-partisan that was passed because it would not have been signed into law otherwise. What is going on right now with a democrat controlled Congress and presidency is placing this country in a very precarious position financially. If it continues, we would end up bankrupt like Greece.

I am astounded and appalled by the level of misinformation I have read in this thread. No wonder the country is circling the drain. If it's citizens are as ignorant and apparently unwilling to determine what is factual and what is not as it appears from most of these comments, I don't have much hope that this country can save itself.

If Insane Mccain would have won, we'd already been WAAAY over the cliff. Tammy please, there's a great reason why he did'nt win.......bushcheney!!!

That's a great point. I'm a republican, but seriously, we need some new candidates. Are there no qualified republicans under the age of 70 to run? If we had a younger candidate that isn't part of the far religious right, i think they would sweep up in 2 years, but that's not likely.

Everyone is so concerned about small businesses but come on, how many of them pay a decent wage and benefits. We need large manufactoring companies and some how reduce healthcare costs because that is one of the costs that is forcing jobs overseas. I'm glad to see some of our elected officals standing up to big corporations and trying to break their strangle hold on our country.

Hey RatPoison

"Obama notes that the rich are people making in excess of 250,000 USD, and he wants to tax these people and above... more to "redistribute" the wealth of the country. What Obama fails to mention, or realize, as well as a significant portion of people in this country is that owners of small businesses tend to have a value greater than 250,000 USD"

Having a business that is worth more than $250,000 is a LOT DIFFERENT than having a business with a $250,000 PROFIT. Very few small businesses have a profit of $250,000, very few.

If the Rupugnicans would pass Obama's legislation allowing for zero capital gains on new small business investment, tax breaks for small business, better control over the banking industry: then many of the small businesses, and newly created businesses, will have the chance to make over $250,000 a year.

Anyone who is in business making less than $250,000 and being opposed to Obama's SMALL BUSINESS INCENTIVES, will never get over the $250,000 mark anyway.

I am a small businessman and understand what Obama is trying to do. I doubt folks making comments like RatPoison have ever owned a successful business. (..and AMWAY doesn't count!)

they (the "big corporations) will just pack up and leave your sorry a** out in the cold when faced with another blackmail attempt by a socialist government. (we all get what we wish for)

I doubt very seriously that you are a small business owner if you do not have a problem with O'Trauma's healthcare take over and tax ideas. If you consider staying in your parents basement and pleasuring yourself just thinking about Obama as being a small business, then I guess you are a small business owner!

Small and large businesses are holding on to what they have. No one really knows what the taxes will do next year, nor do they know how the health care bill is going to affect them. Who can blame them besides liberals? (God forbid we would have known everything BEFORE they passed a bill - gotta love that transparency)

The fear of the unknown is powerful, especially when it comes to running a business. Now this might be a foreign concept to some politicians, but businesses have to work within a BUDGET. You cannot budget an unknown - like the health care bill or taxes, so you sit on what you have and, if you are a smart business person, you do not expand your business or add to the payroll unless it is absolutely necessary, until you know what you are facing.

7mathew1520: What do you consider "Fair Share?" 20%? 30%? or the impending 55% after the Bush Tax Cuts end. Would you give up 55% of your income? Look at the percentages, not the dollars and they pay more than most. Also, almost 40% of the people in this country don't pay any taxes at all. What would their fair share be. Some of those that don't pay any taxes GET tax dollars in welfare.

The American people must be comprehending that there is a distinct difference between shiznit and shinola.

And what the BLEEP would you know about the "working men/women of this country"? Apparently, you know absolutely nothing.

I think everyone should pay the same rate on all the money they make above what they need to live on. I think it is a travesty that we tax hard work more severly than we tax capital gains. Payroll taxes should apply to every dollar that anybody earns; those making more than $100K should not get a free ride on Social Security and Medicare taxes, and nobody should get a 15% rate for sitting on their a$$ or playing golf while somebody on their feet all day pays a 30% tax on the money they earn with their sweat.

I don't worship wealth like Republicans; I suspect the only way to get rich is to find a way to apply a private tax to somebody else's hard work; such as pay a guy $30K who provides $100K in value to his employer, charge him $10K for health insurance that buys $2K in health care, or charge a high interrest rate so ordinary people pay half again when they buy a car, and 2, 3 or more times the price of a house in interrest. Then after the working stiff pays that interrest or premium, some rich guy gets to claim it with only a 15% "capital gains" tax. I don't have any sympathy for rich people whineing about the tax they pay on wealth they stole from the working people who earned it.

The idea of the 401K is that we would all retire owning a chunk of American business, and that our investment would make American business stronger and more productive. Instead Wall Street stole it. Wall street told buisness that they could make more money if they made Americans unemployed and shipped those jobs to China. They got away with it because for 8 years under Bush, there was nobody watching what business was doing, nobody watching that 401K money was being used to inflate a bubble and not to build new factories, nobody watching as American business was not strengthened, but was instead hollowed out and destroyed by the CEOs we trusted to do the right thing.

And now Republicans whine because Obama can't undo 8 years of big business theft in 2, and business whines that they can't get rich by stealing anymore. Boo Hoo.

Obama and his leftists allies are implacable, knee-jerk enemies of business. Their belligerent mindset has been deeply inculcated over decades and is beyond possibility of eradication. They have no concept of what I learned in the course of working several decades starting in the 1960s. That is that every job I ever had was extended by someone with money. Not one job was ever given me by a poor person. The shelter over my head, food on my table, and cloths on my back and that of my family came from jobs provided by business, people and companies, with resources and money. That's where we get our jobs. The hostility and antipathy to business today by Democrats is appallingly shortsighted and if allowed to continue unabated will result in the wreckage of our economy and country. Vote out Democrats at all levels in every election for the next 6 years if you value your economic viability, your country, and way of life. The way of the Donkey is the way of Doom.

"Obama's overtures to businesses fall flat"

I wonder why? Could it be that every policy of Obama so far has been anti-business, and will cost them more money and make it harder to justify hiring people?

The businesses are all wondering "What happens when the next shoe drops"?

"Certainly, the campaign money has migrated away from the Democrats. And Wall Street will go with whomever helps them out the most,"

===================================

The above statement is exactly what is wrong with our political and government systems. Anyone who believes these campaign contributions don't come with strings attrached isn't living in the sane world. Nothing will change no matter which party is in charge as long as money and influence remain.

================================

Madison From NY

"Obama is driven by a sense that 'he's saying one thing and dead set on doing another.'"

MORE LIES from Obama "I am pro small business"

While EVERYTHING Obama DOES kills small business and jobs

Vote the job killers OUT 2010 2012. Indict 2013

__________________________________________________________________

What else can you expect from the Liar-in-Chief himself?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Madison, you're a sad indictment of the NY school system. See if you can come up with anything but your usual drivel. You want to indict Obama? For what? bush and cheney start two wars that kill hundreds of thousands and they are still free. In fact cheney is living thanks to your taxes.

Hey, roy wilson, (1.44) is that why American copmpanys are sitting on $1.8 TRILLION? Seems like they've managed pretty well through these rough economic times.

7matthew -

I hope you don't do taxes for a living. I won't, because Starting in 2011, The fed wants anyone doing taxes to submit an application and pay a $50.00 Fee. If yoyu do the Fed will be seeing you.

Small Business draw a salary. Then the Net Profits from the business are ADDED through schedule "C" and goes on the front page of Form 1040 and ADDED to the Salary for the Adjusted Gross Income. This means a $150,000 Salary gets added to $150,000 in net profits. Most Owners don't know how well they have done until after their P & L is completed after the Tax year is OVER. That is too late to spend money on additional salaries, equipment, facilities, or raw materials.

Not only under Obama is he pay an additional 4% for being over $250,000 ($2,000), but must pay up to 4% more for being over $150,000 ($4,000), AND around $2300 - $3800 more for being over $75,000. Total in more taxes 8300 - 98000 More in Taxes. And Obama give him a one time incentive of $7,000 to hire a new employee.

The only people making out on that are ones who hire seasonal help. Yup - seasonal help counts toward the credit. Obama gave $7000 to businesses who were going to hire anyhow. I.E. the bulk of the credits aren't increasing employment and aren't even saving any jobs.

"Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, complained that "government and entrepreneurs are not in sync." He also decried lack of progress in formulating energy policy."

I wonder why?

Oh yes, Immelt bet a bundle on "Cap & Trade", and now his investments at GE are all going to pot. I wonder when Immelt gets canned?

7Mathew

You really do need to go back and learn economics, it is the Large and small business owners,( you know the guys that make over 250k a year) that create the jobs in this country. When they are forced to face god knows how big a tax increase and higher costs of benefits for employees, can you blame them for sitting on their capital. I certainly don't. Obama has made business of all shapes and variety the villain in this country. Anyone that is prosperous is cheating every one that isn't. That is the problem with forced wealth distribution, it doesn't work! If I have a million in income i would be spending a substantial part of it on lawyers to find a way to hide the majority of it so I'm not taxed because I was smarter or harder working than the average guy.

Michael in S J : You are correct I don't own a small business, however, I'll use the small business I've worked for to give some information. The business is a construction business, it holds on average around 40 employees. The company did not start out as a government subsidized firm. The company has provided health insurance as a benefit since the early 90s, and currently has a volume of around 6.5 million.

Despite what we do, we have a rather large overhead to our costs due to the benefits the business provides, including a profit sharing program, company vehicles, and health insurance - however, even with all that, we average a profit before tax of around 18-25% per job during this recession. The business is a S-corp business - which again means that the taxes of the business are paid directly by the owners. The majority of small businesses are S-corporation because in this setup you pay taxes once while in C-corporations you pay twice.

Now for some perspective, according to the IDC, the -average- small business revenue is 3.6 million (which seems a bit high to me, but whatever). The reality is that even at a gross profit of 20%, a business would only need to have a volume of 1.25 million. With exception to micro-businesses and mom/pop businesses (non-franchise stores), a larger portion of people who own small businesses as S-corporations will experience the taxing results of Obama's target number of 250,000 USD.

The only other point I'll pick on is that tighter controls on banks means less for loans. Once everybody realizes that every business exists to make profits... the sooner the we can stop painting them as evil. Banks... insurance companies, hospitals, private schools, colleges, churches, construction firms, are all around to make money... the only organization that isn't built on and dependent upon running effectively and effeciently is the government... and why not, if it needs more money it'll just take it from somebody. Capitalism isn't a nice system, it's a system that allows for people to do and be whatever they can make of themselves. If people can't hack it and find a way to be successful or the best at what they do... then they will not enjoy the system, but this is the system that provides the greatest ability for people to pursue goals freely.

rightvswrong

Please, tell me who has secured our borders in the last fifty years.

lvingbarefoot

Same simple fix that I have been stating for years.

Arrest anyone who hires an illegal! It will fix so mucr

#1.2 - Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:44 AM PDT

Think of all those Rich Democrats in Hollywood that they would have to arrest.

It's not so simple as arresting anybody who hires an "illegal". For example, in a lot of states including the Commonwealth of Virginia, you are required to have an I-9 filled which has various requirements for "proof" of citizenship, or residency, etc. As long as the documents provided to fulfill this requirement are not blatant fakes... like a driver's license made out of construction paper... then laws are such that an employer cannot be held responsible if they have hired an "illegal".

Laws are also such that if you discriminate against an applicant because you believe they are "illegal" despite them having provided paperwork that shows otherwise... then you can be taken to court. It's a double edged sword, where employers would be punished in both directions... they are afterall not police officers or immigration officers... or anything of the sort.

So... the most sensible reply is to utilize some sort of database to verify people. And yet again, we put our fate into the hands of government to manage something correctly. So you can expect errors, slow response times, and all around incompotence. But it's a better suggestion than simply, "arrest employers of illegals."

And we haven't even gotten around to talking about identity fraud. A competitor had an employee known as Juan... after two years of employment Juan had a run-in with a raid and got sent back home. Six months later Juan returns to America, and goes to his old employer and fills out an application. His name is now Eddy and he has all the documentation behind it. The employer would not be responsible or wrong for hiring Eddy if he turned out to be here illegally. And you can't really make laws to make it wrong without taking away some of the civil rights and protections of everybody in regards to employment. So... make your choice because it really can't be had both ways.

If you want to change the relationship between this country and illegals, you need to do something more or something entirely different than your proposed approach. I think it would be amazingly fun to simply enforce existing laws, to empower the state police, and to take away the ability of illegals to enjoy the various entitlements the country has. But even in these categories... the rest of us would lose certain priviledges we have enjoyed (irresponsibly) for quite awhile... but I'm okay with that because I advocate personal responsibility - meaning if you fail or make a mistake, you get to suffer the consequences... the government doesn't swoop in to help you out.

Sally, shame on you. You never heard of Bill Ayres?

You tell them comrade Marlen! As soon as the people's arm seizes power, you will be promoted.

Rickeroo

... With borrowed money, of course.

How do you think Bush's tax cuts were funded? How do you think repubs want to continue to fund the Bush tax cuts?

Its about power he want you dependent on government and there by the Democrats by default.

Mike 416 -- contrary to the left-wing gab, tax cuts do not have to be "funded." The problem with that thinking is that the money belongs to the government, and that they are somehow "paying out" money if they cut taxes. In fact, tax cuts simply mean they are confiscating less from the people who earned the money.

What will it take to get the left to understand that the money does not belong to the government? The left (and many on the right) in government seem to have the idea that they can just continue to spend money on things to buy votes to get themselves re-elected, and then just decide how much more they need to take from the earners of money to fund their little projects. They grant themselves a raise to their checking account (budget revenue) or vote themselves an increase in credit level (budget deficit limit increases) and everything is fine.

Again, tax cuts should not and really do not have to be "paid for." If revenues decrease (and history shows reduction in taxes actually increases revenue), they need to cut some pet pork-barrel spending and live with what comes in. Congress, however, always does the opposite, and no matter how much revenue comes in, they spend more, and more, and more, and then complain about debt and call for more taxes.

It's fairly important to remember, and none of you with Bush Derangement Syndrome seem capable of doing so, that the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 were passed BEFORE we were attacked in 9/11, which led to both wars in which are currently mired.

Much like Obama likes to say that if Democrats hadn't done the stimulus things would have been much worse, other people NOT suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome could just as easily say that had 9/11 not happened the Bush tax cuts would not have had the negative impact they had on overall deficits. Neither strawman is provable, nor are they relevant.

People suffering from BDS could also point out the ridiculous spending and passage of two un-funded liabilities - Medicare Part D and NCLB - that were passed during the Bush administration as the root of even more evil - and in part they would be right.

People NOT suffering from BDS could point out that at no time during the Bush administration did the Republicans hold filibuster-proof majorities in Congress and that the failure to block those unfunded liabilities can be seen as much of a failure on the part of Republicans AND Democrats.

When this many people, including prior allies, agree that Obama's policies is anti-business, and the policies he's instisting on are thus far not only not working but in reality making things worse ..........

Do you think it would cross his mind to do something DIFFERENT? Oh, hell no.

And THAT is why he is loosing support daily.

mel-1608035

Mike 416 -- contrary to the left-wing gab, tax cuts do not have to be "funded."

Yes they do. When you cut taxes and create a deficit in the budget - that deficit must be satisfied with money from somewhere. In this case - borrowed from China.

Your rudimentary understanding of financing is troubling.

PragmaticToAFault

People NOT suffering from BDS could point out that at no time during the Bush administration did the Republicans hold filibuster-proof majorities in Congress and that the failure to block those unfunded liabilities can be seen as much of a failure on the part of Republicans AND Democrats.

Fine - with that logic everything that has been passed since Scott Brown came on board can be viewed as repub and dem. Health Care Reform - Financial reform - Stimulus'. Your logic is deeply flawed.

NCLB (or derivations thereof) have been in place forever so I agree with you that it can't be assigned to him specifically. However MedicCare and the tax cuts are in fact unfunded liabilities that created over 3 trillion in deficit spending the first 6 years of his presidency.

Cutting taxes while increasing the deficit - The Republican Way (c)

What has business scared is that they are figuring out the government doesn't have the power to turn this around. We are buried under a mountain of debt not just the the government but the private sector and consumers too. The Fed lowered the rate to zero and poured money into the economy and is still hasn't stabilized.

I've been a commercial lender at a big bank and the people complaining about bank lending have forgotten the old saying "banks only lend to people who don't need it". In other words you have to be demonstrate you can pay the loan back even if the expansion you are planning fails to produce the income you are projecting. Right now very...very few can, most are at present over leveraged and the others just want loans to try and survive. Banks will not lend to these people.

The debt has to be written off but for that to happen a lot of investors and banks will lose considerably. As of right now that no one in government wants to do that, so we keep having bailout after bailout and yes there are still more bailouts on the book. But these are only postponing the inevitable. Once the debt gets written off the economy will start to expand again.

Mike416:

How do you think Bush's

This is a common mistake of the pro-Obama crowd, bringing up Bush as a standard. If Bush remained president, he'd still bring us to socialism, just a few years later than Obama or democrats. Government always gets bigger.

I agree more with Mel's assessment of tax cuts. Only spending needs to be funded, not tax cuts. The mistake made by presidents is that when they cut taxes by x% to appease the slovenly masses, there is never a corresponding decrease in the size of government by x%, hence the "deficits". A tax cut is worthless unless spending is also cut.

Let's say my household income is reduced by 20% this year. I have citizens (my kids) to take care of, I'm like the government, and I have a budget.

In the face of a 20% income reduction, would I borrow money to maintain my lavish lifestyle (hoping I make more next year), or would I explain to my kids that they won't be getting as much stuff?

Nope, the kids would whine and I would borrow money. Hence, Socialism by 2035 whether dems or repubs are in office.

Yes they do. When you cut taxes and create a deficit in the budget - that deficit must be satisfied with money from somewhere. In this case - borrowed from China.

Your rudimentary understanding of financing is troubling.

Mike416, you still don't get it. Did tax revenue increase or decrease under Bush? I'll tell you the answer and look it up if you don't believe me, IT INCREASED every year but 2008. The issue IS GOVERNMENT SPENDING MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN, and INCREASING THE RATE OF SPENDING FASTER THAN THE INCREASING REVENUE!! Your rudimentary understanding of financing is troubling.

pragmatic, as usual, I agree with some of your statement and disagree on other points, and let the political spin just pass on by. Congress certainly bears as much responsibility for the current lack of progress on the economy as does Obama. Obama tried to get them to form a special committe to deal with the long term budget issue (which I think is economic issue #1), but the children who occupy the halls of congress decided to have a food fight instead. So Obama responded with is budget commission. I think we all know what the budget commission is going to recommend. And I bet you and I will agree on 90% or thereabouts. Then congress will start squabbling and calling each other names and if anything is passed, it'll be watered down and packed with pork and favors to special interests and mostly ineffective. And the GOP will blame Obama for all this just as the democrats blamed Bush. Until we quit re-electing these clowns, we don't deserve any better than we get.

Mike at #2.5,

Budget ? Budget you say ?? Does Obama actually HAVE a budget for the next fiscal year ??? The last time I checked, THERE WAS NO BUDGET........and I believe that may be an historical first !

Why would Obama even CONSIDER living within a budget ????? It's so tacky in there !

Brian-595389

Mike416, you still don't get it. Did tax revenue increase or decrease under Bush? I'll tell you the answer and look it up if you don't believe me, IT INCREASED every year but 2008. The issue IS GOVERNMENT SPENDING MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN, and INCREASING THE RATE OF SPENDING FASTER THAN THE INCREASING REVENUE!! Your rudimentary understanding of financing is troubling.

Are you so dense as to correlate growth in GDP (which equated to the corporate increase in revenues) with being solely attributable to Bushs tax cuts? Look at the amount of banks making billions on credit default swaps, mortgage back securities and dishing them off to Fannie and Freddie - there's your increased tax revenue. Do we need to point out why the banks were able to do that?

One would think with such a classy group as the congressional and presidential repubs that spending would have been cut to balance the budget.

Pragmatic, et al: Both Bush and Obama are indeed buffoons, and have caused MAJOR damage to our country, its legal citizens and the economy...just for starters!

Let me get this straight, unfunded tax cuts for the rich are great......no wonder were in the condition were in. Go head give all the power to corps, and big business. 99% of us will be living under a bridge, then the rethugs will be in heavenly bliss!! You people amaze me. Blame Obama for trying to bring big biz back in line. Classic alternitive realities!!

J. Mack at #2.14,

Just what in hell is an UNFUNDED TAX CUT ? Or better yet, if we "FUNDED" a tax cut by........gosh,.....gulp......another TAX, then it wouldn't really be a tax cut then would it ???

You amaze me .....all this boogeyman B.S. about "the rich" and "big business", just what are you talking about there ??? Please define what "THE RICH" means to a Democrat.

The reality is that my family of five received some benefits from the Bush tax cuts. Sue me ! My W-2 income is less than a $100k/year and my wife's is about half of that...she works full time also. We needed the tax cuts to pay for Obama induced rising health care insurance premiums and braces, and it enabled us to take less out of our savings !!!

Your buddy Obama wants to cripple business through rising health care costs, rising energy costs........and still expect us to survive. Voodoo economics at best !

Big business were given this huge tax break under Bush and we had the worst economy ever, jobs were lost by the millions, where is your proof that giving these guys tax breaks help anyone but themselvers and their croonies. but, look at what is going on now big business is making hugh , record profits. The only problem is the fact that a black democratic president is the reeason why.

Are some of you saying that its OK to increase taxes on business because they need a reprimand. You can change things through regulation, you can get them in line by making sure they follow the rules and face penalties when they are found to be guilty of infractions. Increasing their tax burden while staring down the barell of health care will not produce the results we are looking for, coming from a small business owner I can tell you it will only hurt. We will most likely see unemployment rise as companies will struggle with their bottom line. You increase a businesses taxes and they will look to cut costs, its the nature of things or at least the businesses that want to keep their doors open. This government has no concept of how to make a dollar they only know how to steal it, fiscal responsibility is a foreign term as it pertains to big government.

Borrow and spend Republicans always talk about "reducing the size of government", never mind that government got a lot bigger under Bush.

Tax cuts do need to be offset by corresponding cuts, but Republicans are too cowardly to propose specific cuts. "reducing the size of government" sounds nice as a generality, but as soon as you get down to specifics, every fucntion of government has a group that fought hard for that piece. They may have had altruistic goals, like education and health care for every child in America, or they may have had greedy goals, like defense contractors who want to build some fighter jet or weapon system concieved to fight the cold war and useless in the current defense against terrorism.

So, Republicans, if you want Bush's tax cut extended, tell us specifically what you are going to cut from the federal government to offset the loss of income.

Republicans are like a family that can't make the mortgage payments, but deciede that dad can quit his second job anyway and life will go on. Democrats are saying that if dad wants to quit his second job, then either mom has to get a job, or the family has to plan on moving to a small apartment and live on rice and beans, but if dad just quits and the mortgage remains unpaid, the family will be homeless.

I want Republicans to stop talking in a dishonest generality and start talking in honest specifics. What programs are you going to eliminate, Social Security? Medicare? Public Schools? Police? Are you going to eliminate farm subsidies? Cut defense spending?

Tell me exactly what you want to cut, then show me you have considered the consequences of those cuts. If you cut Social Security, what are you going to do to provide for old people? Some handwave that they should have anticipated that they can't trust the Social Security that they paid into for their entire working lives because Republicans are going to balence the budget on the backs of old people? Or maybe the Republican solution to Social Security is to eliminate Medicare so old people die of treatable diseases, or put them in death camps so they die unseen to avoid the bad PR? If you cut or eliminate public education, then what becomes of our competativeness in global markets as more and more Americans grow up illiterate? If you cut police, are we all going to be forced to swear allegence to the local drug lord for protection?

Every cut has consequences. Consider them. Then, Republicans, tell me how you are going to pay for yet another tax cut for people who don't need it by making life harder for those who are barely making it.

I suspect if you are honest, your whole ideology will fall apart like a 3-year-old's lie.

You tell republicans to get honestly specific then in the next paragraph start talking in generalities, spouting death camps and other nonsense. That was funny. Its been a rough day I needed a laugh.

Joe, we probably would agree on most of what's necessary.

What I'm not sure about is what you saw as "political spin".

Here's a question, from a chain email I got the other day, but it's a good question:

If both Democrats and Republicans are against deficits, then why are there always deficits?

My point was consistent with yours, and maybe in the initial post it wasn't clear - neither party can claim all the credit for making the massive mess we find ourselves in.

The "it's all Bush's fault" bullcrap is on my last nerve in combat boots, however, because it's a cop out that ignores the three and half decades of policy that came before that built to what happened in '08. Robbing SS, establishing but grossly underfunding Medicare/caid, the CRA, war after war after war, Fannie/Freddie which have turned into multi-hundreds of billion dollar leeches, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Medicare Part D, NCLB, etc etc etc etc etc. It's simply ridiculous to claim that A. none of that had any impact on the meltdown of '08, and B. That it is all Bush's fault.

I blame (or on so far seven issues, give credit to) Obama for what Obama has done for the past 19 months, nothing more, but most importantly - nothing less. Joe, I think we can also agree that what he and the Democrats are doing isn't working.

We have deficits because Republicans hand out the candy, big tax cuts, and then "generously" let the Democrats inform the public that they will all never retire, or their kids will get no education, or all the thousands of bad things that will happen when you give away all the money, and Democrats aren't that dumb.

Republicans should man-up and admit: You will never retire, and Johnny will not get an education because we, the Republicans gave all the money away to rich people in return for small campaign contributions.

Full of crap talking points, 7matthew, that prove nothing but your total partisanship and lack of information about the past 40 years.

The closest we have have gotten to balanced budgets and fiscal responsbility in that 40 years was under Clinton, with Republicans in Congress.

The furthest we have gotten from balanced budgets and fiscal responsbility is NOW, with single-party control, under Democrats.

Those aren't partisan statements, those are facts.

Try it sometime.

In light of the current financial MESS our country is in, business is doing what most responsible individuals are also doing - being cautious and waiting for the bottom line impact Obama's/Dems' new laws will have on their pocketbooks. No one can fault them for it.

It's a shame that individuals and businesses do not KNOW how to forecast their budgets for the coming year(s) because of ridiculous, unfunded programs passed by this administration/congress.

THIS is the mess created by those who believe that it is their job to redistribute someone else's weath. It has never worked - anywhere - and it never will. This country will NOT recover under policies which are based on this premise.

Judging by the increasing lack of confidence the American people have in this administration, I hope we will be able to put this notion to rest come November. But it's also going to take a clear commitment to REDUCE unnecessary gov't spending.

Just read his books. THERE is your answer..........

Shame on you. WTF is wrong with you 3? Why would you wish a lame duck presidency on anyone? Especially with the fed projecting an imminent double-dip recession. Yeah Nero... play your violin while the country burns because you were convinced that the president is a commie. I don't care what Rush told you Obama said in his books. You're being completely irrational if you think that Obama cares more about Marxist wealth distribution than creating jobs right now. Here's an idea. Maybe it will model a logical thought process for you:

Step 1) research the small business stimulus bill.

Step 2) Figure out what you like. I promise you can find some provision that you like if you reach deep down inside yourselves and try not to make this partisan. For everything you don't like, offer a constructive solution (bonus points if you can do it without using the words "birth certificate," "Communist," or "roadblock")

Step 3) Write your congressman/woman or senator. Sample: "Dear Congressman/woman/Senator, I read the provisions of the small business jobs act. I am in full support of allowing small businesses to claim more exemptions and I agree that they need to have better access to loans. But I'm not sure we can afford $30 billion and I'm afraid that there will be an unregulated free-for-all for the loan dollars. Perhaps we could cut the fund to $15 billion so that the people in charge of disbursing the funds will practice more discretion? But it's really important that we get something passed. There's lots of small business owners out there waiting to create jobs. Thanks, -Concerned citizen"

The best part is that this model can be used for any issue. I think you'll find that if you read bills all by yourself (I promise you that you can handle it! You're big boys and girls!) and find specific sections of the bill that you disagree with, you'll outline a coherent plan for your legislator and not look like a racist idiot. Or... well... maybe you should just stick with the "Derp Derp da-Derp!" strategy. This might be too much for you to handle.

Businesses are crybabies.

They want to get rid of unions so they can pay minum wage (or hire illegals instread)

They dont want healthcare because they really dont care about their employees, just their profits

They think they shouldnt have to pay taxes at all basically. And if they do, they just offshore the accounts to shirk their tax responsibilities

They dont think they should be held responsible for outsourcing American jobs and product quality and safety. So they cry when their sub-quality chinese-outsourced products dont sell or fall apart...or injure and poison our children.

They dont want to be accountable for their factories polluting the environment.

The 'uncertainty' argument is a myth. Businesses are greedy.

Tim -

The federal government is greedier.

Tim

I own a business with ten employees, healthcare insurance premiums going up 29% this year, other years 15-30%. But I continue to pay 90% of the premium for a single and 70% for a family. This year will come the break I need,because of healthcare reform I will get a 35 cent tax credit for every dollar I spend towards employee healthcare. Small business is not the enemy, some of us treat our employees like we would like to be treated.

AWWW but he focuses so well on who to blaim!

Why hasn't someone educated this man about economics & business?

Business is skitish because 8 years of Republican rule left us with trillion-dollar deficits and a crashed economy, plus two wars. Obama will not fix in 2 years all the messes that irrational Republicans took 8 years to compound.

Suddenly, when economics says the government should be deficit spending, Republicans discover deficits are bad! Would that they had realized this 8 years and several trillion dollars ago! I suspect its really a childish tantrum; it's OK if Republicans spend trillions and add it to the debt when they could have passed a war tax, but somehow it's not OK for Democrats to spend a trillion when the country is at risk and the economy must be rescued.

Sad thing is, if Republicans worked with this president in a rational way, and reassured business that they and the administration were of one mind that they would not allow the economy to slip further, we might not need to spend anything to get the economy going again. It's all about instilling confidence in business and their customers that if they take a small chance on growth, the federal government will do it's best to support that growth.

An obstructionist Republican minority that says "let it all fail" and is quite open about wanting this president to fail, even if the economy's failure is a corollary; that's what makes business skittish; a paralyzed govenment in a time of severe challenges should scare everybody.

If your issue is Deficit's, than why has Obama Multiplied Bush's problem with radically increased spending that is unfunded?

Obama has more than Tripled Bush's National Debt.

So much for "Change"

Excuse me, but there are millions of dollars that have vanished, and Wall Street has yet to provide a full account.

That's called theft.

You can't create an honest job without an honest job climate. Otherwise, you have a criminal culture of the Bush variety. You may win a battle or two that way, but the war is lost.

Criminal Culture of the Bush variety...as opposed to what the the Criminal culture of the Obama variety (see tax returns for half his nominees). The reason Dems don't care about the tax cuts is because they don't pay any taxes. The man has been lying since inauguration day and hasn't stopped.

JAC-908425

The reason Dems don't care about the tax cuts is because they don't pay any taxes. The man has been lying since inauguration day and hasn't stopped.

Warren Buffet pays less federal income taxes than his secretary. Its not just the dirt poor who dont pay taxes genius.

Mike - and Who did Mr. Buffet vote for??? My point exactly - genius

Who did he vote for? I didnt know you were in the voting booth with him.

So Dem's - be they rich or be they are poor dont pay taxes? LOL!

Don't listen to what Obama says, watch what he does and what he has his czars do on his behalf. While he's "sounding" like his negative view on capitalism is easing a bit, he's flipping you off behind his back with one hand and has his other hand in your pants looking for your wallet. Many of us recognized the wicked magician talents of his long ago but many are still "mesmerized" by his ability to say what he thinks you want to hear while he's lubing you up for something you're not going to like.

If you're in a union (but not a cop), you're in good shape however, no matter what happens down the road.

Mike - If you had paid attention to what Mr. Buffet was talking about (include Bill Gates) they both came out in strong support of candidate Obama. Buffet has been some what critical (as it states in the article) of some of the Presidents polocies toward business. You know it's enough to look at the pictures you actually have to read the news as well.LOL

Actually, Mr. Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The taxes he pays in absolute dollars are many many times what she does I am sure.

Wait until 30 days before election this November ... and see how he and every other politician will sound so much like Reagan it will be hard to believe, but understand he/they mean NONE of what they say on the election trail.

JAC-908425

Mike - If you had paid attention to what Mr. Buffet was talking about (include Bill Gates) they both came out in strong support of candidate Obama. Buffet has been some what critical (as it states in the article) of some of the Presidents polocies toward business. You know it's enough to look at the pictures you actually have to read the news as well.LOL

Wow - Ive seen people talk out of both sides of their mouths - but never in text.

You cant discredit Buffet for not caring about taxes because he pays none - and then say his opinion holds water because its conducive to what you are yammering on about.

Mike - I'm not arguing anything Buffet says. I'm just stating a fact he has been critical of the President's policies (particularly Fin Reg). My basic point is that when the President was elected and consequently in his first State of the Union he proclaimed the economy and employment his major focus. Meanwhile, he has been focused on everything but the economy. My argument with you is that you too lack focus and your reading skills are some what questionable.

the Small Business Association says that lack of access to credit is hampering job creation.... and it's the Republicans who blocked the recent attempt to pass small business financing legislation. Clearly both sides of the aisle in Washington bear responsibility for the sad state of our economy.

It's not surprising that Wall Street bankers are complaining about regulation.... they had a free for all without any regulation and just about ruined the economy.

People complain about tax policy under Obama but, excluding health care, he hasn't raised anyone's taxes yet and the current proposal on the wealthy will probably be phased in over a couple of years, so all the griping about taxes rings kind of hollow. Being against something that might happen, but hasn't and might not, just isn't a valid argument. Besides that, Obama can't raise anyone's taxes, congress has that power.

Fin Reg was necessary. Cap and Trade is rapidly fading from contention. The export initiative is welcome as were the tax cuts for individuals and the tax credits for job creation. Obama's biggest mistake was pushing health care reform before budget reform.

Hey Joe - Did you see the small business economist on CNBC this morning? His main statement was that although there was a decent enough credit around for small businesses none of them were expanding or hiring because of the uncertainity of those very issues you say are inconsequential. By the way the EPA has been directed to come up with a plan to implement a cap and trade scheme that by passes the Congress. The GOP has a some mud on their face because they wont support unfunded mandates guess what I'm okay with that. (Not that they are any more responsible then the Dems.) Take a look at the President's record is there any one he has helped (working guys) that is not a member of some union. I can't think of any but if you know I'm lisitening. I stand by the statemnnent that the economy hasn't been his major focus.

jac, I think I acknowledged Obama's mistake on the timing of health care reform, which is one of the uncertainties most often mentioned. One guy says credit isn't a problem, other people say credit is a problem... what it proves is that simplistic statements are usually wrong. There's a difference between Cap and Trade and 'Cap and Tax', which republicans apparently aren't smart enough to understand. Cap and Trade does not automatically include a Tax. But truth is irrelevant to people pushing a partisan agenda.

Obama has helped people other than union workers. The $285 billion tax cut that was part of the stimulus went to everyone. The billions in aid to states helped fund teachers which some parents are happy about, and helped keep cops and firefighters on the jobs which undoubtably saved some lives. Thanks to the stimulus, there's now a bike trail so my nephew can get from school to the rec field without risking his life. It's not all one sided.

Obama tried to get congress to address the long term budget deficit but they squabbled and the republicans refused, so Obama created the budget review commission instead. The failure to deal with the long term budget is more congess's than the president's. I think the best tonic for our economy would be a realistic and believable plan to deal with the long term budget deficit. But congress is not going to do it because of politics. It's the party leaders on both sides who are to blame. Pelosi and Boehner equally disgraceful as are McConnel and Reid. They're the ones blocking progress.

Cap and trade by necessity includes increased rates for electicity and transportation fuels whether you call it a tax or fee what's the difference in the end the consumer will pay. Just as in the end the consumer will make up lost revenue as a result of fin reg. The 285 billion dollar tax cut just went to pay bills of people out of work this added very little stimulus to the economy. I'm not sure what you mean that he has tried to get Congress to address the deficit/debt he and the Democratic leadership have been pushing for continued unfunded mandates. I have seen no example of pay go as yet. They have about 400 billion left in the stimulus bill and they are intent on distribution regardless of the consequences. I think that the budget review commission going to recommend a VAT - say good buy to competitive US business.

JAC, I agree that a cap and trade system will lead to temporary increases in electricity and transportation fuels as we wean ourselves from addition to imported oil. We know for certain that oil prices will increase as the global economy grows. The longer we continue our addiction to imported oil, the more vulnerable we become, not to mention the $450 billion per year balance of trade. This $450 billion per year is a tax on our economy that goes to Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, etc. We should immediately start replacing imported oil with domestic natural gas. Sometimes it's necessary to make short term sacrifices in order to secure better long term results. It's called investing in our future.

There will be some on the commission recommending a VAT, but I doubt if it's possible to adopt one. If you have some evidence beyond partisan rhetoric or opinion or idle speculation that a VAT will automatically make US business any less competitive, I'd like to see it.

I think the budget review commission is going to recommend cuts in defense spending along with all other government agencies, raising the retirement age, and requiring wealthy retired people to pay for their own health care.

Joe Excellent point we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil. Agree 100%. I also think that we have to take a look at an integrated energy policy that makes sense - not this pie and the sky solar and wind and any other renewable source you can think of. The solution is going to have to by necessity include domestic coal, oil, and gas as well as some renewable source like hydro-power and even wind and solar. ( Wait for it even Nuclear power) The wind and solar is still a long way from being cost effective and commercially feasable for an energy market as large as the US.

If not a VAT then what? The top 10% of earners don't have enough money to pay down the debt/deficit. Even if you were to reverse the JFK tax cuts you still wouldn't be able to generate enough revenue. As I see this the real gorilla in the room is the 17 to 18% unemployment. The unemployed is a double whammy one they are not paying taxes and obviously two they are collecting a check for doing nothing. (Not implying that they have no motivation - just implying they can't find a job.) Take care of unemployment and the revenue problem (at least 60 to 70%) goes away.

The issue with Obama is that he looked at a situation (the economy) gave it a lick and a promise and moved on to his real agenda. If he had concentrated on the economy perhaps (of course it's not a given) perhaps we wouldn't be in this position today. He could have very easily brought some business people inot the adminstration to help over the rough patch but he decided on ideologues instead. You see where that got us.

That brings us to last paragraph. The way Social Security was sold is as an insurance policy an annuity if you will. The government has been borrowing from it since 1967 interest free to the tune of 2.5 trillion dollars. It's hard to rationalize screwing all those people who contributed whther they be rich or poor. Perhaps the government should raid interest free the federal employees retirement fund and pay back Social Security.

JAC-908425

Cap and trade by necessity includes increased rates for electicity

Do you know you already pay for Cap & Trade for your electricity with oxides of nitrogen? Power plants are allowed a specific amount of emitted NOx tons per year - if they exceed those limits then they pay or must purchase credits from another plant.

mike rif and who cares

So now Mike, you want to use this as your reasoning for putting even tighter restrictions on by the government, let them establish the "limits", let them determine the taxes theron and screw those electricity-producing plants that are not as efficient.

The U.S. citizens residing in the South will get raped by this since most of their electricity comes from coal-fired plants ! More power to the federal government anyone ???

The south the north the east and the west

joe...

"Raising the retirement age is a guarantee. I read a column in the newspaper about 4 or 5 months ago...the writer said he "could envision the day when private sector workers would be on the job until age 72 to pay for the retirements of public sector workers at age 55".

And we are getting there quickly.

tony the beat goes on!

Joe, lets say you're right and Cap & Trade only causes a temporary increase in electricity and transportation fuels as we wean ourselves off of foreign oil. How do you justify the action at a time when we're already facing 10-20% unemployment rates depending on which numbers you use, when wages are stagnant for a good part of the remaining work force and manufacturing is already teetering on the brink of collapse in this country? The trickle down effect of this policy will destroy the middle class if it passes before we see some major economic recovery. First you have the direct impact- 30-40% increases in utility bills (according to President Obama's own prediction). $300 is probably a pretty reasonable estimate of an average monthly bill where I live so that bill just became $420. Then we're going to increase taxes on transportation fuels that most of us who are lucky enough to still be employed need to get to our jobs. Public transportation is a joke in my area and car pooling hasn't panned out as a feasible option for me so I need my car.- just bought one that gets 3-4 miles per gallon better than the old one which was pretty efficient in it's own right, but again, if we add a 30-40% fee to the cost of my fuel, that means my gas budget goes from say, $120 a month to $170 a month. So I am now pulling $170 a month from other areas of the budget to cover this "fee" that we must pass to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. But that's just the direct cost. Next we figure the companies that produce the food I put on my table or the clothes I put on my back are also facing these same increases if not higher because they pump out more carbon emissions than the EPA has determined is allowable. And the trucking company that hauls in the raw materials used to make the food are facing the same increases. So the trucking company is going to have to charge the manufacturer more to cover their increased expenses. The manufacturer is going to have to charge the consumer more to cover their increased expenses. So now the cost of the stuff I need to live my life is increasing, the cost of the energy I use to heat my home is increasing and the cost of the fuel I put in my car to get to my job is increasing, but my wages are staying flat. As a result, I have less disposable income (if any) left to put into the nonessential things that just plain make life more worth living- less money to put into the economy to help turn around the recession we're currently in. For many who are already struggling and haven't seen discretionary spending in their budgets for years, how are they going to make ends meet with the increased costs of the basics necessary to survive? You'll end up with more government dependency which only compounds the issues we're already dealing with. The math just doesn't add up to a net positive at this point, especially when we already know we could dramatically decrease our dependence on foreign oil and increase job creation by drilling for domestic oil while we work toward decreasing our dependence on oil period.

JAC, a VAT will be fought by republicans and turned into a whipping boy for socialism. Merit does not matter, it just won't happen with this congress nor the next. We'll get some wishy washy measure full of pork and loopholes unless we elect a congress full of independent thinkers who place country over pary rhetoric. Fat chance.

joe - thank god

Suzy, a program to replace imported oil with domestic natural gas would immediately create thousands of jobs here in the USA while simultaneously reducing our balance of trade deficit. since nat gas only releases about 40% as much CO2 as oil or coal, a cap and trade system would naturally favor natural gas. there are other, ecological and human health benefits of nat gas over oil or coal which, if you're a typical conservative, you'd only laugh at. But nat gas wins on economics alone. If we don't switch and oil goes back up to $140/ barrel, it will damage our economy many times more than the pain of replacing imported oil with domestic gas.

joe - not if we shut down off shore drilling nat gas has about half the energy of oil per unit volume so you will be using lot's more - but that probably is not an issue. I just think that we will need to consider all options when talking about energy independence.

JAC, the priority should be to replace imported oil with domestic natural gas. We can't get off oil cold turkey, but need a slow withdrawal and should start with imports. Oil's at $80 right now. When it gets back up to $140, which it will, that's equivalent to a 75% increase. If we do nothing, we'll be spending an additional $300 billion per year to import oil. That would hurt even more than a $300 billion tax increase would, because they money would be going overseas.

Joe, I'm all for it- using domestic energy sources we've already developed with reasonable efficiency sounds like a great idea. But you didn't address the question of how you can justify the economic ramifications of cap & trade given the current state of the economy.

I have no issue what so ever with promoting alternative energy sources wisely (in other words, use what works best for a given area; hydroelectric where rivers lend themselves to it, solar in the southern states where sun is plentiful year round, nuclear where natural terrain doesn't lend well to other alternatives, promoting individual use of solar and wind energy to reduce dependence on the grid and, therefore, fossil fuels). Let the market dictate what works best instead of artificially propping up whatever industry Big Government favors on any given day and we're on to real, functional change, but taxing the hell out of the current sources at a time when people can't afford the increased costs seems to only create a bigger boondoggle.

Suzy, if we just sit back and let the market run, we'll stay hooked on oil because it's cheapest right now. we'll import more and more oil. then when oil goes back to $140 a barrel, which it surely will. we will be at the mercy of global oil prices and it will kill our economy. even if the oil is drilled offshore, when OPEC sets the price at $140, that's what we'll pay, whether we're buying if from Exxon or BP. Oil companies do not give us a discount on oil drilled from US territory. It will be a $300 billion burden on our economy. The economic ramifications of failing to anticipate the future are potentially devasting. Replacing imported oil with domestic gas should be our #1 energy and economic priority. And as a bonus, we'd be reducing acid rain and greenhouse gasses and creating thousands of jobs and billions in wealth in the USA.

Our representatives need to be mindful of what the future will bring and act pro-actively when necessary. You call it Big Government as a scare tactic, as though it was some foreign power, typical tea party garbage..... IT is our elected representatives, and I, for one, want them to do their job.

No, I call it Big Government because our government is freakin' huge and trying to artificially prop up industries that the people don't want to or aren't ready to support.

I think in the end we actually want the same thing. I am all for good stewardship of our planet and our natural resources but I believe increasing fees on the industries who are slow to make the changes puts an undue burden on consumers who are already strapped right now. As a consumer I am very limited in my choices for my utilities- I can go through the local provider or I can take out a 2nd mortgage on my home to purchase a turbine (assuming the wind studies and such that are required to install one would deem me worthy) or install solar panels to try and remove myself from the grid. As it is, my local power plant has already been converted to natural gas (which, by the by, already increased our energy bill), so we already win your approval, but I have little power to affect change in other communities that aren't NG powered. Can't exactly boycott their services, can I? And the changes you want take years and come with their own environmental consequences. I'm not saying they aren't a good idea or that we shouldn't push for them, but consumers right now cannot afford the increased costs you're proposing while the conversions take place.

We need a proactive solution that does not harm consumers in the process. I believe a more reasonable solution to Cap & Trade would be an incentive based program to encourage consumers, both individual and corporate, to move toward green energy sources that are most feasible for their location. Get individual homeowners off the grid by subsidizing solar and wind generators. Same for business- incentives that lower the bottom line which will motivate businesses to comply, taxes will be passed on to the consumer. Yes, I know, incentives "cost" taxpayer dollars, but the net effect of incentives is job growth (we'll need people to build the products we've increased demand for, people to install and maintain them, etc), plus reduces the bill for foreign oil- we both win.

joe mata you should understand that canadian oil costs america the same as canada because of free trade,of course we get the jobs.a gallon of gas that i buy here costs twice as much as an american would pay,because of taxation.

joe -

One thing to consider is the infrastructure required to go to natural gas. While there are vehicles available, there are no 'gas' stations set up to handle it. Current oil and coal fired power plants would require major refits to be able to use it a a fuel. Even with a concerted effort you are looking about 10 years down the road - and that's if the financial resources are available. There are better ways to promote clean energy than cap and trade. Why can't they promote the use of natural gas by allowing drilling for it here in the states? They could offer incentives to build the needed infrastructure.

One thing to consider - the reason the hybrid vehicles exist today is because the infrastructure does not exist to support all electric vehicles.

Joe oil follows supply and demand just like any ther product. If you increase supply by drilling off shore the price will go down as evidenced by the price decline when the off shore lease started going out. it make sense to wean off oil but you don't want to cut your nose of to spite your face.

There is no "imported oil" or "domestic oil", there is only "oil", a comodity that is freely traded across borders. Nobody gives "domestic oil" away, you will pay thru the nose for it no matter where it is produced. That's why "drill, baby, drill" is so stupid; it implies poisoning our environment and destroying tourism along the coast to increase world oil supplies by barely perceptible amounts and reducing the cost of gas by 3 cents? Maybe?

Please, tell me if you every see gas for sale at a cheaper price because it was made from "domestic oil". Fat chance.

Yes, oil is oil no matter where it's produced but oil produced in the US means US jobs. It means stronger environmental responsibility because the US has far more requirements in the oil industry than anywhere in the world. It means billions of dollars spent locally instead of sent abroad.It means less debt financed to support our habit.Yes, we need to break the habit and we're moving in positive directions to do it, but it seems completely illogical to me to bury your head in the sand and keep importing what we could produce here. The democrats love to complain about jobs being shipped overseas but isn't that exactly what we do by ignoring our own resources and buying abroad?

Hey Superlogi--Of course Obama's a communist in waiting. Everybody knows that. He went to that Commie school Harvard. He became a community organizer--that show's he has sympathy for poor people and that's Commie. He worked for the Illinois legislature, that Illinois Commie government and now he works for the U.S. Government and no one needs Joe McCarthy's list to know it's loaded with Commies. He has the support of unions and unions are Commie along with all the auto workers in Detroit. He's an intellectual and that's pretty Commie, too. I bet he has secret meetings with his Commie cell buddies and they strategize about destroying our democracy. Maybe they do it in the same room where Monica Lewinski serviced Bill Clinton. Even a lot of Republicans are Commies. As soon as they concentrate the power in the hands of a few corporations, they'll start giving them special favors and let them run the government, treat them just like party officials in Moscow. In fact, I bet you're a Commie, too. Who else but a Commie would avoid suspicion by calling someone else a Commie?

Scattered and Deficient?

Funny, McCain has been working and has successfully gotten more funding and troops to help secure our borders. What has Obama done to make our borders secure...he sued the state of Arizona. Say what you want about McCain but he's worked for years to better the nation, not destroy it, he's served our nation and believes in respecting our flag, and he keeps fighting to secure our borders from drug cartels where Obama has done nothing. I'd take McCain over Obama in a heartbeat.

Obama is the one who is scattered.

Windy

GREAT comment. But I'm afraid the right just won't see or admit what's actually going on. Republicans trying every possible way to shut down this Administration, and damn to everyone who gets in their way, whether it's people who need unemployment compensation, 9/11 workers who need medical benefits, or small businesses who need desperate help. They scream about the deficit, but don't even talk to them about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, even if it means adding $700 million to the deficit. What a bunch of hypocrites.

superlogi

You make a good point. However, you seem to forget that this year and next, this President will have spent $3 trillion more on government programs than revenues recovered. In short, those are uncollected taxes that you, your children and grand children will have to pay for. So, no they wouldn't be the same if Republicans were in office, because Republicans would not have spent the stimulus money that wasn't a stimulus.

I forget - what did Bush spend the first 6 years of the 2000's? 3+ trillion? All borrowed. What about the last 2 years of his presidency? 1.5 trillion? All borrowed. What about Bushs tax cuts? All borrowed money. Lets not forget that the spending did not include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes - certainly the party of fiscal responsibility.

Superlogi--Part of the government's job is wealth redistribution. What if we left the building of public schools and providing health care for those who can't afford it, among other things, up to JPMorgan Chase and Exxon? Our economy depends on having people unemployed, we don't guarantee jobs as some communist countries tried to do, because we believe that kills incentive. People out of work lose their health insurance and the ability to pay their kids' tuitions. Ever lose a job? Did you send your last tax rebate back to the government? Wealth distribution allows capitalism to work without become inhumane and unlivable. I always think that people who call any form of wealth distribution socialist or unamerican should be allowed to go back in time and try to make it as a worker in 1880 when big industries really were allowed more unfettered control. Of course, Carnegie built libraries. What are your favorite charities?

HAIL SHINRA!!!!!

5 points to anyone who understands that..... lol

I think McCain would be essentially hog tied by the democratic majorities in the house and senate but I don't think he would have created as many Czars and new government agencies as Obama has. The deficit may not be in much better shape but the size of government wouldn't have grown exponentially.

By redestribute wealth the President ment, let the bushcheney tax cuts expire, to all the dumbed down on this thread. Raygun, bushcheney are the ones who put the tax burden on the middle class. But were too dumbed down to realize it. We suck!

Windy -

Most of what you are talking about happens at the state and local level as it is their responsibility, not the federal government's. It is not the government's responsibility to 'redistribute wealth'. They should spend what they receive in taxes responsibly and should be able to account for every penny.

Suzy,I agree and I'd be very willing to bet that McCain would not be letting anyone even think of building a mosque at ground zero,I can only hope that some patriot's will wait til it's completed and "show the Muslim world" what 911 feels like.

I would say they want to be able to run their businesses and meet the goal they started the businesses for -- profit for the owners and share-holders, and fair wages for their employees.

Unfortunately, we have a government that is intent on finding villians instead of working with the economic engine to make things better. This President has never run anything besides his mouth in his whole life, as is the case with most in the Congress, yet thinks that by virtue of being elected he is an expert on everything.

If the "corporate culture is corrupt," what must be said about this government? A bunch of politicians who will do anything to stay in power. We no longer have a government of, by and for the people. We have a ruling elite, attempting with some large measure of success to dictate rather than govern.

JJ, please answer this question for me - and I'm not mocking you or being facetious.

What exactly is it that you think American business has "stolen" from you .....

Of which the government did not participate, either directly or indirectly, in the theft?

Some people keep proclaiming the "evils of business" and I can't get any of you to answer that question. Please answer, I am legitimately trying to understand what your point of reference is.

No answer from JJ on this one Prag. What he fails to recognize is that corporations focus on making profits and growth. Liberals see profits as evil and demonize big corporations.

Yet if you ask them where jobs come from, they usually try to answer a diffferent question.

The demonizing of corporations is more from the Ralph Nader wing of liberal nation than from mainstream democrats. Demonizing corporations by liberals is as ridiculous as demonizing government by conservatives. Both have their purposes and tendencies and the better we all understand them and appreciate their services and functions, the better chance we'll have at saving this economy. People who claim government cannot create jobs are just as wrong headed as people who think corporations owe it to consumers to lower their prices.

mel...

Thanks. Great post.

mel, you're the one finding villains.... blaming everything on Obama is as stupid as blaming everything on Bush.

Pramatic, if you don't know, there's nothing we can do or say to help you. Maybe you should look up the word FACISIM buddy, that may be a start!! Talk about DUMBED DOWN!!

J. Mack -

Facisim? Really? Doesn't that require business and government in cooperation?

What appears to be the case is that you have NO IDEA what the answer to my question is, because you are merely spouting talking points - that business stole from you.

I'll ask you again, and if it helps, sure I'll claim to be dumbed down.

What exactly has been stolen from America by business, that the government did not particpate in the theft of?

Bite you tongue ....or your keyboard !

yes, please bite your tongue,don't give them any idea's,is it just me or does Pelosi remind anyone else of the devil in "ghost rider",when he's trying to get Johnny blaze to sign,aah never mind,I doubt anyone on here even watched the flick.

Why not just threaten to break their kneecaps?

How exactly does that solve any problems? By forcing your employees to vote repubs in? LOL!

bob5ford...I employ 10 people in my business...told them that about 2 mos. ago...great minds think alike!!!

Dave Harris-1562767

Why not just threaten to break their kneecaps?

Essentially the same thing... only a lot longer recovery time in this economy :(

Dave at #10.1, No, that would be a tactic of the unions. If card check is put in effect, you may see more bad knees for those who "don't vote the right way".

They need their knees so that they can make it to the polling place.

yea, so that the new Black Panthers can break their kneecaps for not voting the "right"way,good idea however old and already used it is.l.o.l.

Right - so leave health care as it was and dont do anything regarding financial reform - let the banks police themselves. Christ almighty are you serious?

Right - Fannie and Freddie crashed the economy. Thanks Mr Beck.

I currently pay for the health care policies of all of my full time employee's. My costs have gone up 30% in the last two months thanks to obamacare passing. Now I find out that when I do employee w-4's I will have to add the cost of the health care provided to my employee's gross earnings. So a worker making 32,000 annually with my $3,000 health care provided now makes 35,000 annually and he will be taxed on that amount.

So now when this kicks in I have to drop all coverage for staff and have them get it from the government (less coverage more paperwork) to save us both money.

So exactly how is this supposed to be helping everyone?????

Azrancher

I currently pay for the health care policies of all of my full time employee's. My costs have gone up 30% in the last two months thanks to obamacare passing.

And what about Obamacare has caused your premiums to go up? It couldnt be the insurance companies could it?

So exactly how is this supposed to be helping everyone????

It will be helping people - 30+ million to be exact. Just because it doesnt help you or your ilk - doesnt mean its a bad thing.

Azrancher -

You are exactly right. Our employer told us all that what he pays will be added as income to our paycheck so we'll be taxed on it and based on some of our incomes, it will move some of us into another tax bracket to be taxed even more.

Mike - You scare the crap out of me - you just DONT get it

And what about Obamacare has caused your premiums to go up? It couldnt be the insurance companies could it?

So exactly how is this supposed to be helping everyone????

It will be helping people - 30+ million to be exact. Just because it doesnt help you or your ilk - doesnt mean its a bad thing.

It is inflating the income of everyone who works hard for what they want and then we have to pay higher taxes to give it to leaches like you

Mike-416? Are you saying that some should be forced to reduce their income to give it to others? Are you saying that the achievements and hard work Azranchers employees have put into their current and future are now to be defaulted just because others did not put in the need work and effort to succeed? So any of us that got off our butts and worked for our own living are ilk and to be detested? I am all for taking care of the less fortunate in our society but not by force and not because my hard work now is seen as a bad thing. It is like you want to punish anyone actually doing what they should be doing while at the same time rewarding the lazy government dependants. Tell me why I must be forced to give up my earnings and income? Why should it be taken from me? There is a big difference between a gift and being forced to give up.

Obama and the rest of the progressives (regressive) are working hard to put people like Azrancher out of business and put his employees on welfare. That is their plan and they are doing a good job of it.

ltjdangle
Mike, and that's why obama and democrats are so unpopular and are being kicked out of congress, and obama is going down as the worst president in US history. And just think, 1.5 years ago, obama and the dems were GOD. Now they are hated. Obama managed that in only .5 year.

We shall see in November if they are booted out of congress because right now there is no data that suggests that the house will become repub majority.

And if by hated you mean that the right wing nuts, tea baggers and libertarians then yes - its good to be hated.

sick_n_tired_1

Mike - You scare the crap out of me - you just DONT get it

It is inflating the income of everyone who works hard for what they want and then we have to pay higher taxes to give it to leaches like you

Actually - I used to do differential equations in my head so Im pretty sure I can grasp any abstract, philosophical notion you pass to me.

And I find it funny that a "leach" like me is willing to pay more to preserve all of the services we have in this great country yet self professed "Patriots" like yourself wont.

And you say dem's are the leaches?

LaVall

Mike-416? Are you saying that some should be forced to reduce their income to give it to others?

And how is that different then how things have operated since the inception of federal income tax? I pay my taxes so you can be protected by the military. You pay your taxes so that I can have clean drinking water.

Tell me why I must be forced to give up my earnings and income? Why should it be taken from me? There is a big difference between a gift and being forced to give up.

Then dont pay your taxes - I really dont care.

Obama and the rest of the progressives (regressive) are working hard to put people like Azrancher out of business and put his employees on welfare.

Actually - Im fairly certain people like AzRancher do enough to put themselves out of business. Instead of taking responsibility - the government is blamed.

Move to China Mike, you might like the way the take care of the poor there.

AZ & Jen....

I thought the president had promised that nobody in this country with a family income under $250,000 would see their taxes increased at all..."not one dime".

Are you saying that everyone's "employer sponsored medical coverage" is now going to be taxed ???

But the president said "not one dime" !!! Someone has some 'splaining to do !!!

Mike, I hate to tell you this Buckaroo, but you are losing this argument IN A VERY BIG WAY !

Raising insurance costs for working people and their employers (since most pay half) adds an extra COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

Raising energy costs for working people and their employers(since it will affect both) also adds an EXTRA COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

It's kind of like putting a 10lb weight, tied around your neck Mikey, throwing you in a lake and telling you to swim !!! You might drown.......just like businesses all across this great country are doing today !!!!!!!!!!

I want to become a democrat too,I've worked my butt off all my life,pay my bills,still can't afford health-care,I've been waking up lately,I have a new next door neighbor,thanks to section-8,she get's free rent,{so she can live in a nicer house than mine},she get's food stamps,{twice as much as my wife and I can afford to spend},her and her two kids have health-care,and then she "earns" her free money,which she pays no taxes on "doing"hair in the basement of the rented house,and she has a lot more spending money than I can ever remember having,something's wrong here,I must be doing it all wrong,the ethic's I was taught when I was coming up,are wrong,I guess I need to "play the game",I WANT TO BE A DEMOCRAT TOO, l.o.l. just fooling I could not live like that,but it makes ya wonder sometimes.

I think the Big O is more like the guy running the old shell game, only in his game there is no pea under any of the shells.

exactly under past presidents they did nothing, thats exactly what government should do in business NOTHING. Government does not create economy or jobs. PRIVATE business does. The more the government stays out of it the better things become.

Let business and banks who make poor financial decisions fail, thats the way. Do good or fail. Someone will always come along behind them and do better. When you do good stay out of the way and let them keep doing good. Keep government out of the day to day lifes and operations of americans and we will make it run.

When Bush was president I had a job. After Obama was elected I was laid off, the economy tanked and Obama has not done anything but add trillions to the national debt.

It may be the fault of Clinton and Bush that the economy tanked but Obama has not done much to fix anything. His policies are discouraging small business which employs 2 out of 3 people in the the USA.

Reagan inherited a bad economy and with his policies turned it around by the time he came up for re-election. His policies got things rolling by the end of his first year in office. In comparison, Obama cannot find his ankles to pull up his own socks and things are going from BAD to WORSE!

So if they are against Obama - they are honest, hard working business owners.

If they are with him - they were bribed.

Thank you for your comments dadofrush.

Hilter and Mussolini prescribed to 2 totally different politcal & socio-economical philosophies genius. Which is it? Is Obama a fascist or a socialist?

OK - not a socialist, nor a fascist - but a straight up communist. Got it. Thank you Mr McCarthy.

Obama is schooled in the Saul Alinsky philosophy. Look him up if you aren't familiar. Obama is following his teachings from "Rules for Radicals" to the T. I can't imagine us electing Obama president knowing his beliefs and the beliefs of those he finds "inspiring" it's really scary to think we have someone like him leading us. People who voted for BO made a mistake and some of the smart ones have figured that out. Others are still drinking the kool-aid.

Jen-377162

Obama is schooled in the Saul Alinsky philosophy. Look him up if you aren't familiar. Obama is following his teachings from "Rules for Radicals" to the T. I can't imagine us electing Obama president knowing his beliefs and the beliefs of those he finds "inspiring" it's really scary to think we have someone like him leading us.

Yes that Alinsky is quite the evil man - helping all those underprivileged poor people in Chicagos ghetto.

You seem to equate a political activist like Saul with some domestic terrorist like McVeigh or something. They are not the same.

If you want to call it helping the underprivileged then go right ahead. Everybody familiar with Obama knows about his failed Altgeld Gardens ghetto project. Yeah, that worked out real well for Mr. Community organizer. He failed at that too, more gangs and unemployed youths running the streets than ever before. He did a bang up job. He hasn't helped anybody. Well, I take that back, he did help his dear auntie with being granted asylum of course. He finally came through for her..once he decided to actually acknowledge her that is.

Your Grandpa is/was a smart man. Without personal motivation, what do you get?

AZrancher,

My Grandpa once said something very familiar as yours did. My Grandpa couldn't read but he eventually got a job working for a wealthy farmer and realized he could work hard on the farm and own something one day to. He did work hard despite not being able to read and he left this world knowing he had been successful because of HIS hard work. The wealthy farmer helped him by taking a chance and giving him a job but my Grandpa did the rest on his own. He worked hard every day until he was 91.

People don't care to work hard anymore, they'd rather wait and have it given to them. There's no sense of pride anymore. The liberals have always as long as I've lived, they've tried to create a huge divide between the rich and the poor and the races. They aim to KEEP people dependent upon the government, they're easier to control that way. I wish we could get back to being a nation of hard working people who had respect for the opportunities that this country holds. Unfortunately we seem to be drifting further and further away from what makes America great.

Success is only a matter of luck--ask any loser!

boba - perfect. The only thing you might add is that legislators ought to br required to read and comprehend the legislation they are voting for/against. If they read something they don't understand maybe they should ask a copule of questions. The way they do it now with aides and interns commenting on different portions of the bills is insane. Some 20 something (maybe not even a college degree) is making some evaluation that effects the lives of 300 million people, it's a little scary.

Slam the rich! But while you are doing this, please show me the poor guy who has a job for me. I'd like to meet him.

Heck, I didn't vote for him because I don't trust Chicago politicians!

While unions got additional benefits/exemptions every other business got the boot.

And also businesses outsourced their jobs to foreign nations, cheated on their taxes, put out sub-par products made in china, ignored product safety laws and hired illegals. Yep, thats some virtuous business for you.

DEmand a free ride and accept no responsibility. Welcome to Corporate America, the golden calf of the worshipping conservative morons

Wesley, most government jobs are soldiers, seamen, and airmen, teachers, policemen, firemen, etc. there are also millions of people who manage and run the national forests, parks, the SBA, the centers for disease control, EPA, FDA, etc., etc., etc. These jobs are every big as important as private industry jobs and contribute to our national well being. Your dismissal of these jobs as being merely for the purpose of buying votes would be laughable, except that you probably actually believe it. Sad to see someone so full of stupid rhetoric.

Okay, Mr. Smartypants. The government takes my dollar and spends it for political reasons, one of which is building and repairing roads. The money is giving to private contractors who open jobs for roadbuilding crews. The roads make it possible for goods to get to my stores so I can buy them from you. And I get much more more than one dollars worth for my dollar--I also get the fantasies of looking beautiful and alluring sexy mates for the twenty cents in advertising that went into my bottle of shampoo. (I lie. I buy generic.)

Windy, republicans don't think that construction jobs are real jobs, if they're funded from tax dollars. they don't think teachers are real workers, nor cops, firefighters, soldiers, or anyone else who works for the government.

joe - what the republicans object to is the union payoffs rather than creating jobs which is about all that comes out of this administration.

nibor--Nice slogan. Did you make it up yourself?

nibor, if the republicans object to "union payoffs" they shoud say so, and provide examples and evidence that we can all learn from, instead of an incessant strem of mostly empty partisan hype. The republican rhetoric that government can't create jobs is just plain stupid. Government jobs are just as good and just necessary as private inducstry jobs. We need teachers, cops, firefighters, medical researchers, NASA scientists, soldiers,and yes, even government regulators. We need them as much as we need auto workers, bankers, and real estate agents.

joe, where does the money come from to create public sector jobs? It comes by taxing the private sector (government doesn't create any money of it's own, remember?). Yes, you need some public sector jobs but the more government jobs the more money has to be taken out of the private sector to pay for them and that hampers growth in the areas that government is dependant on to get the money to pay for those public jobs. The ratio is for every 1 job that government adds 1.8 private sector jobs is lost. Extrapolate that out and see what happens to the private sector as the public sector grows.

jtriggs, I agree with you... I was arguing against the simple minded rhetoric that "government cannot create jobs". We need a balance between private and public jobs. That starts with accepting the fact the government jobs are not inherently bad. Without government workers (ie., the US army, Navy, and Marines), the USA would have vanished long ago. We need the fewest government jobs necessary to provide the services that we require. But that's still a lot of jobs when you require all the services that government provides.

So we should lay off more police, fire fighters, EMTs, teachers, FBI, FDA and soldiers in order to create more private sector jobs.

Joe, you are wrong about Republicans and what they think... and it is one reason why I'm changing parties... Teachers, principals and school board members can work to retirement which depends on their years of service NOT their age, retire, then get rehired and collect an income AND retirement. Yes, it is called double dipping and it happens in Ohio! Other govt jobs are the same way. It is the Union that allows it... I'm ANTI-Union. Union = me changing parites.

Rush is an A**H***... public employee retirement benefits ARE way too generous and are killing the state economies, but it's not just unions, there are plenty of retired military officers with 20 year office jobs who are double dipping. Overly generous retirement benefits are an outrage given our current state budgets. So are multimillion dollar bonuses to bankers who took taxpayer bailouts, so are corporate raiders who steal pension funds, so are corrupt contractors who rip off taxpayers, so are politicians who sell their votes to special interests. Plenty of outrage out there.

Joe, you're attacking people that accepted lower compensation for their work because of the more secure work environment and better benefits. Now when those benefits are due, you are for pulling them back. You are certainly expressing private sector values of dirty dealing.

While the so called retirement benefits of elected officials in excess of $30k are ridiculous, here in Michigan state employees have given back money at every contract. The average public employee has earned and has contract rights to their retirement. To balance the budget of a system that has crashed on the backs of average workers is surely a GOP plot..

Disc... I don't think it is a plot. Why should a high school principal who made$150K, retire, then make $130 as a new hire? This is one example... but the list goes on and on based on unions who have crafted their contracts. Why should an auto worker who makes a fair wage with overtime, time and a half, and so on... get free or VERY inexpensive health insurance with rich benefits?? Why? I pay hundreds of dollars per mont for health care through my employer and it is a $5,000 deductible with no office copay. SEIU needs to have a dose of reality. The average unioned employee has a right to retirement, but their contracts need changed. What about bailouts to the auto industry so they can keep their rich benefits at the expense of Americans who are not in a union.